Gun Control

[wildblue 7]

K.. just moving this out of the other thread for those who wish to discuss.
Any points to make? Besides "Ban it like they did in England" because contrary to the belief that was stated in that thread, that didn't really help over there. Robbery, assault, car theft, etc has risen steadily there while it's stayed pretty even here in the states.
I think we should do a little better about who can easily get a gun. I also think more states need to pass CCW laws. Not just because I want to be able to carry a weapon, but because it appears crime rates have dropped in those states, with no increase in accidental shootings because of it.
I ain't happy, I'm feeling glad
I got sunshine, in a bag

[chicagoskydiver 0]

Quote

I think we should do a little better about who can easily get a gun.

I agree with that. But there are already laws on the books to do that. We need to do a better job enforcing the laws that are in place. Making new laws won't help if we're not enforcing the ones that already exist. Make new laws and then not enforce them like we don't enforce the ones we have now? I hardly see how that helps.
Hackey

[RemiAndKaren 0]

Yes,
please show us how implementing more access to guns and allowing people to carry guns has brough down gun related crime levels lower then places that have strict gun control laws.
Remi
Muff 914

[wildblue 7]

That's what I meant, enforce the laws we have, not make more.
I ain't happy, I'm feeling glad
I got sunshine, in a bag

[wildblue 7]

Remi -
Ok, I think we have two different views to look at here. The first one is extreme laws (like England) the second being CCW laws (like Texas)
Here's the US vs England argument. I'll get to the CCW stuff when I get time later. (See attached)
The graph for murder isn't there, I didn't see it with the rest of this stuff, but the murder rate is higher in the US, it's been dropping, getting closer to England's level. It is interesting:
"Firearms are more often involved in violent crimes in the United States than in England. According to 1996 police statistics, firearms were used in 68% of U.S. murders but 7% of English murders, and 41% of U.S. robberies but 5% of English robberies. "
So again, if people want to do bad, they don't need a gun. Just because there's no guns around doesn't mean you're safer
I ain't happy, I'm feeling glad
I got sunshine, in a bag

[freeflir29 0]

Remi- It's no secret that the two areas in the US that have the strictest gun control laws have some of the worst crime problems. IE Washington DC (where you can't even own a gun legally) Southern California (heavily restricted access)
Statistics in the past few years support the fact that Concealed carry permit laws do in fact produce a drop in violent crime. I think maybe a few criminals out there don't want to die. However, in the prevailing criminal mind that person is unable to make a connection between their actions and the consequences. Therefor no law is going to stop anyone from doing anything. My Ruger on the other hand will.
Que hermana pinocha gratis?-Clay

[SpeedRacer 1]

Man, I'm surprised Clay hasn't gotten all over this thread like a hobo on a ham sandwichIn Texas, gun control means you use two hands!
Speed Racer
The problem with the world is that everyone is a few drinks behind
-Bogart

[SpeedRacer 1]

woops, there he is!! Posted too late!
Speed Racer
The problem with the world is that everyone is a few drinks behind
-Bogart

[GrumpySmurf 0]

I guess I'm of the opinion that comparing UK to US gun control is like the proverbial apples to oranges comparision - very different cultures with very different histories. The US was founded on armed rebellion and is seen as a fundamental right to allow the masses to rebel (in a armed manner) against a oppressive gov't. The UK went through a much more gradual transition from strict monarchy to consitutional monarchy and never went through a successful rebellion to topple the established regime. I think the gun laws back home (in Canada) are perfect for the country there (you need to go through a somewhat rigorous (by US standards) screening process to get a FAC to buy a basic firearm such as a hunting rifle or shotgun - and if you want to own a pistol - well, you are in for a quite a bit of work, and alot more waiting) but would be useless in the US. This country is obsessed with violence because it was born in it and there has yet to be generation living in it that hasn't had a war to fight - how can one expect the citizens to not want to own firearms - I'm surprised they haven't legalized personal anti-tank weapons yet, "Me an' Billy-Bob, we got this here great deal for a AT-4 down there at the Wal-Martart for $49.95, I bought myself 5 of 'em, yes siree.' ;)
Just an opinion, one of the 6 billion+ floating through the world today. :)

[freeflir29 0]

"In Texas, gun control means you use two hands!"
Yeah....I still think I should be able to buy AT-4's and Browning M-2's at Wal-Mart. "Yes sir! This heavy machine gun is for home defense." Why I need to spend $3,000 to get a license for a full auto weapon is beyond me???? Especially since I can make one in the garage in about 30 seconds????
What was that line from George Carlin? "Americans love war.....cause we're good at it!"
Que hermana pinocha gratis?-Clay

[RemiAndKaren 0]

Its my last post on the subject, not that I dont like a good argument, but I've had this discussion with so many americans now (I love you guys, really) that I have given up a long time ago.... it also hits some personal nerves that I rather not get into great depths here, but since such discussions usually lead nowhere...
Guns are designed to kill. Period. Handguns and automatics/semis were designed to kill people. Period. Some hunting riffles use semi or automatic technologies, but the design is to kill more people. Please argue this up and down as much as you like... And remember what "killing" is... it can happen to a murderer, but it can happen to your best friend (think about it, really think about that bit).
You can try and link guns with other crimes, and show or try to show various links between gun laws and rises or reductions in other violent crimes (assaults, rapes, muggins, carjackings, soccer holliganism, etc), in the end the only clear link between guns and crimes are deaths/injuries caused by guns.
Yea yea yea guns dont kill people, people kill people. But it sure makes it easier to kill someone when you dont have to stab them repeatadly and cover yourself with their blood.
Here's a quick bit of data to ponder on while you come up with a very researched bit of info.......
A firearm was reported to have been involved in the deaths of 1107 children; 957 (86%) of those occurred in the United States. Of all firearm-related deaths, 55% were reported as homicides; 20%, as suicides; 22%, as unintentional; and 3%, as intention undetermined. The overall firearm-related death rate among U.S. children aged less than 15 years was nearly 12 times higher than among children in the other 25 countries combined (1.66 compared with 0.14)
source: Center for Desease Control.
Remi
Muff 914

[jfields 0]

We've had gun control discussions in the forums before. Here is a link to a relatively recent example:
http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forums/showthreaded.pl?Cat=&Board=forumtalkback&Number=23106&page=&view=&sb=&o=&vc=1#Post23106
Still, we aren't going to resolve it today. The sides are so dramatically divided and the issue is so emotional that there is no middle ground.
I'm not going into the whole "if owning a gun is criminal, then only criminals will own guns" rhetoric. It is true, but silly. Yes, criminals will always be able to get guns. No argument there. Another big catchphrase is "we don't need more laws, we just need to enforce existing ones." That is BS, plain and simple. Existing laws allow for unsafe gun ownership, which is my personal objection to civilian gun ownership.
My basic objections to civilian gun ownership stems from unresolved safety issues. With current technology, it is fundamentally impossible to have a gun available for "home defense" while guaranteeing that it does not end up in use by an unauthorized individual. That person could be a drunk friend, your child, or someone else's child. The research shows that the friends and family of gun owners are far more likely to die as a result of gun ownership than "the potential burglar" that seems to be a common justification for gun ownership.
If you have a gun (or 100 for all I care), in a secure, locked gun cabinet that only you can get into, I have no problem. When you go to the range to fire, that is also fine. It is a safe, controlled environment. Mere ownership is not the problem. The moment that the cabinet is left unattended and open, or the gun is kept "in a nightstand drawer, for security", safety is thrown to the winds. Anyone can get it, and probably use it.
Where are all the guns used in school-room and playground shootings coming from? I'd bet that most elementary and middle school kids aren't walking into a gun shop and slapping down the money for that new pistol. They are coming from people's homes where they are left unsecured. Somebody's "home defense weapon" just became something else, evidence in a homicide investigation.
One thing I particularly object to is homes with children and unsecured weapons. Before bringing up the "my kid went to NRA gun safety class" junk, honestly answer this, "Did you do everything you were supposed to and obey all rules to the letter when you were a kid?" Right. Me neither. How do you expect your kids to? What about the neighbor's kid, who never had the class. It is a tragedy waiting to happen, and it happens a lot.
Another issue is training. To be used in a home setting, going to the range once when you first buy a gun isn't enough. The target isn't holding a real gun pointed back at you. To use two DZ.commers as examples (in a good way), take a look at Chuck and Clay. Two current/former military members that dealt with weapons and close-combat training. They are among the few people that have had sufficient training to have better than even odds of surviving a gunfight with a burglar. That kind of training takes a lot of time, money and effort, when it is even available. How many "typical" gun owners have done that? I doubt it is very many. The majority of gun owners have a sense of false readiness and courage, bolstered by a piece of inanimate metal. Their chances of living would probably be better if they just told a burglar to take what they want and leave unhindered.
Once someone has a gun, they must be responsible for it. Many gun owners are not good custodians of their equipment. Would you treat your ownership differently if you were held equally responsible for everything that happens with a gun registered to you? Whether you commit a crime or not, if you faced the same jail time as a criminal using your weapon, would you leave it out? If a child kills another child with your gun, YOU should go to jail for negligence and stupidity, if not outright murder. If you are safe enough that this possibility (however slim) doesn't apply to you, great. You may be the rare gun owner that I don't have a problem with.
Sorry for the long post. I'll finish it the same way I did the last time the topic came up....
Responsible gun ownership = No problem.
Gun owner accidental deaths = Not my problem.
Gun owner domestic dispute deaths = Also not my problem.
Irresponsible gun owner's gun in kid's hands = BIG PROBLEM.
Own 'em if you want, but do it responsibly. If my wife or (future) kid was killed by some irresponsible gun owner's negligence, I wouldn't need a gun. I'd go and strangle them with my bare hands.
Flame away.....
Justin
My Homepage

[AggieDave 6]

WildBlue, that was the exact graph sequence I was going to post, but I had to go to class so you beat me to it. Stand-by, I'm getting the crime stats for Texas before and after they passed their CCW.
AggieDave '02
-------------
Blue Skies and Gig'em Ags!
BTHO t.u.

[SpeedRacer 1]

This just reflects the different attitudes people have about guns. I used to live in Boston, and a lot of my friends were from hyper-liberal, politically-correct Cambridge. Most of them seem to believe that anyone who owns a gun is a deranged redneck living on a compound out in the boonies & probably belongs to some wacko right-wing militia.
Once you get out to the rest of the USA you start to understand that a lot of nice, normal people have guns, and use & store them responsibly.
Speed Racer
The problem with the world is that everyone is a few drinks behind
-Bogart

[AggieDave 6]

RemiAndKaren, that statistic is not totatlly correct. The "Children" that it referes to included up to 21 year olds AND includes the deaths related in gang violence, etc. Personally, I would like to see a statistic that refered to real children, the ones who wouldn't necessarily tried as an adult, i.e. 15 and below. That's like including people who die while driving to the DZ as a skydiving fatality.
AggieDave '02
-------------
Blue Skies and Gig'em Ags!
BTHO t.u.

[RemiAndKaren 0]

15 and below, not 21.
Remi
Muff 914

[freeflir29 0]

"soccer holliganism"
Hehehehehehee.....The UK invented it's own unique kind of crime....LMAO
I grew up in a house that had plenty of guns. I started shooting when I was about 5 years old. I was taught from the first day how to handle a weapon. I have never accidentally shot anyone or anything. I have been hunting since the age of 10. I think most kids that injure themselves were never really taught the basics.
I like guns.....I think they are a good thing. They do give me insurance against criminals, US Government, anyone else that wants to try and take advantage of me.
One funny thing about this debate. How many people died in car accidents in the UK last year? Has there been a movement to ban automobiles since these products produce such carnage? Think about that.............
Que hermana pinocha gratis?-Clay

[AggieDave 6]

Jfields,
While I was growing up, there were numerous unlocked guns stored in the house with ammo. Never once, not once did I ever have the thought to go kill someone or take one to school or go shoot at something besides on the range or while hunting. You know why? Not because of gun laws or NRA safety courses, but because of my parents and my up-bringing. Also, I'm obviously not some old man ranting about when he was a kid, hell I'm pretty much still a kid (21) so that wasn't that long ago. Maybe if parents would give half a shit about their kids, some of the violence and nonsense would stop. Instead of blaming it on heavy-metal or violent video games, look to the family. (BTW I love heavy-metal and I play a lot of violent video games, but I still never had the desire to go shoot someone).
AggieDave '02
-------------
Blue Skies and Gig'em Ags!
BTHO t.u.

[AggieDave 6]

Remi,
Point me to the actual site where you got the info then. Is it an actual government site or an activist's site?
AggieDave '02
-------------
Blue Skies and Gig'em Ags!
BTHO t.u.

[jfields 0]

Dave,
I'm glad you were raised well. I agree that parenting is a major part of the issue. While it worked for you and your parents, unlocked guns obviously don't work for many others. And nobody knows until after the fact which is which. Some (like you) will be fine. Others will just end up dead, or their friends will end up dead. Then the "I thought they knew better" will be of little value.
Justin
My Homepage

[RemiAndKaren 0]

http://www.cdc.gov/epo/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00046149.htm
the interesting bit starts at the last sentence of the 2nd paragraph and goes on for 2 other paragraphs.
have fun debating guys and gals!
Remi
Muff 914

[AggieDave 6]

Ok, here's a site with some hard data about crime rates in Texas. Presented are actual numbers form 1960 to 1998. Texas' CCW was passed in 1992, if you look at the violent crime numbers, you will see a dramatic decline. Here is another article that proves the decline in crime since Texas' CCW was passed. Also presented are some numbers about the people who have their CHL and the percentage of them commit crimes. Here's the URL, then I'm going to quote some of the article: http://www.ncpa.org/press/nr080900a.html
"Texans who exercise their right to carry firearms are 5.7 times less likely to be arrested for a violent offense.
They are 14 times less likely to be arrested for a non-violent offense.
They are 1.4 times less likely to be arrested for murder."
"The right to carry may also be affecting Texas' crime rate in a positive way. Texas had a serious crime rate in the early 1990s that was 38 percent higher than the national average.
Since then, serious crime in Texas has dropped 50 percent faster than for the nation as a whole.
Murder rates have dropped 52 percent, compared to 33 percent nationally.
Rapes have fallen by 22 percent compared to 16 percent nationally.
This experience is consistent with the experience of other states with concealed carry laws. According to University of Chicago law professor John Lott, concealed handgun laws on average reduce murder by 8.5 percent, rape by 5 percent and severe assault by 7 percent. "
Here's a Dallas Morning News article discussing the percentage of crimes commeted with illegally obtained handguns: http://www.dallasnews.com/metro/233511_atfstudy_08met.html
Also, for some hard data about crime rate comparisons between the US and England, go here: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/html/cjusew96/crvs.htm
Hopefully, now, though I'm quite sure that I will have not effected your beliefs, you will understand that what I was stating wasn't merely rhetoric, it is fact, based in hard data.
AggieDave '02
-------------
Blue Skies and Gig'em Ags!
BTHO t.u.

[AggieDave 6]

Remi,
The article its self said that the data was inaccurate and the US's numbers are going to be higher due to the fact that we were the ONLY country that reported ALL of the data.
Here's the paragraph that states that in your article:
"The findings of the analysis in this report are subject to at least three limitations. First, although the data were obtained from official sources and were based on ICD-9 codes, the sensitivity and specificity of the vital records and reporting systems may have varied by country. Second, because 21 (81%) countries each reported less than 10 firearm-related deaths among children aged 0-14 years, the firearm-related death rates for those countries, when not pooled, are unstable and may vary substantially for different years. Finally, only one half of the countries (including the United States) reported all four digits of the ICD-9 codes for firearm-related deaths; the fourth digit distinguishes whether deaths were caused by injuries from firearms or by other explosives. "
AggieDave '02
-------------
Blue Skies and Gig'em Ags!
BTHO t.u.

[AggieDave 6]

(nothing like a good debate to change me to an "old hand" AggieDave '02
-------------
Blue Skies and Gig'em Ags!
BTHO t.u.

[RemiAndKaren 0]

[.....resisting urge to debate..aggggrrrrr....] dammm...

Quote

and the US's numbers are going to be higher due to the fact that we were the ONLY country that reported ALL of the data

if you are basing that "analisis" on this:

Quote

Finally, only one half of the countries (including the United States) reported all four digits of the ICD-9 codes for firearm-related deaths; the fourth digit distinguishes whether deaths were caused by injuries from firearms or by other explosives

you are 180 degree wrong.... that statement says that only 1/2 the countries seperate gun deaths from other explosives deaths (dont ask me why they are linked!). all other countries deaths in that category are labeled "firearm". That is my interpretation of that statement.
Remi
Muff 914