All possession of guns illegal for citizens?

[beth]

       There is actually gun registration in the US. When you buy a gun, even a rifle you have to show identification and fill out a form that the government keeps. Law enforcement can trace serial numbers to the original pur>-bleeped-<. Responsible citizens will transfer ownership thru a licenced dealer when selling or buying a firearm privately but there is no penalty for not doing so. There is also no record of the many guns that are old enough to be bought originally before they registered them unless they go thru a dealer at some point. Criminals of course, never register their guns when they steal or buy them privately.

beth

[Dennis]

Well dang, see now that'd solve all the problems. Make the criminals register their guns when they steal them

Dennis

[HelenW]

Well dang, see now that'd solve all the problems. Make the criminals register their guns when they steal them

That actually illustrates the futility of firearms registration as a crime prevention tool.  By definition, only those who do not misuse them, law abiding citizens, would follow the law and have them registered.

While some might think it unlikely that a US government would outlaw guns I think that the existence of well funded and powerful anti-gun lobbies proves that it isn't outside the realm of possibility.  I used to think it was unlikely that a president would ignore the law or reinterpret existing law to eavesdrop on other Americans but, we now know it can happen.  Or that our government would arrest and imprison people without cause, legal representation of even notification, but that is happening too.  Our president has made public statements that he will ignore the law (anti-torture legislation cosponsored by John McCain is an example) when he deems it to be necessary.

I've learned that we cannot trust a government to look after the people's interests when they are in conflict with the government's interests.  Yes, they can and do diverge.  We can also not trust our government to come through when disaster strikes, as evidenced by the chaos after hurricane Katrina.  When things like that happen, you're on your own.  That's why I wish to remain armed.

helen

[Alexandra]

helen, most of the problems you mentioned above can be solved at the voting booth. if you don't trust your politicans, vote them out of office. besides, your gun is far more likely to kill either you, your family/friends or innocent strangers than protect you from a thug or rouge goverment.

[HelenW]

Alexandra, you wrote,

"...your gun is far more likely to kill either you, your family/friends or innocent strangers than protect you..."

I have seen that statement many times and have yet to see credible evidence for it.  A potential victim's possesion of a firearm is much more likely to prevent, or stop in its early stages, the crime/assault.  Situations such as those are rarely, if ever, reported to the authorities so they are severely underreported.

As far as using firearms against a rogue government is concerned, I'm much less worried about that scenario as I am of having governmental institutions break down and leaving me even more vulnerable than I already am.

So, I'll take my chances.

helen



Posted at: April 25, 2006, 05:43:42 PMI have to add too, that voting booths can and have been subverted.  Look at the 2000 presidential election.

[jan c]

can be Solved - please let's look at the word "solved" - at the voting booth?!?!
just like in 2000? The Supreme Court decided who our president is. What has followed, So eloquently pointed out by Helen, has absolute congruence with this event:

  I used to think it was unlikely that a president would ignore the law or reinterpret existing law to eavesdrop on other Americans but, we now know it can happen.  Or that our government would arrest and imprison people without cause, legal representation of even notification, but that is happening too.  Our president has made public statements that he will ignore the law (anti-torture legislation cosponsored by John McCain is an example) when he deems it to be necessary.

our government already operates outside the law. Why are we even discussing such niceties as registering guns?

[Leigh]

besides, your gun is far more likely to kill either you, your family/friends or innocent strangers than protect you from a thug or rouge goverment.

And you found this information where?

Leigh

[jan c]

And you found this information where?

Leigh

even if found, NB: information is not knowledge et cetera

[Alexandra]

"...your gun is far more likely to kill either you, your family/friends or innocent strangers than protect you..."

I have seen that statement many times and have yet to see credible evidence for it. 

In the New England Journal of Medicine article "Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home" by authors Arthur L. Kellermann, Frederick P. Rivara, Norman B. Rushforth, Joyce G. Banton, Donald T. Reay, Jerry T. Francisco, Ana B. Locci, Janice Prodzinski, Bela B. Hackman, and Grant Somes, the conclusions of the published article are

    "The use of illicit drugs and a history of physical fights in the home are important risk factors for homicide in the home. Rather than confer protection, guns kept in the home are associated with an increase in the risk of homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance."

Here are a few others:

    * For every time a gun is used in a "home" in a legally-justifiable shooting [note that every self-defense is legally justifiable] there are 22 criminal, unintentional, and suicide-related shootings. [Kellermann AL, Somes G, Rivara FP, et al. "Injuries and deaths due to firearms in the home." The Journal of Trauma. 1998;45:263-267]

    * The presence of a gun in the "home" triples the risk of homicide in the "home". [Kellermann, AL, Rivara, FP, Rushforth NB, et al. "Gun ownership as a risk factor for homicide in the home." N Engl J Med. 1993;329:1084-1091.]

    * The presence of a gun in the "home" increases the risk of suicide fivefold.[Kellermann, AL Rivara FP, Somes G, et al. "Suicide in the home in relation to gun ownership." N Engl J Med. 1992;327:467-472.]




Posted at: April 26, 2006, 01:38:40 AM

A potential victim's possesion of a firearm is much more likely to prevent, or stop in its early stages, the crime/assault.  Situations such as those are rarely, if ever, reported to the authorities so they are severely underreported.

Really? Rarely, if ever reported to authorites? You're telling me homeowners don't call the cops when they stop a crook red handed who broke in their homes?  I think not.


Posted at: April 26, 2006, 01:44:01 AM

can be Solved - please let's look at the word "solved" - at the voting booth?!?!

sure, in 2006 you'll have a GOLDEN OPPORTUNITY to toss all the bums out of office, especially the ones that  turned a dead heat into a "mandate."

Another factor to consider -- people that didn't vote in an election are not in a position to gripe about the outcome -- doing so would pretty much makes one a hypocrite or does it not? (I'm not attacking you personally but rather, making an often-made point about non-voters who complain.


Posted at: April 26, 2006, 01:51:49 AM

even if found, NB: information is not knowledge et cetera

I think readers would appreciate it if you spelled out EXACTLY what you're saying here.


Posted at: April 26, 2006, 01:56:25 AM******************************

post script: by the way, I support the right for americans to bear arms. Its just the pro-gun kooks that are driving me to the other side with hype and propaganda.

[LostInTime]

Rushing out the door and wanted to mark the place in this convo in case it grows before I get back. 

You would do well to stay away from the Kellerman study as it did not stand up to peer review and Kellerman refused to make all of the data and methods public.  This was actually illegal since it was done through a grant but nothing ever came of it.  The only ones who still cite it on a regular basis is the Coalition to Ban Handguns crowd (or the Brady whatever it is called this year).  I will try to see if the whole story is somewhere on the net (it should be since I posted about it years ago and nothing goes away) as my criminology study stuff has never been unpacked and I have no idea where it is at right at this moment.

Phillip and Cook are two others to stay away from as well.  They repeated a study that the pro-gun crowd loved in order to prove it wrong.  Upon completion their scaled down version yielded about the same results.  To account for this they basically said that gun owners lie.  LOL.

[Sandi]

Alexandra,
Anyone can play with statistics and show pretty much what they want. That isn't to say that the figures are or are not accurate, but the game playing comes with the presentation that you are buying into. For instance here are some actual numbers.

There are 80 million gun owners in the U.S. responsible for 1,500 accidental gun deaths per year for a percentage of accidental deaths per gun owner of 0.0000188.

There are 700,000 physicians in the U.S. that cause 120,000 accidental deaths each year. Accidental death per physician is 0.171 percent.

Therefore doctors are 9,000 times more dangerous to the public health than gun owners. Does that show that a need for "doctor control" legislation? No one is clamoring for it, because the exercise (using real figures) is just as ridiculous as are those are for gun control. Hope you get the point.

even if found, NB: information is not knowledge et cetera

I think readers would appreciate it if you spelled out EXACTLY what you're saying here.

That's an easy one. As quoted by Madeleine L'Engle Truth is eternal.  Knowledge is changeable.  It is disastrous to confuse them.

[taylor]

The only reason I am going to buy a gun, is because I am about to loose the right to have one. And that is when I am going to REALLY need one!  Because that is not all we are loosing, and surely not all we have lost in the last 6 yrs of Bush Inc.

Taylor

[Sandi]

Right on Taylor. As Thomas Jefferson said, "The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."

Not to mention: "Last century over 170 million people were murdered by their own governments, and your government doesn't want you to have a gun. Doesn't that bother you just a little?" ~by Unknown~

[HelenW]

"You're telling me homeowners don't call the cops when they stop a crook red handed who broke in their homes?"

They might, then, but if I cock my shotgun and the intruder flees at the sound (I'm certainly not going to try and stop them!) or if a thug approaches me with a knife and I show him or her a .44 magnum causing them to flee as well as soil themselves, calling the police would be a moot point.  These are the types of situations that never get reported.

helen

[jan c]

"information is not knowledge" seems rather a given if you think about it.
let me give you an example rather than be abstract and philosophical

you cited:

In the New England Journal of Medicine article "Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home" by authors Arthur L. Kellermann, Frederick P. Rivara, Norman B. Rushforth, Joyce G. Banton, Donald T. Reay, Jerry T. Francisco, Ana B. Locci, Janice Prodzinski, Bela B. Hackman, and Grant Somes, the conclusions of the published article are

   "The use of illicit drugs and a history of physical fights in the home are important risk factors for homicide in the home. Rather than confer protection, guns kept in the home are associated with an increase in the risk of homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance."

Here are a few others: ...

   

Then we are presented with this information:

You would do well to stay away from the Kellerman study as it did not stand up to peer review and Kellerman refused to make all of the data and methods public.  This was actually illegal since it was done through a grant but nothing ever came of it.  The only ones who still cite it on a regular basis is the Coalition to Ban Handguns crowd (or the Brady whatever it is called this year). 

Now, how much do we actually KNOW?




Posted at: April 26, 2006, 05:33:38 PM

"You're telling me homeowners don't call the cops when they stop a crook red handed who broke in their homes?"

They might, then, but if I cock my shotgun and the intruder flees at the sound (I'm certainly not going to try and stop them!) or if a thug approaches me with a knife and I show him or her a .44 magnum causing them to flee as well as soil themselves, calling the police would be a moot point.  These are the types of situations that never get reported.

helen

Or, and again this is a real life experience [this is information and knowledge; I know anyway. Wisdom may or may not be right around the corner], you show them a butter knife and they run away...
yeah we got to talk to Mister Po-Lice-Man and even go look at some dudes they caught that night. My girly roomate woulda felt much better (but I would not have this RIDICULOUS true story) if we had been better equipped.
Now I'm what - supposed to be submissive to a law, when we have a government that is CLEARLY prepared to ignore the rule of law.
So to me we are at a crossroads in our society.

and will you construe this as propaganda? Pro-gun propaganda?
i was pro-butter knife, pro whatever I could get my hands on the quickest. I considered the iron skillet, I am pro-iron skillet too I GUESS...
[this is a fun thread y'all!]

[HelenW]

Jan, you wrote, "i was pro-butter knife, pro whatever I could get my hands on the quickest. I considered the iron skillet, I am pro-iron skillet too I GUESS..."

I think the right to self defense is the real issue here.  I live in a state that has strict gun control laws.  Do I follow them?  Yes, of course.  Do the criminals?  Of course not.  If my guns were taken away from me, and they could be - the authorities know who I am, where I live and what guns I own - would the criminals surrender theirs? No!  I believe that I have the right to self defense even to the point of deadly force, if necessary.

I refuse to be a passive victim.

I wonder what would have happened if the intruder were not intimidated by your stand?  Would the butter knife or skillet have served as well as a shotgun or handgun?

btw - you're right - I AM having a bit of fun with this. 
helen

[michelle]

Guns make it to easy to kill.  The point of gun control is to beable to take a gun away from a criminal when he or she is found to be in possession of one.   Unregistered guns can be taken away from those who would not use them legally.   Many guns have to be left with criminals because the officers of the law have no legal way of taking them away from the criminal.   

[taylor]

Michelle,

Many guns have to be left with criminals because the officers of the law have no legal way of taking them away from the criminal.   

If a person in this country is convicted of a felony, they are no longer allowed to own a gun.  This is how the police have a avenue to take them away from them.  If they are arrested at the scene of a crime, they are taken away. 

I will say aside from a gun a GOOD loud DOG is very effective to keeping a jerk out of my yard and my house! 

Peace,

Taylor

[Alexandra]

Alexandra,
Anyone can play with statistics and show pretty much what they want. That isn't to say that the figures are or are not accurate, but the game playing comes with the presentation that you are buying into. For instance here are some actual numbers.

There are 80 million gun owners in the U.S. responsible for 1,500 accidental gun deaths per year for a percentage of accidental deaths per gun owner of 0.0000188.

Here's the thing, figures don't lie. Interpretion of them do. Anti-gun and pro-gun activists may slant them, but a wise person would go back to the figures and make their own interpretation.

Unfortunately for gunowners, many Americans find the 1,500/deaths/year intolerable -- the continued call for further gun control is evidence of this. Another example is the 400/deaths/year for Americans killed by terrorists (since and including, 2001). This is an outrageously low figure compared with DWI-related deaths (approx) 25,000/year, yet we have spent $300 Billion (and counting) and filled up 2500 body bags since 2001 trying to lower this figure.


Posted at: April 27, 2006, 02:05:23 AM

I live in a state that has strict gun control laws.  Do I follow them?  Yes, of course.  Do the criminals?  Of course not. 

That argument is rather weak because criminals also drive cars when they don't have drivers licenses, break into buildings that have "no tresspassing" signs and rob banks that are clearly posted with FBI warnings -- do we dump these laws because criminals don't obey these laws too?  Gun control laws make us safer in the way that it makes it more risky for criminals (in particular, ex-cons) to be carrying guns in the first place, even if they don't intend to use them. (Guns are often left at the scene of a crime for a reason.)

[taylor]

Alexandra,

You state:   DWI-related deaths (approx) 25,000/year

Then you state: the thing, figures don't lie. Interpretion of them do.

Well, I agree with you for the most part, however it is not that simple. DWI figures are completely misleading.

Here are the unaccounted for variables, ( to just list a couple)
1. was the person that was drinking really the one that caused the wreck? ( regardless of who caused a wreck, the one with alcohol in their system is the one found liable). So if they did not cause the wreck, then it is not a related alcohol wreck, it was just a wreck.

2. would the wreck have happened anyway? (In many cases we do not know for sure)

It is rarely a ethical researcher would "mislead" deliberately, but part of the process of research is covering as many variables as possible. The DWI example just happens to be one of the best examples of how data at times cannot be created accurately, even though ill will is not the intent.

I just want to show that it is not always a matter of how it is read, it is also a matter of methodology used. 

I like reading your posts, they are informative and provoke thought!

Peace,

Taylor