New data on child deaths released--How involved are guns really?

[wmw999 2,560]

Quote

If you have a carry permit (as I do), an extensive background check has been done on you within the last 5 years. If I find a good deal at a gun show - dammit, I should be able to walk with it.

As an official dz.com mindless liberal (tm), I must say I agree with this. Even if you don't actually have a concealed carry permit, there's no reason you couldn't have a background investigation.

No, this wouldn't prevent someone from getting the investigation and then becoming a felon. It wouldn't prevent someone from going crazy after passing the investigation. But it's a whole lot better than nothing, and it assumes that a certain standard is met.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Jib 0]

Like drugs, illegal guns will always be available for criminals. I think you are attributing to guns a much larger societal problem. There is no way to prevent all crime or criminals from having guns. Similarly, there is no way to make responsible people more responsible. The difference is that responsible people have something to lose e.g. their liberty as an incentive. "Many people" have no fear of the law, little to lose and no respect for human life. The only way to identify those people is to look to their past conduct -- crimes -- and try to dissuade them from committing more. About the only thing we have to accomplish that is incarceration.
If you want to make the country safer, then educate people who are in high crime areas and likely to fall into criminal activity to be able to get better jobs and leave.
Getting back to the original post, people with children around need to safeguard their guns. That is something different than every gun needs a trigger lock or some other blanket nuisance when circumstances warranting such a safeguard do not exist. More importantly, I think children need to be educated about guns (to stay away from them) and there appears to be some resistance to that from the guns are bad crowd.

--------------------------------------------------
the depth of his depravity sickens me.
-- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt

[Luv2Fall 0]

I have a carry permit also............we have been checked throughly. Also I have a C&R license.

I guess I'm speaking rather about those who do not possess a permit.

Gunshows in my area do perform an instant check on gun purchasers.............................Clue me in - do the instant checks pretty much reveal what a court would come up with if you were to apply for a permit? I know for a permit (additional) that you must provide proof of training/compentency whereas that isn't even a factor in instant checks.

[Jib 0]

Quote

Quote

If you have a carry permit (as I do), an extensive background check has been done on you within the last 5 years. If I find a good deal at a gun show - dammit, I should be able to walk with it.

As an official dz.com mindless liberal (tm), I must say I agree with this. Even if you don't actually have a concealed carry permit, there's no reason you couldn't have a background investigation.

No, this wouldn't prevent someone from getting the investigation and then becoming a felon. It wouldn't prevent someone from going crazy after passing the investigation. But it's a whole lot better than nothing, and it assumes that a certain standard is met.

Wendy W.

Actually, some places require a criminal background check (telephone call) in addition to such a permit.

--------------------------------------------------
the depth of his depravity sickens me.
-- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt

[wmw999 2,560]

Quote

Like drugs, illegal guns will always be available for criminals. I think you are attributing to guns a much larger societal problem. There is no way to prevent all crime or criminals from having guns

If there are fewer guns overall, then there will be fewer guns available to criminals. Really. And saying that the only acceptable solution is a perfect one is to say that there is no point in even trying.

Making guns more expensive will incent people to keep better track of them, and protect them in their homes.

Incarceration is not the only way to keep criminals from repeating -- while it's true for some, if many of them have enough that they don't want to lose it, well, they'll behave just like everyone else. So work on making education and decent jobs available to everyone equally (and not just to folks who are like those who control the jobs and education).

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[mnischalke 0]

Quote

Making guns more expensive will incent people to keep better track of them, and protect them in their homes.

Sooooo, the poor have less of a right to self defense than the rich? The NAACP and the NRA worked together decades ago to ensure poor blacks could defend their families as well as enjoy the shooting sports. It seems many elitist liberals in the south created laws so that blacks couldn't own guns. The NRA stopped that bullshit.

mike

Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills.

[Jib 0]

I think you're being a little naive. There will always be guns available somewhere in the world, someone to smuggle them here and a criminal to buy them. Limiting the number of guns available to collectors does nothing to change the predispostion of someone to commit a crime, which is the idea, right? Neither does raising the price, because there will be a higher incentive to bring less expensive guns to the street. Besides, I think someone who can't afford a $500 Glock or $2000 Kimber should be entitled to protect himself.

People don't just lose track of guns.

--------------------------------------------------
the depth of his depravity sickens me.
-- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt

[Luv2Fall 0]

"Making guns more expensive will incent people to keep better track of them, and protect them in their homes."



Actually, I don't believe that would be a viable solution. Mandated storage within one's own home would be a start.

[DYEVOUT 0]

Quote

Clue me in - do the instant checks pretty much reveal what a court would come up with if you were to apply for a permit?

Sorry, can't help you there. I've always had a permit.

----------------=8^)----------------------
"I think that was the wrong tennis court."

[Remster 30]

I just love watching you americains debate this shit..... its so fun!

Remster

[DYEVOUT 0]

Quote

Making guns more expensive will incent people to keep better track of them, and protect them in their homes.

Wow, I can't believe I read that.

----------------=8^)----------------------
"I think that was the wrong tennis court."

[Luv2Fall 0]

"The Site" - Is that yours? Great site BTW.

[DYEVOUT 0]

Quote

"The Site" - Is that yours? Great site BTW.

No, it's not mine.

It IS a cool site though, I just liked the jpeg.

----------------=8^)----------------------
"I think that was the wrong tennis court."

[beemertec 0]

Quote

The "only criminals use guns for evil and they don't obey gun laws anyway" argument is also flawed. It totally discounts the "honest citizens" that are always touted in the second amendment discussions, that go legally buy a weapon, buy ammunition, then go and murder someone.

Which is exactly why I think everyone buying a gun should go through the process of getting a concealed weapons permit first. It requires a more extensive background check. Once they have the permit, the instant background check would be fine for further purchases. The permit has to be renewed every five years in GA. Will this stop people from killing other people with guns? No, it will not, but it might help. In Georgia (I do not know about other states) there has never been a case of someone with a valid concealed weapons permit commiting murder. Maybe it's luck, maybe it's a more thorough check. I think that is fair.
I would love to see accidental gun deaths in children reduced to zero, but even if we banned all guns that would not happen.

When I wanted a drivers license, I had to go to drivers ed. I had to know some basics and watch the gory "idiot drivers getting hit by trains" videos. I also had to physically demonstrate my aptitude before getting the license. It ought to be at least as hard to buy a handgun as to get a drivers license. ***

In Georgia it is harder to buy a handgun than get a drivers license. I agree with you that education is the way to go. Maybe something similar to the hunters safety course many states require to get a hunting license.

Blue Skies
Steve
Ok, so it's pink, but I'm secure in my manhood, and I still look cool coming in under it!

[jfields 0]

Quote

Like drugs, illegal guns will always be available for criminals.

True, but there could be a world of improvement in the discouragement of use. Better enforcement and tougher laws would help. Note that I mean anti-criminal measures, not anti-gun ones.

Quote

If you want to make the country safer, then educate people who are in high crime areas and likely to fall into criminal activity to be able to get better jobs and leave.

Agreed. Education level is a major factor in crime reduction. We could do a lot of good there, especially in the inner cities.

Quote

Getting back to the original post, people with children around need to safeguard their guns.

True, in many ways. Firearms have turned up in elementary schools, brought in by the kids. They have brought them from home. The kids aren't responsible, the parents are. But clearly they are failing their duty there, and putting all the people in the school at risk. That isn't right.

[jfields 0]

Quote

Making guns more expensive will incent people to keep better track of them, and protect them in their homes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sooooo, the poor have less of a right to self defense than the rich? The NAACP and the NRA worked together decades ago to ensure poor blacks could defend their families as well as enjoy the shooting sports. It seems many elitist liberals in the south created laws so that blacks couldn't own guns. The NRA stopped that bullshit.

Mike,

What Wendy said is true. If I had a Ferrari, I'd take great care of it and know where the keys were at all times. Nobody would be out joyriding my car. But I can't afford one, so I don't have that issue.

Is the cost of a Ferrari unconstitutional because it limits my right to own and drive a fast Italian car? If working hard and being responsible can get you some of the things you like in life, then maybe I'll end up with one someday. To get there, I'll have to be responsible and law-abiding along the way.

If guns were a lot more expensive, the same would be true. I'm not saying I think prices should be raised, but I am agreeing with Wendy's analysis of the economics and societal impact. She is right, whether you (or the NRA) like it or not.

[DYEVOUT 0]

Quote

What Wendy said is true. If I had a Ferrari, I'd take great care of it and know where the keys were at all times. Nobody would be out joyriding my car. But I can't afford one, so I don't have that issue.

according to Wendy's post, ALL MOTOR VEHICLES would be made financially unattainable - to make your analogy correct. She didn't say SOME GUNS.

----------------=8^)----------------------
"I think that was the wrong tennis court."

[jfields 0]

Quote

according to Wendy's post, ALL MOTOR VEHICLES would be made financially unattainable - to make your analogy correct. She didn't say SOME GUNS.

Well.... I could use the exercise anyway.

Seriously, I was just clarifying that her hypothetical situation would in fact reduce crime. That seems pretty obvious. I'm not advocating it, just saying, "Yep, if nobody could afford guns, there would be less gun crime."

[Schroeder 0]

I think wendy's on the right track with the education comment, it's a start, because (forgive my canadian opinion) the problem is societal and not so much with the guns. It's paranoia, education, violence, media, etc, alot of things that are all contributing. I keep hearing "to protect themselves" and really, I can't relate. I don't even know a single person (here in canada) with a mindset like that. The thought that someone out there is crazy and wants to kill you... sometime, just escapes me. I'm not trying to be sarcastic or condescending, but I really feel sorry for people who live under that weight.

Then there's the camp of sport shooters, etc, which I've got no problem with, grew up with that stuff, hunting, etc, and it's legit. But the weapons for protection thing...

Suggesting new laws, etc seems about as fruitful as two crabs in a pot trying to find a spot of water that's cooler than the rest. The only way outta the pot is to turn down the temperature, not find the 'just right' spot. Seems (to an outsider) that America's 'temperature' is too high.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

When I wanted a drivers license, I had to go to drivers ed. I had to know some basics and watch the gory "idiot drivers getting hit by trains" videos. I also had to physically demonstrate my aptitude before getting the license. It ought to be at least as hard to buy a handgun as to get a drivers license.

My problem with this analogy. There is a constitutional right to have firearms, not to drive.

Quote

Is the cost of a Ferrari unconstitutional because it limits my right to own and drive a fast Italian car? If working hard and being responsible can get you some of the things you like in life, then maybe I'll end up with one someday. To get there, I'll have to be responsible and law-abiding along the way.

My problem with this analogy...see above.

Also, your stats on the number of guns used in self defense were way off. It's 65,000 to 80,000 times per year that firearms are used defensively.

Quote

The numbers are drawn from the U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, "Guns and Crime: Handgun Victimization, Firearm Self-Defense, and Firearm Theft," April, 1994 (reporting that about 62,200 victims of violent crime used guns to defend themselves) and from an analysis of the National Crime Victimization Survey for data between 1987 and 1990 by University of Maryland researchers, David McDowall and Brian Wiersema, "The Incidence of Civilian Defensive Firearms Use," December, 1994 (reporting about 65,000 such incidents a year). A 1991 study by Phillip Cook of Duke University estimated the number of defensive uses a year at 80,000 for the period 1979-87.

[wmw999 2,560]

Quote

according to Wendy's post, ALL MOTOR VEHICLES would be made financially unattainable

You inferred a whole lot more than I said. If guns in general, at the retail level, are more expensive, then the used gun market will also be more expensive. But there will always be some cheap guns.

In countries where cheap used cars aren't as readily available as they are in the US, there are still people, including some poorer people, with cars. But they take damn good care of them as a rule. No, it's not universal, but they'r not considered to be as disposable as they are in the US.

I suppose I could qualify every off-the-cuff remark to the extreme. But no one else does.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

I keep hearing "to protect themselves" and really, I can't relate. I don't even know a single person (here in canada) with a mindset like that.

I know a few who live in Toronto that wish they could have guns to protect themselves. Particularly the girl I know who was raped and beaten.

Maybe it's not as much as a concern in Vancouver...but the stats for the city of Philadelphia, which I live smack in the middle of.

2002:
288 murders
1035 rapes
8869 robbery
9865 aggravated assault

1320 people were shot in Philadelphia by criminals last year.

All of this is within 10 miles of my house and work.

3 people I work with (out of 28) have been held up at gunpoint. 2 close friends have been held up at gunpoint. One was pistol whipped. I've been stabbed.

It's not paranoia, it's reality.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

This is about *everyone's* rights, namely, the right not to get shot. How do you propose we safeguard that right?

Don't know the answer to that. But, I don't see how additional laws or restrictions will help. Currently, the vast majority of people who are shot are either engaged in criminal activity or are shot by someone with an illegal handgun. I don't see how any changes that affect legal gun owners will make any difference in your chance of being shot.

[mnischalke 0]

Wendy, if you look at the illegal gun market, firearms are generally sold at a multiple of the new gun price.

As far as cheap guns, there has already been junk gun legislation added to the books. All it's really done is to prevent the poor (those who tend to live in high-crime areas) from attaining protection.

I would like to get away from this elitist approach to firearm safety. I am sure you're not being elitist, but that's exactly how it shakes out. Those in hollywood love to be anti-gun in the media, but they own guns in their homes as do their "security" people.

The real issue here is respect. If you own a firearm, you really should understand what you own and have a great deal of respect for it. You must also have a good deal of respect for your fellow man by keeping your firearms from falling into the wrong hands, to the best of your ability. I like the idea of trigger locks. I don't own any, but if I didn't have a vault in my home, and kids or strangers running around, I might.

mike

Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills.

[Schroeder 0]

I know people who have been raped, beaten, stalked, shot, and stabbed as well (not all the same person thank god...) I didn't mean to imply that the drive to protect yourself was based on paranoia, but rather that it's paranoia which is in part feeding the problem. However it's not, as I said earlier, the only factor. Just part of a big pressure cooker.