Britain's Gun Laws Seen as Curbing Attacks

[primavera]

Source: Washington Post

Britain's Gun Laws Seen as Curbing Attacks

By Mary Jordan
Washington Post Foreign Service
Tuesday, April 24, 2007; A18

LONDON -- At 9:35 a.m. on a March day in 1996, a disgruntled former scout leader walked into a primary school gym in Dunblane, Scotland, with four guns and killed 16 children and their teacher in Britain's worst mass shooting. The crime still causes Britons to recoil when they recall the victims, many of them only 5 years old.

That rampage, with guns purchased legally -- as were those used in last week's killings at Virginia Tech -- led to a near-total ban on handguns, and Britain's current laws are considered among the most restrictive in the world. Days after the shooting, hundreds of thousands of people signed petitions demanding tougher gun control, and weeks later more than 22,000 illegal or unwanted guns, and nearly 700,000 rounds of ammunition, were turned in to authorities under a special amnesty.

Although England already had tough restrictions in place, champions of the gun control laws say the new limits have been vital in keeping fatal shootings relatively rare. Still, guns continue to proliferate and the law has not kept firearms out of the hands of some criminals.

<snip>

According to government statistics, the number of people killed by guns has essentially stayed the same, with dips and spikes, as before the 1997 gun control laws went into effect: There were 55 shooting deaths in 1995 and 50 last year in England and Wales. By comparison, there were 137 fatal shootings in the District of Columbia last year.



Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/23/AR2007042301794.html

[Demeter]

1. NTH Not Tolerated Here

We simply can't go around implementing plans that are proven to work, to increase the safety of all, especially the weak and vulnerable and defenseless! That would be unAmerikan!

[Kagemusha]

2. Britain has a lot of Big Brother stuff that isn't tolerable in the US.

It's hardly limited to guns; there's always huge pushes for more ways to destroy individual privacy, that seem to be narrowly averted only to be revived a few years later, with all the same people involved, completely undaunted.

I'm not going to bother sitting in judgment of either one. Both countries' populations have made their choices. But a lot of Americans do not want to live in an America patterned on Britain. That's why they had that little revolution thing a couple of centuries ago. There are deep differences of style and substance between what an American considers "freedom" and what a British citizen tolerates as "freedom".

[Dutch]

6. It's certainly true that less people in Britain would tolerate the kind of oppressive

"Campus security" measures that will be extended in the US now instead of restricting guns.

One of many good reasons why so few Britons would want to live in a Britain patterned on America.

[piedmont]

10. Uh, they already do.

They already disarmed the law-abiding populace. They watch their citizens with government-controlled cameras and have proposed tracking their movements with GPS devices installed in cars.
Besides that, you present a false choice: that we either restrict gun rights or extend campus security to intolerable levels. We don't have to do either of those.

[LeftishBrit]

13. We have NOT disarmed the law-abiding populace!!!

See my other post. Guns have NEVER been a part of most British people's culture. The populace wasn't, and couldn't have been, disarmed, because it was never armed in the first place!!!

And this works FOR US. Maybe it wouldn't work for you. Fine. But just because you don't want it, or feel that it wouldn't work, please do not sneer at other countries that do.

And the anti-terror laws that have threatened our privacy - very similar to yours - have absolutely nothing to do with gun control. We have always had gun control; indeed it's not just 'control' - most people have never been interested in owning guns. The over-reactions to terrorist threats, with resulting invasions of privacy, have been very recent.

I know that it may be hard for some people here to imagine a country without a strong gun culture; but we are such a country. And implying that not having a gun culture is part of some subservience to tyranny is frankly insulting us. I realize that it may be in response to some non-Americans showing similar insensitivity to American culture; but all I can say is that I have never said that you shouldn't allow so many guns just because we don't. Do what works for you. And we'll do what works for us - and it doesn't mean that we're a worse, or less free, country.

[piedmont]

18. I submit that you never had guns because there was a strict social hierarchy to be enforced

That was done over here, too-- to African-Americans. They, too, weren't disarmed because they were never allowed arms to begin with. If you want to keep a people under the boot of the ruling class, make sure they don't have the means to defend themselves.
Your gun control laws go back to 1903. Before that time, anyone could buy any type of gun. You keep saying that the British populace was never armed. What on earth does this mean? British citizens certainly were armed. Were they not as armed as Americans before 1903? Do you have data to substantiate this?

[zanne]

21. BRAVO!!

Well said, LeftishBrit!

[michreject]

25. Did the pointy knife ban go into effect yet?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4581871.stm


Doctors' kitchen knives ban call
Knife
Doctors say knives are too pointed
A&E doctors are calling for a ban on long pointed kitchen knives to reduce deaths from stabbing.

A team from West Middlesex University Hospital said violent crime is on the increase - and kitchen knives are used in as many as half of all stabbings.

They argued many assaults are committed impulsively, prompted by alcohol and drugs, and a kitchen knife often makes an all too available weapon.

What's next after knifes, sticks?

[LeftishBrit]

11. OK, I'm going to say it

I am no jingo-ist, and I don't think everything in Britain is wonderful; but I am getting *fed up* with some people assuming that there is something intrinsically bad about our having gun control in Britain, and that it means we are less free than you are. I would expect that on Free Republic, but not on DU. And no, I don't mean that everyone on DU needs to support gun control; but they should have sufficient cultural tolerance not to equate another country's gun control laws with 'less freedom'.

Unless you count our less 'laissez faire' approach to economics - and I woild assume that this is not an issue that DU-ers would equate with freedom - we are NOT less free than the Americans. *Both* countries have reacted to recent terrorist threats by excessive restrictions on people's privacy; and yes, Blair is a micro-manager with an excessive desire to control people. But he is unusual; and we have quite a long tradition of 'minding your own business' and regarding 'the Englishman's home as his castle' - and this has been quite compatible with not having guns.

The point that is sometimes missed here is that we are NOT a country where people would love to have guns, but are prevented from doing so by harsh gun bans; nor is gun control here a recent phenomenon (as some posts have implied) - there have been a couple of laws recently that toughened the control on guns, but it was ALWAYS strict. The main point is that Britain has never had a strong gun culture, and, with the exception of farmers, and the (mostly upper-class) 'hunting, shooting and fishing' fraternity, most people have neither had guns *nor wanted them*.

And things have changed quite a bit since 1776. The monarchy has had no power for many years; and, much as the current one may regret it, the Prime Minister has nothing like the power of a president like Bush.

I am sorry if I sound snappy, and maybe I'm unfair to you if this is the first time you've posted this; but I've seen just a few too many intolerant remarks on DU about our gun laws. It's fine if you think they wouldn't work or be appropriate in America, but please don't assume that we are the spineless servants of a tyranny just because we think they work for *us*.

[piedmont]

14. A few thoughts...

1) Many of us get just as annoyed when someone here mentions for the umpteenth time that "we need U.K.-style gun restrictions!" It is certainly fair, I think, to point out to such posters the differences between our system and yours and why many of us prefer our system.

2) Britons don't distrust the institution of government as much as Americans. Probably because they've never had a searing, attitude-changing event on their soil to underscore the danger of concentrating power in the hands of a few while liniting the liberties of the citizens.

3) I recognize that our freedoms are being eroded too and it scares the bejeezus out of me. I prefer for my people to have every tool available to secure their liberty and happiness: the freedom of speech, the freedom to assemble, the ability to choose representatives and vote directly on some issues, a functioning, unbiased judicial system, and the right to keep and bear arms.

[dmallind]

15. good points

As a former Brit myself I know what you mean. Speaking however ONLY on the issue at hand you yourself have brought up a point I have tried with little success. The Dunblane thing made already very strict gun laws stricter still, and you guys did not have the gun culture or history or pure inventory that we have.

The implication (or even outright claim!) from the gun control fans here in the US is that if we established UK-style gun control we could have UK-style gun crime rates. They conveniently forget that unlike us, you didn't have to start off with 200 million guns in civilian hands, thousands of gunsmiths who can make one from scratch, a history that involves an independence won by armed civilians, a constitution that enshrines that right, and a culture where civilian ownership of guns is considered by all but a fringe to be perfectly normal. I spent 22 years in England. I cannot recall seeing one gunshop or one non-military firing range. I knew of precisely one person who owned guns and they were Olympic-style target .22s kept in a secure facility, not at home for self defense. Here approximately half the households in the country own firearms (or admit to it - with the current paranoia of many gun owners the truth is likely higher), including some 30-odd% of Democrats. Millions of people reload their own ammunition. Guns are everywhere. I live in a city of 225000 and can pick from several gun stores. Contrary to cop shows implications, the vast majority of guns cannot be traced. I own six guns - all legally. Even if the government is lying about destroying NICS forms and is in fact keeping a database of gun sales only two of them could be traced to me. All are handguns. Long guns of most kinds are even less traceable. And remember all mine are legal - the people you have to worry about more bought them cash from a fence.

The uncomfortable fact is that even thse most stringent controls did not reduce the rate of gun violence in the UK (or Australia) from what it was, and yet we are asked to believe that it would reduce it here, even though by definition criminals will not obey gun laws and a sizeable percentage of previously legal gun owners wouldn't either. Any rational investigation will show that strict gun contyrol in various countries does not correlate to low crime rates. For every unarmed peacable Japan there is an armed peacable Switzerland. For every freely armed high crime US there is both a freely armed armed low-crime Israel and a legally "disarmed" high-crime Russia. Crime rates are far too complex to tie to one variable and certainly to that one.

If it were a matter of waving a wand to remove all guns and the ability to make more then great - but until that's possible no amount of gun control will reduce gun crime here significantly.

[LeftishBrit]

28. All very good points!

I was not in any way suggesting that you could or should establish exactly the same laws as we have.

[Kagemusha]

26. I guess 'I'm not going to judge' was too subtle.

Way, way too subtle.

[LeftishBrit]

27. Not too subtle; just contradicted by other things in the message

'Britain has a lot of Big Brother stuff that isn't tolerable in the US. It's hardly limited to guns; there's always huge pushes for more ways to destroy individual privacy... There are deep differences of style and substance between what an American considers "freedom" and what a British citizen tolerates as "freedom".'

Sounds pretty judgemental to me. You are implying that our relative lack of guns makes us a *less free country than you*. This is judging, whether you say it is or not.

I'm not judging *your* gun laws; I don't live in America and I don't know your situation well enough to be able to tell whether it would be even possible, let alone desirable, to reduce the nunber of guns. It may well be that just because you DO have a long-standing gun culture, this could not now be reduced without serious infringements of freedom. In any case, it's up to the citizens of America, and not up to me as a foreigner. But just please don't assume that our relative lack of guns means that we're not a free country!

[Kagemusha]

29. The availability of guns has very little to do with it, but you focus on the guns.

You're taking a wooden block and pounding my reasonable words into the prejudiced UK-bashing stereotype you imagine they must be part of, else I would have shut the hell up about your nation. Well excuse me.

If the British public is constantly fending off Big Brother privacy-destroying measures, it can't be about guns; the gun issue was settled after Dunblane and the laws weren't exactly lax even before that. It's the REST of it - biometric passports the govt tried to sneak in through the front door, then the side door, now the back door, etc - that makes me shake my head regularly. But that was not at all my point.

My point is that you and many Brits feel perfectly free without owning a firearm. You have a different mental and emotional baseline for what "freedom" means. The same is true for the American point of view (and it annoys me you assume that it is from that point of view I must necessarily be writing); many Americans think that owning a gun, or at least having the right to own one at their personal discretion, is a mark of liberty. Is that reasonable? Is that logical? Frankly, logic doesn't have a hell of a lot to do with it. I just know better than to think that a lack of logic behind it is going to change people's hearts and minds.

Americans tend to feel, in greater numbers, that the right to bear arms is emblematic of freedom, because they define that freedom differently, and more radically, than citizens in many other countries. This is not necessarily productive, but it is reality - and I tried to make the damned point that it is not my place to judge which is "better"; they are different.

Why say that at all? Because this was becoming a "See! See! Britain has less gun killings! We should all live like the Brits!" issue. That's not much of an argument; it's devoid of the context of how issues other than guns shape the political and social culture. You can't really live like a Brit without the constant threat of things like the elimination of trial by jury, an ancient right held sacred for 800 years but not good enough for the sitting government of the day. That is not something that Americans want to go through, and if guns make them feel more protected against such measure, then right or wrong, logic or illogic, guns they shall retain.

[LeftishBrit]

32. OK; maybe I did assume too much that you were buying into the 'anti-UK gun control' stereotype

I apologize for that. I've been seeing posts since even before the recent disaster that implied that we are practically a police state as a result of gun control, or said things like "Are the gun banning nuts in the UK paying more taxes to cope with the increased crime, or are they getting out of that responsibility too?"; and I am getting seriously fed up with it. (I'm no jingo-ist, but there are two things that will make me indignant: (1) attacking the UK for its gun control, and especially assuming that it's a recent phenomenon that suppressed a lot of righteous gun-owners; and (2) attacking us for having a welfare state and NHS.) I apologize for taking it out on you.

I can see that it's also irritating if British people are telling you that you should have *our* gun laws. I certainly haven't been doing so.

[Kagemusha]

33. Americans are doing plenty of that.

So it's not even something I wrote to directly level it at British citizens. It's apples and oranges, and when people start loudly comparing the two without any forethought it gets rough. ...Comparisons in either direction.

[Celeborn Skywalker]

7. Did you not read the whole article?

It says that shooting deaths have been pretty much the same before and after the tough restrictions.

[One_Life_To_Give]

3. number of people killed by guns has essentially stayed the same

All the extra restirctions. And the sum total difference is Negligable? So why would we wnat to punish the law abiding citizens for a net reduction of Zero?

[superconnected]

16. Staying the same with a 10 year population growth is no easy matter.

The article doesn't compare US gun deaths, which likely total over 50 per year per state.

It also can't accurately reflect a change the US would have with gun control becuase Great Britan had great gun control laws before they outlawed guns. So it wasn't like the US to begin with. Why should there be a huge decrease when the violence was already near nil. 50 gun deaths per year is nothing for millions of people to suffer.

Again, they didn't even attempt to put the US numbers up.

We should be happy if we ever reached the per capita results the Britons did before or after they outlawed guns.

I suspect they only reached it with tough gun control though.

Guns are a billion dollar industry. Since the article uses Virginia Tech as an example - thus siting the US, but omits US gun death rates, this quite clearly looks like a publicty article from gun manufacturers.

[One_Life_To_Give]

23. We just like to kill each other

Our murder rate not using any firearm is alomost twice the UK rate.

What seems most obvious is tat the people/culture in Britain makes them much less likely to murder someone. We in the US on the other hand. Ever as "easy" as it is for us to get firearms. We can't be bothered and just stab to death each other at rates that would alarm the UK.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

30. That's not the best measure of success; how many day care centers have been

shot up in the UK since the 1996 incident?

I don't know about gun homicides in the UK, but in the US many are associated with enforcement of gang discipline among criminals who cannot go to the police. That kind of activity does not concern most people as much as the kind of multiple murders of strangers by the deranged--it's THOSE kinds of incidents firearm restrictions are designed to prevent.

[One_Life_To_Give]

34. Would need to know probability of mass shooting before/after

You would need to know what the probability was before and after to calculate that. How many daycare centers wowuld of been shot up in a ten year period if the law had not been passed? How often will it happen now?

Also it is a much different argument to claim that we should take away freedoms from millions of law abiding citizens to save 30 lives per year. How many other freedoms could be sacrificed for a far greater return.

[piedmont]

4. They paid too much for their whistle. nt

[IA_Seth]

8. I've always liked that saying.

Old Mr Franklin is a wise one.

[piedmont]

12. One of my favorites of his many stories and one-liners nt

http://www.4literature.net/Benjamin_Franklin/Whistle/

[CJCRANE]

5. There's something very strange about Dunblane...

There's more to this than meets the eye - I don't know much about it, but have come across hints about it on conspiracy forums.

"AN INQUIRY into why a police report on Dunblane killer Thomas Hamilton was banned from publication for 100 years was last night demanded by MSPs."

http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=763&id=164062003

"Calls for fresh inquiries into the Dunblane shootings have been rejected by a Holyrood committee.
Three separate petitions relating to the massacre were discussed at the Scottish Parliament.

But MSPs said the families of those killed at the town's primary school 10 years ago were looking for "dignity" rather than further investigations."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4831760.stm

[krispos42]

9. If it doesn't lower the overall crime and homicide rates, what good is it?

Britian's homicide rate had steadily increased from 1967 to the point it is now double of what it was 40 years ago. And it is not going down. It has been hovering in the "double" catagory for about a decade now.

The stringent laws may be limiting mass shootings from occuring. Didn't stop the suicide bombers of two year ago. And stopping mass shootings doesn't help if more people overall are killed every year.

Sadly, the people shot at VaTech last week were about 19 average hours in America. Here, about 40 people are killed every day. 26 with guns, 13 without.

[superconnected]

17. so in 2 days, we hit Great Britans death rate.

There are always going to be homocidal maniacs. The answer is in the per capita averages. Which you didn't cite.

Saying their crime is double doesn't say their shooting rate is. It doesn't account for population increase which doubles every 30 years. It doesn't compare them to the US rates where you get to find they are way less likely to be shot per capita in their country.

[krispos42]

19. Our homicide rate is about 4.5

per 100,000 per year. The UK's is about 1.4 or so.

In 1967 it was 0.8.

That's per-capita, not total.

Compared to 1967, our homicide rate is actually down 11%. We had a really bad era starting in the 70s and extending until about 1990 with homicides, probably due to the drug wars and returning untreated/un-cared-for Vietnam veterans, so it's not a linear process for us. We had a 'surge' if you will, then a steep drop-off after the Persian Gulf war or so.

The UK rate has been steadily increasing over the past 4 decades.

These are some numbers you might find useful:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita

There's a similar site called statemaster.com where you can compare different US states.

I have to go to work, but have fun looking at the numbers. And keep in mind that US citizens own 68% of all civilian-owned firearms in the world.

[intaglio]

20. Why not compare gun deaths - not just homicides per capita

for the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand?

[superconnected]

22. US Gun death statistics ages 0-19, And death ratio US:UK

http://www.kidsandguns.org/study/states_deaths.asp?National

total for 2004 is 2852. And that's only up to age 19.

Then there's the Brady campaign website:

http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/factsheets/

Gun Deaths and Injury - The United States Leads the World in Firearm Violence
• In 2004, 29,569 people in the United States died from firearm-related deaths – 11,624
(39%) of those were murdered; 16,750 (57%) were suicides; 649 (2.2%) were accidents;
and in 235 (.8%) the intent was unknown. <5> In comparison, 33,651 Americans were
killed in the Korean War and 58,193 Americans were killed in the Vietnam War.<6>
• For every firearm fatality in the United States in 2005, there were estimated to be more
than two non-fatal firearm injuries.<7>
• In 2004, firearms were used to murder 56 people in Australia, 184 people in Canada, 73
people in England and Wales, 5 people in New Zealand, and 37 people in Sweden.<8> In
comparison, firearms were used tomurder 11,344 people in the United States.<9>
• In 2005, there were only 143 justifiable homicides by private citizens using handguns in
the United States.<10>

-------------------

Population of US
301,139,947 (July 2007 est.)

Population of UK
60,776,238 (July 2007 est.)

from
https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/fields/2119.html

---------------

so 50 gun deaths last year for 60 million people

vs.

29,569 for 300 million people, and that was back in 2004.

let's says England sudden has 6 times their population - 380 mil people.
They'd still have only 300 gun deaths.

[dmallind]

24. Which would be relevant

...if they had started out with a gun to population ratio of 67% like we have.

It's what the proponents of strict gun control never seem to answer. Starting from where we are now, not from where the UK started, what would gun control achieve? Britain went from pretty strict to very strict with no change in gun violence. Australia went from moderately free availability/ saturation to very strict with no change in gun violence. How are we going to go from mostly free availability and high saturation to even very strict (assuming that were feasible and possible -if you want a generation of 1994 style election results then try it) and expect anything else? Be sure to account for the duistrust of government, the untraceability and easy concealability of guns, and the history, knowledge and culture of firearms here too.

[superconnected]

31. acutally if you count in population growth, there is signifigant change in

gun deaths from per capita of their population from then to now. That they only had 50 deaths last year, and had 55 in 1996 is also a significant 9% down.

[dmallind]

Even if so

that's a very partial answer isn't it? A 9% variation either way in 10 years is not unheard of here (or anywhere! For example between 93 and 99 US gun deaths declined by 27% - a much greater drop with no meaningful legislation to control the number of guns. Before you bring up the AWB be careful to look into how few murders were, or are, committed with assault rifles - it was, and is, about 3%. Most gun homicides are with .38 revolvers, then .22s, then 9mm and most have few shots fired so even mag capacity restriction is unlikely to have helped at all and you are looking at only deaths. What about all gun related crimes?

But let's assume that this is both accurate and a direct result of gun bans for a moment. There still remains the vastly different situation between 1995 UK and 2007 US vis à vis guns to deal with before we could even hope to see that kind of variation. (again assuming it's bot a consistent trend and a result of the ban).

[dmallind]

35. Even if so

that's a very partial answer isn't it? A 9% variation either way in 10 years is not unheard of here (or anywhere! For example between 93 and 99 US gun deaths declined by 27% - a much greater drop with no meaningful legislation to control the number of guns. Before you bring up the AWB be careful to look into how few murders were, or are, committed with assault rifles - it was, and is, about 3%. Most gun homicides are with .38 pistols, then 22s, then 9mm and most have few shots fired so even mag capacity restrictions is unlikely to have helped at all) either and you are looking at only deaths. What about all gun related crimes?

But let's assume that this is both accurate and a direct result of gun bans for a moment. There still remains the vastly different situation between 1995 UK and 2007 US vis à vis guns to deal with before we could even hope to see that kind of variation (again assuming it's bot a consistent trend and a result of the ban).

[primavera]

36. So what, do nothing?

What I always hear from gun advocates is this claim that there are already tons of guns in the US, so there's no point trying to regulate them; American is a gun culture, so there's no point trying to regulate guns; guns may not be the single cause responsible for gun-related deaths in the US, so there's no point trying to regulate them; gun control legislation wouldn't be 100% effective, so there's no point trying to regulate them; other countries which regulate guns are different, so there's no point in trying to regulate guns here. Over and over, it's always this same absolutist fallacy, this all or nothing approach, no lessons to be learned from anyone, no possibility for any change ever taking place, everything's permanently carved in granite. Laws criminalizing rape don't prevent rape from taking place, so by your reasoning, I guess we should legalize rape, since the law obviously isn't 100% effective, right? The wealthiest 1% of the country control the vast majority of the wealth, but there's really no point in trying to change that, because of course, according to you, nothing can ever change, we're all just doomed to replay the same injustices, sufer the same problems, generation after generation. Damn, I hope you guys never get into public office with that defeatist, overly simplified view of reality.

[dmallind]

38. Well ignoring the ad hominems here goes...

No I wouldn't suggest do nothing.

I'd suggest not trying to do the wrong thing. I'd suggest not wasting money and effort and starting a whole bunch of unintended consequences like prohibition and the war on drugs did/do. Try UK style gun control and guns will be just like dope is now - anyone can get it, there's no real control, just a bunch of criminalized people who harmed no one else (aka the vast majority of both pot smokers and gun owners) and billions poured down the drain.

So what would I do (assuming, which is a stretch, even this could pass constitutional muster, which is another and far greater obstacle to UK style gun control than to this stuff)

1. LICENSE gun owners (not guns). You have to pass a test including knowledge of laws, rules, safety, basic marksmanship and handling etc. Shouldn't "infringe" on RKBA any more than CC permits do.

2. Centralize/universalize NICS mental health data and pay the states to provide histories of those judged to be harmful to self or others. Huge gaps here now, and even the NRA wants to close this one. It's mental health advocates who are the opposition.

3. Illegalize private transfer of firearms so that any gun has to be sold with a NICS check even if in the same state. Right now I can sell to anyone else in Nebraska without a check or record of the transaction. In return, limit the fee for a NICS check to $10 so this is feasible for private sellers.

4. Make possession of a firearm without a license a federal offense punishable by a minimum of ten years actual confinement. Jurisdiction to the BATF so local prosecutors don't have to decide who they can afford teh $$ and time to charge.

5. Make commission of a crime which involves injuring anyone with a firearm (be it murder or armed robbery etc) mandatory life no parole. Federalize those too.

6. Mandate immediate reporting of gun thefts as well as storage of any guns in locked safes UNLESS either on your person or in the same room as you while you are home (in other words feel free to carry a gun at home or keep a gun by the bed, but only when you are in the bedroom - otherwise lock it up. 500,000 guns are stolen annually. There isn't a separate factory for black market guns and for most criminals at least NICS checks do a good job. The criminals get guns in large part due to careless storage by legal owners. Now NO security is foolproof, but if your guns are stolen you better either have a lump on the back of your head from the baseball bat they used from behind, or chisel marks on your safe or the walls where it used to be. You can't mandate locked storage 100% of the time because then they are useless for their inteded purpose of self defense, but they shouldn't just be strewn atround willy nilly either.

Notice that none of this changes who can and can't have guns - just puts more teeth into current laws and some common sense proof of sensible ownership of a deadly tool.

Now in return for this we need to compromise with the legal and responsible gun owners. So how about a national reciprocal CCW permit with national standards for capable handling and marksmanship and no local opt out. (by the way most current CCW permits require pretty basic skills, but even they generally exceed the qualification for cops. The standard claims about cops being highly trained with guns is laughable. A cop who is not a gun enthusiast too is generally a pathetic shot compared to the hobbyists who will go through with this. They should be able to defend themselves and others. Even the greatly underreported DoJ figures show 65000 defensive gun uses a year and most studies show far more. It would be nice to have this ability (which 98% of the time does not involve actually firing) in public places too.

Given that inducement, I suspect the gun enthusiasts (who are generally very much in favor of draconian criminal gun penalties and very keen on safe proper handling) would buy it, and the courts too.

[primavera]

43. Sounds like a good start to me

But I'm surprised to hear you suggest that any of this might be palatable to NRA types - I don;t think I've ever hear anyone from the NRA offer any sort of concession with respect to stricter enforcement of gun laws; rather, they're invariably out lobbying for fewer restrictions, trying to get more and deadlier guns into the hands of more people. It's hard to imagine them sitting peacefully by and tolerating any effort to restrict anyone's access to any weapon.

[dmallind]

46. Again I don't want to be seen as a defender of the NRA

Or even as one who will speak up for them. But I think you're a bit misinformed (or more likely underinformed) here. Of everything I have listed number one will cause them some heartache because they unlike me DO see licensing as infringement. I think at heart most of that is based on a slippery slope fear than any objection to licensing per se. In other words if they could really be persuaded that licensing was never going to be registration (of specific guns to specific owners) and then confiscation they might be OK with it.

The push for much stronger penalties for criminal gun use is right up their alley as is, and they (unlike the GOA) are fine with the mental health part of it too. The NRA is big on safety education and safe storage so the details of those recommendations would only cause concern based on the slippery slope fear above. That's the key for most gun rights groups really - they fear anything that mightlead to confiscation. If we enshrined in statute and judicial precedent an individual right to ownership, but coupled it with limits something like I've suggested, I bet there could be some progress.

Sure you'd get grumbles from the ones who hate the "gub'mint" having anything to do with guns, but they're a lost cause already. I think the mainstream gun owners would go for this especially if they got national blanket CCW in return.

[derby378]

37. One question about UK gun smuggling

Is it just me, or has gun smuggling into the UK actually increased since 1996?

[slackmaster]

39. Guns used in VT massacre were NOT purchased legally

But never let facts get in the way of a good rant.

[dmallind]

40. Well a bit of a technicality but true

Unless I'm misinformed he bought them using the currently legal process and passed the current background check. His answer to question 12 may or may not have been technically accurate depending on definition of "adjudicated" mentally defective. He probably did not answer the spirit of that question correctly, but may very well have answered the letter of it so. He certainly did not appear on the official VA list of people who would run afoul of that question, since they only include those committed to inpatient mental facilities.

I don't follow the details all that much though so if you have any different info on what the illegal part of it was I'd be happy to reconsider.

[slackmaster]

41. Two things happened to allow him to slip through the cracks

1. The state of Virginia did not consider his involuntary referral to psychiatric care to be a disqualifying event for purchasing a firearm - But it is under federal law. Virginia screwed up.

2. Cho lied when he filled out the paperwork to buy the weapons. That paperwork is federal, not state.

The first is a technical problem that can be pretty easily fixed.

[dmallind]

42. Not arguing, but an important distinction here.

I don't think VA fouled up because I don't know of any mandate to supply specific info for that question to the NICS FBI guys in WV. It may exist, but nothing I've come across. If so then a great number if not all states are fouling up because the updating of mentally defective databases is pretty haphazard and varied for all states.

Like I posted above this one is a key improvement need. If there ARE strict guidelines (not just a difference between Fed and state definitions but a hard and fast Fed mandate that you MUST as a state report on people who meet ANY of these criteria) then a) VA has some serious 'splaining to do and b) we need to make sure the funding is there - unfunded mandates get short shrift in state budget processes.

Strangely enough - and please remember I'm no fan of the NRA - they agree in this case. The big obstacle is the mental health advocacy groups, who fear that if the definition of mentally defective on the 4473 becomes expanded, it will further disincentivize people from seeking help. It's not exactly a sign of paranoia to not be too keen on having your name linked to a Federal database that says you are mentally defective. I know the claim is made that NICS data is strictly segregated, but I confess I can see the point. I still think we need to do this, but we have to be pretty careful too. Either way the vast majority of gun enthusiasts would support this I feel.

[primavera]

44. What about the second problem, slackmaster?

If a system for checking backgrounds relies upon voluntary completion of applications, what's to prevent someone from just electing to not be entirely forthcoming on their application with respect to any information which might bar them from purchasing a gun?

[slackmaster]

45. If the NICS data had been there, the signed paperwork would have provided hard proof

Of perjury, for which Cho could have been sent to Club Fed for FIVE YEARS for each count.

The language on the form is clear - Making a false statement on it is a federal felony.

[primavera]

48. Is someone like Cho really going to care?

I mean, if he's planning on blowing his brains out anyway, he's probably not too worried about a perjury conviction...

[slackmaster]

50. As I have posted already, if the NICS data was complete the sales would have been stopped

So his willingness to commit perjury would not have made any difference, other than to create a solid trail of evidence with which he could have been prosecuted.

[dmallind]

47. not voluntary at all

To get a gun from an FFL you need to fill out 4473. Lying on it is a big nono. Only reason he didn't get a)declined and b) possibly prosecuted federally for false statements on a 4473 is that VA (and most states) differ from the Feds in how they maintain and share mental health data.

[benEzra]

49. It doesn't; NCIS checks your identity against Federal and state criminal

and mental health databases, and does not depend on you honestly answering any questions.

The problem here was that Virginia's mental-health data was incomplete.