All possession of guns illegal for citizens?

[LostInTime]

If gun control laws made us safer then Washington, D.C. should be the safest haven in the country.  However, it is not.  Most of the country has some form of allowance for concealed carry.  Gun control groups shouted that there would be a bloodbath.  It has never occured (MOF, in NC the lawyer of the local gun control group had to admit that the bloodbath did not happen and that crime went down).

The point about criminals is that the laws to prohibit ownership and availability will not deter them.  However, it will remove the ability of a free law abiding citizen to protect his or her self, family, and country.  The NIJ did a study on criminals and the carrying of firearms during crime.  One of the interesting things is that their greatest fear was an armed home owner.  This probably explains why most home robberies occur when no one is at home.  Hot robberies only account for around 13% of total home robberies.  The majority of rapes that are reported occur during that 13%.

Furthermore, you have to find a connection between gun control and the reduction of violent crime.  The Brady Law should have had some effect but the truth is that it did not have any at all.  The JMA reported, "Our analyses provide no evidence that implementation of the Brady Act was associated with a reduction in homicide rates," and "We find no differences in homicide or firearm homicide rates to adult victims in the 32 . . . states directly subject to the Brady Act provisions compared with the remaining control states."

Alexandra, you took the wrong track to argue about the doctors v guns thing.  I actually know who first started circulating those figures a few years back.  <~smile>  The question is how many deaths would occur if there were no doctors?  But then the same question could be posed back to you about firearms.

It is impossible to ban firearms from the world.  They are here and will never go away, no matter what laws are passed.  I can make a single shot, untraceable shotgun from some old newspapers, 3 magazines (Cosmo, GQ, hmmmmmmmmm I know Soldier of Fortune!), a rubberband, a shotgun shell (I can make those too, even the gunpowder), and a nail.  (Yes, I am one of those annoying people who have to know how things work.  Even had to point out to an assistant manager of a Wally World that their shuffling of products put a combination of items that, when combined, made a nice bomb and they were within inches of each other.  He changed the section himself immediately and said thank you.)

And remember the police are not there to protect you:
DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services (109 S.Ct. 998, 1989)
Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981)
Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Department. (901 F.2d 696 9th Cir. 1990)

Interesting reading material:
Rape and Sexual Assault:  Reporting to Police and Medical Attention, 1992-2000 🔗 [Link: ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/rsarp00.txt/]

Female Victims of Violent Crime 🔗 [Link: ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/fvvc.txt/]
The 1997 Chances of Lifetime Murder Victimization 🔗 [Link: fbi.gov/ucr/Cius_​99/99crime/99cius5.pdf/]
Concentrate On 5 Percent Of Criminals 🔗 [Link: ncpa.org/pi/crime/pd062200a.html/]
NAZI FIREARMS LAW AND THE DISARMING OF THE GERMAN JEWS 🔗 [Link: stephenhalbrook.com/article-​nazilaw.pdf/]
Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms. 🔗 [Link: ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/165476.txt/]
Victim characteristics 🔗 [Link: ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cvict_​v.htm/]
Federal Firearm Offenders, 1992-98 With Preliminary Data for 1999 🔗 [Link: ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/ffo98.txt/]
Drugs & Crime Facts 🔗 [Link: ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/dcf/contents.htm/]
Third-Party Involvement in Violent Crime, 1993-99 🔗 [Link: ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/tpivc99.txt/]
Weapon Use and Violent Crime, 1993-2001 🔗 [Link: ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/wuvc01.htm/]
Report on Injuries in America, 2001 🔗 [Link: nsc.org/library/rept2000.htm/]
# There were 5,300 workplace fatalities in 2001 due to unintentional injuries.
# There were 3.9 deaths per 100,000 workers in 2001.
# On the job, 3.9 million American workers suffered disabling injuries in 2001.
OMG!!!!! We need to ban work!!!!  Can I start my vacation now?   
It's Not the Guns 🔗 [Link: violentkids.com/articles/violence_​article_​8.html/]
Smith & Wesson Cam 🔗 [Link: geocities.com/robert_​frenchu/guns_​watch.html/]
The Reality And Reporting Of Crime 🔗 [Link: ncpa.org/pi/crime/oct98b.html/]

[Sandi]

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.

Figures may or may not lie depending on who totaled them, how it was done and in what context. Because of your own bias as well as bias on the other side of the issue, it is in the minds eye of the beholders who is the anti and who is the wise person.

But LostInTime is correct. If gun control laws made us safer, Washington D.C. would be the safest place on the planet.

[jan c]

"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."

WHAT?! So as to slant them your own way. Right? According to the precise fit of your preconception. Which, just as Sandi has pointed out -

Figures may or may not lie depending on who totaled them, how it was done and in what context. Because of your own bias as well as bias on the other side of the issue, it is in the minds eye of the beholders who is the anti and who is the wise person.

- may have already been done with the compiling of the INFORMATION. Ultimate trust in the Authority of the Information, IF IT CAN SUIT YOUR PURPOSE. IF not, let's look for another more suitable Authority and work from there to make our point. Ad nauseum...
is that how it works?
seems sho nuff the opposite of WISDOM to me.

[Alexandra]

seems sho nuff the opposite of WISDOM to me.

No, it doesn't. A wise person looks at the figures and makes her own personal decision -- no third party interfererence.

Of course you're free to disagree and we can just move on.


Posted at: April 28, 2006, 01:48:45 AM

DWI figures are completely misleading.

Not quite so!

While yes, sober drivers probably have killed otherwise uninvolved, but DWI drivers, statitics show that one is safer with alchohol out of the mix. Its like the bright colored semitractor stats. Research have shown that red (yellow, orange) trucks are less likely to be involved in accidents than darker colors -- for whatever reason. As a result, fleets painting their trucks red will see a drop in their accident rate.



Posted at: April 28, 2006, 02:00:04 AM

If gun control laws made us safer, Washington D.C. would be the safest place on the planet.

There might be conditions there atypical of everywhere else. I'm not saying there is one, but I wouldn't close my mind to an explaination.

[jan c]

how is wisdom the product of selective manipulation of data? Please respond to my point. You are obfuscating; you are using pretzel logic. I am being didactic here, I am trying to give you a lesson in logic. (Per our hierarchy:) you are insisting that information NOT ONLY adds up to knowledge, PER SE, it even is equal to wisdom. If you can sift it through the filter of your bias.
A wise person looks at the information*; might add some EXPERIENCE to that information, and might get to actually learn or even know something. Wisdom may or may not be right around the corner. OR: a person might simply wish to endlessly prop up her assumptions with reams of data. (Which may be corrupt. we *do *not *know.) OR: a person may be SO unwilling to examine anything outside of her assumption and have enough emotion invested in it, that all logic will be ignored. Information is not knowledge; knowledge is not wisdom. I can see that we may never get to "wisdom is not truth".
(*figures are ONE kind of information; now I have made the point that not all information is good information. That a person with a bone to pick, and there are both sides of this issue going at it (and you know what? I bet you have assumed that you KNOW which side I am on. You don't even have enough information for that: Remember that I started this thread based on a real-life situation where I may have needed more protection than I had available to protect house home and loved ones. I am not pro-gun. I am the sort of soft, mooshy person that has always eschewed violence or any atmo of it), will tend to bias the information they present in the first place. Alexandra has been able to summon a lot of information for her case. Quite a lot of it tends to obfuscate other's points when they are too distasteful to her premise, which appears to be simply "guns are too dangerous to be in the hands of the average person (outside of Authority)."
Now with that summation in mind, I THINK I may have got some information from this thread. I THINK I may understand, this is CLOSE to knowledge about, what EG Alexandra is doing. I am not necessarily, EVEN, claiming any wisdom.


Posted at: April 28, 2006, 02:05:49 AM
Ultimate trust in the Authority of the Information, IF IT CAN SUIT YOUR PURPOSE. IF not, let's look for another more suitable Authority and work from there to make our point. Ad nauseum...
is that how it works?

>No, it doesn't. A wise person looks at the figures and makes her own personal decision -- no third party interfererence.

Interference? This statement tends to show my point for me about relying on your own filter being the arbiter of your "Wisdom". if you are going to know something about a complex subject, it may be WISE to consult more than 1,2,3,4... parties. A wise person understands that figures do not necessarily allow her to know one single thing.

>Of course you're free to disagree and we can just move on.

To what? more reams of studies and information slanted towards a premise that seems more and more to have been etched in the stone of your mind? Namely that 'guns are to dangerous to be in the hands of an average person outside of Authority, period'.


Posted at: April 28, 2006, 02:00:04 AM
>There might be conditions there atypical of everywhere else. I'm not saying there is one, but I wouldn't close my mind to an explaination.

(You definitely wouldn't close your mind to an explanation that suits you, now would you?)
NOTO BENE: Washington DC, as might be appropriate to the capitol of our land, is absolutely 100% typical of life on the streets, IE: AT STREET LEVEL of every city in America. Street level; it is not the ivory tower; some of us do not get to be perched way above street level looking down at the unwashed masses (that are starting to feel like, some of us, that we may just need a gun), and saying "they need to just let us Authorities handle it".

[LostInTime]

Violent crime is linked to socio-economic situations.  The period of time in which violent crime was decreasing had two factors adding to it:  1) a really good economy and 2) concealed carry laws for law abiding citizens with no felony record nor restraining orders against them.

Gun crime is heavily linked to the drug trade.  Typically in areas where you find high drug use (normally areas with a concentration of people such as large, densely populated cities) you will find high crime and gun crime.  This is why violence in which firearms are used can be found in only about 11% of all American counties in any given year.  Yes there are other areas in which it does occur and since they are so rare, the media pounces on them.  In turn the extraneous coverage makes it appear as if some massive epidemic is going on.

If anyone remembers, after the Columbine incident (not the first in this country nor the last) there was a witch hunt against the Goth subculture.  Or as the gang unit in that area called it, the gothic movement.  "And some of these goths have killed before..."

It is not unusual in that we want to know why these things happen.  It is also not unusual that some wish to blame the parents, the guns, the subcultures, the music, the videogames, etc.  While in some cases these aspects coming together may have had some influence, the thought of actual personal responsibility has been sent to the dust bin.  This is very unfortunate because it leads others to tread the same path while believing it is not their fault that they hurt, maim, and kill.

In attacking studies.  There are ways to immediately discount studies.  The first one is usually the easiest, is the study peer reviewed?  Many places will pay someone to come up with the results they want and keep it in house.  Environment groups, right wing groups, etc, etc have done this.  The second is to attack the methodology.  For example to just examine how many people have died in their home from gunshots while only looking at situations in which shooting was involved will give a skewed picture.  Add things like only drug crimes with shootings in the home or discount self defense shootings in the home will give very skewed results.  Three is the character of the researcher, when it comes to their research.  As I mentioned, Kellerman had previously refused to release needed data so that his research could be reviewed.  It was through a government grant and was illegal for him to do so.

[Alexandra]

jan, again, lets agree to disagree and move on.

  The first one is usually the easiest, is the study peer reviewed?   . . . As I mentioned, Kellerman had previously refused to release needed data so that his research could be reviewed. 

Thats true. The proper way to do a study is to adhier to the Scientific Method -- by doing so, enough information is provided so that the study can be replicated elsewhere, by a different group of scientists . . . if the same results are recieved then the original study has been confirmed. Of course, certain studies depend more on peer review than others due to the nature of the topic being studied. The Kellerman thing, if true, is not in compliance with the scientific method.

[HelenW]

I'd like to try to put this thread into perspective, for my own purposes at least.

So:

I want to have any and all reasonable means for self-defense that are available.  Others think that some of these means are inappropriate.  They want to force their belief of the inappropriatness of owning these means into law and deny my judgement that I have the right.  They employ numerous tactics to forward their arguments, some of which are stronger than others but which ultimately fall in the face of logic and experience.

Since my ownership of firearms, as a law abiding citizen, does not endanger any other persons in society I can only conclude that those who wish to take the right to bear arms away from me are coming from the same perspective as those who wish to legislate how I should treat my own body.  They feel that they know better and I should ignore my own conscience and listen to them.

I think that this is the bedrock of why I have so many problems with the concept of gun control (besides the fact that it's naive and unworkable).

helen

[taylor]

 If there were accurate stats that everyone agreed with that proved with out a question that 50% of all gun owners, in their lifetime would shoot someone....it has NOTHING to do with my constitutional right to bare arms, period. 

I want and will agrue for the right to bare arms, not because I want to go shoot someone, not because I think guns are absolutely safe, but because I will defend the constitution... because of the dangers involved in not doing so.

Taylor

[LostInTime]

A study back in the mid 90s showed that most homicides occur between 11pm and 3am.  In most cases drugs and/or alcohol (well they said drugs but that included alcohol, I like to note the difference) were in the system of one and/or the other.  I used to have a link to the study but it has since been taken down or moved and I have not found another online reference (yet).

A study in '93 out in California came up with the results that most child homicides where the child is 11 or younger are linked to adult suicides.  Basically the adult feels that the world is horrible and that they are "saving" their children from it.  It was a small sample though and may not be necessarily true across the country.

[michelle]

Yes for some people guns are just another tool,  a tool to get rid of unwanted pests or or for protection, or a tool to extend our egos.   But guns are also a symbol of violence in United States society and what we willing to do to protect that tool of viiolence.   Fear of someone using a gun against us gives us an excuse to buy a gun and do violence towards them.   

The right to bear arms is not an excuse to perpetuate violence in our society.   Iraq is a society racked by violence, and for a dictatorship it was not gun or explosive free for either side.   All the presents of guns did was destroy those who would rather not depend upon them.

  I grew up with guns, was trained in their use by a NRA gun token South Dakota National guards men.   I took my potshots at gouse and peasants  and rabbits with a 22 on the South Dakota praire.   But most of this was before I got my glasses and as luck for the creatures nature would have it I could not judge distances and  most of them were safe.   I was such a bad shot that my stepdad took me in to get glasses.   My gun disappeared because he said he had to return it to someone.   Except for target shooting at scout camp and poor attempts to hunt peasants with a shot gun that was the end of that.

As a girl in American society I hate to see men with guns,  especially men who have something to prove.  I also hate to see other women turning to them.   If we remember guns are just tools and not ego enhancements then I hope we realize when the time for them has passed as a means to solve interpersonal problems and lock them up until we need them as tools.  After all in areas where creatures such as bears and alligators are protected if one shows up on your front porch and you shoot it you can get find or go to jail.  If you have a no good dog and take it out back and shoot it, you can go to jail.   If someone breaks into your house and shoot them, they can sue you for excessive force. 

The law may protect ones right to have a gun now, but the right to use it has become more and more restricted and the consequences for  the shooter more and more serious no matter how justified the shooter feels in their use of a gun. 

Guns as a male identity enhancement has  passed.

Sorry

[LostInTime]

The whole problem with the country and the anti-gunners comes down to this:
guns are also a symbol of violence

Guns are inanimate objects.  The problem is that society wants to move blame off of the individual and hang it on something easier for them to process.  It is the refuge of those who do not wish to take a closer look.  They find the subject of the reasons of violence so complicated they have to break it down to just the tool being used.

You want a symbol?  How about the latino gang that is now invading Raleigh?  Cops who are on the take?  The drug dealer down the road?  Just make it something that screams personal responsibility.  I am sick of tired of people making excuses for what they do.  You have a choice in almost everything that you do and there are consequences for those actions.

[Kaitlyn]

I think the biggest fear from guns is that it just makes it so ridiculously easy to seriously harm or even kill someone.
In a fit of rage or intoxication, the casual use of a firearm can very easily lead to death.

While it's definitely possible to kill with knives or even fists, guns give people the ability to do it very quickly and from range in a way that lets someone distance themselves from the reality of it.
Would it be more 'difficult' (in both a physical and mental sense) to pull a trigger from many yards away, or to go up to someone and harm them with one's hands? Am I unrealistic in thinking that the gruesomeness of it and the necessity of true intent may lower the number of deaths, if only somewhat?

Educating and reforming is vitally important, but I don't think it hurts to limit the amount of deadly force that can be easily obtained.

[stephanie_craxford]

I believe that the only way to control this is to make people pay for their actions, plain and simple.  It should be an automatic mandatory 10 year jail sentence (no parole) for anyone who uses or even carries a gun to commit a crime.  Should that gun be fired then the sentence should be 15 years, if someone is wounded by that gun then it should be 20 years, and if that gun kills someone then it is life with no parole, and I mean life.  No ifs ands or buts, they choose to carry then they should be willing to do the time.

Steph

[MaryEllen]

Stephanie, I agree wholeheartedly with you. There are too many firearm offenders that are given too lenient of a sentence for the crimes they have committed. Every day in the Boston area there are reports of murder and aggravated assult with a firearm and it turns out the perpetrator has been convicted two or three times before on the same charges. The blame lies entirely on our court system where some judge or parole board feels that this poor soul needs a second chance because that person had a bad experience in their childhood. That's about the biggest load of bull sh*t I've ever heard yet it happens every day time and time again. At the risk of aggravating the anti-death penalty folks, I still say that if it could be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, then that sucker should burn.

[LostInTime]

There are sentences like that for gun related crimes.  However, the gun charges are normally taken off the table as part of the bargaining process.  If the feds were to handle every single one, they would be flooded beyond capacity with cases.  Which I believe also leads to more violence.  "Hey I only got 18 months of 3 squares, cable, and a place to sleep.  Let's go do it again!"

A study by Rutgers some years ago showed that 50% of violent crime (not just gun crime) was committed by 5% of the criminal population.  I believe it was also that study that showed most would commit 15 crimes in their lifetime.  The problem is that you never know at one number you stop them at.  So, if they could focus on the worst of the lot then we could see another dramatic fall in the crime rate.

[stephanie_craxford]

There are sentences like that for gun related crimes.  However, the gun charges are normally taken off the table as part of the bargaining process.  If the feds were to handle every single one, they would be flooded beyond capacity with cases.  Which I believe also leads to more violence.  "Hey I only got 18 months of 3 squares, cable, and a place to sleep.  Let's go do it again!"

A study by Rutgers some years ago showed that 50% of violent crime (not just gun crime) was committed by 5% of the criminal population.  I believe it was also that study that showed most would commit 15 crimes in their lifetime.  The problem is that you never know at one number you stop them at.  So, if they could focus on the worst of the lot then we could see another dramatic fall in the crime rate.

Very true, there are always issues to compromise the system if it's not the judges it's the lawyers.  I know that the courts are swamped and I know that this is one reason why plea bargains are made and I'm not sure what the solution is.  We have the same problem here in Canada (overloaded courts not gun crime).  I'm not sure if building more jails and hiring more guards would solve the situation but I'm sure that it would help.

Steph

[taylor]

Stephanie,

I sure can't speak for Canada, but building more jails and prison's in our country is NOT the answer our country has found a way to incorperate prisons as a means of capital gains. 

Prisoners equal money ( BIG MONEY)
Homeless people equal (BIG MONEY)
Persons on welfare/poverity equals (BIG MONEY)
People going infront of a judge for divorce, child support, custody issues, traffic violations, civil law suites etc. equal (BIG MONEY)


Peace,

Taylor

[stephanie_craxford]

I agree whole heartedly Taylor, but it's got to stop somewhere.  Why do these prisons have to be 5 star hotels, and don't anyone bother reminding me of human rights.  The people who commit these crimes didn't give human rights a second thought.  I don't see anything wrong with chain ganges, but then the unions would be up in arms because they would be stealing jobs from the unemployed etc. yada, yada, yada.  Geese there is always a reason why these people shouldn't pay for their crimes.  Ya know I don't care if big money is made over this, I'm sure that the jobs the construction and staffing of these prisons creates will benefit a lot of other people not just big money.  I want the criminals to pay.

Steph