The NRA isn't as fanatical as you want to paint them to be. They support three strikes you're out legislation, they support the stiffest penalties for being caught with an illegal firearm. They have programs set up across the country for education and safety. They aren't who is responsible for gun crimes.

There should be even stronger laws for criminals to disregard.

Sorry, this post is a (pardon my language) pile of crap. There are so many guns that can shoot through a 'bullet proof' vest that aren't even being considered for any kind of ban that the ban that has been proposed is utterly meaningless. Hell, with the right ammo any weapon of significant calibre can shoot through one.

The solution to police officers getting shot is not better body armor, it's putting the violent criminals away and keeping them put away. If you check their rap sheets the vast majority of the cop shooters are going to have long records of violence. Chances are they got out early because of prison overcrowding and overloaded courts.

The solution - let the damned drug offenders out of prison and stop prosecuting them, and use those resources to put the actual violent felons away and keep them out of society.

End of story.

Dave

I have to agree, Dave. Legal or not, violnt criminals will get a hold of guns and use them.

Until gun-control supporters are willing to admit that guns are only tools that can be used for any purpose peaceful or not, gun advocates will always be hostile to them and vice versa. The real issue is violient crime.

I was loathe to actually post a comment here because I know instinctively that the extremists on both sides of the argument will use it to kick off a firestorm ...but:

I'm not sure I understand the argument that restricting the availability of military-grade weapons (i.e. .50 cal. sniper rifle - used with great effect by the way in Afghanistan) to the public infringes on the right to bear arms. The last time I looked there were very few heavily armored deer roaming the north woods...and a .50 cal sniper rifle for home protection is...well, a trifle excessive don't you think? if you did shot the "intruder", the chances are pretty good it would blow through him, through the walls of your house and possibly through the neighbors as well, depending on the construction.

Isn't there a line between public good and personal safety?

We either have a right to bear arms or we don't. And realistically, arms should include just about any weapon that exists.

While most people don't have a need for a .50 calibre sniper rifle, some folks may want one for sporting purposes (long range competition shooting), nostalgia - i have a friend who was a sniper - or (horror of horrors) to shoot the guy trying to crash through your security gate in a truck and come in and rob your house. The truth is that very few people are going to buy a gun like this or be qualified to use it effectively. It's not like every hunter or homeowner is picking one up, so what's the point in the restriction?

And if you're going to ban the 50 cal sniper rifle, why not ban my 45-70 Sharps? It's just about as powerful and will certainly pierce body armor - hell, it will shoot through a buffalo lengthwise - and will let me hit targets at great range if I put a sight on it. Hell, if I put teflon rounds in my 30-06 I can pierce body armor and no one's banning plain old hunting rifles.

The whole body armor piercing argument is basically bogus. The kinds of people who get in gunfights with the cops have handguns, shotguns or at best maybe a small calibre submachinegun. They're not going to be lugging a .50 cal monstrosity into a convenience store - "Sanjit, back up so I can actually aim this gun at you across the counter, please."

This is just a case of incrementalism. Ban this gun so we can use it as a precedent for banning other guns...step by step we'll get them all.

Dave

No rights are absolute, including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. So the question of where to draw the line is in no way unreasonable

DaveNalle: "They're not going to be lugging a .50 cal monstrosity into a convenience store - "Sanjit, back up so I can actually aim this gun at you across the counter, please."

Yep, everyone KNOWS all convenience store clerks are dot-heads from some ferrin' country!

What a racist maroon.

===========

DaveNalle: "We either have a right to bear arms or we don't."

No, Davey, according to the Second Amendment, you have the right to a choice between a musket and an arquebus.


(Besides, do you really want Shark owning a .50 caliber sniper rifle?)

Shark, my local convenience store clerk is from Bangladesh. Where's yours from? I rest my case.
Some stereotypes exist because they are true.

We actually have a business association here in austin called the Greater Austin Merchants Association, which is composed enitrely of Pakistani, Bangladeshi and other east indian type convenience store owners. If there are enough of them to have their own chamber of commerce I'm not innacurate in my portrayal of a convenience store clerk likely being of that extraction.

Plus, I like them just fine, not a bit racist. I actually like them better than the Lebanese guy who runs the slightly farther away convenience store.

But back to the point...

>>No, Davey, according to the Second Amendment, you have the right to a choice between a musket and an arquebus.<<

Actually, at the time the Constitution was written they did have rifles and arquebuses were already very obsolete. And the point of the amendment was that we should be allowed to have contemporary military armament - just like the Swiss - and that should update with time. So I should be able to own a blackhawk and park it in my front yard.

>>>(Besides, do you really want Shark owning a .50 caliber sniper rifle?)<<

Sure, so long as I have a cruise missile.

Dave

Dave "Mr. Truism" Nalle: "...Shark, my local convenience store clerk is from Bangladesh. Where's yours from? I rest my case."

ANSWER: Don't rest it too soon, KlanBoy. Mine are all recently unemployed, college-educated white collar anglo-Americans who lost their jobs in the Bush economy. Oh, that and a few who used to work for Enron.

~Next question!



Dave's Interpretation of the Second Amendment:

"So I should be able to own a blackhawk and park it in my front yard."

Kinda adds ammo to your point about a "slippery slope" -- but I don't think it's the one you intended to make.

PS: Can Anthrax be considered "arms"??

xxoo,
Shark, (heading for the kitchen to cook something for Dave's Meals on Wheels)

Here comes the slippery slope. We shouldn't have allowed them to classify things over .50 BMG as prohibited without special license.

When was the last time you heard of someone being killed by a civilian with a .50 BMG?

"Klanboy" - ?! That's pretty funny. I myself wonder how the new Florida self-defence law is going to work out? Will crime shoot up (so to speak) from all the vigilantes defending themselves, or will it tank, because the criminally inclined aren't so sure they might not be the ones ending up on the wrong end of the bullet?

As for criminals, I agree there are too many in jail, but I think that's because not enough are getting ushered out of this vale of tears by the state (or the cops) fast enough. When someone only gets FIVE years for murder-?! And then everyone talks about 'you can't just execute these poor wayward men, it would make life cheap,' well, doesn't that make their victims' lives cheap? If we don't want to off them, then at least they can repay their debt to society by serving as test subjects for various products and medical procedures, instead of using animals. I think the probability of ending up as a living lab experiment might deter a lot more of those trigger-happy honchos out there than just jail time or death row.

A few years ago, Texas instigated the ol' 'concealed handgun' law. I don't think *crime changed much -- either up or down -- but that's because most Texans have carried handguns since the 1870s -- the 'concealed' part was the only thing new.

*road rage killings seemed to be much more convenient, although many of my fellow Texans found it's hard to shoot and drive while talking on a cell phone.

well over 60% of those incarcerated currently are in for non-violent posession of controlled substances..

that figure goes higher in some states, where statistics show up to 80% are in for simple marijuana possesion..

shows our priorities for incarceration, eh?

Excelsior!

re: Dave's "Sorry, this post is a (pardon my language) pile of crap."

and SFC's "The real issue is violient crime."

When you're right, you're right.

So-called gun control is a waste of time. Anyone can get whatever (s)he wants on the grey and black markets. What people need is a bit of self-control.

Mark

Okay, maybe legalizing drugs is political suicide. Fine. Let's not talk about legalizing drugs right now.

But how about this instead: let's pass a new law saying, whenever a prison is overcrowded, and the authorities must choose between releasing non-violent potheads or releasing violent murderers with long rap sheets of armed robberies and drive-by shootings, they have to release the non-violent inmates and keep the violent ones behind bars.

Could a politician still have a career after voting for such a law?

Consider this, I don't claim to be an expert on the dangers of various types of guns to police officers.

However, I believe police officers when they give their opinion on this matter.

When people who are well out of the line of fire give their opinions on just how important the right to bear arms is, it reminds me of the large number of pro-war people in our administration who did all they could to avoid war personally but have all sorts of philosophical reasons why OTHER people should be sent off to fight wars.

It's fine that many of you think that owning guns is an absolute black and white issue, but you might consider listening to what police officers and their organizations say...

They might know a little bit more about the PRACTICAL side of the issue that some paid staff members of the NRA don't have to deal with...

Most of the weapons that are in the proposed ban aren't legal for the "public" to get their hands on now as it is.

As for police officers and what they say on the subject....I know many and have several in my family. They support those who want to own guns and will help them find the proper safety and education classes to ensure responsible gun ownership. I'd say all but one that I know are members of the NRA. The one that isn't isn't because her husband is.

Victor, I'd urge my reps to vote for a law like you propose.

I would like to see firearms owners be responsible enough to take a safety course, oh wait, many of the m do, and they are sponsored by the NRA in many places, imagine that. (I don't own a fiream, BTW)

historically, there has been a slight increase in violent crime in states with CCW permits. not a huge jump, but a jump nonetheless.

and yesterday, a CCW permit holder shot a bouncer (a loving dad with four kids) outside a bar for kicking him out.

and i'm with Dave. there is no reason at all you should be able to have sniper rifles. the second amendment was built to create standing militias like the Swiss have used to great effect, not to give yahoo gun-nuts the right to own whatever instrument of death they want.

and what's so expensive in Eric Olsen's house that he has dudes in trucks barging through his front gate to rob his house (thus justifying the self-defense use of .50 calibers)? i think if he was rich enough for this to be the case he'd be too busy having a life to obsess over guns.

See, that is the flip-side of weapons ownership. Violent crimes like you describe above should be straight death penalty cases, no appeal, no years in jail, leet the trial be swift and fair, and if found guilty, zap.

Gun ownership is a right, but it should carry great responsibility as well. I'd go so far as to say that if you are a gun owner who is later convicted of a violent crime, domestic abuse, etc, you should forfeit gun ownership.

I reiterate the point of my question (which seems to have been lost in Dave's desire to have a bigger (ahem) cannon): Isn't there a line between public good and personal safety?

At what point does the right to self-protection outweigh the overall benefit to society as a whole? In short, does it make society as a whole safer to have everyone as heavily armed as possible? Where does the line get draw? Backyard nukes?

Bear in mind also that the Founding Fathers promulgated the right to bear arms a). more than 200 years ago in an era when frontier defense was, admittedly mostly "self-help" and b). in an era where a fast rate of fire was 2 to 4 shots per minute on average.

Is the current attitude of "all that arms I can bear, I will bear" a common-sense or defensible proposition in an era where a couple of schoolkids can pull down the equivilant firepower to a colonial brigade?

Snark: "Don't rest it too soon, KlanBoy. Mine are all recently unemployed, college-educated white collar anglo-Americans who lost their jobs in the Bush economy. Oh, that and a few who used to work for Enron."

Good self-serving response, but I don't believe you. I can prove mine with a photo. Bring me a photo of yours.

Shark, you can't make the Bush economy bad just by saying it. Unemployment is down, hiring is up, the stock market's doing fairly well. Your dark wishes don't blot out the sun, much though you'd like them to.

Dave

>>But how about this instead: let's pass a new law saying, whenever a prison is overcrowded, and the authorities must choose between releasing non-violent potheads or releasing violent murderers with long rap sheets of armed robberies and drive-by shootings, they have to release the non-violent inmates and keep the violent ones behind bars.<<

Right on target, Victor. But don't forget the child molestors. They should be cheated just like armed robbers or murderers. We also ought to do the only real gun control which works, which is to automatically tack 10 years mandatory onto any sentence for a felony involving a gun.

>>Could a politician still have a career after voting for such a law?<<

I certainly hope so.

Dave

I think it depends on the attitude as to why they want guns. I have quite the collection of guns. Most of them are kept at the ranch in the "gun room" where they are all locked up. The ammo is kept in another room. Why do we have enough to fill a room with them? Well first, my family is full of hunters. Secondly, there are some cool guns out there. But they should all be treated with respect and safety because in the wrong hands they can be deadly.

I don't think that a majority of the NRA members or those wanting to protect their right to be armed think that everyone out there should own a gun and own lots of them.

And there is a reason that the NRA conventions include many manufacturers of gun safes- so that not everyone can access the guns in a building anyway.

In my view, there is a line, but most laws will not do anything to differentiate between the two.

You can make an argument that a lot of things endanger the public good, all you can do is make the penalties so severe in hopes that people will think twice before violating them. Look at DUI laws, for that matter, what are the penalties for carrying an unlicensed firearm? They should be pretty steep, otherwise, why get a license?

Background checks should be very thorough, as well.

Cost is another factor, a .50 Cal rifle is upwards of US $2000, that will keep it out of the hands of most. Most criminals, or kids prepping for a shooting spree are not going to shell out that kind of many.

As for kids or adults getting that kind of firepower, they have already broken laws to get the weapons, what good will one more law do? For the most part, they feel they have nothing to lose, so the issue is their mental health, not guns.

The process for getting a firearm should be stringent enough to weeed out the irresponsible few from the majority, IMO, of responsible gun owners.

Daniel seems to have confused me and Eric O and someone else.

>>historically, there has been a slight increase in violent crime in states with CCW permits. not a huge jump, but a jump nonetheless. <<

Actually, I believe that if you check both violent crimes and property crimes declined dramatically in Florida after they passed CCW and violent crime nationwide has also been down dramatically since numerous states passed CCW.

>>and i'm with Dave. there is no reason at all you should be able to have sniper rifles. the second amendment was built to create standing militias like the Swiss have used to great effect, not to give yahoo gun-nuts the right to own whatever instrument of death they want.<<

I'm pretty sure a standing militia would need snipers, hence sniper rifles.

>>and what's so expensive in Eric Olsen's house that he has dudes in trucks barging through his front gate to rob his house (thus justifying the self-defense use of .50 calibers)? i think if he was rich enough for this to be the case he'd be too busy having a life to obsess over guns.<<

That's my house. My gun collection might be expensive enough for them to do that. But just like anyone I own some stuff that migh justify a home invasion. A couple of late model cars, family silver, the usual stuff. Regardless of why they might break in, shouldn't my family have the right to be protected?

Dave

As for what weapons fall under the 'right to keep and bear arms', assuming we're all part of the unorganized militia, it should be the personal arms which any military person would carry. An assault rifle and a personal sidearm. That's how they handle it in Switzerland. Things like WMDs and orbital weapons platforms would still remain in the special domain of the government.

Dave

BTW, a .50 caliber rifle does not automatically make a person a sniper, it does not have some magical targeting device.

I agree the economics of the situation (i.e. powerful guns are more expensive, therefore less widespread) and more responsible gun ownership can impact the situation. The real societal danger is not necessarily hunting rifles (not even high-powered ones), armor-piercing ammo, or the odd obsessive collector's desire to own small anti-tank weapons - the day-to-day danger is small, cheaply available, easily concealable handguns and automatic weapons.

Throwing out the examples of the Swiss is disingeneous as while the Swiss do have military weapons in practically every home, they also have mandatory participation in the Reserves, and the training that goes with it. In addition, I would point out that Switzerland is distinctly different than the US in size and demographics (namely lower income disparity between rich and poor and a stronger social support network).

I don't think you can paint the issue in black-and-white terms or absolutism on either side of the argument as with Dave's comment "We either have a right to bear arms or we don't. And realistically, arms should include just about any weapon that exists."

That's the kind of all-or-nothing approach that makes developing a solution to the problem impassable. You need legal reformation (aimed at targeting criminal activity involving use of firearms) coupled with registration, enforcement, education and, yes, restrictions on certain specific types of weapons.

Demonizing gun owners is idiocy but failing to recognize that there are common-sense limits to the right to bear arms is also idiocy of the highest caliber.

>>I don't think you can paint the issue in black-and-white terms or absolutism on either side of the argument as with Dave's comment "We either have a right to bear arms or we don't. And realistically, arms should include just about any weapon that exists."

That's the kind of all-or-nothing approach that makes developing a solution to the problem impassable. You need legal reformation (aimed at targeting criminal activity involving use of firearms) coupled with registration, enforcement, education and, yes, restrictions on certain specific types of weapons.<<

I did point out a good common sense restriction in my subsequent post. Just limit people to rifles and pistols of whatever design and leave the WMDs and armored vehicles and such to the military.

Dave

Dave,

So you propose putting criminals away while simultaneously creating them? Do you intend on paying for this make-criminals project? paying for thier court costs and their jail time.

Why not take care of the problem at its root. Obviously violent criminals dont care that they are violent. OBviously they have nothing to loose. Waiting until they shoot someone and then locking them away is not a viable answer.

Secondly you seem to have this rediculous notion that violent people are born that way. It's not like there is going to be a select number of violent people born each year and we merely have to identify them and toss them in jail.

We need stronger social programs to prevent the family situations that create these criminals.

Secondly, the NRA supporst semiautomatic weapons and concealable weapons which have no use in hunting animals. There is no need for that shit. Don;t defend there ignorant asses.

>>So you propose putting criminals away while simultaneously creating them? Do you intend on paying for this make-criminals project? paying for thier court costs and their jail time. <<

Sydney, are you responding to someone else named Dave, because I never said anything like this. I suggested letting non-violent drug offenders out so we could keep violent criminals behind bars longer.

>>Why not take care of the problem at its root. Obviously violent criminals dont care that they are violent. OBviously they have nothing to loose. Waiting until they shoot someone and then locking them away is not a viable answer.<<

So you favor pre-emptive arrests? Perhaps when they first bully someone in grade school we just take them out behind the school and euthanize them?

>>Secondly you seem to have this rediculous notion that violent people are born that way. It's not like there is going to be a select number of violent people born each year and we merely have to identify them and toss them in jail.<<

Um, where the hell do you get that idea from anything I've said here?

>>We need stronger social programs to prevent the family situations that create these criminals.<<

Or perhaps if we incarcerate the violent fathers for the duration of a childhood the violent kids will grow up a bit more pulled together.

>>Secondly, the NRA supporst semiautomatic weapons and concealable weapons which have no use in hunting animals. There is no need for that shit. Don;t defend there ignorant asses.<<

I'm one of 'there (sic) ignorant asses'. Hunting is one reason for guns. Personal and home defense is another very important reason. Concealed carry has lowered crime everywhere it's been introduced, and while I don't see an absolute need for private citizens to have fully automatic weapons I see no reason to prohibit them.

Dave

Why pass more gun laws when the gun laws we have are not being enforced? Is there any assurance that new laws will be enforced any more than the ones we're not enforcing now? Will criminals obey new laws more than current laws? Of course the answer is no. If government is serious about the issue, let it prove it by enforcing current gun laws. The whole issue is more about politics than guns.

Wow, I just love this argument that, "Well, not everyone will obey the law, so we should just not have that law."

It's true, if you pass a law, someone will break it. Everytime you pass a law, you create criminals. It's true.

If you build a tall bridge, someone is almost certain to jump off. I guess we should just build all bridges without railings.

If we make murder illegal, only criminals will be murderers. We'd better make murder legal.

I've always had a bit of a secret admiration of anarchy, I just happen to also think its a good way to put civilization back about 5,000 years.


Now on to a different subject...

I'm exaggerating a bit about the NRA's position, I've heard they do sponsor gun training classes, I'm for that.

But when the NRA pushes for the absolute necessity of Americans to own .50 caliber sniper rifles, well, they just sound like nut cases. It sometimes appears that the NRA's leadership is a little farther out on the edge on these kinds of issues than their own membership would support.

It is NOT REALLY necessary for Americans to be able to buy .50 caliber sniper rifles, and if we are really worried about national security, we won't sell weapons built for assasinations.

It's true, some long distance target shooters will have to give up their hobbies. Already we have brutually restricted the rights of those who would like to plant land mines for sport and those who would like to for purely personal enjoyment set off poisonous gas bombs. They are FORCED to give up those enjoyable hobbies, I think the long distance target shooter will also be able to find at least one other thing to do with their lives.

>>Wow, I just love this argument that, "Well, not everyone will obey the law, so we should just not have that law."<<

I see you've been reading Montesquieu again...

>>But when the NRA pushes for the absolute necessity of Americans to own .50 caliber sniper rifles, well, they just sound like nut cases.<<

Except they don't push for the 'necessity', they push for the RIGHT to own the gun of your choice. Not at all the same thing.

>>I think the long distance target shooter will also be able to find at least one other thing to do with their lives.<<

Why should he have to? There's no sensible reason to ban these weapons. They're no more dangerous than many other weapons which aren't being banned, and you just single out a specialized group to penalize.

PLUS, they're banning ONE type of long distance sniper rifle. There are many others, and custom made equivalents which won't be banned, so what's the point?

Dave

They don't try to FORCE anyone to buy a type of gun or even call it a necessity. The NRA simply is there defending their second amendment right as they see it. They are actually a lot tamer than most give them credit for. There are individuals within the group that are a bit more extreme, but geez.

I own some guns that aren't used for hunting purposes. Why? Because I think it is fun to go to a range and shoot at a target.

You are a wise man, -E. It's even more fun to dress up in a cowboy costume and go shoot at targets with cowboy-era guns.

Dave

Too bad I'm female. Can I still be wise? I can't say I've dressed up as a cowgirl to shoot though. If I go to Manor dressed that way, would they even let me on the range?

Then you're a wise woman, -E. Didn't realize you're a female. Dressing up as a cowgirl is even better, but I'm afraid there's no cowboy shooting here in Manor. You have to go to the wilds of Driftwood or Smithville or Fredericksburg. But we still welcome anyone dressed up in costume just on principle here in Manor.

Dave

Sorry Dave Nalle,
I was responding to another Daves post I guess.

In any case, you, say..
"So you favor pre-emptive arrests? Perhaps when they first bully someone in grade school we just take them out behind the school and euthanize them?"

I never said I favour pre-emptive arrests. Obviously not. I do favour directing most of the penal system/law enforcment government monies towards pre-emptive measures, namely social security avenues (free health care, welfare, unemployment insurance, better education). These avenues are the ONLY ways to lower the number of violent crimes.

Clearly, research indicates that longer sentences and stricter sentences are not deterrents for violent crimes. They don't make an ounce of difference. The only reason gov't's go this avenue is because ignorant voters think it'll work. And because the American people are by their nature vindictive and blood thirsty. The American people can't appreciate that unhealthy social behaviours are created in unhealthy social environments. No no.. that's too complex for the average American. Instead, we'll just electrocute them and condemn them to eternal hell if they murder. This ought to stop violent crimes..

-E

"The NRA simply is defending their second amendment right"

What the fuck does it matter that there is a 2nd amendment right to carry firearms? Use your fuckin head and quit repeating nonsensical slogans.

America once had laws that protected slave owners. Should we have not abolished slavery just because it was the American peoples right to have them at one time.

Dave Says,

"Hunting is one reason for guns. Personal and home defense is another very important reason. Concealed carry has lowered crime everywhere it's been introduced, and while I don't see an absolute need for private citizens to have fully automatic weapons I see no reason to prohibit them."

-- Firstly, that concealable weapon statistic is a complete lie and you should be ashamed of yourself.

Dave the reason you feel you need to cary a gun to protect yourself is because everyone around you is carrying guns also. Use your fuckin head man. In England the beat cops don't even carry guns. Why not? Because they don't need them, despite dealing with crime every day.

In Canada, no one carries a weapon, and yet they feel far more secure than we do here? Why is this Dave? Because they don't feel they'll ever have to defend themselves against a gun. And naturally they wont. Statistically, more people win the lottery in each year than will be victimized by a gun crime over my lifetime. Canadians don't need them because the only guns they have are rifles that are locked away in our homes.

But I suppose you know best and as you always say America can do no wrong. There is no problem with guns in America. They are defending us each and every day. Without handguns and semiautomatic weapons we would be dropping like flies. IT would be a massacre. Thank god we have them. And if these people weren't dieing at the hands of guns they'd probably be killed by other means , like a knife attack. Oh most definitely this is the case.

Oh and .. I think we have the right to bear nuclear arms as well. IF I had a nuke no one would mess with me. What criminal in their right mind would runt the risk of me wiping the entire state off the map? Anway I have this right, says it in the 2nd amendment.

Sydney opined:

>>I never said I favour pre-emptive arrests. Obviously not. I do favour directing most of the penal system/law enforcment government monies towards pre-emptive measures, namely social security avenues (free health care, welfare, unemployment insurance, better education). These avenues are the ONLY ways to lower the number of violent crimes. <<

These things are all desirable to a certain extent, but they won't make crime go away, they'll just expand the class of those dependent on the state and the class from which criminals come, though you can never go wrong with education.

>>Clearly, research indicates that longer sentences and stricter sentences are not deterrents for violent crimes. They don't make an ounce of difference. The only reason gov't's go this avenue is because ignorant voters think it'll work.<<

This is, of course, obviously not true. The longer a violent criminal stays in jail the fewer opportunities he has to commit crimes. It's not a deterrent, it's a prophylactic, directly protecting society by keeping the violent criminal out of circulation.

>> And because the American people are by their nature vindictive and blood thirsty. The American people can't appreciate that unhealthy social behaviours are created in unhealthy social environments. No no.. that's too complex for the average American. Instead, we'll just electrocute them and condemn them to eternal hell if they murder. This ought to stop violent crimes..<<

An unhealthy social environment is created by forcing people to live in the midst of criminal violence. Most of the victims of violent crime are people of limited means and opportunity themselves. Taking the criminal element out of their lives will give them more of a chance to succeed.

>>What the fuck does it matter that there is a 2nd amendment right to carry firearms? Use your fuckin head and quit repeating nonsensical slogans.<<

It matters because here in the US we have a Constitution and it forms the basis of our laws and we believe in law and rights.

>>-- Firstly, that concealable weapon statistic is a complete lie and you should be ashamed of yourself.<<

You seem rather poorly informed on this issue. Violent crime has gone down in every state where CCW has been passed. Florida is the test case, of course. Violent crime there dropped 21% in the first 5 years after it was adopted there, at a time when the national rate of violent crime rose 12%.
You can see more info on this at http://home.wi.rr.com/ccw4wi/nra.html. You can see the same pattern in Texas after CCW/CHL was adopted here, the violent crime arrests dropped about 20% in the first 5 years after adoption. You can see this on the chart at http://www.tsra.com/arrests.htm

MT is harassing me about URLs in my posts again, so I'm splitting this response in two.

Dave

>>Dave the reason you feel you need to cary a gun to protect yourself is because everyone around you is carrying guns also.<<

Interesting theory, except that I don't carry a gun and am not at all concerned about others carrying one. If you refer to the second page I noted above, you'll see that the rate of violent crime is almost 8 times lower among those who have concealed carry licenses. They're not the people to worry about.

>> Use your fuckin head man. In England the beat cops don't even carry guns. Why not? Because they don't need them, despite dealing with crime every day.<<

And in England crime has been climbing year to year and there's now a powerful movement to bring back handguns and legalize the use of guns for home defense. More and more people there are realizing that their experiment in gun control has failed abyssmally. I refer you to the following articles:

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a39171442616c.htm
http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared/readmore.asp?sNav=nr&id=570

That second link also addresses the failure of gun control in Australia and Canada.

Damn MT is irritating. Looks like this has to be a 3 part post.

Dave

>>In Canada, no one carries a weapon, and yet they feel far more secure than we do here?<<

Really? In the last 10 years your violent crime rate has increased while the violent crime rate in the US has declined dramatically. Many people attribute this to the expanded gun control Canada implemented in 1998 vs. the implementation of concealed carry in the US in the same period. See this article: http://johnrlott.tripod.com/op-eds/NationalPost61504.html

>> Why is this Dave? Because they don't feel they'll ever have to defend themselves against a gun. And naturally they wont. Statistically, more people win the lottery in each year than will be victimized by a gun crime over my lifetime. Canadians don't need them because the only guns they have are rifles that are locked away in our homes.<<

Except that this is not true, and violent crime of all sorts, including gun crime is increasing in Canada, and property crime is increasing at an even greater rate. See this article: http://www.fradical.com/Violent_crime_statistics_Canada.htm

>>But I suppose you know best and as you always say America can do no wrong. <<

Now when did I ever say that?

>>There is no problem with guns in America. They are defending us each and every day. Without handguns and semiautomatic weapons we would be dropping like flies. IT would be a massacre. Thank god we have them. And if these people weren't dieing at the hands of guns they'd probably be killed by other means , like a knife attack. Oh most definitely this is the case.<<

Seems like you're coming around at last.

Dave

Actually Dave,

Your source the National Post is Canada's version of right wing journalism (even owned by a big oil company, just like here in America)

The statistics they use are bogus and they represent homicide rate in any case, not gun crimes.

Anyway as I said, here is from Stats-Can a more reliable source

"The violent crime rate in Canada has fallen 11 percent since 1993.
"The homicide rate for Canada went down 7 percent in 2003 to its lowest level in over 35 years. A total of 548 homicides were reported to police.
Saskatchewan had the highest homicide rate in the country, and the four Atlantic provinces had the lowest homicide rates in Canada."

Anyway didn't see the gun crime stats but anyway... obviously there were far less than America as the homicides were only 548 in 2003. Actually... I seem to recall that in 2003 Canda had 63 gun murders and Australia had 33. I remember this from Bowling ofr Columbine.

A decrease in violent crimes in America doesn't mean shit because its so bloody high as is.

BE objective Dave, admit there is a problem. And carrying guns is exacerbating the problem.

Interesting and important post, BTP.

I read through about it and about half the comments and here's what I see as the upshot:

#1
- E Olsen makes a great statement:

No rights are absolute, including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. So the question of where to draw the line is in no way unreasonable

LOL, you cited Bowling for Columbine. How seriously do you expect anyone to take you?

And I was talking violent crime in general, not just gun crime. And even more significant is the increase in property crime. Having guns really lowers property related crime, and it's the area where Canada has been seeing the most substantial increase.

In 2003 the US had the lowest rate of violent crime it has had since the 1960s, that's pretty significant. Gun crime was also down proportionally, and property crime declined even more. Canada's decrease in violent crime is relatively recent and has not been sustained for as long, and is not nearly as dramatic.

Interesting only 6.6% of our homicides come from firearms, while 29% of the homicides in Canada come from firearms. Makes it look like guns are a bigger problem in Canada with your gun control than they are here in the US.

But the truth behind the higher violent death stats in the US isn't the guns, it's the CARS. All the cars and the highways and the rush hours and the bad driving are what kill the overwhelming majority of the Ameircans who die violent deaths. Guns are a trivial factor in comparison.

Dave

The property crime rate in Canada, including residential and business break-ins and vehicle thefts, went up 4 percent in 2003.

That was from a 20 year low the year before, so the rate is still more than 25 percent lower than it was a decade ago.

That sounds like a great increase to you?

Secondly, your stats are just wrong. the percentages you give are wrong. I gave you my souce, stats can, you show me yours.

Do you really think that criminals are aware of recent increases in gun ownership and are now not committing crimes as a result. Give me a break. A junkie doesnt read up on statistics. Al he knows is that when he needs a fix he's steal to get it. If he has a gun handy, he'll use that to make his robbery easier. If he didnt have access to a gun, well then he'd use a knife or somthing less effective.

>>The property crime rate in Canada, including residential and business break-ins and vehicle thefts, went up 4 percent in 2003. <<

And the overall crime rate was up 6%.

>>That was from a 20 year low the year before, so the rate is still more than 25 percent lower than it was a decade ago.<<

And what, 50% higher than it was 20 years ago?

>>That sounds like a great increase to you?<<

Pretty significant, yes at a time when crime rates are going down dramatically in the US which is the most comparable country around.

I am curious about Saskatoon and Regina - they have crime rates virtually identical to the US's overall rates. That's kind of odd, since they're mostly rural areas, while most crime in the US is concentrated in urban areas.

>>Secondly, your stats are just wrong. the percentages you give are wrong. I gave you my souce, stats can, you show me yours.<<

I already showed you multiple sources. Just because you don't like The Daily, that doesn't mean its stats are wrong.

>>Do you really think that criminals are aware of recent increases in gun ownership and are now not committing crimes as a result. Give me a break. A junkie doesnt read up on statistics. Al he knows is that when he needs a fix he's steal to get it. If he has a gun handy, he'll use that to make his robbery easier. If he didnt have access to a gun, well then he'd use a knife or somthing less effective.<<

Each criminal who gets shot and killed while committing a crime is one less criminal who'll go back and commit another. With our legal system releasing armed robbers in under 3 years per conviction, shooting them is about the only way to really get them off the streets.

Dave

And besides, where do you get off using America as some sort of example for progress in lowering of violent crimes and gun crimes.

Of all developed nations it is among the worst in these categories. Why don't you just admit that America hasn't found the answer to the problem, nor have they identified the source of the problem and eliminated it.

Other countries aim to improve social structures and have had relative success in lowering crime rates. America on the other hand recommends people carry more guns to eliminate crime? Sounds Brilliant. Why hasn't the rest of the world thought of this?

Your so proud that your sounding like a fool Dave. Admit to yourself that America needs to change its ways. The country is hemorrhaging and you refuse to take advice on how to solve the problem.

On this last post you're just wrong Sydney. The US has always had a high rate of violence. Recently there has been a really substantial decline and I can only attribute that to CCW and similar developments. There's more than one way to skin a cat. Gun control would never work in the US. It's just not practical. Going to other way may not be as effective as gun control would be in a country like Soviet Russia where the government really has complete control, but in a free society it might be the best way to minimize violent crime while preserving liberty.

Dave

I can only attribute that to CCW and similar developments

attribute away...however, that's a classic logical fallacy (correlation implies causation).

and not that i'm not saying there should be more gun control, just that the statistics (carrying weapons vs. crime rate) imply nothing.

I'll give you this, JR. That's an interesting study and a fascinating hypothesis. It's not nearly enough to account for the drop in crime, but it could certainly be a contributing factor.

>>Give me a brake....AMerica is going bankrupt trying to turn the world inside out..... Gun control is totally practical. You just pass legislations and sieze illegal weapons as they appear. Also, you stop gun companies from producing these lethal weapons. TEn years down the road weapons would be pretty damn hard to find and anyone that could find them would be paying a hefty price to access them.<<

Except that this has NEVER worked, anywhere, EVER. Look at England. It's been an utter failure there. Total gun control can only work in a totally controlled environment. You'd need a police state with closed borders to keep illegal guns out of the hands of criminals.

>>Certainly they wouldnt be traded around highschools and backallys as they are now.<<

Wrong. That's where you'd have to go to buy them because that's the one place they would still be available.

>>CCW is rediculous principle.. I don't know how you believe that nonsense. However, I havent any argument against it since its such an abstract correlation your drawing. There is no logic behind it... I don't know how anyone could link CCW to lower crimes... There are so many variables that come to bare on those statistics..<<

The theory behind it is brilliantly simple. CCW acts as a deterrent to the criminal before he acts, and as a counter to criminal force when he acts. That's all there is to it. Simple and pretty much uncontrovertible.

Dave

Why are current gun laws not being enforced? Is it because criminals do not report their illegal weapons to the police? Unless we figure out a way to change criminal behavior it is an exercise in futility to layer more laws on top of laws that are not effective now. It is obvious that politicians don't know how to enforce current gun laws so they make it appear they are doing something constructive by creating new laws. Politicians love to do what is easy and does not cost much. More gun laws is "political progress" and it sounds good in election campaigns. But if criminals now have the ability to obtain weapons illegally and commit crimes with them, what is going to change after more laws are passed? Can someone predict that there will be less crime? How are street gangs in LA going to be influenced or affected by a new gun law? If there is no reduction in crime, what is the value of more laws? Crimes are committed by criminals, not guns. Criminals are the problem. Focus on the problem even though it is more complex and has no simple solution that politicians can easily latch onto.

P.S. France had a solution that worked a century ago -- Devil's Island. Bleeding hearts may not like it but it worked. (The place could be polished up a bit).

politics of michael moore aside, i do think one of the central questions of bowling for columbine is "why do we kill so much with guns".

it's an interesting question. i mean, canadians have just as many (if not more) guns than we do, though their murder rates are quite low.

>>it's an interesting question. i mean, canadians have just as many (if not more) guns than we do, though their murder rates are quite low.<<

That would certainly suggest that the guns are not the problem and banning them would not therefore be a solution.

Dave

A question posed is, "why do we kill so much with guns". The answer is simple. It is not "we". It is a "certain segment" of our population that is prone to violence. We are a mixture of various cultures and some of the cultures tend to condone violence more than others. The violence has been increasing and now includes teen age children because we have immersed them in an electronic morass of violence. Monkey see -- monkey do. The optimum solution is to ferret out and isolate the violators so they cannot harm innocent people. But we don't do that -- we have revolving doors in our prisons. The average prison time served for murder in this country is only seven years. A 21-year-old with a theoretical life span of 84 years is able to commit nine murders during his lifetime. One should be more than enough to lock the criminal up and throw away the key.

A question posed is, "why do we kill so much with guns". The answer is simple. It is not "we". It is a "certain segment" of our population that is prone to violence.

Okay. Why does a certain segment of our population kill so much with guns, and not the same segment of other countries' populations?

The optimum solution is to ferret out and isolate the violators so they cannot harm innocent people. But we don't do that -- we have revolving doors in our prisons. The average prison time served for murder in this country is only seven years.

Really? What's the average prison time served for murder in European countries with lower murder rates?

A 21-year-old with a theoretical life span of 84 years is able to commit nine murders during his lifetime. One should be more than enough to lock the criminal up and throw away the key.

Well, as it stands, three is enough. Although, I suspect that even a second murder conviction will get you far more than the average sentence, let alone the minimum you might have gotten away with after the first one.

This, by the way, is a great example of how to use arithmatic to derive nonsense. Find me one example of someone who's been convicted of murder, imprisoned and released nine times. (On the bright side, at least your imaginary criminal justice system isn't wasting any time putting your imaginary repeat offender away.)

I don't know where this conversation is going (because I'm too lazy to read through 63 comments), but I would like to say that the second amendment (the right to bear arms) was created because there were no police forces in the 18th century in America, and to give consent for armed militias for national security. Those militias (hope I spelled it right) became the military and policing forces. They provide protection (the effectiveness of it is another thing) for the citizens of the States. So, theorectically, citzens have no use for guns. One might bring up the arguement of protection, and that's peasible to some extent, but there SHOULD NOT be a damn NRA.

Death to Society.

Wrong, Demogod. Totally backwards. We should keep the 2nd Amendment and the citizen militia and get rid of the standing army. That's what the founding fathers had in mind.

Dave

Are you serious?

In these days and times, we NEED a standing army. First off, in saying you want a citizen militia, you are for some sort of conscription, of draft. I don't think so. Also, do you really WANT our country to be destroyed by terrorism? I think the army is doing a good job on the war on terrorism (not the war in Iraq, however).

Also, you gotta understand that the founding fathers made the laws according to the times in which they were living in. I think the founding fathers would realize that an army is way better than a militia in fighting overseas battles. The founding fathers never would've DREAMED that America would be this powerful, so of course they would talk about militias instead of armies. But that's then, this is now. The 2nd amendment should be reduced greatly.

"Also, you gotta understand that the founding fathers made the laws according to the times in which they were living in."

I don't know, it sounds like you might be drifting into "temporal relativism", shifty cousin of "moral relativism".

Right now our standing army is depending on the national guard and reserves who are NOT a standing army to do a great deal of its work. What's the difference between that and having each state run its own volunteer militia and contribute to a national army as needed when we are threatened? As far as basic liberties go it's a huge difference, but as far as the practicalities go the difference is minimal. We'd need to keep the basic military bureaucracy and management aparatus on the federal level, but we could easily return all recruiting and organizing and mustering responsibilities to the individual states.

As far as protection against terrorism, except in instances where we make war against terrorist nations that job is never going to be done by our military.

The preference for an all-volunteer, decentralized citizen army doesn't have anything to do with the time frame of the founding fathers, it's just basic sound policy for any age.

The main point is to never, ever have a draft, and to leave as much of the actual fighting personnel on a part-time or as needed basis. We're actually very close to that with our current military, but we should acknowledge it, expand the national guard and reserve as much as possible and make sure that in times of peace the standing allotment of troops is reduced as much as possible. Key to doing this would be closing almost all of our permanent overseas basis, as they are what justifies a professional army. Domestically there's no reason for a standing army.

As for the 2nd amendment, it's absolutely essential. Gun ownership, hunting and gun training are a basic requirement for a society which wants to produce a population of young men and women qualified for and willing to fight in a volunteer army. Get rid of the 2nd amendment and the boy scouts and hunting and competitive sports - hey wait, aren't leftists trying to do all of these - and you end up with no one who's prepared or wants to join the military and thus, no military.

Dave

So, I don't think it makes a difference. I can combine the two to say that the 2nd amendment is a pile of horseshit.

You can say anything you want - because we have a bill of rights which says you can say it, no matter how foolish. And what protects that right is that the people can bear arms and defend their rights if need be.

Dave

But that doesn't mean create an organization of trigger-happy southern whites that travel to cities promoting the 2nd amendment after something as tragic as a school shooting.

Ok, never mind. You're a fool. Go watch some more Michael Moore films and swallow the lies whole.

Just for the record - and even liberals on here will tell you this is true - the NRA convention in Denver was scheduled two years before Columbine happened and the reservaton could not be cancelled as it was already paid. Because of the Columbine incedent and in respect for the dead, they closed the NRA convention early and sent everyone home. Interesting how Michael Moore failed to mention any of those facts in his movie.

Dave

the Second Amendment sez..

*A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.*

why is it no one ever mentions the "well regulated militia" part?

sounds like the National Guard and/or the police force to me...

being the grandson of a gunsmith..i see them as merely tools..dangerous tools..but of no intrinsic value for either "good" nor "evil" beyond any other tool..

that being said..i need a license for my car...to own a business...to even use some tools in many states for commercial purposes...

hell..i have a license for my dog

so why any fuss about adequate documentation and licensing of a firearem, including ballistic profile and requiring documentation of the sale or transfer of said firearms to another person?

to me..if the NRA folks and others of their type coudl get on board with that simple reality...the entire debate would be rendered moot...

that's just my one sixth billionths of the world's Opinion...

what's yours?

Excelsior!

>>*A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.*

why is it no one ever mentions the "well regulated militia" part?<<

I believe I did Gonzo, at great length in fact. But don't forget the punctuation in there. The Well Regulated Militia is necessary, but the right to keep and bear arms is a precursor to it by the construction of the sentence. Everyone needs to have and know how to use weapons, so that when we want to raise the militia they'll be ready and equipped. So the right to keep and bear arms is paramount - the militia is just something it makes possible.

>>sounds like the National Guard and/or the police force to me...<<

The national guard, sure - but not the police force unless we have a part time volunteer one. The police we have to day are basically mercenaries hired by communities.

>>that being said..i need a license for my car...to own a business...to even use some tools in many states for commercial purposes...

hell..i have a license for my dog<<

Thank god I don't live in a state where I need a business license, a dog license or a license for my power tools. This is exactly why leaving all this licensing crap in the hands of the individual states instead of the feds is such a good idea.

>>so why any fuss about adequate documentation and licensing of a firearem, including ballistic profile and requiring documentation of the sale or transfer of said firearms to another person?<<

This is opposed mainly because a good portion of the people who own guns can't see any reason for this sort of licensing other than an eventual seizure of their guns by the government. And as they see it the first thing a dictatorship does after seizing the media is to seize all the guns. While I don't see it as a likely occurance, I can't say that they're 100% nuts.

Dave

Mr Nalle sez..
*This is opposed mainly because a good portion of the people who own guns can't see any reason for this sort of licensing other than an eventual seizure of their guns by the government.*

the operative here is "can't see"

while i was not directing my commentary against yours, Mr Nalle..i stand by my statements...

i know the tired argument of "they will come and take my guns"...but as i had thought i had pointed out..most of the worries are removed when you extract the teeth of gun control advocates by installing a system similar to what i have mentioned..

if it ever came to pass that our government would abridge the amendments to the constitution in such a fashion as to abrogate the second and fourth Amendments , among others...well then...

no amount of home firearms is going to help...eh?

or are they going to use a 30-06 against a thermonuclear device?

your mileage may vary..

Excelsior!

You can't use a nuke against a bunch of citizens and keep a functioning country going. You have to go after them one by one with infantry or maybe AirCav, and if there are enough of them and they're organized enough they will be able to fight back effectively even with 30-06s.

If it's 250K military troops vs. 20 million armed citizens I'll go with the 20 million armed citizens.

Dave

There's been enough hot air blown around here to fuel a hot air baloon.

Sorry about that -- I tried to spell balloon.

You should try to stay away from efforts which are beyond your level of competence, RealCon. You might hurt yourself.

Dave

Confucius say -- "He who have no competence like to accuse man who do."

After reading Dave's posts -- Confucius also say -- "Dave have head up rectum most of time".

"the reservaton could not be cancelled as it was already paid."

What bunk! Just because the reservation couldn't be cancelled doesn't mean the event couldn't be. If they were able to end it early, why couldn't they have cancelled it? Was losing the deposit so terrible? It happens to people all the time. The NRA doesn't appear to be short of cash, and if the members are so reasonable, they would have understood under the circumstances.

They DID candel it. Did you not read what I wrote?

Dave

About NRA Conventions- they are scheduled much further in advance than 2 years. They usually pick the location and time at least 8 years in advance.

As for the convention- it pretty much was canceled. They only held the voting for officers and such. That is what the main part of the convention is. They didn't hold any of the workshops or guest lectures, nor did they have the gun show that normally accompanies the NRA Convention.

And this is coming from someone that many consider to be a liberal. Oops, I stated something about my political beliefs. Crap.

Well still, even if the NRA meeting WAS cancelled, the bottom line is that citizens really don't need guns for anything legal. WE don't live in the 18th century. We don't need a citizen's militia. Who the fuck are we gonna fight? The guns should be in the hands of the people protecting us and protecting freedom. The police and military. Dave, if you like guns so much, why don't you join the army or something? You're just trying to find reasons to keep your weapons of murder.

Demigodd, you and most of America have missed the entire point of the 2nd Amendment. It's to protect yourself and your family from external threats, be it a foreign country that attacks, a lone person or group who attempt to rob you, and especially to keep your own government from oppressing you.

Don't think that just because have police we, the common man, don't need guns. There's one cop for around 1200 citizens. They're not equipped to protect us, it's our responsiblity to stand up.

I'm not telling you that you *have* to own a gun. I think you should, but if you choose not that's also your right. But don't decide that because you can't see the reason for owning a gun that no one else has a legitimate reason for owning one.

Ok... enough is enough! I keep hearing take guns away.. guns kill people... blah blah blah...
Guns don't kill people... PEOPLE kill people!
It is like saying your pencil is the reason you misspell words!