Gun Control- Just of interest

[JOHNNY]

WELL I GUESS I NEED TO RELAX A BIT AND MAYBE GET OFF THE CAFFEINE. LOL Well everthing is settled and I look forward to meeting most people on this part of the forum. And to Radhnoti I moderate this forum during work so I do not have my information on hand. I also do other things at work so I do not have all the time in the world to post. I get on here when I can and only to look over the threads and give my .02 sometimes.
Peace
Johnny
Semper Fi

[fmann]

Nice info, Dark Knight.

Like I keep asking, if the results are so uncertain (i.e., crime may or may not go down due solely to gun control), why err on the side of restricting freedom?

And as some of DK's examples show, to what degree do you restrict them and not be hypocritical and or violate the principles that this country was founded on?

[myosimka]

It's tempting to respond piece by piece to Dark Knight's response to my earlier post. But I am not going to as it is clear noone is in anyway being convinced or really looking beyond their own stance on the issue. Just debating in support of a position.

I will say: A lot of the statistics are pretty worthless my own included. Saying that the murder rate went up in 1997 in Australia when I have already shown a handgun ****cide rate of 13 and then back down in 1998. The number of murders in Australia is statistically insignificant, meaning the sample is not enough to generate a representative number that follows standard distribution properties and error stats.

And a lot of the other things you mentioned aren't about gun registration. Yes, Japan needs something equivalent to a 4th amendment. 5th amendment. The second amendment doesn't really ensure a fair legal system.


Lastly, would people please listen to me or don't bother responding. I am in favor of registration and mandatory safety training for gunowners. Not a ban! And many guncontrol advocates feel the same way. Yes, some are extremists. So are some pro-gun advocates. If you want to contest safety training please do so.

I have never suggested bans and yet people are responding to me as if I had. And my post of the prior statistics was to show that statistics exist to back up virtually every argument. (People would definitely argue it but I could pull out the coroners study on gunownership and fatality rates. Again I feel those numbers as flawed in predicting causality as anything else but they are as accurate as the numbers you have presented.)

dnc, I realize morons will still somehow complete a safety training course successfully. Just as a lot of idiots complete our first jump course. But a few give up. And if even 5% of them said this was just too much work/trouble/thinking and quit and don't get guns... That's a pretty solid number as it's well under 5% of gunowners creating the problems. There'd still be bozos shooting themselves and their kids and their neighbors, but I am not in favor of gun bans and that's the price you have to pay for guns. I just want to minimize that price in a way that makes sense. And mandatory training makes sense to me.


Lastly, please remember that limits on primary freedoms exist. Freedom of speech has all kinds of limits. Freedom of religion ends at state sponsorship as it would limit the freedoms of others. Freedom of assembly-personally I think the requirement of a permit to protest is a huge violation of our rights but it's necessary for maintaining the peace. Freedom of the press has tons of limits as well. Vulgarity, security, etc. The right to bear arms has limits. (If you think everyone should run around with plutonium or U-235, please don't respond. I think we are too far apart to even talk about things) My suggestion is not a ban nor is it the first step in some master plan of mine to eventually ban guns. I just want people to learn to use them safely. Too many times has a loaded gun swept across my path for me to think we are handling this question adequately.





P.S. Cracked me up though DK. no response to the 9,390 number? Like "It seems like a reasonable sacrifice" or something. Just left it in there.

[myosimka]

crime may not go down, there are tons of conflicting numbers on this. But the hom_ocide rates both accidental and murder are singnifcantly lower in any country I have ever looked at. In fact even with the exclusion of suicide, fatality rates are higher for gunowners in this country than non-gunowners. In fact, and this is from a former NRA instructor, the gun hom0cide rate, even after elimination of suicide and accidental rulings, is higher for gunowners. Freaky.

Those stats are part of the reason I don't own in my house. (Couple inheritance pieces in a safe deposit box and used to keep one at a local range)But again that's a personal decision about owning them. I think everyone should be allowed to own them. But for god's sake, learn to handle them safely.


by the way anyone else really annoyed by the new censor software? Aparently you can't have a discussion about hom0cide or hom0sexuality because someone decided that the periodic rude comment outweighs all other concerns. Argh!!

[Dark Knight]

"P.S. Cracked me up though DK. no response to the 9,390 number? Like "It seems like a reasonable sacrifice" or something. Just left it in there."


The numbers come from a total but no explination. Its like the 2.5 million times a gun is used in self defense, its substantially less of times the gun is fired but 2.5 million times the gun is pulled to stop a crime.

When you hear people talk about the amount of thimes a person dies from guns, how many are from illegal activity? less than .01% of gun crimes are commited by people who can legally own a gun. Of the 9,390 how many were not allowed to own a gun by law(Gun control did not work there) how many are shot by police doing something wrong?

The same for the numbers on youths that are killed each year, that number comes from people 20 down to 14. I dont consider someone 18 to 20 in that group, where most the killings are happening.

If less than .01% of ilegal shootings are caused by legal gun owners, who is doing the rest? And does that number include the number of self defense related deaths? Out of 2.5 million someone is going to shoot a robber.

Gun registering may not sound like a bad idea, but as we always see, someone comes along and wants to make a name for themselves and be "Tougher on crime" and pass the next step to get guns banned. Whether they believe in it or not all they want is to be known for doing something.

[myosimka]

less than .01% of gun crimes are commited by people who can legally own a gun." one in 10,000? Sorry dude but the domestic violence fatality rate was higher than that. Also the coroner's study you are going to force my hand on was of registered gun owners. Legal owners. So did you just pull the number out of the ether. Please tell me where that number comes from.
Also please don't spout that 2.5 million number as fact. The NRA has been touting that for years. Problem is they have developed some sort of stat for unreported crimes. In other words, made up numbers. The FBI has quoted a 700,000 number and said even that may be generous as they were also estimating unreported crimes. And really there is no way to tell. Also as the vast majority of crimes that are reported do not involve fatalities, it did not save 700,000 lives just stopped 700,000 crimes. you can argue that that is worth 9,000+ fatalities(and that number is handgun only) but at least argue it with unbiased facts. And yes I view FBI stats as less biased than NRA or studies funded by other pro-gun organizations.
And for the love of god, would you at least pretend to be reading the whole post?? SAFETY TRAINING!! And as I said earlier, if you want to tell me how to implement it without registration I'd be happy to hear it.

Also of course gun control doesn't work in this country. Progun advocates won't let it. Let's fight registration(even though we register births) how about my favorite: 'We don't need tougher laws. The ATF isn't enforcing the ones that exist.'














Giving it enough space so you read and have your reaction to that one which has been thrown about and now this one.
"The ATF are jack-booted thugs!!" Which is it? are they being too lax or too stringent?? Or is it just whatever suits your argument best?


Oh and by the way, you succeeded. You win the argument. Not in that you have proven your point. Not in that you have swayed someone's opinion. In that I quit. I will not discuss this issue with someone who makes up facts not in evidence to support his case. .01%? Please!

[fmann]

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm

According to the 1997 Survey of State Prison Inmates, among those possessing a gun, the source of the gun was from -

a flea market or gun show for fewer than 2%
a retail store or pawnshop for about 12%
family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source for 80%

So how will regulating guns curb crime if the majority of criminals get a gun from a source that will bypass background checks and laws in general?

I'm very moderate on this issue:

I'm for effective regulation of guns, safety training, etc. as I've stated, but I have realized that gun control is not the answer to curbing crime -- and that's been the point I've been sticking to, regardless of the statistics of deaths, homicide, suicide, etc..

And if reducing crime, and crime-related deaths, is not a guaranteed result, then why should anyone give up their right to own a firearm? They can choose not to, but at least give them that choice.

[myosimka]

Oh and my favorite are of course the legal aguments. Favorite federal quotes:


in 1996 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that an individual had no standing to raise a Second Amendment claim. In Hickman v. Block the court held, "Because the Second Amendment guarantees the right of the states to maintain armed militia, the states alone stand in the position to show legal injury when this right is infringed."

In short, the federal courts have consistently given the Second Amendment a collective, militia interpretation. Moreover, no gun control measure has ever been struck down as unconstitutional on Second Amendment grounds. The federal government is clearly free to regulate the possession and transfer of specific categories of firearms in order to promote public safety.



Yet perhaps the most significant case is the 1980 decision in Lewis v. United States. The majority opinion, joined by then Chief Justice Warren Burger and current Chief Justice William Rehnquist, ruled that restrictions contained in the Gun Control Act of 1968 prohibiting felons from owning firearms were constitutional. In its analysis, the Court applied a "rational basis" standard, which requires that the remedy need merely be "rationally related to a legitimate purpose." The application of this standard is revealing. When determining whether a statute meets equal protection requirements, statutes that impinge on fundamental, individual rights—such as freedom of speech or the right to counsel—are judged by the more rigorous "strict scrutiny" standard. In Lewis, the Court stated, "These legislative restrictions on the use of firearms do not trench upon any constitutionally protected liberties." The opinion listed voting, the practice of medicine, and even holding office in labor organizations as "activities far more fundamental than the possession of a firearm."


In United States v. Warin, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in 1976 expressed exasperation with the misguided arguments made by the defendant in attempting to persuade the court that the federal law prohibiting possession of an unregistered machine gun violated his Second Amendment rights. Upholding the defendant's conviction, the court stated, "It would unduly extend this opinion to attempt to deal with every argument made by defendant...all of which are based on the erroneous supposition that the Second Amendment is concerned with the rights of individuals rather than those of the states."


And in January 1991 the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear a challenge to the 1986 congressional ban on the manufacture of new machine guns. The Court let stand a ruling by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Farmer v. Higgins that denying the plaintiff a license to manufacture a new machine gun was not unconstitutional.

Oh and by thew way, the courts have enver struck down a cguncontrol law and second amendment grounds.

[Dark Knight]

I know its hard to listen to the truth after 8 years of lies.

"Also of course gun control doesn't work in this country. Progun advocates won't let it. Let's fight registration(even though we register births) how about my favorite: 'We don't need tougher laws. The ATF isn't enforcing the ones that exist.' "

This is a Report for Parents, Prosecutors, and Policy Makers by
Senate Committee on the Judiciary
By Senator Orrin G. Hatch, Chairman. If you believe the FBI, Im sure you will believe your Senate

Read the report.



http://www.senate.gov/~judiciary/guns106.htm

[Dark Knight]

"Lastly, would people please listen to me or don't bother responding. I am in favor of registration and mandatory safety training for gunowners. Not a ban!"

"Also of course gun control doesn't work in this country. Progun advocates won't let it. Let's fight registration(even though we register births) how about my favorite: 'We don't need tougher laws. The ATF isn't enforcing the ones that exist.' "


If you are not for banning guns, but gun safety education (The NRA runs and no anti gun organization does), but you say that progun advocates wont let gun control work.





Im not sure what your point is.
You are putting a lot of effort out for something, please give a summery.

My point was just that gun control does not work, and most gun crimes are done by people who cant legally have a gun.

[fmann]

Originally posted by Dark Knight
My point was just that gun control does not work, and most gun crimes are done by people who cant legally have a gun.

I think it depends on what you want gun control to do. Current implementation of gun control does not work and is not enforcable to the fullest.

Gun control alone can't curb crime. However, good gun laws can make gun ownership a much smoother, safer endeavor for the average upstanding citizen.

[Metal Fist]

Isn't Socialism wonderful? This gun control crap is just the way in which the Socialists make their first move to make one totally dependent on the Gov't. They really couldn't give a rats a$$ if you are safe or not, and crime isn't their concern. Their control over you is their concern and in Great Britain and Australia it seems to have worked. If one wants to really remain free and have Liberty then retain your weapons and force the "Anti's" out of business and out of the country if necessary. This is a very serious problem.
Historically the Socialists first want to register and then confiscate weapons, then you are really screwed. They think that to be secure one must give up ones freedoms, BULLS**T. My freedom is my security, especially if owning firearms is part of that. You really don't need police forces, all they do is after-action clean up
operations, they are usually never there when needed and respond after the smoke has cleared. Take Columbine High school
as an example, the Sheriffs deputies waited outside for a long time before they ever went in, by then several students were dead and the two little pukes who did it all had killed themselves.
What a bunch of men that was, even their "bad-a$$ed" SWAT
guys hid outside, probably crapping in their drawers, who need police if they are too scared to do their job. Personal gun ownership, the ability to use a firearm and personal responsibility
is what's needed. Remember, gun control is the ability to hit your target, even when it's running from you.

[myosimka]

Crap. Got 200 words into my reply and forgot the futility of even talking to you.


I like the way you discarded the .01% number and are now simply saying most.


And you may like the line about hard to listen to truth...but NRA and Orrin Hatch supported numbers are a bit biased. Sorry, dude.(Yes I consider the FBI more objective than the Senate minority leader) And, obviously most gun crimes are committed by criminals. Did that actually have to be said? But that study deliberately neglects negligent hom0cide. (And expressly states it) that's what I want to see reduced. Hence mandatory gun safety training. And a program that also mentions the statistics of ownership v. nonownership which the NRA does not. Oh and HCI does sponsor gunsafety course. So stop making things up. You may not like the content but they do have courses and seminars. And yes, it too is biased. I wouldn't want to see either side controlling the curriculum of the mandatory course.


Lastly, I have said that I am not sure gun control is going to work in this country(as far as keeping them from criminals). There are more guns than adult citizens of the US. That means a difficult number to track. That's why they are so easy to obtain illegally. And I don't actually want stricter gun control laws. I want stricter enforcement such as the URL you just posted advocates. " Given the nearly universal acknowledgment that the aggressive prosecution of criminals who use firearms illegally produces a substantial drop in violent crime" -from the very site you listed. hmmm. and I would like to see mandatory safety training for gunowners.

[Radhnoti]

myosimka,
I'm all for more aggressive prosecution of existing gun laws. I'm completely opposed to any forced training, which means lists of gun owners and could lead to denial of gun ownership rights.
Here's a link to a site discussing how gun lists are being abused even now in this country. Obviously, the site is pro-gun...

http://www.kc3.com/news/chicago_confiscation.htm

[dnc101]

For a moment there I was going to suggest that we all go to the QIGONG list and recenter ourselves! But it looks like you got there and sorted things out.

Johnny, I wasn't saying you are vulgar, I complimented you on taking a stand. I did make a little fun of your hot blooded/ aggresive response- Dieful Hunts tend to get that way sometimes.

Myosimka,
I understand that you are only advocating training gun owners here, though I suspect from the tone and content of your posts that your feelings may go further than that. But that is speculation, and it is the only speculation I've made in this thread.
It is tempting to get bogged down in details here and answer you point by point, as you've made some errors that beg to be challenged. For example (OK, so I can't resist at least one)- a court ruling that gun control is the purvue of the states is not a ruling that only militias can own firearms. And even if it was, the "militia" is, according to those who wrote the Second Ammendment, private individuals who are citizens of the various states and who own firearms. There, I feel better.
Now, lets see if we can bring this discussion down to a manageable level. We both acknowlege the value of firearms safety training. The possible points of contention are:
*You want only firearms owners to be forced to have this training, I would like it made easily available to everyone but required for no one. Mandatory training of only gun owners is de facto registration.
*Registration. You seem to have no problem with registration, I have a big problem with it. As others here have pointed out, registration is the first step to confiscation. That you and many others do not intend to confiscate guns is irrelevant. The fact is that there are many in our government who do, and a list of gun owners would be essential to their implementation of a confiscatory effort. That the list was compiled with good intentions would have no bearing on how it is ultimately used.
*You raise the question of who would administer this program- and that is a potentially sticky point, as the administrating agency would have the opportunity to insert their own bias. Who do you suggest? I'd be OK with the local police, but local governments may not want to further stretch their budgets, and federal dollars mean federal control- so that is out.
*Restrictions on ownership. There are certainly those who, for whatever reason, can't handle either the responsibility or can't physically handle a firearm. I can't really guess at where you would draw the line here. But there are already enough laws saying who can't own a gun- in fact, I'd say there are too many. An armed society is more than able to police itself and control those irresponsible individuals who misuse or abuse their rights. Remember, your right to swing your fist stops at my nose, and your right to use a firearm stops when it is pointed at someone else without cause. I know you have a thousand and one scenarios of tragedy and doom. So do I. I can only say that we all make a thousand and one choices which have life or death consequences for others every day. So I see no problem with the average person being able to decide when it is necessary and proper to use lethal force. If your kid with a loaded finger (from an earlier post) hadn't tried to intimidate and rob someone, he'd still be alive. And if the hothead who shot him in the back hadn't let his ego and temper get the best of him, he'd not be facing manslaughter or murder charges.
*You seem to trust government to stop at registering guns- I don't. There is a movement in this country right now to regulate the martial arts and to register all martial artists. This includes restricting the types of arts you can study. It also puts you and me in a whole different class when it comes to defending ourselves. I know, we already are, but I'm talking about the type of unrealistic expectations of lawmakers whose only exposure to martial arts is the movies. A survivor of the Nazi concentration camps said it best- "They came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew, so I remained silent. Then they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist, so again I remained silent... And then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak out for me." This is not just an argument about gun control (or registration). It is about all our fundamental rights.
*By the way, all I own is a muzzle loader. And I have taught gun safety as well as shooting skills. Would you still want me to be trained/registered? Could I maybe just take a refresher course, and if so how often? If I don't have to be trained, but I want to be any how, would I have to go out and buy me a modern firearm? I am of the opinion that most people can make up their own mind about how much and what type training they want or need.
*And who... (I cringe when asking this) , who is going to pay for this, and how much? I mean, if you are going to include practical application as well as class time, the cost could be prohibitive. If the administrating agency had an anti gun bias it would be easy to structure the class so as to be prohibitive in this and many other ways and to effectively ban firearms by making it impossible to qualify to own them.

I, nor any one else I know, advocates unrestricted ownership of nuclear weapons. And there are already restrictions on ownership of fully automatic firearms (machine guns), and I agree with this to a point. But I don't think that any further restrictions are necessary or tolerable.