Gun Control Laws Don't Work!

[Jimbo 0]

Kallend, I posed to two very direct questions to you regarding this issue. I do respect you as an intelligent and generally articulate individual. I'd appreciate it if you took the time to answer them.

Question #1:
You said: I suspect that effective laws could be devised, but would not pass due to political reasons. and I asked Please elaborate. I'm genuinely interested in your thoughts on this matter.


Question #2:
You said: Every felon was once a lawabiding citizen, and almost every felon's gun was purchased originally by a lawabiding citizen. and I asked What about on the other side of the pond? England seems to be dealing with a rise in firearms crimes lately, right? They've got some pretty strict gun laws there, how are they helping to curb the problem?

Thanks.

-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Let's just prosecute people to the full extent of the law when they commit violent crimes. Period. No parole. No time off for good behavior. Three strikes, you're out.

Quote

What about the non-criminals who are simply negligent in various ways that either cause accidents or allow their weapons to fall into the hands of criminals?

Prosecuting people for criminal negligence is okay with me too.

However, your last sentence makes me wonder where you're going with this - having your gun stolen by a burglar from your locked home should not constitute criminal negligence.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

I have to question your definition of "easy". A gun dealer license costs money, paperwork, background check, and a business location (can't be your home).

Quote

You sure about this one? I buy my firearms from a guy who has a dealer's license in Ohio and runs it out of his home.

I believe he would be an exception rather than the rule. The BATF started enforcing a "business premise" requirement under the Clinton administration, driving many thousands of home gun dealers out of business. Clinton branded guys such as yours "kitchen table dealers", and considered them to be a problem, selling to criminals. So rather than have the BATF actually enforce the law against a few bad apples, they decided not to renew the licenses of the whole bunch.

That's a nice way to conduct crime enforcement, eh? Throw out the good with the bad!

[kallend 2,129]

Quote

Quote

Let's just prosecute people to the full extent of the law when they commit violent crimes. Period. No parole. No time off for good behavior. Three strikes, you're out.

Quote

What about the non-criminals who are simply negligent in various ways that either cause accidents or allow their weapons to fall into the hands of criminals?

Prosecuting people for criminal negligence is okay with me too.

However, your last sentence makes me wonder where you're going with this - having your gun stolen by a burglar from your locked home should not constitute criminal negligence.

Agreed, but having it stolen from your unlocked porch would, as would leaving it around in the house where there is a toddler. I think society has a reasonable expectation that machines expressly designed for killing should be properly secured when not in use.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

According to the CDC there were 3.9 firearm homocides per 100,000 people in the US in 2000. In Canada that figure was about 0.48 per 100 000. That means the US gun homocide rate was 8 times higher in year 2000. I think the numbers speak for themselves. Less guns means less people die from being shot.

Congratulations on doing some research and coming up with some facts - that's far more than most people do.

You jumped to a conclusion a bit there though, because you didn't bother to find out if the gun ownership rate amongst Canadians was lower than in America. Thus, your "fewer guns" conclusion is premature. For example, gun ownership in the Yukon and Northwest Territories is 67%, the same as America.

Furthermore, you based your conclusion only upon one comparison, which is too simplistic.

- There are countries with no legal guns and few gun murders.
- There are countries with no legal guns and lots of gun murders.
- There are countries with lots of legal guns and few gun murders.
- There are countries with lots of legal guns and lots of gun murders.

And yet you conclude that legal gun ownership is the determining factor in gun murders? The fact is, the only conclusion you can reach from these disparate examples, is that the level of gun ownership bears no correlation to the rates of gun crime.

For example:

Norway - 32% with guns, 3.6 gun homicide rate.
Canada - 29% with guns, 8.4 gun homicide rate.
West Germany - 9% with guns, 2.0 gun homicide rate.
North Ireland - 8% with guns, 21.0 gun homicide rate.

Guns are not the common denominator!

[kallend 2,129]

Quote

Kallend, I posed to two very direct questions to you regarding this issue. I do respect you as an intelligent and generally articulate individual. I'd appreciate it if you took the time to answer them.

Question #1:
You said: I suspect that effective laws could be devised, but would not pass due to political reasons. and I asked Please elaborate. I'm genuinely interested in your thoughts on this matter.

Quote

I am not a lawyer - devising laws is not my business and I have no expertise in the area. Doesn't change the fact that I don't think devising laws acceptable to gun enthusiasts that will help stem the tide of violence is beyond the bounds of human ability if there's enough political will to do it.

First, the two sides have to get off their entrenched positions and start communicating effectively with each other. This involves:

1) Acknowledging that the 2nd Amendment means what it says, and

2) Acknowledging that there is an epidemic of firearms violence in the USA and something has to be done about it, even if it causes some inconvenience to gun enthusiasts and manufacturers.

Question #2:
You said: Every felon was once a lawabiding citizen, and almost every felon's gun was purchased originally by a lawabiding citizen. and I asked What about on the other side of the pond? England seems to be dealing with a rise in firearms crimes lately, right? They've got some pretty strict gun laws there, how are they helping to curb the problem?

Thanks.

-
Jim

The new laws in the UK were a knee jerk reaction to the Dunblane (???) incident. Knee jerk reactions are rarely the right reactions. One more piece of evidence that Blair is all about appearances.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

We may soon be able to make our own full autos again thanks to the 9th circuit court .

To what court case are you referring?

[cvfd1399 0]

ZZZzzzzZZZZZzzzz

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

I suggest that owning a gun or guns imposes an obligation to prevent it/them from falling into criminal hands or childrens' hands, and that this obligation should be enforced.

Tell us what your proposed law would be to address this.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

- There are about 10,000 firearms murders per year.
- There are 250,000,000 firearms in circulation.

Therefore, only one in 25,000 guns is used to commit murder, or .00004 percent. Four-thousandths of one percent!

You call that "dismal"? We should be so lucky as to have automobile ownership attain the same safety record.

Quote

Homicides are different than "safety"

If you were to look at how many automobile homicides are commited each year, I would guess the rate per 100,000 units is far fewer than the number of homicides commited with firearms.

The number of accidental firearm fatalities is far smaller than the number of intentional gun homicides. So if we were to change this comparison to be "apples and apples" for "safety", compared with cars, then guns would come out even more favorable than my initial comparison.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

I think a great deal more could be done than is done in requiring training, both initial and recurrent, for gun owners.

I would like to see more training, but you run into a problem when you require it in order to exercise a Constitutional right. It would be like mandating a reading test in order to be allowed to vote, or requiring a Journalism degree in order to exercise freedom of speech.

Quote

how do criminals get their guns anyway? You are quite sure that they always will. So there must be some pipeline from the law abiding manufacturer to the felonious criminal. What is it?

A study by BATF found that more than 70% of armed career criminals get their guns from "off-the-street sales" and "criminal acts" such as burglaries. ("Protecting America," 3/92).

A study for the Department of Justice found that up to 71% of criminals' guns have been stolen. ("Armed and Considered Dangerous", 1986)

"Sixty percent of those who admitted to gang membership reported having obtained their most recently acquired gun through illegal means"
http://www.ncjrs.org/txtfiles/arrest.txt

Furthermore, there are about 300,000 guns stolen from private individuals each year. I acknowledge that this is a serious problem...

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Kallend, I posed to two very direct questions to you regarding this issue. I do respect you as an intelligent and generally articulate individual. I'd appreciate it if you took the time to answer them.

From my past experience with Kallend, it is my observation that he generally doesn't like to offer-up his own evidence for something, or to put forth his own theories. I suppose that is because that opens him up to criticism, to which he wouldn't like to respond. He prefers to sit on the sidelines and snipe at others who contribute. What is good for the other's geese, is not good for Kallend's gander.

[FliegendeWolf 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Just because I may talk about this subject a lot hear, doesn't mean that what I say is invalid.

Nope, but it certainly does suggest that this subject is your pet cause which, you may recall, was my intitial observation.

So what? What's your point?

My point:

(Drumroll please)

JohnRich seems to have taken anti-Gun Control as his pet cause.

A One that Isn't Cold is Scarcely a One at All

[slug 1]

I've read two books on the subject of gun control.

In the gravest extreme written by Massad F. Ayoob
Mr Ayoob is well known in the gun industry is a cop, instructor, and expert witness.

The book covers "the roll of the firearm in personal protection" from the information presented in the book if your a private citizen and shoot someone without meeting certain legal requirement's you can be the target of the lawyers. Both Criminal and civil either way you will pay big bucks to prove your case in court.

Mr Ayoob is no bleeding heart liberal if the bad guy has his gun out and his back is facing you, under the right circumstances he's got no problem shooting the guy in the back without a warning.

The other book is the Turner Diaries this book is a example IMO of how paranoid some of the gun folks can get. It was read by Tim Mcveigh and had a effect on his thinking. The book is available at the public library and can be read in less than a day. It is very extreme however the interesting thing is the author was able to predict the growth of some of the band aid gun laws that have been passed.

Back in the day folks used to have these nice wooden gun racks with a glass door to display their gun collection. I think those days are over.

Rather than a full auto weapon I'd like to have a RPG! Low tech, cheap and very effective. Bad thing is you lose it or use it your in deep doo doo.

R.I.P.

[SkydiverRick 0]

My point:

(Drumroll please)

JohnRich seems to have taken anti-Gun Control as his pet cause.

[fasterfaller 0]

Quote

Quote

We may soon be able to make our own full autos again thanks to the 9th circuit court .

To what court case are you referring?

There is a case they ruled on a few weeks ago finding that the ban was not legal . They said that as long as the guns are not involved in interstate commerce that it is legal to build your own full auto . At this time it appears that the guns will not be allowed to leave the state they were built in . ATF is sitting on a shitpile of form 1's from individuals awaiting a final ruling .

[dbattman 0]

I remember hearing this on the news. Well, there is no entrance exam for being a crook.

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

Out of curiosity, I ran a search on "gun or bullet" posted by JohnRich and came up with 202 hits, which is close to one-third (about 32%) of JohnRich's total post number of 636.

The point being? Well...the phrase "broken record" comes to mind.

Broken record or not, chasing the gun threads here lately has been fun.

JohnRich reminds me of Hulk Hogan taking on all comers in a wrastlin' ring, kicking each and everyone's ass without hesitation.

Brings a smile to my face, it does . . .

. . =(_8^(1)

[FliegendeWolf 0]

Quote

My point:

(Drumroll please)

JohnRich seems to have taken anti-Gun Control as his pet cause.

Why do you keep saying this?

[bmcd308 0]

>>Model rocket motors are already restricted by BATFE. <<

I know. And I think that is silly. We used to fly K motors at a field pretty close by. I don't know anyone who still deals with the hassles associated with the post-OK City LEUP rules.

----------------------------------
www.jumpelvis.com

[kallend 2,129]

Quote

Quote

I think a great deal more could be done than is done in requiring training, both initial and recurrent, for gun owners.

I would like to see more training, but you run into a problem when you require it in order to exercise a Constitutional right. It would be like mandating a reading test in order to be allowed to vote, or requiring a Journalism degree in order to exercise freedom of speech.

...

The 2nd amemdment specifically mentions "well regulated", so I see no problem with requiring training. If you wish to exercise that right, you comply with the rest of the sentence too.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,129]

Quote

Quote

Kallend, I posed to two very direct questions to you regarding this issue. I do respect you as an intelligent and generally articulate individual. I'd appreciate it if you took the time to answer them.

From my past experience with Kallend, it is my observation that he generally doesn't like to offer-up his own evidence for something, or to put forth his own theories. I suppose that is because that opens him up to criticism, to which he wouldn't like to respond. He prefers to sit on the sidelines and snipe at others who contribute. What is good for the other's geese, is not good for Kallend's gander.

I already answered him.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Luv2Fall 0]

http://www.thekcrachannel.com/news/2747895/detail.html

[ChileRelleno 0]

http://www.thekcrachannel.com/news/2747895/detail.html

ChileRelleno-Rodriguez Bro#414
Hellfish#511,MuffBro#3532,AnvilBro#9, D24868

[Luv2Fall 0]

Thanks!