Going after actual criminals just makes more logistical sense

[Nuclear Unicorn]

Whatever one's opinion of gun ownership it has to be admitted that, as a matter of simple, pragmatic terms it makes sense to incarcerate those who use guns to commit crimes; and yes, even accidental shootings are a crime.

Surely, the number of people who choose a life of crime is a fraction of the overall population. So why make an overwhelming majority into (potential) criminals when logistically speaking it would be easier to concentrate on the minuscule fraction?

If enforcement of laws was viable argument then there wouldn't be enough criminals left on the streets to merit gun ownership for anything other than sports. Yet we obviously do have criminals in such quantity that some people need to arm themselves. Why pass laws over non-threatening behavior, i.e. mere ownership, when laws against real crimes such as robbery, assault, etc. are so obviously ineffective at preventing the very acts they forbid?

It seems that going after people law-abiding enough to comply with whatever gun control law is proposed does nothing accept show the police who is NOT committing a crime. Meanwhile, as the police spend limited resources and scarce funding tracking the voluntarily law abiding citizens who number in the tens of millions, while the few thousand truly dangerous criminals continue as they are already determined to act, only now with less opposition from distracted law enforcement.

[PavePusher]

1. Oh dear, you're being 'logical' again....

Haven't we told you about that? It'll never get you anywhere in life, you poor thing.

Snark - OFF.

[ileus]

13. the OP was good on target, after that the thread has went off track.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

20. I'm trying to keep it there

There seems to be a dedicated contingent bent on discussing everything BUT the topic at hand.

[iverglas]

41. and here's me

doing my damndest to do just that, discuss the topic you put at hand, and there's you, going off on bizarro tangents I can't even begin to follow you down.

I've pointed out that your premise is a nonsense -- that somehow, all the bad guys who use guns to commit crimes can be rounded up if you just try hard enough, and that will solve the problem.

It's a total nonsense. So what would you like to discuss?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

66. Obviously some people require more remedial presentations

PREMISE 1: The number of law-abiding citizens greatly outnumbers the number of people who commit violent crime

PREMISE 2: It is easier for the finite resources of law enforcement to manage smaller, rather than larger groups of people

CONCLUSION: Using gun control laws that make the police manage the larger, law-abiding population is not as efficient as enact laws that allow them to focus on the much smaller portion of the population that actually commits violent crime.

REBUTTAL: The premises and/or conclusion is/are flawed because ___________________________________________.

[iverglas]

68. wowsers

Maybe if you'd got more of an education instead of devoting so much energy to that boyfriend-fiancé-husband stuff, you wouldn't write drivel like that.


PREMISE 1: The number of law-abiding citizens greatly outnumbers the number of people who commit violent crime

You're doing well there.

PREMISE 2: It is easier for the finite resources of law enforcement to manage smaller, rather than larger groups of people

Bzzt, sorry. That's just ... how to put it? ... bizarre.

How does one "manage" firearms owners?

By requiring them to get a licence, register their firearms and store their firearms safely and securely.

Those first two sound kind of like what we do with vehicles, don't they? Never mind the specious distinctions between vehicles and firearms (including the nonsense about unregistered farm vehicles blah blan): we're talking about the management process. Require that individuals prove eligibility and issue them licences, require that they register their vehicles. Seems to work pretty easily.

Require that they store their firearms safely and securely? Well, we require that vehicles have working brakes. We don't inspect vehicles daily to make sure they do; if someone causes a crash because their brakes didn't work, we deal with it. And we do all kinds of public information and education stuff to promote safe driving. Kinda like could be done for safe/secure firearms storage.

Meanwhile, we "manage" people who drive illegally, whether it be without a licence or insurance, while intoxicated, at illegal speeds, or whatever, through police work aimed at detecting and apprehending them, and then in the justice system.

Not mutually exclusive at all, are they? And in fact it is very difficult to do the latter without doing the former: to "manage" the lawbreakers without "managing" the law-abiding so they can be dealt with if or when they become lawbreakers.

In the case of vehicles, the law-abiding become lawbreakers when they drive intoxicated, speed, etc.

In the case of firearms owners, the law-abiding become lawbreakers when they commit a crime with their firearm -- or when they transfer their firearm to an ineligible person, this being a major target of the "management" process.

And "managing" the ones who don't break the law sure enhances the ability to "manage" those who do, eh? Because if you don't provide incentives for abiding by the law / disincentives for breaking it, you're not actually managing anything. Which means you are facilitating the transfer of firearms to people ineligible to possess them, the whole thing you are supposedly trying to prevent by making it illegal for them to do that.

So you got yourself an unsound argument there. Not that your Premise 2 is so much false as it is total bullshit, but the thing fails nonetheless.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

71. Now this is the sort of response that actually makes it worth while to read.

Truth be told, I'm not entirely certain safety certification is a bad thing.

Registration may be one thing but it should be no more onerous than registering to vote and once so registered the records should be locked away pending a probable cause warrant just as it would be illegal to use voter registration to show who belongs which party lest retaliations of any sort occur.

Your points on traffic enforcement are also well-taken but as follows the thrust of my initial argument, we do not have blanket breathalyzer tests because it isn't practical, not to mention invasive. Rather, we wait until the police have probable cause of intoxication through observation of a particular indiviual. Whether or not the offender is licensed and his vehicle duly registered has no bearing before he is observed to be probably intoxicated nor do either of those factors determine his propensity to drive intoxicated. On the contrary, a significant percentage of DUIs are repeat offenders that have had their licenses taken from them.

[iverglas]

74. gosh, how sweet of you

Maybe if you tried sticking to an issue yourself you'd get responses you like.


Your points on traffic enforcement are also well-taken but as follows the thrust of my initial argument, we do not have blanket breathalyzer tests because it isn't practical, not to mention invasive.

And what equivalent are you suggesting that someone has suggested there be for firearms? If you can't cite something, you're battling straw.

Do note that anyone driving a car may be asked at any time to produce their licence for doing that (and their proof of registration of the car and proof of insurance).

Rather, we wait until the police have probable cause of intoxication through observation of a particular indiviual.

Where I'm at there are also random stop-and-check programs that have been approved by the courts because of the seriousness of the problem of drunk driving.


Whether or not the offender is licensed and his vehicle duly registered has no bearing before he is observed to be probably intoxicated nor do either of those factors determine his propensity to drive intoxicated.

And here's where you've wandered off and I'm not going to follow you unless I see some relevance.

What does this have to do with any firearms control proposals?

If someone is observed robbing a bank with a firearm, it doesn't matter whether the person is licensed and the firearm is registered? Sure, no problem there. Just don't see a point.


Registration may be one thing but it should be no more onerous than registering to vote and once so registered the records should be locked away pending a probable cause warrant just as it would be illegal to use voter registration to show who belongs which party lest retaliations of any sort occur.

In Canada, I believe it's done at point of sale for commercial retail transactions (I'm actually not sure) and on line in the case of private transactions. Why would registration of firearms be onerous?

As for voter registration, I can't speak to any analogy, since the whole idea of registering as a aprticular party voter is bizarre to me. Here, party membership is a private matter between the person and the party. (And just try getting it; I succeeded once, in the form of a wink and a nod, in an attempt to confirm that a membership in my party wasn't fraudulent, because I was pals with somebody high up in the other party ... and I returned the favour next election cycle.) We are enumerated to vote by an impartial authority, Elections Canada, and it's a criminal offence now to disclose that information. Voter enumeration has nothing to do with parties and I've never understood why it would.

No more is firearms registration info available. Here's the closest you get, aggregate info by broad postal code breakdown (M5 will get you downtown Toronto, K1 is central Ottawa, for example).

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=134147

[DWC]

112. Your logic is impeccable.

You have to be having fun debating this stump.

Semper Fi,

[MyrnaLoy]

2. you do understand

that many of the recent shootings have been committed by people with no criminal record. I would also venture to guess that over half of the murder suicides between husband and wife are committed by people with no criminal record. We can discuss criminals with guns until we are blue in the face but I bet no one wants to discuss gun owners who just, for some reason, kill. Sure you may want to blame mental health care, you may want to blame their family and friends, hell you may even blame the victim. You know what you won't blame? Lax laws, loose background checks, gaping holes in gun purchases, high capacity weapons, like the one used at IHOP. No, you won't blame any of that.

I am a gun owner, I have owned guns my entire life. I also know we have a problem, not just a problem with guns in the hands of criminals but with guns in the hands of future criminals. Every gun was probably purchased by a real nice guy. Some of those nice guys kill, some of those nice guys sell their gun without checks. No, you won't address that, slippery slope and all. How many children who find daddy's gun are criminals before they shoot baby sister? You don't want to see that. You bend over backward to un'req it. No, you don't want to discuss anything, you just want cake.

[Union Scribe]

3. Question

You claim that, "many of the recent shootings have been committed by people with no criminal record. I would also venture to guess that over half of the murder suicides between husband and wife are committed by people with no criminal record."

I find that dubious, but let's forget the actual percentages for now. The important point is that you say they had no criminal record, which is why I don't understand why you think that "loose background checks" are a problem. If there's no record, there's nothing to find: it's not a matter of being "loose." So what DO we do about those people, these "gun owners who just, for some reason, kill"?

[MyrnaLoy]

4. first address dubious

the IHOP shooter, no record except for a mental health hold. What DO YOU want to do about that? Dubious? go look it up. Search out stories involving murder suicide in families. You'll find, just as I have, that many of those shooters had no record. Now loose or lax background checks, yes? DO YOU support the fact that many states have stopped using a 5-day waiting period? Yes or NO? Do you support the return of a 5-day waiting period? There is your answer.

[Union Scribe]

7. So you have data showing that people who kill their families

overwhelmingly, or even largely, have had their weapons less than five days? If not, then the wait period wouldn't seem to have any bearing on this issue.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LAGC]

12. There's clearly folks who shouldn't own guns.

But as you admitted right here in this thread, the government isn't very good at determining who those people are.

Short of somehow magically getting rid of all the hundreds of millions of guns already out there, how on earth can you prevent some crazy folks (an extreme minority of gun-owners) getting hold of them?

If we focused on providing easier access to many of these people with mental health care to address their problems before they explode, chances are they'd never abuse a gun anyway.

If we don't catch them in time, no matter how much you beef up the background checks, they will still slip through the cracks because they were never flagged!

In other words, more gun control will never work. Only a total gun ban and mass-confiscation will reduce these gun crimes, but many of the folks would probably just resort to other methods of murder-suicide, if their underlying issues are never addressed...

[Kennah]

116. There's clearly folks who shouldn't vote.

However, I too am not ready for the Department of Pre-Crime and Mental Competence determining who gets which rights.

[PavePusher]

25. As gets pointed out quite often (to both sides)...

Articles about specific incidents are not evidence of statistical trends. Also known as "anecdote=/=data".

And you bear the burden of supporting your claims with evidence, not the questioner. Throwing insults in response to requests for evidence is, at best, immature, and at worst, a signal of mendacity.

[oneshooter]

39. Mostly it is considered to be impolite and uncivilized. n/t

[Union Scribe]

43. I take it you don't have that data handy, then.

How is it proof that "I don't care" when I ask you for proof of your claims? There's a hyper-emotional disconnect from logic there.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

8. So anyone who isn't a suspect is now a suspect?

I'm not seeing it.

As fate would have it, Nevada law prohibits owning a gun for illegal purposes -- http://law.findlaw.com/state-laws/gun-control/nevada/

Sort of a permanent waiting period so long as you retain criminal intent, I suppose.

[MyrnaLoy]

10. hell

I don't know you and if I saw you with a gun you would be suspect. We don't know what anyone is capable of, your point is a little stupid. Guy walks into a mall with a AK in a state with open carry, you gonna think that's normal? See the stupidity in your everyone is a suspect thing? Let me make it easier for you. Guy walks in your business with an AK, are you NOT going to be suspicious?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

11. Suppose a guy does walk into public venue openly brandishing a weapon?

In Nevada its illegal to own a gun for criminal purposes.

If he's ignoring that law the people around him might be better served defending themselves rather than waiting for the 5 to 40 minutes law enforcement might take to respond and act.

Stop hassling millions of good people looking for the 1 guy because you will overlook him every time.

I don't know you

No you don't. I've been shooting 2 times in my entire life and while I very much enjoyed the time with my boyfriend who would later that day become my fiance and is now my husband I don't really care to shoot for sport and certainly not to take human life. So your wild insults that I love AK-47s (a device I never held) or that I heel to the NRA reflects poorly.

[iverglas]

15. what in the hell is this?

In Nevada its illegal to own a gun for criminal purposes.

And what ... if you do it anyway, you have to wear a big red C on your forehead?

Exactly how does a member of the public distinguish someone carrying a firearm for criminal purposes from someone carrying it because they're just a garden variety jerk?

If he's ignoring that law the people around him might be better served defending themselves rather than waiting for the 5 to 40 minutes law enforcement might take to respond and act.

Do you realize how utterly and completely ridiculous you are making yourself?

If you see a stranger carrying one of those AK47-ish things into the bank where you're waiting in line, in a place where it's legal for non-criminals to do that, what do you do, shoot on sight?

I'm sure you understand the impersonal "you" here, but if you want to prattle on some more about your boyfriend who became your fiancé who became your husband ... yeesh, it's like this season of Big Brother; are you Rachel?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

18. "If you see a stranger carrying one of those AK47-ish things into the bank..."

I'm not aware of anyone advocating or practicing this scenario.

"what do you do, shoot on sight?"

I suppose the law and good manners might suggest a presumption of innocence be extended to the subject of this heretofore unproposed scenario.

[iverglas]

28. try to follow along

I replied to your post 11, which was a reply to post 10. See how that works? Read post 10 again if you are still confused.

And don't be play Pierrette Mason. No "presumption of innocence" applies in relations between individuals.

YOU said:

In Nevada its illegal to own a gun for criminal purposes.

If he's ignoring that law the people around him might be better served defending themselves rather than waiting for the 5 to 40 minutes law enforcement might take to respond and act.

What earthly meaning does this have?

If someone is walking around with a gun that they OWN illegally, HOW DO YOU KNOW? Why would you even call "law enforcement" if you saw somebody walking around with a gun??

I've been asking this question for some time now, you see, and nobody has answered. But now you've walked straight into it.

Won't you be the one?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

67. Actually I was hoping you would say,

"If someone is walking around with a gun that they OWN illegally, HOW DO YOU KNOW?" a few more times. It is one of the few non-ad hominem statements you've ever made and I wanted to cherish it for a moment or two.

You'll be glad to know that I can assert with solid assurances, I agree with you.

You cannot know. But the law is there anyway. I'm sure it's just a "pile-on" law that allows for lengthening sentences when a firearm used. i.e. aggravating circumstance; but that's not why I cited the law.

No one can know why someone purchases or possesses anything but people who purchase firearms for perfectly good reasons are being treated pre-emptively like deranged, mass-murdering criminals with no evidence about the indiviual's conduct or the fact that law-abiding and responsible gun owners far and away outnumber the criminal and irresponsible.

It should also be pointed out that when it comes to matters of gun control laws such as not using a gun for criminal purposes most criminals seem to disregard those laws.

[iverglas]

69. and here was me hoping you'd address the issue

Doomed to disappointment, me.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

72. If I could figure out how to use crayons on the internet for you, I would.

Since you admit people cannot determine the intent of gun ownership yet gun control advocates demand laws that would adversely effect the vast majority of gun owners who are law-abiding.

For example, magazine capacity restrictions are many times discussed as a needed element of gun control. Why is it necessary to take away these magazines from the overwhelming majority of people who would use them lawfully based on the actions a very narrow few?

[iverglas]

75. well hell, since you're determined to change the subject,

I'll play along.

Why is it necessary to take away these magazines from the overwhelming majority of people who would use them lawfully based on the actions a very narrow few?

Because the harm that is caused by those actions is so enormous that the public interest in public safety becomes pressing and urgent and outweighs the individual interest in convenience or whatever the private interest in possessing such things is.

The overwhelming majority of people who drive when their blood alcohol is over the legal limit don't kill anybody, either. But the harm caused by the few, and the public interest in preventing that harm, is sufficient to prohibit everybody from doing it.


Just out of curiosity, where did this come from? --

Since you admit people cannot determine the intent of gun ownership

I didn't ADMIT it, I asserted it as a fact. I have always asserted it as a fact.

Nobody's claim that they are toting a firearm around "for self-defence" has the slightest effect on anything, even if that is their claim. Objects do not have intents, and the intents of persons are not determinative of how objects are actually used. Someone who owns a firearm for the purpose of pest and predator control, and who in fact uses it to shoot the fox attacking the hens, might still use the firearm to kill a family member. If only we could read minds though, eh?

So frankly, the "intent of gun ownership" is not really a concern of mine. The only available approach to the problem of people using things like high-capacity magazines to cause enormous harm is to limit their availability to the extent possible, at little or no genuine cost to anyone else.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

77. Actually, there are about 37,000 alcohol related traffic deaths annually

http://www.alcoholalert.com/drunk-driving-statistics.html

Interesting, considering the number of gun related deaths in the US:

... The majority of gun-related deaths in the United States are suicides,<5> with 17,352 (55.6%) of the total 31,224 firearm-related deaths in 2007 due to suicide, while 12,632 (40.5%) were homicide deaths.<6>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States

One gun control site says large capacity magazines were used in 14 - 25 percent of all gun crimes prior to the now-expired 1994 ban -- http://www.lcav.org/statistics-polling/gun_violence_statistics.asp

Yet, those who seek to remedy the tragedy of drunk driving fatalities don't call for blanket restrictions on vehicle ownership or performance capabilities of automobiles as a means of lower the 37,000 deaths even though drunk drivers kill 300% more people. Granting the gun control website's most damning statistic of 25% that means a drunk driver is roughly 12x more deadly than a large capacity magazine.

Ironically, there are limits to the alcohol content of beverages, analogous to a magazine capacity limit, I suppose, but that seems to do little to limit the irresponsible person's ability to re-load prior to interdiction by law enforcement.

If the preservation of human life was the honest motive behind gun control and if its proposed remedies were effective than those remedies should just as easily apply to drunk driving, i.e. limit owenrship, limit performance of vehicles, tax alcohol until it is too expensive for the common man as some would do with ammunition. If we can be solely dependent upon the police for our protection than surely we can be solely dependent upon the government to shepherd us to and from work, school, church and the odd vacation. Besides, why would any decent, law-abiding citizen need to step outside those boundaries anyhow.

[iverglas]

78. this window into the workings of your mind is fascinating, I'm sure

but unless I can dig up some dregs of that homegrown somewhere so it's at least fun following you down those twisty lanes, I'm not interested.

What I said was that the overwhelming majority of people who drive with blood alcohol over the legal limit don't kill anybody, but we prohibit it anyhow.

I think you've proved my point: 37,000 alcohol related traffic deaths annually.

I'm quite sure there will be 37,000 people driving around with blood alcohol over the legal limit in most states of the USA this very evening.


Yet, those who seek to remedy the tragedy of drunk driving fatalities don't call for blanket restrictions on vehicle ownership or performance capabilities of automobiles as a means of lower the 37,000 deaths even though drunk drivers kill 300% more people.

And yet laws do require that vehicles have brakes and brakelights, headlights, turn signals, seatbelts, non-bald tires, no pointy projectiles on the hoods and various other devices and arrangements ... ever noticed that?


If the preservation of human life was the honest motive behind gun control and if its proposed remedies were effective than those remedies should just as easily apply to drunk driving, i.e. limit owenrship, limit performance of vehicles, tax alcohol until it is too expensive for the common man as some would do with ammunition.

Last bit first: alcohol is in fact taxed prohibitively, while ammunition actually is not. Hmm.

USE of vehicles is limited by the licensing process. If you think I want to play the silly game for the 95th time where you say that you don't need a licence to drive on private property, and I say let me know when the shrinking device to make a car fit in a pocket or the cloaking device to make it invisible is invented and then we'll talk analogies ... you're wrong. The only way to regulate use of firearms is to regulate possession.

Otherwise, why would it be illegal in the US for "felons" to even possess firearms? Surely allowing them to possess firearms in the comfort of their own homes is no problem for anyone.

Btw, I look forward to the day when a breathalyzer will be standard issue in vehicles, and they won't start without a legal reading. Whole lot more useful than video equipment.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

80. I can do condescending snark too

And yet laws do require...

And yet those laws let drunks claim 12x the number of lives lost annually to high capacity magazines.

Ever notice that?

alcohol is in fact taxed prohibitively, while ammunition actually is not. Hmm.

I would think the defintion of "prohibitively" would be evidenced by people being unable to acquire alcohol and yet, plenty of low income folks drive drunk. Did you get all the way to "P" in your Word-A-Day calendar?

And what is the point of this line of argument? If the lack of taxes on ammunition meant higher killing then what we gain from the alcohol vs. gun comparison is:

A) taxes don't curtail criminal behavior because drunk drivers with taxes still kill 3 times as many people as murderer with guns without taxes

B) if those taxes do work than alcohol use has been curtailed and its obviously more than 3 times more dangerous than untaxed ammunition. So why not reinstate Prohibition?

USE of vehicles is limited by the licensing process.

And yet, drunk drivers are 3 times more dangerous than gun owners who may or may not be licensed.


I would think that if you advocated for a policy you would want to demonstrate it being effective in some regard. You're not very good at this arguing thing. It's a good thing you don't have to do this for a living.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

81. Very well played...:) N/T

[iverglas]

83. awwww

Don't you wish you'd waited for the next instalment?

Or do you like being fed false facts?

[iverglas]

82. here ya go

I would think the defintion of "prohibitively" would be evidenced by people being unable to acquire alcohol and yet, plenty of low income folks drive drunk. Did you get all the way to "P" in your Word-A-Day calendar?

Does you got google?

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/prohibitive

1. Prohibiting; forbidding: took prohibitive measures.
2. So high or burdensome as to discourage purchase or use: prohibitive prices.
3. So likely to win as to discourage competition: the prohibitive favorite to win the nomination.

1. prohibiting or tending to prohibit
2. (esp of prices) tending or designed to discourage sale or purchase

Or just try googling the term "prohibitive taxes" to get a clue.

"Discourage".

You may write that out 10 times on the blackboard now.



And yet, drunk drivers are 3 times more dangerous than gun owners who may or may not be licensed.

Let me know which kindergarten you took arithmetic in and I'll have a word with them.

Oh, btw, were none of those 37,000 deaths the drunk drivers? We'll start including accidents and suicides in firearms deaths figures now then, thank you.

... Oh dear, let's put it this way, actually: are you offering false statistics?

http://www.alcoholalert.com/drunk-driving-statistics.html

2008
total fatalities: 37,261
alcohol-related fatalities: 13,846


My goodness. Check your facts much? Lucky you have me, eh? Somebody might have believed you otherwise. Why, I almost did myself, didn't I?

You actually used the TOTAL number of traffic fatalities and called it the number of alcohol-related fatalities. I'm sure this could not have been intentional.

Here's what I was getting at, though.

http://www.alcoholstats.com/page.aspx?id=136

The number of fatalities in drunk-driving crashes has declined 49 percent since 1982, going from 21,113 in 1982 to 10,839 in 2009, a record-low level. There were 10,000 fewer drunk-driving fatalities in 2009 than in 1982.
Sources: The U.S. Department of Transportation

While the total number of drunk-driving fatalities has declined to a record-low 49 percent since 1982, the numbers for vehicle miles traveled, registered motor vehicles, licensed drivers, and the total U.S. population have increased. In fact, the number of vehicle miles traveled has increased 87 percent, the number of registered motor vehicles has increased 55 percent, the number of licensed drivers has increased 39 percent, and the total U.S. population has increased 31 percent since 1982.
Sources: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation

Cars, drivers and miles driven skyrocketing, drunk driving fatalities plummeting.

Your arithmetic just fails to take that little "miles driven" thing into account, doesn't it? Most people in the US are in potentially fatal contact with hundreds if not thousands of vehicles a day. And yet there are so few fatalities ...

[Nuclear Unicorn]

85. Well, you claimed 7.2 million US prisoners then corrected to 3 million

So perhaps your chest thumping on actual numbers is a bit "hypocritical."

If you gots a google you can look that up as well.

As to alcohol being taxed prohibitively so as to reduce traffic fatalities, the balance of my argument remains -- obviously even low-income people drive drunk, and even with "prohibitive" taxes alcohol is as dangerous, if not more so than untaxed ammunition.

Perhaps, while you are stomping around google, if you could turn up a way of linking the correlation to the causation of taxes leading to lower death rates (considering how inevitable they are both supposed to be) that would be helpful.

Of course one could also claim public awareness campaigns and changing social mores were as likely, if not more so, in reducing deaths due to drunk driving. It's interesting that gun control advocates never want to try *those* methods for reducing needless gun-related deaths.

[iverglas]

88. a fresh tangent

Perhaps, while you are stomping around google, if you could turn up a way of linking the correlation to the causation of taxes leading to lower death rates (considering how inevitable they are both supposed to be) that would be helpful.

You're the one who brought up taxation, so you do whatever you like with it.

I merely pointed out that alcohol IS taxed prohibitively and ammunition IS NOT, when you were trying to make a point that ignored those facts.


Of course one could also claim public awareness campaigns and changing social mores were as likely, if not more so, in reducing deaths due to drunk driving.

If you're claiming that I said that prohibitive taxation was the causal factor, you're barking up a very false tree.

As I said, I merely pointed out that you were ignoring the facts when it came to the taxation of alcohol vs. ammunition.

Since I've never proposed prohibitive taxes on ammunition as an approach to anything, it has nothing to do with me. I'm not generally in favour of using consumption taxes as a tool to influence behaviour.


even with "prohibitive" taxes alcohol is as dangerous, if not more so than untaxed ammunition

You're needing to pass your equations on to some learnèd people, I think, since you've succeeded where they have failed. You've managed to create dangerousness indexes for alcohol and ammunition. Will you not share?

You may not be familiar with that term, "dangerousness index", but you can google it. I think you'll find that your notion that there are dangerousness indexes for substances and objects (i.e. other than for the use of the substance or object itself) are, um, unique.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

90. Actually others have brought up taxation as a means of curtailing

gun and ammunition ownership.

I merely pointed out that alcohol IS taxed prohibitively and ammunition IS NOT, when you were trying to make a point that ignored those facts

Are you stupid, insane or just lying?

My rebuttals centered on the fact that alcohol was taxed and ammunition was not yet drunk drivers kill as many if not more. You even quoted my point later. How you claim I ignore the difference in taxation between alcohol and ammuniton is an astounding feat.

My rebuttals also pointed to the fact that, "brakes and brakelights, headlights, turn signals, seatbelts, non-bald tires, no pointy projectiles on the hoods and various other devices and arrangements...limited by the licensing process" were your argument as to why government should be allowed to interfere with a constitutionally specified right.

I've replied time and again that those devices still leave cars more dangerous than guns and drunk drivers negate the value of all these devices. It is called an analogy. Google it. The criminal drunk driver is analogous to the criminal gun owner. No amount of legislation or equipment regulation is going to overcome their actions. Changing the person or removing them from society as a whole seems the more practical measure.

OK, fine, you never brought up taxing ammunition. Bully for you. I was wrapping up several anti-gun arguemnts that I've read in this forum into a single point and I included one not specically made by you but made nonetheless. You assign the arguments of others to me from time to time, try being adult enough to emotionally cope if it happens to you.

Maturity. Google it

[Name removed]

94. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

101. well, since my reply to this post

in which you refer to me as "stupid, insane or just lying", and the rest of the subthread, are gone, in response to my reporting your final post in which you addressed me as LIAR, I guess it's time for this one to go too. Funny now nobody noticed this one at the top of it all ...

[PavePusher]

27. The answer to your question is elementary, my dear...

"Exactly how does a member of the public distinguish someone carrying a firearm for criminal purposes from someone carrying it because they're just a garden variety jerk?"


A few moments of observation. I'm surprised you didn't think of it in your rush to hyperbolize a scenario.

[iverglas]

30. "A few moments of observation."

Nobody's getting out of this one that easily.

I'm not hyperbolizing anything. I am reply to what our Nuclear Unicorn SAID:


In Nevada its illegal to own a gun for criminal purposes.

If he's ignoring that law the people around him might be better served defending themselves rather than waiting for the 5 to 40 minutes law enforcement might take to respond and act.


If somebody "ignores" the law and owns a gun for criminal purposes, and then goes wandering abroad with it, HOW DOES ANYONE KNOW what purposes they own it for??

What happens after those "few moments of observation" by members of the public?

If they don't like the cut of his jib, they call police?

Mm hmm ... and we know what happens then, right?

Nothing. Nothing happens. Remember? The police may not investigate by requring that the individual identify themself. If they so much as ASK that the individual identify themself they are likely as not going to get sued.


So step right up, PavePusher. Tell us what Nuclear Unicorn was really saying.

'Cause I surely don't know.

[PavePusher]

32. Really? Your evidence is...?

"The police may not investigate by requring that the individual identify themself. If they so much as ASK that the individual identify themself they are likely as not going to get sued."

[iverglas]

34. buh bye

[Union Scribe]

47. Going for a catch phrase?

That one sucks.

[friendly_iconoclast]

50. Didn't care to discuss Hiibel V. Nevada, it seems... n/t

[Union Scribe]

52. You mean that didn't qualify as a legal argument?

There goes my "buh bye, your Honor," strategy for my next ticket.

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

64. so I'll say it again

You have the gall to launch this little thing at me because I had not replied to your post WITHIN THREE MINUTES OF YOU POSTING IT?

Time of post in question: 10:56
Time of this post: 10:59

You then followed me to another thread and replied to a post of mine saying nothing about the subject of this thread and accusing me of not replying to your post in this thread.

Well I replied to it WHEN I SAW IT.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=459093&mesg_id=459401

And I proved that what your little display of erudition was pointless because the case you cited had NOTHING TO DO with what I had said.

And YOU have had nothing to say to that.

[friendly_iconoclast]

49. "The police may not investigate by requring that the individual identify themself....

...If they so much as ASK that the individual identify themself they are likely as not going to get sued."

Wrong- search Hiibel v. Nevada, or more formally:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiibel_v._Sixth_Judicial_District_Court_of_Nevada

[iverglas]

53. god almighty; did you read the first sentence of your wiki?

Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004), held that statutes requiring suspects to identify themselves during police investigations did not violate the Fourth Amendment."

And then comes:

Nevada has a “stop-and-identify” law that allows a peace officer to detain any person he encounters “under circumstances which reasonably indicate that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime”; the person may be detained only to “ascertain his identity and the suspicious circumstances surrounding his presence abroad.”

How any times do you plan to play this game?

A person wandering around with a gun in a jurisdiction where "open carry" is permitted IS NOT A SUSPECT.

And if they happen to be hooked up with one of the fine gun militant organizations your country boasts, like Ohio Open Carry, they WILL sue if they perceive they have been annoyed because of the firearms in which they have festooned themselves.

God almighty.

[rl6214]

58. "God almighty" is about right...

"gun militant organizations"

"firearms in which they have festooned themselves."

[iverglas]

65. thought of anything to say yet?

Just wondering, since it's been over 13 hours.

[iverglas]

107. where is my answer???

Am I not to be scorned and enlightened???

[PavePusher]

26. Also, there is a vast gulf, both legally and in intent....

between "brandishing" and "carrying" or "bearing".

[iverglas]

35. if you want to reply to my posts

do so.

Otherwise, buh bye.

[PavePusher]

37. I was actually addressing N.U.'s use of "brandishing".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6cxNR9ML8k

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

21. What will a 5 day waiting period accomplish?

If there's no diqualifying information to find... 4 extra days of looking for nothing is going to rather fruitless. If someone has an agenda or decides to kill somebody (or go on a spree) in a premeditaded fashion, then a five day waiting period won't stop anything.

[MyrnaLoy]

40. seriously

you can't be that, ummmm nevermind. You probably are. A 5 day waiting period is not to look for something rocket scientist. It is a cooling off period just in case the person is buying a gun out of anger. I would have never thought I would have to explain that.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

44. Seriously, how much has the firearm murder rate risen since abolishing waiting periods?

Just how many gun crimes do you think are committed within days of buying a gun legally from a licensed gun shop? You can't be that, ummmm nevermind. You probably are...

[MyrnaLoy]

55. well if you're hell bent on asking stupid ass questions

How on earth can you even begin to know if the waiting period was successful or unsuccessful? Think about it. If that's possible. I guess you could ask people who bought guns if they planned to kill someone and did waiting 5 days help. Sure, that's the ticket. We could go to prisons and ask husbands who shot their wives if 5 days would have helped. We could ask those who do the murder suicide thing....wait, nevermind, they are both dead.

See the stupidity of your questioning a waiting period yet? Where are your stats? Yeah, the murder rate, good one. We are talking about a specific type of murder when we discuss 5 day waiting periods and cooling off. You knew that and you knew there is no way to prove a waiting period works or not. Neither one of us knows right?

Yup neither one of us knows so why not err on the side of caution? Cuz the dumbasses at the NRA/GOP/Gun Forums are fucking nuts!

[X_Digger]

56. Actually, it's been studied.. and found wanting..

Jens Ludwig and Philip J. Cook, "Homicide and Suicide Rates Associated With Implementation of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act," Journal of the American Medical Association, vol. 284, no. 5 (August 2, 2000).

Based on the assumption that the greatest reductions in fatal violence would be within states that were required to institute waiting periods and background checks, implementation of the Brady Act appears to have been associated with reductions in the firearm suicide rate for persons aged 55 years or older but not with reductions in homicide rates or overall suicide rates.

There was a 2.2% drop in the use of firearms for suicide in those 55 or older, but a concomitant increase in non-gun suicides.

If you're so set on waiting periods being a good thing, then why did you get a license to get around it?

"I can buy a hand gun without the waiting period...I enjoy shooting, I don't like waiting."

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

59. No reason to be so vulgar...

There have been many studies that involve questioning inmates in prison about various aspects of their crimes (if the data wasn't already available to law enforcement). One particular FBI/DOJ study I remember seeing was aimed at asking where/how most guns were obtained by criminals (gun show, straw purchase, family/Friends, stolen, legally purchased, etc...). If I remember correctly, most guns were provided by family or friends followed by straw purchasing.

Given the existence of such data gathering methods in other studies, I see no reason why data shouldn't exist citing "when" a criminal's weapon was obtained. Heck, that seems like a trivial enough question to come to light during the indictment or trial. (It appears x_digger is even referring to one such study published in an AMA journal.) Plus, with FFL record keeping and all, if a gun was bought with/without a waiting period within a week or so then it ought to be darn easy for the ATF to track down. Or from a purely statistical perspective without interviewing and intensive record sifting, one could look at the gun-crime and violent crime rate versus the use of waiting period laws. If the whole point of waiting periods is to decrease crime in one fashion or another... why not simply look at the prime metric (gun/violent crime as a function of waiting periods).

Fact is that most gun crime does not come from guns purchased directly from a gun shop (which is where any sort of waiting period applies). Most guns come from secondary sources. I would not be surprised if most gun crime was independent of waiting periods for this reason alone without even addressing the effectiveness of transactions where a waiting period would have been in effect.

Ultimately, if you want to nag/harp about how waiting periods make our gun purchasing restrictions lax then at least offer some sort of evidence to support such an insinuation.

[rl6214]

60. So which is the reason you got your CCP?

"I can buy a hand gun without the waiting period...I enjoy shooting, I don't like waiting."

"because I wanted to? how's that for an answer"

" I got it to document just how easy is was to get in Washington St."

So, you've disposed of your permit, just how do you do that?

Do you tear it up, shred it, do you have to notify someone that you no longer want it?

[MyrnaLoy]

62. no

you just tear it up. I have never carried a concealed weapon and always thought it was sort of stupid. I do have guns still but I've always thought being armed was just stupid. I know a lot of people, lived all over America and I've not met one person who ever needed a weapon to defend themselves. Those that feel the need to do so live in a fantasy world.

[rl6214]

86. Thank you for that answer

[spin]

22. I have a concealed weapons permit and own 19 handguns ...

it makes absolutely no sense for me to have to wait five days before I can pick up a handgun I just purchased.

In Florida, the fact that I have a carry permit allows me to bypass that requirement.

My question to you is do you feel that I should have to wait five days?

[We_Have_A_Problem]

23. What do you suggest doing about it?

If he had a mental record, and that information was not properly handled by the local police, then they failed in their duty.

Loose or lax background checks? All that can be checked is the information available. As I said, if the information is not entered, how does one know?

Yes, I fully support the fact that most states (i think all actually) do not do the 5 day waiting period, especially since there is no legitimate reason to force someone we presume is innocent to have to wait before being permitted to exercise their rights.

[MicaelS]

24. Yes, and No...

Yes, I support the abolition of the 5 day waiting period, and No, I do not support it's return. Even if we re-instituted it, someone would misuse a gun they got after the 5 day waiting period, and then you would use that as excuse to demand a 10 day waiting period. Then a 20 day waiting period, then a 30 day waiting period, then a 60 day waiting period.

Maybe if the US Congress quit passing feel-good unfunded mandates, and put some teeth AND money into laws they actually want to accomplish something, then the states' mental health record reporting systems wouldn't be in such a shambles.

And I would fully support holding local officials and especially university officials accountable (as in jail time) for not being more pro-active for situations like occurred where Katy Benoit was murdered. I believe ALL college / university police departments should be abolished, and it should be the responsibility of the local police / sheriff's department to police campuses. Have a local police right office on campus. All crimes get reported to them, not to the university, and thus no more sweeping sexual assaults, terrorists threats, and any other felony under the rug to avoid scaring off donors and parents of potential students.

[RSillsbee]

42. Yes or no

did you or did you not get a permit specifically so that you didn't have to deal w/ waiting periods?


Pot? Kettle?

[Straw Man]

99. The big "except"...

the IHOP shooter, no record except for a mental health hold.

That mental health hold is an automatic disqualifier. The system failed to enforce the law as it stands. What is your suggested solution to that?

You own firearms, right? What additional restrictions should be placed on you? Make a list, and then I challenge you to begin adhering to them voluntarily. The next time you want to buy a gun, pick one out and then tell the shop that you'll be back in five days for it. Have regular background checks and mental health evaluations just so we can all rest easy that you're not an under-the-radar felon or a person on the verge of a mental breakdown. Call your local law enforcement and invite them into your home to inspect and evaluate your firearms storage practices. And about firing the full-auto M16, AK-47, and Thompson? Don't do that again, ever. Shame on you.

If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem, dude. Put your lifestyle where your mouth is.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

5. "the recent shootings have been committed by people with no criminal record"

Do you, per chance, have a criminal record?

If not that just may very well make you a prime suspect for some future act of mass violence.

loose background checks, gaping holes in gun purchases

What use would these be against people with no prior history? Don't get me wrong, I support disarming convicted criminals, people with restraining orders and such but you seem to be arguing against your own position.

However, as I noted and you seem to offhandedly echo, the laws seem powerless to prevent the things they criminalize. If that is the case then why would we expand laws to sweep tens of millions of law-abiding people when we already have proven that we're all but powerless to prevent the acts of a few thousand? Wouldn't the logistics alone strangle whatever effectiveness you would hope to point towards? It seems one might just as soon claim the hunt for piranha fish should be so thorough in its scope as to include a complete survey of sub-Saharan Africa -- just to be safe. You'll spend much time and effort and you may look very busy in the process but you'll catch very few toothy fish.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Euromutt]

63. "No criminal record" doesn't mean no criminal activity, and nobody "just kills"

Intimate partner homicides tend to follow a well established pattern: male partner abuses female, female leaves or threatens to leave, male partner murders female partner. Over 75% of intimate partner homicides occur after the woman leaves, and of the remainder, a great many occur when she threatens to leave. The murders are damn near invariably premeditated; over half are committed after the male (ex-)partner is known to have stalked the woman; and note that that doesn't necessarily mean the rest didn't involve stalking, only that it couldn't be established afterwards that stalking took place. I'm thoroughly convinced, based on reading various books, that the notion of a "crime of passion" is a myth, a lie concocted by murderers and their defense counsels in a transparent attempt to escape charges of premeditated murder, and inexplicably, western society has swallowed that lie hook, line and sinker.

You want to find a root cause of homicides, try looking at the value a (sub-)culture places on "honor," or some other expression of self-image. Intimate partner homicides are, in a very real sense, "honor killings," and American culture (in aggregate) places a far higher value on "honor" than western Europeans ones do.

The "problem" we have in the United States is that we have this constitutional provision that "no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." You have to actually be convicted of an offense to be considered legally guilty, and that can quite a standard to meet if you want to have someone disarmed. When it comes to mental health issues, moreover, the gun laws are trailing well behind the state of health care; unlike in 1968, it is practically impossible to got someone involuntarily committed to a mental institution these days, and that's only one of two ways you can strip someone with mental health problems of the right to possess firearms, the other being via a court order, and that requires that "due process" I was talking about earlier. Basically, there are very few ways to restrict someone's freedom until he is shown to have done something bad.

[iverglas]

91. I'm just curious

I'll be waiting for the demands for citations for all the statistics offered up in this post ...

Not that I'm disputing them. I just think it's interesting how they've been sitting here all these hours and nobody has called for substantiation.

In fact, I agree with much of what was said. I posted on the subject of "honour" killings of women myself this week.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4986690&mesg_id=4987791

The underside of "honour" is generally narcissism, as in the personality disorder of that variety, or a related one. A man who is unable to get what he believes is his due, and kills the woman or women who have thwarted him. Not just intimate partners: random women in engineering faculties or gyms come in for it too.


You have to actually be convicted of an offense to be considered legally guilty, and that can quite a standard to meet if you want to have someone disarmed.

But denying a person permission to possess firearms, based on public safety considerations in this case, is not a punishment, so none of this comes into it at all. There's no guilt or innocence involved, and trying to sneak that into the mix is a cute trick but it doesn't work.

The issue is the public interest at stake vs the private interest at stake, a balancing for which there are clear guidelines. And the private interest in possessing firearms just doesn't outweigh the public interest in keeping firearms out of the hands of people who fail to meet the criteria established for determining whether it is in the public interest for them to have firearms.

Require a licence to possess firearms, and by all means, necessarily in fact, provide for appropriate judicial review of any denials.

And stop pretending that denial of a licence to do something is "punishment", because it just ain't.

[gravity556]

115. Denial of the excersise of rights IS a punishment.

One that can only be meted out via due process. I know, you Canadians don't have that silly bill of rights, but we do, and it pretty specifically states that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. Liberty referrs to the exercise of rights-not priveleges like you have in Canada. If you have to have permission, it is no longer a right. There is no right to drive a car on public roadways, so licensing and registration of cars is not equivalent to licensing and registration of firearms.

[iverglas]

14. going after people who provide guns to criminals

might actually PREVENT some of the harm that the criminals cause when they have guns.

Please try to remember: some people actually care about this.

Some people actually want to reduce the numbers of deaths and injuries, the number of people robbed, the number of family members intimidated, the harm to communities terrorized by people with guns.

Just keep that written on a scrap of paper someplace and look at it occasionally.

Some people really don't get their kicks by fantasizing about locking up all the bad guys.

Some people want there to be fewer bad things happening.

And one way to accomplish that is to keep more guns out of the hands of more criminals.

And one way to accomplish that is to insist, to require, to demand that people who are legally entitled to have firearms take all reasonable measures to prevent it from happening, and be held accountable if they fail to do so.

And in order to enforce those requirements, the law-abiding must be able to take the appropriate measures. They must have access to and be required to obtain assurance that when they transfer their firearms, the person taking possession is legally entitled to do so. They must be required to register the firearms they possess so they are not in a position to sell them illegally with impunity. And they must be required to store their firearms safetly and securely so no one is harmed as a result of an unauthorized person, be it toddler or burglar, gaining access to them.

Never mind they "should be responsible". They must be accountable.


Some people just make me laugh.

Ya can't win the war on drugs, ya can't ban guns (as if somebody wanted to), because, you know, it just won't work, those drugs and guns will just keep on a-comin'.

What what the hell do you think is going to happen when you lock up the criminals?

Maybe the same damned thing as happens now?

Some other people are going to come along and take over the job?

Lock up "a few thousand", and a few thousand more are waiting in the wings step in.

You KNOW this. You KNOW that locking up one drug dealer just leads to two drug dealers fighting over their market share. It does NOT take a criminal off the street, it just give another criminal a free hand.

Do people never tire of making themselves look like they just don't have a grip?

[Remmah2]

17. Utopia vs Reality.

The irony of the argument is that in the end we all die anyway. That's the only absolute in the universe.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

19. I don't think anyone here would object prosecuting someone who

knowingly sold a firearm to a convicted criminal.

Ya can't win the war on drugs, ya can't ban guns (as if somebody wanted to), because, you know, it just won't work, those drugs and guns will just keep on a-comin'.

What what the hell do you think is going to happen when you lock up the criminals?

They will keep coming. People provide drugs, not as a political statement to protest anti-drug laws but to make money and the consumer is willing to pay that money. And that is for mere recreation. It's my understanding guns are all but wholly illegal in Mexico and yet the nation appears to be a free fire zone (We'll set aside the gun control dedicated ATFs ironically tragic role for the moment). The guns in Mexico are a result of one group providing what another group is willing to pay to acquire. If the money is there to back-up the demand the supply will find a way.

And yes, the criminals should be locked away -- so long as we have a reasonable definition of criminal. Making criminals of tens of millions of good people is, as my OP suggests, too logistically burdensome.

[iverglas]

33. Aw, that's so cute!

I don't think anyone here would object prosecuting someone who
knowingly sold a firearm to a convicted criminal.

Gosh, that's mighty, er, good of you.


me: What what the hell do you think is going to happen when you lock up the criminals?

They will keep coming. People provide drugs, not as a political statement to protest anti-drug laws but to make money and the consumer is willing to pay that money.

Uh, you're doing this on purpose, right? Trying to make my head spin so I get dizzy and throw up?

"They will keep coming." Why yes indeed, that was my point. Lock up one criminal, and there are two fighting to take that one's place. This, you see, was me addressing the thesis of the thread: that locking up criminals is the best way to address crime and violence. This was me saying: what a pantload.

Now what's the rest of this? What bizarro tangent have you gone off on about providing drugs? Who was talking about political statements? Nobody here is talking about political statements. I don't know how you managed to get off the bus at such a wrong stop, but please do hop back on and rejoin the thread here.

We're talking about fixing stuff by locking up criminals. We're not talking about the efficacy of gun control and the gun militant fantasy that guns will just keep dropping like lawn darts from the sky no matter what human intervention there is.

You started a thread. See the opening post there? You wrote it. In it, you said something. What you said is the subject of this thread. And here's me, addressing the subject you raised:

Going after actual criminals just makes more logistical sense

I pointed out that this is exactly what is done at present -- there are nearly 3 MILLION people in prisons in the USA (pardon me, I quoted the wrong figure earlier). And yet still, how odd, crimes get committed. There are not "a few thousand" people committing crimes. People committing crimes are not a "minuscule fraction" of the population. At this precise point in time, something not far off 1 in 32 adults in the US is in prison. That's just the ones there at any given point in time. Not the ones who got out this year or will go in next year. Not the ones who didn't get caught this year or last year or the year before.

If enforcement of laws was viable argument then there wouldn't be enough criminals left on the streets to merit gun ownership for anything other than sports.

So explain how come this isn't working.

It's called failure. When you fail to solve a problem, you look for some other solution.

But we're not actually talking about that big picture right here. We're talking about your bizarro talk about how it's illegal to own a gun for criminal purposes, and how ...

If he's ignoring that law the people around him might be better served defending themselves rather than waiting for the 5 to 40 minutes law enforcement might take to respond and act.

Follow the bread crumbs. You can do it.

If somebody ignores the law that it's illegal to own a gun for criminal purposes, and goes walking around the mall with a gun on display, how does anyone know what purposes they own the gun for? And why would anyone be calling the cops?



and still it's the typo in the subject line ...

[Nuclear Unicorn]

70. So what is the viable alternative to law enforcement?

I'll be the first to advocate for education, social justice, robust job opportunities and a firm safety net.

But some people in the world are just "bad" and they should not be allowed to move freely within the society they victimize. Moreover, regardless of whatever means is adopted to deal with current "bad" people more "bad" people are born everyday so if you're looking for a terminal point to prove or disprove the efficacy of a social order regimen I don't know how it could be called reasonable.

[iverglas]

76. I have not got a clue what you are on about

So what is the viable alternative to law enforcement?

Have I suggested that there should be an "alternative to law enforcement"?

I don't think so.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

79. You said

I pointed out that this is exactly what is done at present -- there are nearly 3 MILLION people in prisons in the USA (pardon me, I quoted the wrong figure earlier). And yet still, how odd, crimes get committed.

If incarceration does nothing to curb crime then what is the point of gun control?

You cannot pass laws and suddenly make people stop doing something. Passing "Thou shalt not kill" laws does nothing to curb the murder rate so it's unlikely "Thou shalt not kill with high capacity magazines" will be any more effective.

We never know who the bad guys are until they reveal themselves by their actions so there is no pre-emption.

We cannot abolish guns or restrict their ammo capacity or other nonsense because, as I was pointing out by analogy, if the demand provides the money the supply will materialize.

Incarceration only takes effect after conviction and is only useful to punish or prevent future acts.

It seems to me the only real safeguard, at the actual time of a violent attack, is self defense.

But the people defending themselves are the only ones who would be stripped of the useful tools they need to meet an attacker on even terms while the police run around taking guns and magazines from the one group of the population they have the least reason to be concerned about: law-abiding citizens.

[iverglas]

84. is it homegrown?

If incarceration does nothing to curb crime then what is the point of gun control?

If cooking does nothing to improve taste, then what is the point of going to work?

I've almost never seen such a collection of non sequiturs in my life as you come up with. Your posts wander from one random notion to another, within posts and between posts.

I did not say "incarceration does nothing to curb crime", for starters. While it is considerably less effective than a program needs to be, to be considered efficacious, it doesn't "do nothing", obviously.

I have not the slightest idea what that question is supposed to be about.

But I may be able to help you.

The threat of punishment does have a deterrent effect on some people: the people with something to lose, the people who do consider risks and consequences before acting, the "law-abiding".


You cannot pass laws and suddenly make people stop doing something.

I'm sure you find this kind of burble amusing. I find it to be time-wasting.


Passing "Thou shalt not kill" laws does nothing to curb the murder rate so it's unlikely "Thou shalt not kill with high capacity magazines" will be any more effective.

What in the fucking fuck are you talking about?

Laws that prohibit the sale and possession of high-capacity machines might be called "thou shalt not sell or possess high-capacity magazines".

What are you talking about?


We never know who the bad guys are until they reveal themselves by their actions so there is no pre-emption.

There is IMPAIRMENT OF THE ABILITY TO ENGAGE IN CERTAIN ACTIONS.

Let's talk about that -- the SUBJECT AT HAND -- shall we?

DETERRENCE does NOT work on the "real" criminal, the person who is going to commit crimes no matter if the punishment is loss of a hand, or death. Millennia of human history has proved this. The population of your prisons proves this. There are people who do not consider risks and consequences, who have feelings of invulnerability, and in some cases who simply don't give a shit about going to prison.

If someone actually wants to PREVENT the harm that these people do, then they take measures that can reasonably be expected to DO that. Threatening them with prison is not working. Is it?

And one way to do that is to make it DIFFICULT for them to accomplish their ends.

I really get terminally bored saying this to every new person who comes along and poses as someone really dim.

Speed limits alone do not accomplish the goal of stopping people from speeding. In my neighbourhood, we have speed humps (longer than speed bumps because of the need for snow plough access, but if you go over them fast you'll risk losing bits of your undercarriage), traffic circles, landscaping, intersection narrowings, alternating-side parking ... we do not rely on "thou shalt not speed" to keep the children and other users of the roadways safe. Because we actually want to do that: keep people safe. Not just punish speeders.

This is how reasonable, thoughtful people think about crime in the 21st century, and did for quite a while in the 20th. The Puritans' approach to crime and punishment was discredited quite a long time ago.

If you actually want to stop bad things happening, you do things that may actually have that effect.

What you do must, of course, be carefully designed not to unjustifiably interfere in the exercise of rights. And banning the sale and possession of high-capacity magazines passes that test with flying colours.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

87. Try looking ofr policies that might actually work

I really get terminally bored saying this to every new person who comes along and poses as someone really dim.

At least we can all rest assured you are the genuine article.

DETERRENCE does NOT work on the "real" criminal, the person who is going to commit crimes no matter if the punishment is loss of a hand, or death.

...

If you actually want to stop bad things happening, you do things that may actually have that effect.

What you do must, of course, be carefully designed not to unjustifiably interfere in the exercise of rights. And banning the sale and possession of high-capacity magazines passes that test with flying colours.

"DETERRENCE does NOT work on the 'real' criminal"

How illuminating.

Do you think someone who wants to commit mass-murder, like Loughner or the VA Tech shooter, reached that level?

If so, do you also think they would have been inconvenienced by a ban on high capacity clips?

Would street gangs be inconvenienced?

From what I've read military-grade weapons are banned to civilians in Mexico but the cartels seem have plenty of them -- ATF supplies notwithstanding. As I've argued elsewhere, if the demand provides the money the supply will follow.

"you do things that may actually have that effect" is your Achilles heel. From looking at Mexico the civilians are denied military grade weapons but the cartels have plenty and the civilians are not safer for it. Probably lifting the high-cap ban won't change their fortunes either unless they decide to form well-regulated militias but the fact remains the ban has done nothing to improve their lot.

[iverglas]

89. from what you've read

You are such a widely read individual, one sees. Your literature includes so many things that no one has ever said, even!

From what I've read military-grade weapons are banned to civilians in Mexico but the cartels seem have plenty of them -- ATF supplies notwithstanding. As I've argued elsewhere, if the demand provides the money the supply will follow.

Yeah. I demand steak for supper. Feed me.

As you know, or I hope you have managed to discern, some of the measures I have referred to operate on the supply.

That is an express aim of licensing and registration: to reduce the supply; to deter people in lawful possession (those "law-abiding gun owners", be they dealers or members of the public) from transferring to ineligible persons.

You will notice that no one is trafficking firearms from Canada or the UK or Australia or Switzerland into Mexico. Or into anywhere else.

Central and South America are so awash in firearms, many delivered and left behind by the US, that controlling the supply available for trafficking into Mexico will not be an easy matter. But the supply from the US (into Mexico and also Canada and elsewhere) could be limited by instituting efficacious measures within the US.


"you do things that may actually have that effect" is your Achilles heel. From looking at Mexico the civilians are denied military grade weapons but the cartels have plenty and the civilians are not safer for it.

For the love of fuck. Statutory "bans" are NOT what have that effect where there is no actual control. Jesus Christ, really, honestly, what are you playing at?

The firearms in question in Mexico were TRAFFICKED INTO MEXICO. Domestic "bans" have no effect on those operations. How many times do I have to say that "thou shalt not" legislation does NOT operate effectively to deter people bent on committing crimes -- let alone on controlling the government and economy of a country?

Is the US in the middle of a criminal assault on government and civil society by a group of extraordinarily sophisticated criminal enterprises? No? So what has Mexico got to do with anything here?

Just another of the places your mind took you today, I guess.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

92. "Yeah. I demand steak for supper. Feed me."

Apparently reading is NOT your strong suit.

I wrote, "if the demand provides the money the supply will follow." Pay me enough and your steak would even be relatively spittal free.

some of the measures I have referred to operate on the supply.

Again, if the money is there the supply will follow.

Central and South America are so awash in firearms, many delivered and left behind by the US, that controlling the supply available for trafficking into Mexico will not be an easy matter. But the supply from the US (into Mexico and also Canada and elsewhere) could be limited by instituting efficacious measures within the US.

As deplorable as some aspects of US foreign policy may be the US is hardly the sole manufacturer of firearms. If the money is there the guns will find their way in from anywhere in the world and some nations, i.e. Russia, are far more deplorable than the US when it comes to turning the world into a blood bath.

Statutory "bans" are NOT what have that effect where there is no actual control.

I'm curious. What would constitute "actual control?"

[iverglas]

95. Round and round the mulberry bush

The monkey chased the weasel
Monkey thought 'twas all in fun
POP goes the weasel


I'm curious. What would constitute "actual control?"

Lather, rinse, repeat.

Buh bye.

[Name removed]

97. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

98. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[PavePusher]

29. "Please try to remember: some people actually care about this."

Insinuating (hey, your favorite tactic!) that people here don't. Which is a false and vile accusation.

[iverglas]

36. if you want to reply to my posts

do so.

Otherwise: buh bye.

[PavePusher]

38. I did.

Have a nice day. :hi:

[rl6214]

61. I think your computer is broke

you keep repeating things.

[Union Scribe]

46. It must be the talking point of the thread

The other one here is pulling the same bullshit.

[spin]

31. I agree with you on some points - on others not so much ...

As a gun owner I would like to see only responsible, honest and sane citizens having access to firearms.

I fully support targeting those who straw purchase firearms and those who smuggle these weapons to Mexico, Canada and to the streets of the United States. The punishment for such activity should be very severe. In fact, I would like to see anyone who was involved in straw purchase and smuggling be charged as an accessory to any crime resulted from the misuse of the weapons they trafficked.

Knowing that an individual could be charged as an accessory to a murder might prove a good deterrent to anyone considering becoming involved in this activity.

Of course, not being an attorney, I have no idea if such a law would hold up in court.

I would like to see the NICS background system better financed and the states required to input names into the NICS database on a more timely basis of those who because of a criminal record or those who have been legally adjudged as having a disqualifying mental problem. President Obama also supports this idea.

President Obama: We must seek agreement on gun reforms

President Barack Obama Special To The Arizona Daily Star | Posted: Sunday, March 13, 2011 12:00 am

***snip***

• First, we should begin by enforcing laws that are already on the books. The National Instant Criminal Background Check System is the filter that's supposed to stop the wrong people from getting their hands on a gun. Bipartisan legislation four years ago was supposed to strengthen this system, but it hasn't been properly implemented. It relies on data supplied by states - but that data is often incomplete and inadequate. We must do better.

• Second, we should in fact reward the states that provide the best data - and therefore do the most to protect our citizens.

• Third, we should make the system faster and nimbler. We should provide an instant, accurate, comprehensive and consistent system for background checks to sellers who want to do the right thing, and make sure that criminals can't escape it.

Read more: http://azstarnet.com/news/opinion/mailbag/article_011e7118-8951-5206-a878-39bfbc9dc89d.html#ixzz1XO3aYpZj

I would also like to see the NICS background check be a requirement for all private sales. This would not only eliminate the "gun show loophole" but the private sale loophole.

I will not sell any of my firearms to a person that I don't personally know and he/she has to have a valid concealed carry permit.

I disagree with you on the idea of requiring firearms to be registered. As you are aware, firearm registration has a controversial record of success in Canada. Some say it works great and many others say that it is useless and extremely expensive.

Our current NICS background check is not used for gun registration and extending it to private sales should not require setting up a system for firearm registration either.

National Instant Criminal Background Check System

***snip***
Privacy and Security of NICS Information

The privacy and security of the information in the NICS is of great importance. In October 1998, the Attorney General published regulations on the privacy and security of NICS information, including the proper and official use of this information. These regulations are available on the NICS website. Data stored in the NICS is documented federal data and access to that information is restricted to agencies authorized by the FBI. Extensive measures are taken to ensure the security and integrity of the system information and agency use. The NICS is not to be used to establish a federal firearm registry; information about an inquiry resulting in an allowed transfer is destroyed in accordance with NICS regulations. Current destruction of NICS records became effective when a final rule was published by the Department of Justice in The Federal Register, outlining the following changes. Per Title 28, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 25.9(b)(1), (2), and (3), the NICS Section must destroy all identifying information on allowed transactions prior to the start of the next NICS operational day. If a potential purchaser is delayed or denied a firearm and successfully appeals the decision, the NICS Section cannot retain a record of the overturned appeal. If the record is not able to be updated, the purchaser continues to be denied or delayed, and if that individual appeals the decision, the documentation must be resubmitted on every subsequent purchase. For this reason, the Voluntary Appeal File (VAF) has been established. This process permits applicants to request that the NICS maintain information about themselves in the VAF to prevent future denials or extended delays of a firearm transfer. (See VAF Section below.)
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/general-information/fact-sheet

I oppose gun reregistration mainly because I, like many other Americans, do not trust the government enough to believe that the information will never be used for gun confiscation. An extremely high percentage of gun owners agree with me.

edited for typo

[Union Scribe]

45. So, just to sum up.

1. Locking up criminals does no good, because there will always be more criminals, BUT
2. That same logic doesn't apply to guns, somehow

Brilliant.

[iverglas]

48. uh oh

Guns got babies??

[Union Scribe]

51. Oh, I didn't realize that when you wrote

that putting a drug dealer away makes two fight for their turf, you were talking about their small children. Naturally. What I hate the most is how long it makes a damn seven year old to do the math and work the scales. I can't be hanging around the bad side of Sesame Street all day.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

93. *chortle*

[jeepnstein]

16. There you go being all sensible and stuff, again.

Some folks would prefer to make this a moral issue. Like Prohibition and the War on Drugs.

[Starboard Tack]

73. It's your premise that is faulty. Guns neither commit crimes nor stop crimes.

Gun control has nothing to do with crime per se, but saving lives and saving taxpayer dollars. There will always be criminals and victims. What we can control is the kinds of tools available to each.
The one favored by both is the handgun, or semi-automatic which are responsible for tens of thousands of deaths and injuries annually, which cost the taxpayers tens of billions of dollars.
Banning the manufacture and sale of those weapons and leaving honest folk with shotguns and good hunting rifles is a very reasonable win-win solution..

[Nuclear Unicorn]

96. How many people defend themselves with semi-automatics and handguns?

Before you say "X costs too much money" you have to ask "does X save or earn me money?"

We equip police with guns because if we do not then criminals have the upper hand and then society disintegrates which makes it hard for people to earn an honest living. We want our police to have at least, preferrably superior, firepower. Those guns save us money and allow us to effectively earn our living and raise our families.

But police cannot be everywhere at once. Even in built up areas it takes several minutes for them to respond. Where I live it can be upwards of half an hour . Until the police arrive the would-be victim is left to defend their own person and family. Several minutes is simply too long to wait/hope/pray/hide/trust in such cases.

The police choose the tools they have because that is what experience has taught them is most effective. Surely we do not want the law-abiding to have tools less effective than their criminal antagonists.

Thank-you for your polite response.

:toast:

[Starboard Tack]

100. How many defend themselves without any gun?

I don't know the answer to either question. What I do know are the facts. People die and are seriously injured every day, in inordinate numbers, by the use of these weapons. The injuries alone place an ungodly financial burden on families, communities and taxpayers.
You say that you live upwards of a half hour from a police response. What's wrong with defending yourself with a shotgun or a good old Winchester rifle? More effective and more accurate than any handgun or semi-automatic.

"The police choose the tools they have because that is what experience has taught them is most effective."
I'm not convinced of that. The British police have chosen not to carry guns for two good reasons. One, the public wouldn't stand for it. Two, they don't want to up the ante. If they were to carry guns, then that gives the "bad guys" a reason to carry. This may sound crazy to some, but it actually makes a lot of sense. Bringing guns into the equation is a huge game changer. The results speak for themselves. Less than 50 gun deaths a year and less than 5 police related shootings a year.
The key to achieving a comparable level in this country is for politicians to stand up and speak the truth and stop kowtowing to the NRA and the gun lobby. Nothing is more effective in American politics than demonstrating how something affects their pocketbooks. Doing away with those to types of firearm would save us tens of billions of dollars every year. Dollars that could be used for much better purposes.

[MicaelS]

102. More accurate than ANY semi-automatic? Bullshit....

Rifles used in NRA High Power Rifle Competition, including the National Match High Power Rifle Competition at Camp Perry, Ohio. http://www.nrahq.org/compete/highpower.asp

Rifle: Rifles to be used in High Power Rifle competition must be equipped with metallic sights (Some long range, 1000-yard matches allow the use of "any sights"), should be capable of holding at least 5 rounds of ammunition and should be adapted to rapid reloading. Tournament programs often group competitions into two divisions, Service Rifle and Match Rifle. The rifles currently defined as "Service Rifles" include the M1, M14, M16 and their commercial equivalents. Winchester and Remington have made their Model 70 and Model 40X rifles in "match" versions and custom gunsmiths have made up match rifles on many military and commercial actions. 1903 and 1903-A3 Springfield, 1917 Enfields and pre-war Winchester Model 70 sporters in .30-06 are all equipped with clip slots for rapid reloading.

I have never seen a serious shooter in a High Power Rifle Competition use a lever action rifle. No serious long range shooter is going to use a lever action rifle.

And do you notice all those semi-automatic and bolt action "military rifles" being used as "sporting weapons"?

Like many Gun Prohibitionists, your language is clearly of the type that states that only "sporting long guns" should be allowed to the average person. Gun Owners have fought long and hard against this type of rhetoric and mindset. Because the logical conclusion to your rhetoric is this: is as soon as handguns and semi-automatics are banned, Gun Prohibitionists will start trying to ban hunting, and thus there will be no longer any need to own those "sporting long guns".

And here's some further point to ponder about long guns:

(1) Tactically speaking In the environment of the average home or apartment a long gun is a poor choice.
(2) It is large and unwieldy, thus harder to secure in anything but a gun safe, or long gun lockbox.
(3) The FBI has shown that 90% of most gunfights take place at a distance of 7 yards (21 feet). That is the longest distance of the largest room in most homes. That could be longest distance of an entire apartment.
(4) All long guns are two handed weapons. It is difficult to activate them quickly. They are by their very nature bulky and unwieldy. They are awkward to maneuver through doorways and corridors.
(5) Since they are two handed weapons, you can't hold an intruder at gunpoint, and pick up the phone to call police. At these close ranges, it's easier to do a snatch and grab disarm of someone using a long gun. All you have to do is grab the muzzle, and rotate it away from your body.
(6) At 7 yards, the expansion from a shotgun, even an unchoked one with a legal 18 barrel is negligible. Shotguns still have to be aimed. The point in the general direction, and pull the trigger idea is a myth.
(7) The penetration level of ANY centerfire rifle at close range is so high, there’s a good chance the projectile will exit the assailant’s body, and possibly go on to in injure someone in the next room, next apartment, or next house.
(8) The penetration level of a shotgun using only slug rounds is just like that of a centerfire rifle.
(9) The recoil and muzzle flash of a long gun is severe, thus making it harder to recover for a needed follow-up shot, or shots.
(10) The ONLY real reason to use a long gun for home defense is if you live in a place where it is legally impossible or nearly so, to purchase or possess a handgun.

The best weapon for home defense is a handgun:

(1) It is smaller, thus easier to secure and access in bedside lockbox.
(2) It is smaller, thus easier to maneuver in the confines of a building.
(3) It is very difficult to do a disarm of someone holding a handgun since the handgun is a one handed weapon.
(4) Since the handgun is a one handed weapon, you CAN hold an intruder at gunpoint and use the phone.
(5) The penetration level of handguns is such that only handguns with the muzzle energy of .44 magnum (1,000 ft/lbs) and above is likely to overpenetrate and endanger someone else.
(6) Recoil and muzzle flash is less severe than that of a long gun, making follow-up shot quicker, and thus more accurate.

[Starboard Tack]

103. We're talking about home-defense/self-defense here, not the Olympics

Nobody needs a gun in an apartment. Just a strong door and secure windows. If you want a personal weapon, mace or pepper spray will work fine. Apartments are way too close quarters for gun play. Isolated houses are ideal places for a 12 gauge. We're in the 21st century now. You don't need hands to use a phone. I would keep the Winchester for hunting.
Apart from that, you've been watching way too many B movies, take way too many steroids and have obviously never used a 12 gauge shotgun.

"The FBI has shown that 90% of most gunfights take place at a distance of 7 yards (21 feet). That is the longest distance of the largest room in most homes. That could be longest distance of an entire apartment. "
We are not discussing having a "gunfight", but avoiding one and the best way to do that is leave and use your phone, but you can feel free to stay and have your battle, which will probably destroy your home and kill you and any neighbors who are unfortunate enough to live near you.

[MicaelS]

104. So now you go from shotguns, and lever action rifles to

Mace or pepper spray? What is down from that? Harsh language?

Finally you reveal your true beliefs. You like other posters here, do not believe in armed self-defense. You think a person should just run away.

And thank god YOU and people like you do not get to determine what anyone else truly needs.

[Starboard Tack]

105. Good luck with that attitude. My true beliefs are well known around here.

[gejohnston]

106. so have to ask

If the DoJ estimates DGUs outnumber offensive use, how is it that DGUs are a rare event while gun deaths while dead and serious injuries are epidemic? How about banning cars in urban areas? Think of the health and death costs of those things, that is before you get to health issues caused by exhausts, climate change, the money and lives squandered kissing Exonn's ass.

The rest is one long bullshit non sequitur

[Starboard Tack]

108. I don't drive a car. My bike emits nothing. Cars should be banned in urban areas.

I don't kiss Exxon's ass. Electric vehicles are fine for urban environments. DoJ estimates mean squat. Pull a gun and that is offensive, so there is no such thing as defensive use, unless the other guy pulls his gun first.

[X_Digger]

109. Oh FFS..

Pull a gun and that is offensive, so there is no such thing as defensive use, unless the other guy pulls his gun first.

Do we need to go over this again?

Where the fuck do you get the idea that one has to match the means of attack when faced with threat of death or grievous bodily harm? Defensive is in response to an attack.

[RSillsbee]

110. Cars should be banned in urban areas.

Authoritarian much?

[Starboard Tack]

113. You think that's authoritarian? It's called healthy urban planning.

And already occurs in certain urban areas. Pedestrian streets are great. EVs and bicycles and public transportation move people around very efficiently and cleanly in many cities and it is a trend that is growing. Nothing authoritarian about it.

[RSillsbee]

114. I disagree

IMO it's imposing your worldview on others cars (really internal combustion engines) are evil therefore we must ban them. Sounds very like some of the anti gun sentiment I hear here

[Straw Man]

111. With guns or without?

The British police have chosen not to carry guns for two good reasons. One, the public wouldn't stand for it. Two, they don't want to up the ante. If they were to carry guns, then that gives the "bad guys" a reason to carry.

The British police have not "chosen not to carry guns." Such decisions are made at a much higher level and reflect political realities. Note that the police in Northern Ireland (also part of "Britain") have been armed for quite some time. The police in Britain are increasingly arming themselves, in response to gang violence and fears of terrorism:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/6407137/Armed-officers-placed-on-routine-foot-patrol-for-first-time.html

Notice the H&K submachine guns, something that would give most Americans pause, despite our nonchalance toward armed police.

The reality of police armament in Britain is quite a bit more complex than you suggest. The recent riots are a case in point:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/sep/09/mark-duggan-funeral-community-unites

The arming of officers in certain communities and not in others certainly opens the British police up to accusations of racism. What is the message sent when police in white middle-class neighborhoods carry no firearms at all, while those in neighborhoods inhabited primarily by people of color are carrying submachine guns?

I have pointed all of this out to you before, yet you persist in your portrayal of the peaceable kingdom of Dixon of Dock Green. Contemporary Britain is a deeply dysfunctional society: the twilight of empire, the rise of Thatcherism, New Labour's sell-out of the British working class ... It's not a pretty picture. The fragmentations of British society were not caused by the British police arming themselves. However, you can expect the fragmentations to get worse and the police to arm themselves with increasing regularity.

Nothing is more effective in American politics than demonstrating how something affects their pocketbooks. Doing away with those to types of firearm would save us tens of billions of dollars every year. Dollars that could be used for much better purposes.

Now tell us how much "doing away with those to {sic} types of firearms {handguns and semi-autos}" would cost. Are you talking about confiscations here? Buybacks? How will you implement that? It's not going to be cheap or easy. The savings you tout would be long in coming and may or may not compensate for the tremendous expense of implementing the prohibition. And once you've achieved all that, what will you say when the criminals' weapon of opportunity becomes the shotgun or "good old Winchester rifle"? You will have solved little or nothing, at great expense.