georgerussia

Would "work" the same way as closing all schools to prevent more school shootings. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

"Have in their home" is ambiguous criteria. For example, a 4br home rented by four couples may as well be reported as "having guns in our home", even though there maybe only one guy having guns, and seven others may be actually anti-gun. Someone owning multiple homes may say that he has guns in five his homes (so the statistics would have to add five), even though it is a single person. No surprise, as it says: "(Sources: Gallup Polls of 1,012 adults from August 29-September 5, 2000; and 1,054 adults from February 8-9, 1999)" on page 2. But only 15% favor less strict gun laws, giving it a majority (and 46% basically doesn't really care). And you know what? In Apr 09 I belonged to those 46% too. I agree that it's not realistic to expect. The probability of Heller being overturned with more Dem Justices replacing SCOTUS conservatives is significantly higher (comparing to amendment repeal), and may result to the same thing but in a different way. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

No government is perfect either, and probably in every government/dictatorship/monarchy there is someone financing some disgusting activities. So the question is whether it is better to have them as ally or as enemy? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

This would assume Saudi king sponsors terrorists. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

I think it's the same way as current situation with Chechnya and its leader in Russia - "he's son of a bitch, but he is OUR son of a bitch". The rationale is that nobody is perfect, and if you require all your allies to be holier-than-thou, you'll have zero allies as nobody is. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Thank you. This is a good example that we can be civil and polite, even though we completely disagree on basics. Now I really wonder whether most gun owners are like you? I know the status quo. I'm also becoming familiar about various movements regarding this right, and pretty much finalized my opinion about what I would like to support. Everyone does. Ask people in Europe when you visit there, they do too - and most of them do not need guns for that. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

"I don't think so" is a valid answer when you explain your opinion. It states something (disagreement) comparing to "yeah, whatever" (which according to my dictionary states nothing). No, sir. You claimed that "It's already been proven that the criminals don't respect your beloved 'gun free zones'". But you didn't explain why the homicide rate in NYC (which, comparing to St.Louis is just a large "gun-free zone" having very restrictive gun laws) is much less than in St.Louis. Following your logic there should be more violent crime per 100K in NYC than in St.Louis, because criminals supposed to be "safer" there - but it is not the case, and your failure to explain this fact means that your opinion may be invalid. This is indeed obvious. The crimes mentioned in my post were "raw school shootings. If a to-be school shooter did not have a gun, he would not be able to shoot. So without guns there would be ZERO school shootings. Point proven. Only a very biased person would expect a law to prevent ALL crimes of that kind, and then claim that the law which penalizes for rape is useless because there are still rapes committed. Unfortunately gun owners seems to be exactly this kind of people when thinking about their guns (but not about other things - hypocrisy in its best) But for reasonable people, who expect crime REDUCTION, and not total elimination, it is obvious that it works much better than in St.Louis or New Orleans. Ludicrous? I'm fine with total ban for private gun ownership as well. If it happens, you might think what I proposed was not a bad idea to start with. Do you have evidence (not your thoughts) about how many gun owners report gun theft out of total thefts? I didn't find anything like that in ATF reports. I assume that if all reasonable gun owners report thefts, the law requiring them to do so would not penalize any of them, and only those who do not do so - which is "win-win" for everyone. This is because your "evidence" is just your opinion, which is not based on credible sources. You did not present a single reason why I should trust your (NRA-based) opinion more than opposite (Brady-based) opinion. Yes, this is true, and you can thank Ron, kelpdiver, JohnRich and yourself for that. You guys have a talent to "win" supporters. Just two months ago I wouldn't even imagine donating money to Brady campaign - and now, after discussing with all of you, I already did that (and I will donate more later - that time in honor of you ). You don't have to, forum rules do not require you to reply to anyone. You can ignore them the same way I ignore most of Ron and JohnRich replies. But if you do reply, it would make sense to address the opponent points in some way so we would have kind of meaningful discussion (despite the fact that we're not discussing knives anymore, and probably nobody else reads this) Interesting. Could you please enlighten me how exactly a CRIMINAL (like Cho) would start a shooting spree in Virginia Tech without an appropriate TOOL? How would a terrorist blast a building without appropriate TOOL? How would such CRIMINAL do that if he cannot get such a TOOL? Then if gun laws have had NO effect on crime in either direction, but banning guns would prevent further shooting sprees (how many have been committed in UK comparing to US after the UK handgun ban?), then dramatically restricting gun ownership sounds like a good idea to me, which will lead to more safety for my family. Of course you may believe that it will lead to less safety to your family, and therefore disagree, but since you don't care about what I think, I don't see any reason to care about what you think either - and you gun owners are (or were) in minority. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Well, since you gun owners are minority (25% adults owning a gun according to 1997 data; I'd appreciate more recent data), using exactly the same logic I can claim that the majority would be safer if we repeal 2nd amendment (you know that amendments are not written in stone, and have been repealed in past), and just ignore whatever you have to say. I'm also expecting that once more conservatives got out of SCOTUS, and being replaced by liberal Justices, the Heller has a good chance to be overturned (you remember it was already decided at 5/4 - a very weak victory), so it may actually happen in a different way. If you respected the whole Constitution, and not just 2nd amendment, you should have known that YOUR rights are not different from MY rights. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

It is unreasonable to expect guns to be banned completely - we still have the police, the army, security and so on. Even in those European countries - as well as in Russia - guns are not banned completely, but the law greatly limits what kind of gun an individual can buy (generally long smooth-bore rifles), who can buy them, and where one can store them (probably not at home). I'm explaining that because I think that if I simply reply "no" to your post, you'd ask for clarifications and I would have to explain it anyway, so it will save time for both of us. If it doesn't matter, then you can ignore it, and just take "no" as my answer. Then a simple "no" is the answer. Again, to save time: I would be happy if the guns were much less available that they are now. Something like European level of gun availability is fine with me. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

No, at this moment it is very unlikely. However this way you're basically saying that if you write a well-researched post with facts, you'll find it acceptable if your opponent replies something like "Yeah, whatever dude". The crime rate comparison between St.Louis and NYC does not support this statement. Raw count of school shootings happened in Europe and USA during last ten years does not support this statement either. First, the law dramatically restricting gun ownership will have very direct effect on every criminal, because the number of guns available to criminals through straw purchases, purchases from legal but corrupt gun traders, and stolen guns will be significantly lower. Second the law providing something like mandatory life sentence without parole for any criminal caught with a gun would definitely result in less crimes where the gun is used. I cannot understand why most states do not even require a gun owner to report his stolen gun to authorities. So far you did not present any evidence that making "criminals safe" would lead to less safety to me an my family. You did not explain why there is no more violent crime (or gun crime) in European countries - as it supposed to be according to your logic, since the criminals are safer there. What you presented was just abstract thoughts, which contradict with general crime statistics and my personal experience. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

No, I am not. That's what pro-gun says - that if a specific behavior is outlawed but such incidents do not decrease to zero, then the law "does not work" and "is bad". The funny thing is that they only apply it to the laws restricting gun ownership. If you ask them whether the laws against murder, rape or DUI do not work as well (as there are murders, rapes and DUIs!), and therefore are useless or "bad", they usually silently ignore that. It is obvious to anyone that the law restricting something does not eliminate that completely. However it in most cases reduces the number of such incidents. And since the majority of Americans do not own guns (according to 1997 stats, if you have newer numbers I'd like to see them), for them it would be clear win. Nobody is born as a criminal, so everyone is law-abiding until they stop being law-abiding, so your comment is meaningless. And since those 300,000 guns are stolen each year from LEGAL gun owners (it would be funny to see a felon reporting to the police that somebody stole his gun), this indeed looks like requiring a change. Also "legal gun owner" is not the same as "permitted conceal carry owner". * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Making the penalties more stiff typically leads to less people willing to commit a crime. Do you agree that there would be more DUI offenses if DUI only carried a $100 fine? Note that DUI would be still illegal. (and making gun ownership illegal pretty reduces number of straw purchases to almost zero) Very simple. The law would require a gun owner to maintain all the guns in possession, and be prepared to have them audited any time after the 48 hour notice. If any gun is missing during audit, and there is no associated paperwork (i.e. it can be repaired or so), all your guns are revoked and you're barred from owning any more guns. That's really useful comment to the phrase which actually pointed out to a lot of FACTS. Makes it really worthy investing time in research. No, I would like you to prove the relationship between "You've made the criminals safer" and "done sweet fuck-all for the safety of your family" I didn't say that. I just pointed out to the FACT that "making criminals safe" by dramatically restricting guns does NOT necessary lead to "done sweet fuck-all for the safety of your family", and situation in Europe proves that . * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Same as with religion or politics. This is what I cannot understand completely. Are you trying to say that every ban which does not prevent the problem completely is useless? Nobody expects that making gun ownership illegal would prevent ALL gun crimes, same as making murder illegal did not prevent ALL murders. The problems I have with this "law abiding public" is the following: a). Some of them stop being law abiding and become criminals the first time they use a gun (Cho), hurting a lot of people this way. If they didn't have access to guns, I consider it very unlikely that they would get any - being non-criminals and having zero connections with underworld - therefore switching to something less lethal, or just committing a suicide. b). Some of them (up to 340K a year) gladly provide criminals with guns through negligence, letting their guns being stolen and then used to commit crimes, and having no real penalties for that. This is completely unacceptable. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Saying that it "doubled in decade" and "keeps skyrocketing" would mean that it was increasing like 10% a year, and keeps increasing. This is, of course, not the case. The crime rate more than doubled in first FOUR years, and was relatively stable after that (with recent declining). Good. So any "law abiding citizen" who supplied a criminal with a tool directly or through negligence should be prosecuted for 'aiding and abetting'. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

To make it more strict, so less people would even try. Why would they need to prove that? If the gun owner was negligent enough to have his guns stolen, he should not get any more guns. Since all of stolen guns are stolen by criminals (it is a crime to steal a gun, right?), it would be reasonable to assume that most of them will be used for criminal purposes. This way maybe people would start paying more attention to their guns than they do to their laptops. If this site is correct, there are 341,000 guns stolen each year in USA (I've seen other numbers, but never less than 150K a year). This is just fucking insane, and shows that there is a lot of gun "owners" who should have never been able to own a gun, Then it is anecdote for anecdote, as you didn't provide data either. After all, despite all those nasty gun bans and "skyrocketing gun crime", USA has 5.4 homicides per 100K while England has only 1.37, and UK has 2.03 (2009). * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

It is indeed meaningless in estimating the effect of a gun ban, but it is important enough to prove that the claim that "UK gun crime rate keeps skyrocketing" is indeed false - the rate is currently going down. I agree - note that the amount of those crimes committed might not actually increase (nobody counted them before so we can't say for sure). But since they started counting it, it indeed went from - to 2000. This makes impression that crime rate increased, while it was always there, just uncounted. In the same way, Russian homicides statistics for 2002-2003 showed major increase because the crime reporting system changed, making it very difficult to hide homicides from reporting. A criminal with this tool is more dangerous than without it. Are those who supply the tool to the criminal abiding the crime (and can be considered criminals as well)? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

I think that is wrong, and should be changed. My requirement is not bogus, it is very relevant. The fact you didn't like it does not make it bogus - unlike your example. Never heard of that (and I believe "suitcase nuke" is a hoax). For example, if you own a dog, and your dog runs away and bites someone, you are generally liable for its actions, even though it was clear negligence. Basically in this case you're punished because you did not secure the dog enough. In my opinion, a gun owner whose gun was stoled and then used in a crime should be barred from owning any more guns. Your opinion is not supported by real facts - supposedly "safe" European criminals did not bother me there more than here. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Yes, that is correct. Since you never know what the crime rate would be if the gun ban did not go into effect (you may speculate it would be 0.5x and not 2x, I can speculate it would be 5x instead of 2x), the mere fact the number doubled is meaningless. It may also mean that thing which weren't counted as crimes (imitations? BB guns) started to - for example, Uncle Jones keeping his guns and not telling anyone about them may be fine before the ban, but would be committing crime after the ban. And crime reducing for a few years is obviously valid point. This means that after initial period of increased crime it is stabilizing and going down - despite the population increase (which is important, as the crime count is absolute). The difference is statistics. Do you know if imitation handguns or BB guns were counted as "guns" before 2004? I guess they were not, because the statistics shows "-" in those fields, despite the total number being nonzero. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Some mortgage brokers went even further, by asking buyers to lie in the applications, and helping them with fake paystubs so they would qualify for the loan they'd never qualify otherwise. For everyone it looked like a good game: - For average Joes buying overpriced properties with zero down interest-only loans - it was a risk-free investment; if it goes up, you sell it and pack a profit, if it goes down, you walk away and let the bank foreclosure. - For banks giving our liar loans using only collateral (i.e. without verifying that the buyer is actually able to pay the loan off) they counted on either a buyer would sell (with or without profit) and pay the bill, or the buyer would fail, and the bank loan will stay in bankruptcy because the buyer lied to the bank about income. And of course it didn't work for anyone, except those who sold their properties before the burst. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

I agree, and this indeed sucks. Will write my Congresswomen and Senators offices. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

The "permanent" is the most important part there. Is it permanent ban, or it is lifted after the conviction expires? Criminals are not banned to carry money, so your example is bogus. But if for example a nuclear arsenal gets "robbed", everyone responsible for its security should be convicted, and permanently banned from guarding a nuclear arsenal in future. No, it is not. From what I read it is pretty much painless to provide criminals with guns by claiming there were "stolen" (or even have them really stolen - just leave them on the front seat on the parking lot). Those who contribute to providing guns to criminals, and therefore to gun crime increase, should be banned from owning guns completely. I don't care about criminals, I care about me and my family. I do not want to sacrifice safety of my family even if criminals also would be safer as a result. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

This one is interesting, because it explicitly mentions "the younger perpetrators are using cheaper shotguns and converted handguns". Now if you look on the Home Office statistics (see page 43), you will see that statistics for long shotguns is relatively straight (from 322 in 1998 to 375 in 2006 with the peak in 2004), and while it is ~15% increase, it means nothing if you look on total number (which is 21,521). The numbers for sawed-off shotguns decreased (from 320 to 267 - still not a huge number) Converted handguns are also explicitly mentioned in Home Office report. I suggest you check the numbers yourself (there are multiple lines), but the statistics speaks itself. Statistics for "handgun total" clearly shows that while the crime rate indeed doubled comparing to 1998, it peaked in 2001, and was below that afterwise, mostly going down. Air weapons, however, add significant numbers to statistics (10K in 2006). However as far as I know, they are not banned, so this cannot be attributed to "gun ban". This is a good one! However according to Home Office report (which matches the 1998 figure of 5,209) there were 11,071 firearm offenses (excluding air guns) in 2005, and 11,084 in 2006 - so the gun crime is clearly down, and not "keeps skyrocketing"! Also the report clearly shows that a huge contributor is what the report calls "imitation weapons", including BB gun and imitation firearm. Those crimes went up from 566 in 1998 to 3,275 in 2006, and those are counted as "firearms" (NOT as "air weapons"!). Sounds amusing, but open the report, and you'll see it yourself (count the numbers). If you're trying to say that the gun crime increased in UK despite the gun ban, it only makes sense to count those guns which are banned. Counting BB guns and imitations would be quite useless for such purpose. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Then I'm afraid you completely misunderstood my arguments. What should be done is making straw purchase a felony for those places where it isn't (if any), with permanent ban to own any guns. Same for those whose guns were stolen (or "stolen") - if you cannot properly guard your guns from getting into wrong hands, then you should not be allowed to own any. Well, I also put my money where my mouth is - a $200 contribution went to Brady, in honor of JohnRich (Too bad it is not federal tax deductible, I'd give more) * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Since you used quotes, I wonder whether you quoted someone, or you're just making things up? :) But yes, I indeed see more reason for gun control now. At least here in CA. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

I would like to see official Home Office report which shows yearly trends. However if you have a link to official Scotland Yard report I'd like to see it as well (mostly I'm interested whether they included air guns there). Your quote mentioned abstract "shootings", which may or may not be the same as "gun crime", depending on definition. Whatever you wish. All I have said. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *