Discussion: The Second Amendment II

[Tao43]

Originally Posted by Paroxysm

No duh, but it's not going to stop someone, from taking a gun across state lines.

I'm not saying it is either. I was just pointing out that doing so makes it an illegal gun purchase, since my initial post of firearm purchasing laws was to dispell the notion that it was eisier to buy a weapon legally in a different state with "lax gun laws."

[Tao43]

Originally Posted by Paroxysm

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dennis..._b_809123.html

Seeing as how both articles quote the same statistics from 2007-2009 and the ATF no longer reports the figures to the public, it's kind of a moot point. One of those things we'll never learn for sure.

[Paroxysm]

You know I just figured it out. The number of firearms is a symptom, not a cause. I think it's just the society you live in down there.

Fear
Paranoia
Hatred
Mental Illness

all these things make people want to carry guns.

[Optimus_Prime_]

Originally Posted by doih

Secondly, this has nothing to do with the debate over whether gun control is good for the US or not. Yes, there are fewer criminals in the US than in poor countries so your chance of being vicitimised is lower. But don't you want to be able to protect yourself if the probability gods aren't smiling on you on a particular day? Sean Taylor lived in a wealthy area. Didn't stop people from breaking into his house and killing him.

European countries, and Canada, which outlaws guns except for use by law enforcement do have lower instances of violent crime than us. You may choose to believe otherwise, but it doesn't change the reality. If you're honestly that afraid in this country of a gangbanger entering your home unexpectedly and trying to kill you then you may as well begin planning what you'll do with the lottery earnings you'll win in the near future. I'm not going to walk around afraid and paranoid like you apparently are that the "probability Gods" may one day stop smiling on me. Who cares? If I'm sitting in my living room, and someone comes to kill me, I'll have little opportunity to run and get my roommates gun before he shoots me. Guns are not security, they are a false sense of security. If I were ever rich enough to need the kind of protection guns allow, I'd hire people to use them for me, and keep watch on my place.

[Tao43]

Originally Posted by Paroxysm

You know I just figured it out. The number of firearms is a symptom, not a cause. I think it's just the society you live in down there.

Fear
Paranoia
Hatred
Mental Illness

all these things make people want to carry guns.

To be honest, I bought my handgun because I like to shoot. I'll never actually enter a competitive shooting contest, but the shooting courses are fun. Home defense is just a fringe benefit. I seriously doubt anyone would ever break into my house.

[BlackLantern]

Originally Posted by Paroxysm

You know I just figured it out. The number of firearms is a symptom, not a cause. I think it's just the society you live in down there.

Fear
Paranoia
Hatred
Mental Illness

all these things make people want to carry guns.

you hush up or I will put a round in you....consider it a warning shot

[Marx]

Originally Posted by doih

I'm not sure if you're including me in this, but I'm not a member of the right (regardless of what posters labels are or what Norm has come up with in his intellectual masturbation), and my excuse for you not seeing me expressing the same outrage during Bush is that I wasn't posting on the Hype at that time Believe me, I've been making the same argument for ~8 years once I started looking at the evidence.

I was more referring to those on the political right who are off the Hype.

[BlackLantern]

each state has different conditions....a lot of folks in Alaska carry because of the wildlife...you could get stuck changing a tire by the side of the road and a f'ng mountain cat could show up and eat your face off

[dnno1]

Originally Posted by BlackLantern

each state has different conditions....a lot of folks in Alaska carry because of the wildlife...you could get stuck changing a tire by the side of the road and a f'ng mountain cat could show up and eat your face off

That's fine, just register your gun. Also, I would like to see regulations that require that the sale or transfer of a gun be reported to the authorities (federal, state, and local). No felon or person convicted of a violent crime may have a gun in his possession, nor anyone who is mentally ill, has taken mind altering drugs, or has made threats to any person. By the way, although there are sightings of mountain lions in Alaska every year (usually 2 or 3) that animal is very rare in that region of the continent. In any case, there are other ways to handle a mountain lion other than using a gun. One effective way that I have seen recommended over and over again is to make yourself appear bigger than the animal. This could be done by standing upright and opening your jacket. Another effective way is to just stay in your car and call for help from your cell phone or radio.

[BlackLantern]

MartialDevelopment.com...really??

what if I don't have a jacket?


no one here is saying you shouldn't register your weapons or not be certified...what I am saying is that reactive overlegislation is only going to punish law abiding gun owners

[Tao43]

Originally Posted by dnno1

That's fine, just register your gun. Also, I would like to see regulations that require that the sale or transfer of a gun be reported to the authorities (federal, state, and local). No felon or person convicted of a violent crime may have a gun in his possession, nor anyone who is mentally ill, has taken mind altering drugs, or has made threats to any person.

If you purchased a weapon through legal means, then the government knows you have it. A licensed dealer has to provide the ATF with the info of every gun he/she sells. There are already laws that state a felon or someone convicted of certain crimes cannot own, purchase, or be in possesion of a firearm of any kind. Also, if a person has any type of mental illness on file with the state, it will show up on the background check. As long as there are state, federal, or local records of these instances, that person will not be able to legally purchase a firearm.

[SuperFerret]

Originally Posted by BlackLantern

each state has different conditions....a lot of folks in Alaska carry because of the wildlife...you could get stuck changing a tire by the side of the road and a f'ng mountain cat could show up and eat your face off

I'd still see that as just another sign that maybe we shouldn't have an Alaska.

[BlackLantern]

yes...in Loughners case, there was no documentation regarding mental illness...a warning from his school is not an evaluation from a qualified medical professional

[dnno1]

Originally Posted by BlackLantern

MartialDevelopment.com...really??

what if I don't have a jacket?


no one here is saying you shouldn't register your weapons or not be certified...what I am saying is that reactive over legislation is only going to punish law abiding gun owners

Just make yourself look bigger than him/her. You could also use the tire iron you were using to fix the flat (you could still get in the car too). Anyway, I seriously doubt that very many people get attacked by mountain lions in Alaska.

You might be saying that no one is saying that you shouldn't register your weapons, but the thing is that the gun lobby is. Prior to 2004 you were not allowed to purchase magazines that carried more than 10 rounds. That law lapsed after 2004, and now there is political rhetoric saying that Obama is going to take your gun away. To me that is saying enough.

[BlackLantern]

well blame the legislature for letting the law lapse

[doih]

Originally Posted by Optimus_Prime_

European countries, and Canada, which outlaws guns except for use by law enforcement do have lower instances of violent crime than us. You may choose to believe otherwise, but it doesn't change the reality. If you're honestly that afraid in this country of a gangbanger entering your home unexpectedly and trying to kill you then you may as well begin planning what you'll do with the lottery earnings you'll win in the near future. I'm not going to walk around afraid and paranoid like you apparently are that the "probability Gods" may one day stop smiling on me. Who cares? If I'm sitting in my living room, and someone comes to kill me, I'll have little opportunity to run and get my roommates gun before he shoots me. Guns are not security, they are a false sense of security. If I were ever rich enough to need the kind of protection guns allow, I'd hire people to use them for me, and keep watch on my place.

First of all, I'm Canadian. You can legally get long guns here pretty easily. Handguns take longer. It's probably a middle of the road jurisdiction if it were a US state. You're completely wrong when you say Canada outlaws guns except for law enforcement.

Secondly, there are many countries in Europe that have even laxer gun controls than most US states. In Switzerland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_pol...in_Switzerland), every man owns a weapon due to militia obligations. It's not uncommon to see guys with assault rifles at the mall or on the train, for instance. In many of the Scandinavian countries (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Norway http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Finland), people in certain areas carry guns as there is a risk of animal attacks (there's a funny picture I can't find of a Swedish bank with a bunch of guys in ski masks carrying rifles. You think it's a robbery but it's just a normal day for them). I don't know what the risk of animal attack is (probably about the same as being mugged in the US?), but according to you, these people are afraid and paranoid

You also conveniently leave out the fact that the UK has a higher crime rate than the vast majority of US states despite the fact that it has stricter gun control than most US states. In short, the first 2 sentences of your argument contain huge inaccuracies.

Even if you were right, it's quite pointless to cite other countries as examples because there is always a country that will provide a strong counterexample. Further, comparing the US to Europe is problematic because the 2 are extremely different culturally. The US is a much more violent society than most other developed countries. Thus, issues such as gun control probably cannot be solved with the same solutions.

Lastly, **** off with your Sigmund Freud ******** about people being paranoid. A guy I used to live with in undergrad found the fact that I believed in home defence distasteful (we got all great in all other respects though). He moved back to the East Coast when school was done. He was shot and killed in a home invasion. So **** off with your armchair psychologist playing, and back up what you say with sources. I might disagree with dnno1 on this issue but at least he's trying to put up a defence using evidence.

Now, if people want to actually debate:


Source: Center for Disease Control and Prevention






Source: Federal Bureau of Investigation



Source: Federal Bureau of Investigation

[dnno1]

Originally Posted by doih

First of all:

^^
this guy knows what he's talking about.

Secondly, look up the DC murder rate. Then look up the place that Norm mentioned. Then look at the wiki page posted awhile back. Let's leave aside the international examples for a moment: we can compare the same city/state/country with itself, before and after major changes in gun laws. The evidence is consistent- when you remove pre-existing guns from law abiding citizens, and criminals have a field day. Allow law-abiding citizens to defend themselves when needed, and crime drops. Notice how no one has posted an opposite?

If he knew what he was talking about, then he would also know about the ambiguity of the law that allows non licensed individuals, who are not in the business of dealing guns but do make occasional sales, to transfer ownership of a gun without a background check. It's normally called the "Gun Show Loophole" and it allows criminals to easily purchase guns out of state and import them back to the state which they may (or may not) reside. Sure the law might say that you can not purchase weapons across state lines, but it happens all the time.

I am really surprised that you are using the District of Columbia as an example, since it is not really a state and it borders states that have lax hand gun laws. Certainly criminals could purchase weapons legally in a state like Virginia or Maryland and use it in a crime in the DC area. Yeah, yeah, you said that it was unlawful to carry a firearm across state lines, but it is unenforceable if it is concealed and the person commits no violations to warrant a search of his person of vehicle. If the gun control laws were the same across the three regions, the statistics may be a lot different.

[Optimus_Prime_]

Originally Posted by doih

You also conveniently leave out the fact that the UK has a higher crime rate than the vast majority of US states despite the fact that it has stricter gun control than most US states. In short, the first 2 sentences of your argument contain huge inaccuracies.

Except that's a myth, based on a CBS report which misrepresented violent crime as it is defined in the UK versus the United States. Murder is five times higher per every 100,000 in the United States, and rape is three times higher. Also 70% of murder in the US: firearms, compared with a whopping 7% in the UK, and 41% of US robberies are also handgun related.

[dnno1]

Originally Posted by doih

First of all, I'm Canadian. You can legally get long guns here pretty easily. Handguns take longer. It's probably a middle of the road jurisdiction if it were a US state. You're completely wrong when you say Canada outlaws guns except for law enforcement.

Secondly, there are many countries in Europe that have even laxer gun controls than most US states. In Switzerland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_pol...in_Switzerland), every man owns a weapon due to militia obligations. It's not uncommon to see guys with assault rifles at the mall or on the train, for instance. In many of the Scandinavian countries (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Norway http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Finland), people in certain areas carry guns as there is a risk of animal attacks (there's a funny picture I can't find of a Swedish bank with a bunch of guys in ski masks carrying rifles. You think it's a robbery but it's just a normal day for them). I don't know what the risk of animal attack is (probably about the same as being mugged in the US?), but according to you, these people are afraid and paranoid

You also conveniently leave out the fact that the UK has a higher crime rate than the vast majority of US states despite the fact that it has stricter gun control than most US states. In short, the first 2 sentences of your argument contain huge inaccuracies.

Even if you were right, it's quite pointless to cite other countries as examples because there is always a country that will provide a strong counterexample. Further, comparing the US to Europe is problematic because the 2 are extremely different culturally. The US is a much more violent society than most other developed countries. Thus, issues such as gun control probably cannot be solved with the same solutions.

Lastly, **** off with your Sigmund Freud ******** about people being paranoid. A guy I used to live with in undergrad found the fact that I believed in home defence distasteful (we got all great in all other respects though). He moved back to the East Coast when school was done. He was shot and killed in a home invasion. So **** off with your armchair psychologist playing, and back up what you say with sources. I might disagree with dnno1 on this issue but at least he's trying to put up a defence using evidence.

Now, if people want to actually debate:


Source: Center for Disease Control and Prevention






Source: Federal Bureau of Investigation



Source: Federal Bureau of Investigation

These charts (especially the last two) do not break out the homicides that are directly related to firearms. If you actually looked at the numbers you would see the direct effect of lifting any hand gun ban. Also this data does not clarify if there were other factors besides laxing any hand gun regulations (like an increase in population) that figured into the statistic. I don't see how you could draw the conclusion that any change in a handgun law would directly impact that particular statistic so significantly.

[doih]

Originally Posted by Optimus_Prime_

Except that's a myth, based on a CBS report which misrepresented violent crime as it is defined in the UK versus the United States. Murder is five times higher per every 100,000 in the United States, and rape is three times higher.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...of-Europe.html
"The total number of violent offences recorded compared to population is higher than any other country in Europe, as well as America, Canada, Australia and South Africa. Opposition leaders said the disclosures were a "damning indictment" of the Government's failure to tackle deep-rooted social problems.

The figures combined crime statistics for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland."

Source: Eurostat, UK Home Office

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Crime_Survey
http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/off...ime/index.html

Also 70% of murder in the US: firearms, compared with a whopping 7% in the UK, and 41% of US robberies are also handgun related.

......................

You realise that if country A has 100 murders per 100 000 people with 70% of them by firearm, and country B also has 100 murders per 100 000 with 7% by firearm, that the murder rates are equal right? Someone who is murdered with a gun is the same as someone murdered with a knife, bat, vehicle, poison, etc.

Good job ignoring the argument on Canada and the rest of Europe, btw.

[Tao43]

Originally Posted by dnno1

If he knew what he was talking about, then he would also know about the ambiguity of the law that allows non licensed individuals, who are not in the business of dealing guns but do make occasional sales, to transfer ownership of a gun without a background check. It's normally called the "Gun Show Loophole" and it allows criminals to easily purchase guns out of state and import them back to the state which they may (or may not) reside. Sure the law might say that you can not purchase weapons across state lines, but it happens all the time.

Yes it does happen, but that does not make it a legal sale. Licensed dealers are required to perform background checks at gun shows. Individual private sales are also governed under ATF requirements. If the individual selling the weapon believes the purchaser is a criminal, going to use the weapon in criminal activity, has a mental condition that would bar them from owning a firearm, are underage, etc they are legally required to not sell it.

I understand what you are pointing out, but illegal gun sales are going to happen. It is the human nature of greed. There will always be straw purchases, individual private sellers who ignore the laws, the black market, or unscrupulous licensed dealers. No amount of legislation, even the outright banning of legal firearm ownership is going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. If they want one bad enough, they will find a way to get one.

[dnno1]

Originally Posted by Tao43

Yes it does happen, but that does not make it a legal sale. Licensed dealers are required to perform background checks at gun shows. Individual private sales are also governed under ATF requirements. If the individual selling the weapon believes the purchaser is a criminal, going to use the weapon in criminal activity, has a mental condition that would bar them from owning a firearm, are underage, etc they are legally required to not sell it.

I understand what you are pointing out, but illegal gun sales are going to happen. It is the human nature of greed. There will always be straw purchases, individual private sellers who ignore the laws, the black market, or unscrupulous licensed dealers. No amount of legislation, even the outright banning of legal firearm ownership is going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. If they want one bad enough, they will find a way to get one.

So what are you trying to say? The whole purpose of this exercise is to keep criminals from getting guns, but because of a loophole in the laws as well as pressure from lobbyists, and the failue of licensed dealers to do their due dilligence, it's not happening. Even with the laws and regulations that we do have on trafficking weapons, we can not enforce them effectively and this is why we see gun crimes go up (and don't belive the stats that are being thrown up by gun proponents). It is wrong to make the statement that illegal gun sales are going to happen because that is a defeatist argument. The drive should be to reduce that activity and it can be done by eliminating the "Gunshow Loophoole" and making sure that all states are on the same playing field or better as far as regulations.

BTW, 30% of illegally trafficed guns are connected to gunshows. Here is a video on a gunshow expose conducted by NYC police accross several states in the nation. The results of the investigation showed that 63% of private dealers actually broke the law by selling guns to buyers who they thought could not pass a background check, and 94% of licensed dealers were willing to sell to persons who were not the actuall buyer of the gun (that is called a "straw sale", and is a federal felony).

VIDEO-CLick to Watch!:

[Tao43]

Originally Posted by dnno1

So what are you trying to say? The whole purpose of this exercise is to keep criminals from getting guns, but because of a loophole in the laws as well as pressure from lobbyists, and the failue of licensed dealers to do their due dilligence, it's not happening. Even with the laws and regulations that we do have on trafficking weapons, we can not enforce them effectively and this is why we see gun crimes go up (and don't belive the stats that are being thrown up by gun proponents). It is wrong to make the statement that illegal gun sales are going to happen because that is a defeatist argument. The drive should be to reduce that activity and it can be done by eliminating the "Gunshow Loophoole" and making sure that all states are on the same playing field or better as far as regulations.

BTW, 30% of illegally trafficed guns are connected to gunshows. Here is a video on a gunshow expose conducted by NYC police accross several states in the nation. The results of the investigation showed that 63% of private dealers actually broke the law by selling guns to buyers who they thought could not pass a background check, and 94% of licensed dealers were willing to sell to persons who were not the actuall buyer of the gun (that is called a "straw sale", and is a federal felony).

VIDEO-CLick to Watch!:

I know what a straw purchase is, as I mentioned it already. What I am trying to say is that no matter if every state has the same laws regulating gun sales and everyone is on the same page, criminals are still going to be able to get them. They will steal them, find someone to purchase them for them, whatever. No amount of regulation is going to keep a firearm out of the hands of criminals. They will get them somehow. It is not a defeatist argument, it is a fact of life. There will always be someone who will look the other way or do something illegal if the money is right.

[Tao43]

double

[Franklin Richards]

But banning guns would force the thieves to resort to more desperate measures to get their booty. If the only place they can get guns is to illegally purchase them or steal them from warehouses and across the borders, logically the pool for them to steal from is smaller. Smaller pool. Less guns. Less illegal guns. Easier to regulate illegal guns.


More guns? More problems.