Profile of an NRA spy who infiltrated gun-control groups
Hohlt recalled several recent episodes in which McFate maneuvered to place herself in the middle of issues important to the NRA and others in the gun lobby. One occurred this spring, when the London-based International Action Network on Small Arms was trying to persuade American gun control groups to attend a July meeting at the United Nations on small-arms control. (A 2001 UN conference ended up establishing a program weaker than gun control advocates had desired, thanks to the intervention of the Bush administration, which had been lobbied by the NRA.) States United to Prevent Gun Violence had never before been involved with international gun control issues. And to participate in the UN meeting, it had to apply for credentials. Hohlt says McFate pushed her to file for them. Hohlt did so, and McFate ended up being able to learn what the anti-gun forces were planning for the UN session—including the delegates they intended to lobby, and the arguments they would highlight.There's Something About Mary: Unmasking a Gun Lobby Mole (via Beyond the Beyond)McFate also took a keen interest in a gun matter currently under consideration by the Department of the Interior, Hohlt says. At the urging of the gun lobby, the agency has been mulling whether to change its regulations to allow people to carry loaded and concealed guns into national parks under certain circumstances. (At the moment, a gun carried into a national park must be unloaded and kept apart from ammunition.) The National Parks Conservation Association and current and former National Park Service officials have been fighting the proposed rule change. "When Mary heard about this," Hohlt recalls, "she immediately asked to be on the email list [of the opponents] and she also got on the phone calls. So she now knows the strategy of the people trying to fight this." Similarly, when Mayors Against Illegal Guns, a group organized by New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg, mounted a campaign against the NRA-backed Tiahrt amendment—legislation advanced by Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-Kan.) and first passed by Congress in 2003 that prevents the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives from sharing gun-tracing data—McFate, according to Hohlt, made certain to participate in conference calls during which strategy for beating back the bill was discussed. "Whenever an issue comes up, she manages to get on the email list," Hohlt says.
the latest
latest episodes
Wow. I totally want to infiltrate an organization now. Hrm. What to choose. What to choose. Too late to join McCain's campaign. Terrorist thing is kind of dangerous. Maybe the seedy world of the birdwatchers.
Oh Noes!
An organization dedicated to preserving one of our important civil liberties has tried via unsavory methods to subvert the work of those that would try to reduce our freedoms. It's a good thing she didn't start a riot or blow anything up.
Think of the children!
This is the same group spending $40 million to fight Obama, so who is surprised anyway!?
The gun lobby proves, once again, that, with enough money, any wrong can be considered right.
I'm sure she is open to civil litigation, what criminal charges could be brought?
They should have shot her :P
I thought they've been spying on each other for decades (the NRA and the gun control lobbies). Not to say this isn't interesting; it always makes for a cool read. I even get the impression that their outrage when a spy is outed is just for show.
I couldn't be more pleased that the Supreme Court ruled that we have a right to own guns. That does a lot to stop the gun control lobby cold in it's tracks. Spying on them and figuring out how to block their efforts to pass onerous legislation will only help that struggle.
This woman is a rat; a stool pigeon and a corporate stooge. She ought to be spat upon, not admired by mouth-breathing handgun fondlers.
prdct tht ths thrd wll rmn mpltl cvl wth n nd t dsmvwll an psts t ll
since this is likely going to be more about gun control than the treachery how about if everyone agrees from the git-go to be EXTRA CIVIL and refrain from testing the limits of "exciting language"? We might actually get some decent discussing done then. Not that I don't like flinging poo, but we'll end up losing our damage deposit.
Oh God, here we go again. Another gun control thread. Agree to be civil? Fat chance.
open minds Noen, nothing is written.
"penetrated at the highest levels" MG. Hw hstrnc. I would expect -- insist -- that any decent issue advocacy .org would be all over the oppo. It's their *job*. I guarentee Handgun Control Inc knows when Wayn LaPierre ties his shoes.
From what i read, it sounds like all the did was spy. Spy, not sapper, not sabo, not monkeywrencher. Clr m whp-d-frggn-d. If you look at it from a certain angle, it makes the NRA look pretty good -- they could have used her in a much more active and destructive capacity.
Goodness knows NRA showed a great deal more restraint with their asset than would have the FBI...
This excerpt makes it sound like her master plan was to get on email lists. Dun dun dun! Truly she is a master spy...
# 14 Betatron
"they could have used her in a much more active and destructive capacity"
Bad argument. Saying how it's good that she didn't do worse doesn't make what she did any good. People who befriend others to betray them don't deserve sympathy, even if your agendas are the same.
First you get the email, then you get the power, then you get the women.
Why does the NRA care what goes on at the UN anyway?
Since when did the US pay any attention to what the UN says/does?
"open minds Noen, nothing is written."
That is written, and this, and I'm still writing ;p
I'm for gun control, don't see the need for civilians to need guns. But what this woman did doesn't surprise nor disgust me. Isn't it a common tactic to spy on opponents? Stores do it, checking their compitetion. You can't stop someone signing up to mailing lists. And as was said she wasn't sabotaging them, just collecting info.
Why isn't this just "social hacking"? Isn't that really what it is?
Anyone who thinks that this sort of thing is unusual has no experience in national or international policy. Hell, you may not have experience in ANY kind of policy. This kind of thing happens in dog-shows, beauty pageants, and pinewood derbies.
The best way to mitigate this is to be open about what you are doing - then you don't have to worry about anyone finding out. You tell your opponents where and how you are going to kick their asses, and then you do just that.
Looking at this from another angle: How many times have the plucky rebels been able to out-smart the evil overlords because a sympathetic insider has tipped them off?
When Dan Savage did this to the Republicans (I thought that was a truly awesome hack), were any of you who know are freaking out about this bemoaning his dishonesty?
http://archive.salon.com/politics2000/feature/2000/01/25/bauer/
What she did was awesome..
Many of these handgun control lobbying groups want to make UN international gun-control treaties apply to the United States, by having a treaty override our constitution.
One very disturbing implication of this is that it would allow other international laws to override local American law.
So, put away those drawings of Mohamed, because we would be subject to European style hate-think (ahem, hate-speech) laws.
Well hate speech is so very socially useful, isn't it?
immoral? no
illegal? no
imprudent? maybe
cunning? yes
successful? apparently
anti-gramma state. yes
she sounds pretty cool to me
I have also heard that the ACLU has infiltrated groups in order to increase our general freedom.
Just because conservatives ended up being very liberal on the gun issue does not make it OK for liberals to be anti freedom/rights when it comes to personal arms, this positioning has always seemed strange to me. Unfortunately many so called liberals are no longer real liberals but soft police state socialists, CCTV on corners, zero tolerance laws, machine gun armed cops and all.
Freedom fighters and infiltrators of anti-freedom organizations like States United to Prevent Gun Violence protect the rights of all citizens just like the ACLU does even if the popular media could care less about anything but their own free speach rights.
Radio transmitters, printing presses, cameras, and yes even firearms; if it gets that bad; are all tools of human freedom if available to everyone even the downtrodden minority.
The second ammendment was only written to remind legislators in the future who might want to go after a class of tool particularly dangerous to their power, the freedom to protect ones person and to revolt against tyrany is a natural innate human right like free speech or a speedy and fair trial, no written law is needed.
We would all fight to the death against someone who would muzzle us all to prevent slander or yelling fire in a crowded theater, in the same way this woman stood up in a civil non-violent way for all of us, even those who choose not excercise the human right they would deny us.
After all having your populace armed and dangerous encourages people to interact, form groups, etc. and the knowledge that any one of your fellow citizens has the power to instantly kill or cripple you cannot but help to increase social solidarity and encourage trustful co-operation amongst the poorer sections of your population, provided that some "random" violence doesn't kill the those who would organize and co-ordinate the neighborhood.
Possessing weapons does less to protect you and more to frighten the neighbours.
WTF is wrong with your nation why TF do you not have a safe society? Gotten less safe with all the guns around... been to a hospital lately? How many gunshot wounds every Friady and Saturday night at the LA Emerg departments?
All that blood is a small price to pay for my freedom to shoot you if you come in without knocking...
Barbarians all out to kill or intimidate the poor and weak with their weapons.
Melt the guns.
There is nothing "free" in shooting another human being, for any reason whatsoever. Stop using that word in this context.
The only use for a gun is and ever has been to remove other people's freedom...
Gun are dangerous. Just like good chemistry sets.
Like Pilate I shall not wait for an answer, for i must now attend to the personal care needs of one who was horribly crippled by an act of random gunplay...
#30 Chem sets are not designed to kill, in contrast to ...
It is my constitutional right to own a gun, because some day I may decide I have to kill you. And that is a constitutional right!
My great grandparents who lived and died in Bealorus would have probably loved a few good automatic weapons and a gob of ammo when the Nazis came to clean out the shtettle. There is no right to guns for redneck sports, only for protecting your society. They are the last resort for the poor and weak, which is why these groups are almost universally deprived this right.
Gunshot wounds I have treated, they are terrible, no doubt a high price to pay, people also died of gunshot wounds in Tiananmen Square.
There is no serious societal need for personal arms until all of the other machanisms are exhausted, but fighting tyrany requires the proper tools.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Ghetto_Uprising
#27 Their job is not to subvert the freedom of association of their fellow citizens but to lobby politicians and the public for a change in the Laws.
The NRA thinks that honesty makes for bad tactics, it appears.
Since the NRA's struggle is so important to them that the regular moral values governing social intercourse (Spies usually justify their moral turpitude on the "higher" ground of service to the Nation. Who is the NRA serving such that this immorality ought to be given a free pass? Why does their "right to bear Arms" trump other citizen's rights to form associations without lying weasels actively subverting their freedom by deception and lies?) can thewrefore be ignored and since they are armed, I put it to you that the NRA can nether be trusted to be truthful in its lobbying not that they are not, simply, dangerous.
My charge has given me a few more moments as she also feels strongly about this issue.
Guns have ruined America.
#38 The USA in 2008 is not comparable to the Horror that was Nazi-occupied Poland.
The USA is neither in a state of war nor in a state of armed insurrection, although that is not something you could tell just by looking at the gunshot wound/death stats for your country.
Guns are tools. I don't worry about my neighbors owning guns because I don't worry about my neighbors being stupid.
As for this: folks spy on other groups all the time, it may be a little untoward, but I imagine the reaction to a spy at the TSA Screeners Association or some such might be greeted around here with delight.
Rephrasing: Since the NRA's "struggle" is so important to them that they feel the regular moral values governing social intercourse can be ignored, and since they are armed, I put it to you that they have demonstrated that they cannot be trusted to be truthful in their lobbying nor therefore can it be said that they may not be dangerous to their fellow citizens.
Lies + weapons = possibility of threat.
A lesson from history.
Even in Ancient Rome to go about in the City armed was considered wrong and not to be done, as being in practice solely a threat to other people, as the lions and bears were even then long gone.
#39 You suspect wrongly, but with the NRA we now have good reason to suspect...that they'll be underhanded.
#39 I thought you needed a right to guns because your neighbors might attack you...that's what the Supreme Court said...
Your well-armed with guns neighbors to boot.
Think this increases the need for the police to be more heavily-armed than they would otherwise have to be?
Your guns preserve your freedom to use marijuana as medicine?
I think your guns do not preserve or protect freedom at all, they stop gentle people from acting, instead.
Are lies and spies now a daily fact of domestic Am. political life? Man, I am out of touch. That guns would join the two last-mentioned would not be a surprise.
We all have our agendas, but I find it particularly interesting that this post, particularly that it is subtly pro-limiting a freedom we have in the US (law abiding, non felons being allowed to own firearms) is surrounded by other posts that are anti-limiting other freedoms ('Public Knowledge's "Selectable Output Control" video -- show this to your friends and get them to take action', 'Chemistry set ad from the pre-War-on-Fun days', both posted by Cory, as is this article). There are a lot of freedoms that people from one country enjoy that some in other countries just can't understand (Government run healthcare is one that comes to mind- many, but not all, in the US think it would be a bad idea).
Remember, the climate of taking away freedoms can spread- firearms, copying media, carrying a laptop across the border... While I don't agree with everything the NRA does, which is why I choose not to become a member, I fully support their efforts covered here.
#39: you don't worry about you neighbours being stupid?
That is some admirable optimism. I'm gonna guarantee that the majority of my neighbours are dribbling imbeciles.
What happens when guns can be printed?
My neighbors don't have guns, they are not stupid. Perhaps you should get to know your neighbors better.
In the USA the right to arms is nearly not needed right now, right until someone is kicking the door in to rape or murder, it is needed in other places of the world right now and in past time periods, but I agree that in most western nations it is no longer a pressing need most of the time. None of us should ever have need any kind of weapon them but Pollyanna hopes don't have much affect on the outcome. The problem being that it is only a pressing need when a threat is present, but then it is almost always too late to arm the victims unless there is a large sponsor state willing to fund and equip an insurgency. When is the last time the UN even dropped rifles much less sent troops to victims of ethnic cleansing or mass murder, Kosovo? Only powerful or popular groups get resistance support.
Often the gentle people are slaughtered because they never had the option to save themselves. I would prefer to loose the gentle title and live to see my kids have their own little ones than heroically stand with my family before a murdering army and bravely allow ourselves to be mowed down to keep some historical moral high ground.
Is there moral turpitude in peaceful protest, even if that involves simply signing up for a mailing list? The NRA seems to be a somewhat dirty big business at times with associated problems but many civil rights organizations have problems once they get big and effective.
BTW in Canada you would not believe all the rednecks killing animals in British Columbia, it is not so safe to backpack in open wilderness once hunting season comes. Canada is one of the most heavily armed nations in the world, nothing compared to the US though.
#44 Polls show most Am. wanting proper health care - why no discussions on this in an election year?
UC, I respect your passion to remove what you see as a massive danger to society. The problem I see with your position is that by playing the averages you are a white Canadian born citizen a place with a safe happy population and excelent representation in your government. You should imagine your position if you were in a nation hostile to your very existance.
@45. I am optimistic that way. But it turns out, I know my neighbors. But, even if I thought my neighbors were dribbling imbeciles (a fine term, sir), short of their being felons, I wouldn't want to restrict their right to own a gun.
And, no Ugly Canuck @39, whether I need a right doesn't enter into my calculus. Despite the fact that my government produces freedom-hating stupidity by the acre-foot, I have rights. If the government gets to decide whether I need a right, it's not a right, it's a privilege.
oops, @42.
#48 Those aren't handguns being used for hunting, and every one of those guys by Law ought to have their guns registered...but in a true Wilderness as much of Canada (and truth be told big chunks of the US) remains, a long gun is needed for actual protection. Handguns in Canada are very strictly controlled indeed and in our free and democratic Nation we will move to restrict them further.
The crucial thing is guns in cities. Both of our great nations are now primarily urban. In urban areas guns are a curse. Only justifiable as a response to the guns already around. See the problem? Once you've got them, good luck getting rid of them. And as you Americans tend to be extreme in spreading your politics...that makes you guys dangerous.
IIRC the flood of small arms creating the 'tyrannies" and "lack of freedom" which you complain the rest of the World suffers from originates with US gun makers...they fund the NRA, right?
Direct profit from the fear and sufferings of iothers.
#22: hate speech may not my favorite kind of speech, but i am willing to tolerate it in order to protect ALL forms of speech.
#26: "Possessing weapons does less to protect you and more to frighten the neighbours."
it does just as much to frighten criminals. Its not that having the right to own a gun means you must have one, but that you might have one. Its like hate speech. Just because you have a right to use it doesn't mean you are necessarily going to, and if you think its wrong for other people to use it, than suck it up and tolerate it. I would prefer a criminal questioning whether or not i have a gun rather than knowing for sure that i do not.
Some of my neighbors are down right idiots.
#47: I was positing that the stupidity of my neighbours is the exact reason I'm glad they don't own guns.
Also - I live in the inner city, in between three massive tower blocks. How about you come and get to know my neighbours better? There's about 500 of 'em.
Off you go.
My apologies for the early-morning snark. Here's a more reasoned argument:
Many care what the UN thinks about small arms for two primay reasons. First, they worry that UN treaties (even unadopted by the US) will be used to limit our freedoms at home. And second, many believe it is a human right to stand up and fight against tyranny. Elements within the UN have been systematically working on arms control agreements that would limit access to small arms in third world countries.
Ask yourself how the situation in Darfur would have been different if the non-Arabs there had possessed arms to resist the government-backed and supplied Janjaweed? Instead, they were systematically disarmed before they were killed. War, especially civil war, is very bad, but unchecked genocide is far, far worse. Africa is full of more examples of (selective, racially, religiously, or tribally targetted) disarmament leading to genocide.
Western countries with our powerful militaries have completely failed to prevent genocide across the world. Even where we have intervened, it has come entirely too late. The West cannot and should not be expected to police the entire world.
#54: True "hate speech" neither needs nor deserves protection, it has no social utility whatsoever and deserves no Constitutional protection whatsoever....in any case it is imperative that you do not just " suck it up" or "tolerate" it.... respond to it, loudly and rudely refute it...that's what freedom of speech requires in theory, it's not a theory of psychological release, (ie allowing hate speech less harmful than 'bottling it up'), freedom of speech is recognized precisely so that one can fully respond to and refute hate speech, not to protect it. You really should acquaint yourself with the real-world effects of hate speech (hint: study war-crimes prosecutions - Lord Haw-Haw for starters, and read about the usefulness of hate speech in the Balkans and in Rwanda. Think too about gang wars...)
Nor can I see that protecting hate speech in any way protects freedom of speech, rather it tends to legitimate the content of such hate speech. I have never witnessed nor even heard of a "hate speaker" inviting his targets up to the podium for their response. There were better things for Voltaire to defend and he was not in this instance entirely without self-interest.
That being said hate-speech coming from the Authorities and over the "Mass Media" is the crux of this matter. As I have stated before, I have no problem with someone having an honest prejudice.
It has always disappointed me how white liberals can look down on the poor who are living in crime infested holes while private security and well equipped suburban police forces protect them. Those in fortress suburbs maintain their right to be safe by hiring well paid mercenary cops, what about the right to safety of those who must get their own hands dirty since they can't afford to outsource.
It also disappoints that Republicans suddenly care about the poor single mother in a housing project only when it comes time to protect her cheap pistol which she keeps to scare away the worse elements of society.
#59. It is the easy availability of cheap guns combined with viscous drug laws that lead to "crime-infested hell-holes" (colorful phrase) that your fellow citizens have to deal with...they would rather all guns go away than every one has a gun...why not ask them?
#53 I have treated big game rifle injuries(massive destruction) and handgun wounds(more localized injury), the registration of a firearm does little to heal a gunshot injury. Being listed by address means that the police can easily disarm a population though.
How would you feel about private groups non-violently infiltrating and breaching the "public trust" in real non-PC groups like say an anti-homosexual action group or antisemitic church?
#58: i would be just as quick to refute any form of hate speech. It is important to point out the stupidity of such a thing. However, i would like to think that all forms of speech deserve protection, and i would not want to see it banned.
"Nor can I see that protecting hate speech in any way protects freedom of speech"
well i can :p im not going to pick and choose with forms of speech are worth protecting, because to me even the evil ones ought to be permitted (then, in turn, refuted). After all, just by gagging those we disagree with will not change their opinions. We have to know who thinks such absurd things and then right their thoughts towards the greater good. Simply banning hate speech does nothing to get rid of hate, its just a good way to pretend it doesn't exist.
#61 You mean groups practicing hate speech in an organized and systematic way? Those groups you mentioned use violence, in contrast to gun-control groups. And it is the Gov doing the investigation, not a lobby group with an axe to grind (or in this case a gun to clean).
#61 It is also useful to consult when called to a disturbance at a given address...or setting the terms of a restraining order against a violent spouse.
Rifles can indeed cause much damage (as can a rock) but they are harder to conceal.
As to disarming the populace...well. good luck with that. No one has proposed it and i would appreciate any historical examples of such a thing taking place anywhere other than in an "Occupied Nation" context.
It's a bogeyman argument, our brave freedom-loving gun manufacturers vs. our scurrilous democratically-elected gov.
Look, without Constitutional protection it is a no-brainer to ban handguns in cities - all democratic polities have done so save and except the USA.
The NRA represents people who profit from the sale of guns...they really say it is none of their business as to how the weapons are used. And they hide from the Will of the Majority behind the Constitution.....for majorities in most urban centers support gun control, no doubt about that, and that explains the NRA's "super-secret defense-of-freedom spy" tactics - which are odious and deceitful. I shall hold it against them.
If they can't advance their agenda in the broad daylight, there is something wrong with the agenda.
#63 for argument sake would they be immune from being rightly infiltrated if they did not use any kind of violence, ever, if they were only discussing perverted ideology among themselves in a private location. Using your own subjective standards are classing a gun control group as "good guys" and hence immune but it is OK to infiltrate and report on "bad guys".
Being on the nice or popular side does not afford a person or group additional human rights, although often it does include significant upgraded privilege.
Can we talk about abortion next?
Gun ownership can escalate crimes instead of protecting people. A criminal looks at a house and just wants to rob it (hey I'm not saying their a saint), and nothing else, they want to rob for money they don't want to kill (as many people forget criminals are humans, not crazed inhuman monsters). But they know that nearly every house (in the US) has a gun that was brought to specifically kill them, does this deter them or to bring a bigger gun?
Here in the UK we do pretty well protecting ourselves without the need for the friendly-fire guns the US have. No I'm not saying we are perfect and everyone must follow in our step, but our big concern lately is knife crime. I don't know about you but I'd take my chances against a knife than a gun.
You don't need a gun, you have professionals that sole duty is to protect you (Army / Police). Don't trust them? Then help change the system so you can. Here in the UK only highly professional police members can get training to use a gun and there is a seperate department for such gun wielders. Make handguns illegal and the criminals will need them less, and in turn so will the police. The only problem I will conceed is how to do it effectively, it's easy to say "ban them" but harder to get it done properly (a problem we in the UK had at the beginning, and still get now and again).
Guns needed to prevent invasion? Don't make me laugh US. Me and my mate thought of how hard it would be to launch such an invasion. It's too big to conquer, even attacking from Canada and Mexico would leave forces too sparcley spread to effectively invade.
Your 'freedom' to a gun is insane. I want a freedom to not die because of 'collateral damage' from gun-wielders.
Anyway my two pennies
if only abortions were legal in the 5th term ;)
#57
"Homeowner DOES NOT posess a gun."
I need one of these signs. Honestly. Know why? Because I not only know my neighbors and the average passing citizen isn't an idiot - I also trust them to be tolerably decent human beings. Call me naive, but I have no problem betting my possessions and life on the prediction that people are good enough to not steal and kill. And to all the people who point to the 2nd Amendment as proof of a right for all citizens to carry arms - if the US Military wanted you dead, right now, what chance would you have - no matter how you were armed? A state run military is so amazingly more efficient than lone 'heroes' or even a loose militia. Unless the entire military deserted or pulled off a coup, any resistance would be completely and utterly crushed. How do you fight a tank? A helicopter? A destroyer? The Second Amendment was written when the state military and a potential militia could, conceivably be equivalently armed. That's just no longer possible - if you don't trust your government to turn on you, your best bet is to get into it, not to hedge your bets on a several hundred dollar piece of metal.
IDLEHANDS: In the US, the police do not have the responsibility to protect us. There are cases where the police stood by and watched crimes occur (including violent attacks), and they were deemed not subject to civil liability for not preventing them.
Its amazing how people will support any sort of immoral behavior so no one can possibly interfere with their right to have things that go "boom!"
(I don't buy the whole "I need it to protect my family!" argument. If you're living in a crime infested hellhole, you're doing it wrong. I suspect, much like Hummer owners, some sort of compensation is going on ;P).
@70: k, y r nv.
s fr yr bt: do you have and use locks on the doors of your house/apartment? If so, you don't really mean what you said about folks being "good enough to not steal and kill".
#71: I'm betting more was going on in those situations than just the police idly sitting around watching crime.
I understand the vast majority of crime guns in the USA are sold by a tiny percentage of gun shops that in turn are turned a blind eye to because of the huge profits gun manufacturers reap.
I have a lot of guns. Can I get one of those signs?
I agree with many of the other posters here, that the state does not have the right to regulate my data or my possessions. I'm not the little kid from "Christmas Story" sitting on Santa's Lap asking for a BB gun... "oh no, you'll shoot your eye out!"
If we allow the government to restrict our access to tools because we *might* hurt someone, we become in a very real sense children or peasants... dependent on the elites to know what's best for us.
It's the same philosophy that lies behind the drug war, LA's ban on fast food restaurants, and net censorship.
Thanks, but I already have Parents...
Holy Scientology!
Interesting. First, I have to say as a generally pro-NRA individual, I'm extremely disappointed that they adopted this tactic.
OTOH, this is not all that uncommon. The animal rights movement has used this tactic for decades, though they usually try to use it to smear their opponents rather than gather intelligence on them.
A lot of pro-gun people like myself really dont like the NRA. Big, entrenched, constantly asking for money. Happily, with Heller Vs. DC decided in our favor, the NRA can spin down its size and rhetoric quite a bit.
Its really too bad the ACLU's stance on the 2nd amendment is so broken, i wish more ACLU groups would do like the Nevada ACLU and just break ranks.
Ugly Canuk, would it be too much for you to site your sources for any of your claims? Thanks in advance.
#70
"How do you fight a tank? A helicopter? A destroyer? The Second Amendment was written when the state military and a potential militia could, conceivably be equivalently armed. That's just no longer possible."
I disagree. There two things that small arms can do against a technologically superior force. The first is that they can get you access to that technology. In WWII, the FP-45 Liberator was a single shot piece-of-crap resistance pistol that you use to kill a German and take his weapons. Obviously you have to sneak up on him outside of a pitched battle. The same idea can apply with the commercial weapons that are prevalent in the US.
The other thing that an armed resistance can do to an advanced force is make it think twice about what it is doing. It's one thing for a corrupt government to ask the National Guard to round up some people in a town. It's another to ask them to do it knowing that the people they are trying to take might shoot back. Hopefully, just the order would be enough, as you say, to cause mass defection. But I hope that the thought of the people that you are sworn to protect being willing to shoot you would be an even greater source of cognitive dissonance.
I don't deny that accomplishing anything as a domestic insurgency would be very difficult. But are you saying that you would rather that those in power be allowed to wield force unchecked?
FightCopyright -
"If we allow the government to restrict our access to tools because we *might* hurt someone, we become in a very real sense children or peasants... dependent on the elites to know what's best for us."
Tool? Why's the government trying to steal your shovel? Surely it's silly to license away hammers and nails- Oh wait you mean guns don't you, the thing that has two functions - kill and pistol whip. Unless your job is hitman I doubt guns fall into the tool category. There's no real *might* about it you have a gun it means you are going to kill someone, that is their sole purpose, the reason you own one.
Would you classify Docters as 'elites'? Who do they think they are? Treating us like peasants! We all know the non-lethal amounts for every drug, and we can operate the aneasthic machine. We don't need no stinkin' elites, indeed. And for that matter those bleedin' army elitists, hogging all those tanks. I demand we all take back our tanks! They're our tools!
@71
Isn't their motto 'To protect and serve' ?
#26 Gotten less safe with all the guns around
I dont think so
Guncite
Here is Gary Kleck on gun stock and guns:
If anyone is actually interested in learning about guns, violence, and crime (as opposed to just shouting out what you want to believe) then Kleck is the best source of information and research. AFAIK he is the most noted researcher on guns in the world.
Idlehands @ #82
Your missing the point of killing. Killing can be an evil act, as in killing someone and taking their shit, or it could be a good act, such as killing someone who is trying to kill you and take your shit. The gun is a tool either way.
ironic that America is well underway to a nation huddled at home clutching their legal guns while every other civil right has been stripped from them.
Makes sense though from a cheneyesque point of view: let them keep their security blankets,all they do is kill each other with them. So long as the boat isn't rocked in a big way, things are fine.
I have a question for all the noble patriots who swear they will die for the right to carry a gun: why hasn't even one of you fought the good fight through airport TSA and either kept your weapon or had it pried from your cold, dead hand?
Takuan @ #75
You might be interested in the sidebar on Kleck's homepage, it reads:
I havent seen any credible research on this topic yet, im looking forward to Kleck's research on this matter.
@81: if a government wishes to suppress an unruly town they can either play a round of Fallujah or just cut the roads and wait.
Takuan @86
You can check your weapon with your check in baggage. You just cant carry it on your person or in your carry on luggage. Just FYI. Also, you should ask gun owners how they feel about the ACLU. Most gun owners ive talked to loved all forms of civil rights, but hate the ACLU because of their BS stance on the 2nd amendment.
@85
Ahh you talking about the good kind of killing instead of the bad kind of killing. That makes complete sense now.
May I refer you to my point about that the only reason the robber has a gun is becuase they know your armed to the teeth, and they'd prefer not to die. There are plenty of countries that have strictly controlled guns and not descended into martial law and chaos.
Takuan @ 86 again,
Also, most all gun owners believe in reasonable restrictions on gun ownership and possession. I dont carry my sidearm to court, i dont believe that violent felons have the right to own weapons, ect ect.
Idlehands @90
"May I refer you to my point about that the only reason the robber has a gun is becuase they know your armed to the teeth..."
Wow, robbers are so nice. Can you, you know, prove that?
"most all gun owners believe in reasonable restrictions" Progress!
How's this?: all pistols to be kept locked at the range.
IDLEHANDS @90 again
"There are plenty of countries that have strictly controlled guns and not descended into martial law and chaos."
And there are plenty of countries that have highly permissive gun laws that have not descended into martial law and chaos. Might i offer an observation? Violence has more to do with a society's social situation then the presence or absence of weapons. Keep people free, educated and give them a good shot at a good life and they wont kill people. That's my theory anyway.
"Every day, five children under the age of 19 die as the result of an accidental shooting or suicide by gun. According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, firearms (accidental, suicide and homicide) claim the lives of some 4,000 children under age 20 each year. Most of the deaths are preventable."
Takuan @ #93
Totally unreasonable. Defeats the purpose of a weapon for self defense. (and unconstitutional too, thanks to Heller Vs. DC)
@92
If you had actually referred to my previous point that I referred you to you may of seen I didn't say they were saints. But don't worry I know reading is hard, it takes time away from the good killing.
Look a robber wants your stuff, which is bad, but that is it. They aren't looking to kill or rape you. How do I know? Well I've been robbed and a couple of friends have as well, and guess what? They broke in and stole our stuff and left. Leaving everyone unharmed and unaware they had been there (yes we were in the house at the time). Had we found them a fight would of ensued but no-one it would've been alot less fatal than if guns had been involved. And that is how I can assume that generally robbers don't want you dead, but just your stuff (a good security system usually deters them).
don't NEED handguns for "defense". Your own common sense, police, alarms, fists, pepper spray and finally shotguns really ought to cover defense. Handguns are extra. The are solely designed for killing people. Less handguns,less innocent lives lost. Constitutional? Show where "pistol" appears. I see "arms" and I see it in a very limited debatable context. Handguns make money for a few, entertain a few, serve as legitimate tools for a few but the vast majority wouldn't miss them at all.
Locked at the range. You still own it, you just won't be exposing it unnecessarily.
Takuan #95
Children under 20? Are you expanding the definition of children to make your point more dramatic?
Here is the CDC's wisqars, its a tool so that you can search for causes of death by any number of catagories, including sorting by age and how someone died. Very useful, readers should look up for themselves what are the biggest killers of children.
news flash: Gun nut kills three people yesterday.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080801/ap_on_re_us/wisconsin_shooting
IDLEHANDS @97
Reading is not hard, it civility that is difficult. Im glad to hear that no one was hurt in your robbery, but why do you assume that all robberies are like yours? Also, what about rape, murder and the like? Not as easy to just let that happen, is it?
@88
What do the tactics of the corrupt army have to do with whether or not you can find a lazy or careless soldier? Or whether or not fighting armed civilians is easier than simply rounding up unarmed civilians? I guess they could just shell the town and not deal with going street to street, but I'm assuming that they have a reason to be attacking besides leveling the place. And I would think that a blockade would be playing into the hands of insurgents. The army just made their assets generally stationary.
@90
Would the robber scale down to a knife if they knew you only had kitchen knives? If they can get a gun, why would they want to level the playing field?
Takuan @ #98
You should read the majority opinion in Heller Vs. DC, Handguns are specifically mentioned as an unbannable arm. Also, handguns are better for self defense because you can use a phone with your off hand, not as easy to do that with a shotgun. Also, handguns have less penetration then long arms, so there is less chance of a bullet going through a wall and hitting something you didnt intend to hit.
In any event, we now know that banning/ overly capricious regulation of handguns is unconstitutional because of Heller Vs. DC. Its written in the decision.
try it then, let me know how it works out.
I think robbers would be less likely to carry guns if they knew most people didn't have them and that they would get double time for gun crimes.
Can someone explain to me why my right to bear arms can be completely thrown out the window just because I'm getting on a passenger airliner?
You'd think they'd want some gun-toting civilians around in case some crazy terrorists manage to sneak in a tube of toothpaste that when combined with a bottle of aftershave turns into an aerosol weapon.
Why should I be punished because of other people's mistakes? It's not right.
#105
Because the RTBA is not an absolute right. Same reason your right to free speech doesnt give you the right to slander someone.
Because the RTBA is not an absolute right.
So, we can regulate and restrict the right to bear arms and still be constitutional? We can say "No guns on planes", end of story, and it's constititutional?
Takuan @#104
"try it then, let me know how it works out."
To whom were you speaking?
sweetcraspy initially, but it could also be you
#107 Some restrictions yes. Heller v. DC says you can ban machineguns, restrict the carrying of weapons in sensitive places, restrict ownership from felons and crazy people.
The "sensitive places" part is most likely going to be the source of much wrangling in the future.
so many specious,partial arguments. There must be one thread that can be combed out and properly debated. Anyone have one,pure proposition? Just one that stands alone and can't be occluded by bootless speculation or lost in a thicket of dead arguments?
I offer: It is only proper to kill in self-defense when you have totally exhausted every other possibility.
Takuan @111
Well ive never tried firing a handgun while holding a phone, but i have one handed my .357 on many occasions. Next time im at the range ill give it a try.
@112: Some restrictions yes
So, how do "We the People" decide which restrictions are allowable and which are not?
If the NRA is doing this, shouldn't we assume the GOP is doing it with the DEMs (or vice versa)?
What is "democracy" and what constitutes "playing fair" in politics?
@113
"It is only proper to kill in self-defense when you have totally exhausted every other possibility."
I agree, but I think it needs further refinement. What are some sample other possibilities that would need to be exhausted, in your mind? And relatedly, what constitutes self-defense? Is it "to protect myself and others from death or grievous bodily harm"? Or is it broader or more specific than that?
Takuan @113
Well, not every other possibility will arise. It's a game theory thing. Ideally, you're right, but ideally everyone would be open source and ride a bike.
You have to choose when to self-defend with deadly force. Murder never waits for the ideal moment.
UC: If they can't advance their agenda in the broad daylight, there is something wrong with the agenda.
Right, so why were the gun control groups hiding their tactics from the daylight? If they weren't, if all their plans and such were out int he open, then there would have been nothing to spy upon, right?
Damn it, now I have to be the crazy "gun-fondling" Texan. Some thoughts on the gun control thing.
A) When Texas gave people the right to carry concealed weapons (after passing a back ground check and proficiency test) the common refrain from anti-gun folks was "Oh noes! Wild west shoot-outs at the super-market, drive-bys on the interstate, death, destruction, mass hysteria!"
The actual outcome was that various forms of violent crime were reduced. I don't know if it's causation or correlation, but the net result is that the state did not implode in a mass of gun-related violence perpetrated by people licensed to carry concealed weapons.
B) However, interestingly, Texas shares a border with Mexico, which has EXTREMELY strict anti-gun laws (recently a US soldier went into Mexico for some random reason and he was carrying a pistol, he was arrested and very nearly did some serious time for simply possessing the gun, diplomacy won out and he got booted back to the US but it could have easily gone the other way) and Mexico is seeing a frightening level of violence (using guns, knives, sticks, etc...). Even though guns are very illegal there, a huge number of unsavory characters own and use them and most law-abiding people can only duck and hide.
While gun-violence of any sort is undoubtedly bad, my experience is that letting competent, law-abiding people carry guns seriously minimizes what bad/crazy people with guns (or knives, etc...) can do or even try to do.
That being said, I am inclined to think that Ms. McFate (aside from having an amusing surname) was doing the right thing and I'm inclined to put this into the censorship category. That is, while I will not tolerate the government (e.g. FBI) doing this, I think private companies probably could and should do it. Keeping an eye on each other to make sure they don't do things that are too terribly sleazy seems like a reasonable thing to do and if she largely used social engineering tactics to achieve her goals, then I'm actually rather impressed.
@101
Yes civility is hard, like reading someones post that they refer to so you get the whole picture. I'd like to point out it wasn't just me that has been robbed and been left unharmed / abused, your reading skills coming into full effect again. So it wasn't an isolated case.
Rape and murder? Tell me when has someone without provocation broke into a strangers place just to rape and/or murder. Is it common? It may happen in like the very rare case of someone with severe mental illness, but guns wouldn't be the answer, maybe and here's the long shot, we question the treatment they were/weren't given and improve upon. Thus helping prevent tradegy happening again.
You really like to paint a picture that all criminals are blood thirsty perverts don't you, because that's the way to a better society isn't it, doing good killings with your tool trying to minimize collateral damge, all under the banner of self preservation (of your stuff).
@103
"Handguns are specifically mentioned as an unbannable arm. Also, handguns are better for self defense because you can use a phone with your off hand, not as easy to do that with a shotgun. Also, handguns have less penetration then long arms, so there is less chance of a bullet going through a wall and hitting something you didnt intend to hit."
Strange, if they are unbannable then why have other countries succesfully banned them with no dire consequences? Also you can hold mace/stun gun in one hand and a phone in the other, and not actually kill anyone (which should be the very last option). So why do you insist that guns are the ONLY way to protect yourself, when others prove that there are many non-lethal ways.
#116: James Madison in Federalist No. 10 has illuminating ruminations on questions of Faction in democracy. These problems have arisen before, you know.
#117: In Texas it's to defend other people's property.
To All: I think every person should be taught how to shoot. And biathlon is super-cool...
But I ask this: were the "right to bear arms" not a part of the Constitution, would it be sane to put it in today? Try it as a thought experiment. In countries with no such constitutionally-embedded right what arguments can you muster to convince us to change our Constitutions to be more like yours?
It seems to us that parts of your Administration wishes that some parts at least of your Constitution did not mean what they say...why the oppo with this particular part?
Were the 2nd Amendment not already in existence, would the creation of such a "right" make sense today?
If not, isn't it just a type of religious dogma, or rather on a par with it? Tradition as its only defense?
because of my job, i carry large amounts of cash. so i have carried a handgun (glock .40 w/preban clips) for the last 15 years. twice it has saved my life. i am against many of the policies of the NRA (of which i am a member), and for many of the policies of the ACLU (also a member). being strapped, i have to think through my actions carefully and i know i've avoided violence ( i used to have a NASTY temper) on several occasions just by having the need to be more 'diplomatic' in heated situations. that is why training and a certain amount of regulation are vitally important.
@113
"It is only proper to kill in self-defense when you have totally exhausted every other possibility."
Nope.
Say some jackass opens fire on the Starbucks I'm in. I should run through a litany of all other possibilities (and once is enough, or should I try each twice or three times?) before killing him in self defense?
Or say I wake up the middle of the night woozy from a botched blow to the head and there is a dude strangling or stabbing my wife to death. I should do what now, exactly, in the few seconds she has left, before killing the son of a bitch? This actually happened around the corner from my parents. The husband drove off the attackers, but the wife still died. Very sad. But then, all robbers just want stuff and not to rape or kill.
dragonvpm@120: Some thoughts on the gun control thing.
My question @115 is open for your answer.
If we acknowledge the second ammendment can be restricted so that people are not allowed to carry firearms on airlines, then we acknowledge the second ammendment can be restricted, and those restrictions can be consititutional.
Given that, how do we decide what restriction are to be allowed? How do we resolve those restrictions when we disagree?
#123 When your work requires it then it's not really an issue...it's the widespread easy availability of cheap handguns combined with the lawlessness fostered by the war on drugs that's at real issue here...put another way the question is how to keep the violent away from the handguns without taking them away from those whose work requires it (outdoor hunters/guides/camp guards, police and security/bank guards) or those who would use it to protect themselves from the violent.
That guns make violent people worse is unarguable.
How to reduce the violence is the question. IMO other laws can be changed before the gun laws need to be. And I don't mean further harshification. Just my 2 cents though it's your country (and it is still a free country IMO as is mine for that matter).
#125 the same way we always do, out back with knives...no I mean public debate and adjudication.
This actually happened around the corner from my parents.
ya know, a bunch of terrorists hijacked some planes a few years back. Just because that actually happened doesn't mean arming every citizen will improve things.
Put another way, your anecdotal evidence of the existence of a tragedy does nothing to prove the validity of your proposed solution to that tragedy.
I think some of us forget that there is a difference between Predatory Violence and Protective Violence. One is bad, the other is good. Oddly enough, at least in the US, it's the same age groups that do both, primarily young men.
Maybe instead of focusing on which tool they decide to use, we should be concentrating on what we can do to turn young men from Predatory Violence and towards Protective?
#129: Best to turn them away from violence.
Boy, now I'm sounding religious...(mutter mutter mutter)...
greglondon @125: Given that, how do we decide what restriction are to be allowed? How do we resolve those restrictions when we disagree?
A duel, at noon, at 20 paces.
Sorry, just had to say it ;-).
I'd rather stay away from airlines/airports at the moment. I disagree with 80%-90% of what's done there to "protect" us. There are some practical technical reasons why restricting the use of guns on an airplane may be valid, but the entire system is such a mess that it's hard to fully separate out one particular rule/regulation like that.
Looking at most other things though, in the US the answer is you debate the issue and then whoever makes the rules decides what is restricted and not everyone is happy with it. For instance, the debate about firearms in national parks. That is an ongoing debate, currently the rules say one thing, but that could change (and in the national parks example the rule exists, iirc, for the protection of wildlife and to prevent poaching, not for general public safety).
I believe there's an ongoing debate in Texas about prohibiting firearms in post offices and other public buildings of that sort. Both sides have valid points and it's ultimately a judgment call.
However, there is a fundamental difference from saying that I can't walk into a post office with a gun (or a movie theatre with a video camera) and saying that I cannot own it at all. The 2nd amendment is meant to protect us from being criminalized by the government for simply owning a firearm and that does come from our history as a country that came into existence because the populace was armed and it was able to overthrow a corrupt and despotic government. Could the same thing happen today? I don't know. As little as 145 years ago we were in the middle of a civil war were individual people were expected to defend themselves and their beliefs. I imagine the state of our current military/police would make an outright overthrow of the established government difficult, but if something ever fractured the military? Who knows.
Beyond that though we have current examples, Hurricane Katrina, The Virginia Tech shootings, and others where a sane person with a firearm and the expertise to use it could have made a positive impact on the situation.
@124
I think that in both of your cases, it is readily apparent that no response other than deadly force is possible. But in less extreme situations, it is not unreasonable to ask someone to think twice before shooting.
#131 In what way would/did firearms help after Katrina? Or "could have"? There already were lots o' guns about in New Orleans IIRC.
IDLEHANDS @#121
Are you arguing that rape and murder don't occur? I agree that they are both uncommon, but i really dont have to cite a source for the claim that some people commit murder do i?
As i was talking about the US Supreme Court, i obviously meant unbanable in the US. I also never insisted that guns are the ONLY way to protect oneself, just that guns are an effective and constitutional way to do so.gandalf23 @129
"Maybe instead of focusing on which tool they decide to use, we should be concentrating on what we can do to turn young men from Predatory Violence and towards Protective?"
Bingo, fix the underlying social situation that makes people violent, and violence virtually goes away. Stop fixating on weapons, its a distraction.
Fans of Penn and Teller might like the episode of Bullshit! that covers gun control, its not very well defended but its fairly amusing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfObDFVnfp0
minTphresh @123
Those clips are no longer pre-ban. The ban on them expired in 2004.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapons_ban
perhaps an underlying social situation is a prevalent gun culture. The plain fact is that there are many free countries where guns are controlled and people live happily and safely.
America must do a cost benefit analysis: How many lives for uncontrolled guns? How many deaths a year.
I think the "acceptable" number is somewhere between one and one million. How many lives are you personally willing to spend for the keeping of a handgun?
#133 I would imagine that more sane, trained people with guns would help offset crazy/criminal people armed in various ways.
Katrina was mostly meant as an example of a "catastrophic event" where someone with a firearm could protect and provide for themselves in the event that evacuation was impossible or unavailable. IMO it's too easy for many anti-gun supporters to dismiss the utility of firearms in bad situations because they've never had the need for one themselves. I think Katrina is a great example of how easily society can seriously break if you apply a bad enough outside force.
It's easy enough to dismiss the historical precedent for having guns (e.g. American Revolution, US Civil War, etc...) but something that happened a couple of years ago, lasted more than a couple of days, and put people in situations where they really did need to use their guns just to survive seems harder to ignore.
@134
Ahh your reading skills are on par with George Bush, seriously now I know you can read the alaphabet and understand words so please try harder F-. Rape happens yes, as date rape or by people that know the victim. Murder is usually provoked (even if the reasoning is very poor). I asked when do people break into your house to murder or rape you unprovoked, I did not imply murder/rape rarely ever happens ever under any circumstances.
Well as long as it's effective and constitutional to defend yourself by shooting them then it's all ok. Don't try any other methods, just shoot to kill. I wouldn't want you to put yourself out by actually preventing avoidable deaths.
What alot of pro-gun fetishists seem to miss is that no-one is saying crime will go away with banning guns. But accidental killings, crimes of passion, and fatalities occured with breaking and entering can be lowered. I have also admitted, though I will state it again for those that need pratice reading, that the way guns are outlawed/restricted/banned is the tricky one that takes time and more serious thought.
As I can't be bothered to debate this anymore, mainly as no-one will change thier minds, I'll leave you to run your country any way you want and be safe in the knowledge your guns can't reach me.
dragonvpm@131: in the US the answer is you debate the issue and then whoever makes the rules decides what is restricted and not everyone is happy with it
My point being that even though not everyone is going to be happy with it, it doesn't neccessarily mean it's unconsititional, or if you want to get down to tacks, it doesn't mean it's wrong.
So, I'm neither for unfettered access to guns nor a complete outlawing of guns. I'm somewhere in between. Odds are, if I were to compare notes with any individual, our stances on guns would be different in some way. multiply that by a couple hundred million people, and you're not going to get anything that will have unanimous agreement.
And yet, when discussing gun control, from the point of view of "I support some restrictions, and don't think they would be unconstitutional", I get a little tired of alarmists turning it into me trying to confiscate their guns. I'm just a little tired of attitudes like message #2 in this thread. I'm a little tired of the "cold dead hands" response to anything relating to gun control.
The answer to "how do we decide when we dont' agree" is "rule of law" and it means a complex, multi-layered, and messy process. And it'd be nice if I could watch a discussion about gun control without it turning into gross overly simlified black and white representations.
you know?
@138
Takuan,
I thought you wanted to talk about what constituted reasonable killing in self defense. I do if you are still interested.
@139
in the aftermath of the Kobe earthquake in which the city was essentially destroyed, people patiently stood in lines for water and quietly waited for aid. Aid which could have been much better but did eventually come. Though I seem to recollect the man in charge of the water supply killed himself in the face of the inadequacy of preparation. It is not a given that people will resort to cannibalistic savagery when social infrastructure vanishes.
Takuan @#138
"The plain fact is that there are many free countries where guns are controlled and people live happily and safely."
Yes, and, as I have said, there are many countries where guns are prevalent and people live happily and safely. The obvious conclusion here is that happiness and safety are (or can be) independent of gun laws.
"America must do a cost benefit analysis: How many lives for uncontrolled guns? How many deaths a year."
I would not allow any of our other constitutional rights to be swept away via a cost benefit analysis, why should anyone stand for it in this case?
A number of your underlying assumptions are incorrect anyway, even setting aside the constitutional issues. That gun control is an effective way to prevent crime, here is a CDC report evaluating the effectiveness of gun control laws as a crime deterent.
http://www.cdc.gov/MMWR/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm
Bottom line, the gun control measures studied had no appreciable effect on violence.
That more guns == more deaths, also incorrect. The link i provided earlier shows that: "Since 1945 the handgun per capita rate has risen by over 350% and over 260% for all firearms."
Yet per capita violence rates have been going down overall.
Your offering a false dichotomy, that we can either have guns or peacefulness, this is incorrect. Peacefulness is a function of a society's education level, its economic situation and economic distribution, the fairness and effectiveness of its justice system, etc etc, it has nothing to do with "gun culture" whatever that is.
@142
do proceed, there is no formal structure here and the assumption is that courtesy is intended even if not readily apparent. We are on no schedule.
Yet another aside; I wonder if the money and resource currently spent on the shareholders of the WarOnSomeDrugs Industry (DEA employees etc) were put to the suppression of crime guns and the merciless prosecution of those using guns in crime might not make everyone happier. And safer.
@140 While I respect a person's right to their own opinion, I will point out that your use of the phrase "pro-gun fetishists" and your overall tone (particularly in the last comment) leads me to think that if anyone here is going to be intractable and set in their ways it's YOU.
Kindly stop looking down your non-American
nose at us poor savage Americans and perhaps it would be possible to have an actual debate on the subject. Looking around at other countries, I see plenty of examples of downright asinine ways to "fix" societies' ills and most of them fail miserably (my personal favorite being Britain's Orweillian fetishistic obsession with CCTV cameras in conjunction with it's increased fondness for harassing citizen photographers).
The truth is no country gets it entirely right and no... well very few contries get it entirely wrong. In North America for instance, Canada has a very high rate of gun ownership and still maintains a relatively low rate of gun violence while Mexico has a very low rate of legal gun ownership and it has an obscene rate of gun violence. Britain has similarly low rates of legal gun ownership and much better rates of gun violence, but even there you still have instances where packs of kids have beaten and kicked people to death for the hell of it (as has the US).
Ultimately, gun laws are only effective while the society that uses them adequately provides for it's citizens. As soon as the populace starts to feel abandoned and like it has to fend for itself things start to deteriorate regardless of what Big Brother says about whether you can or cannot own a gun.
@144
a direct question: How many deaths are acceptable?
Are "constitutional rights" so sacred that every single American is better sacrificed before said "rights" are compromised? All dead?
How many deaths is the price of unlimited guns? One? Ten? One hundred? One thousand? Ten thousand?
How much are guns worth? 300,000,000?
Greglondon @131
Yes I do know, and agree completely. The best part of Heller v DC is that it takes total bans off the table. With that gone, reasonable people can now discuss reasonable gun control without the fear that whatever regulation agreed to today is just a prelude to a total ban tomorrow. This fear is reinforced by the fact that every major gun control proponent has said that they want, and will work for total gun prohibition (and we can thank our spy for that information)
#138:
How many lives are you personally willing to spend for the keeping of a handgun?
Don't forget that the cat is out of the bag- there are so many guns in both legal and illegal hands that if we did ban them all, we'd only be taking them out of the (reluctant) hands of the legal gun owners. Don't fool yourself that the the overturned gun ban in DC had any effect upon gun related deaths- Washington DC had the highest death rate- mostly due to handguns.
@143
That's certainly true, but Japan is something of a unique case. Off the top of my head, I can't think of too many countries that have been so vested for so long in conformity and making individuals as vested in society and it's best interests (at times even to their detriment).
Rather than just looking at Kobe (or New Orleans), I'd be curious to know how other cities/areas reacted to comparably cataclysmic disasters in order to get a feel for how people might react under extreme duress (although the discussion is largely academic since the US has it's own somewhat unique sets of cultural quirks and idiosyncrasies)
Katrina was mostly meant as an example of a "catastrophic event" where someone with a firearm could protect and provide for themselves in the event that evacuation was impossible or unavailable.
Most people killed during Katrina were killed by the weather. Most reports of rampant murdering going on in New Orleans was grossly overblown.
No one was using firearms in New Orleans to go hunting and provide for themselves. The only providing was done by scavenging stores for food.
The right to bear arms isn't grounded on the idea of a worst case doomsday catastrophe scenario. If we argue all of our rights, and the design of government itself, from the point of view of worst-case doomsday scenarios, then I think we'd be coming to some very strange and very wrong conclusions.
May first is “Remember why we never ever ever let the government take away our firearms because the only reason to take them from law abiding people is so that they can then round up and shoot the now unarmed people without getting shot themselves” day.
These guys were not random criminals or robbers. They were organs of the state.
This guy was not some invader, her was a local cop or soldier who had a "lawful" order to shoot this lady and her child. He was not a random wackjob just killing people.
I imagine that these men, and boy sure do wish they had put up some armed resistance, don't you?
5/10/15/20 years before this picture was taken, do you think he thought he "needed" a gun? No? then when did he need one? And at _that_ point, how was he to get one?
If the 20th century taught us anything, it's that we're most likely to be murdered by our own damn government (most especially if that government is fascist, socialist, or communist) than some random street thug.
Yes, it's horrible that people misuse guns (and knives, and baseball or cricket bats/hockey sticks, and cars, let's not forget that many times more people a year a killed in auto accidents than by gunshots yet we never try to ban cars). And it's horrible that people die, everyday, from gunshot wounds. But it's also pretty damn horrible when the government rounds your ass up and kills you.
When your police are the ones rounding you up and your soldiers are the ones shooting you, who do you go to for help?
While I certainly do not think that the US will have any type of rounding up and shooting people anytime soon, if we get rid of our means of defense to that, then it may eventually happen. Why would I actively work to ensure my grandkids down the line are enslaved? That just does not make sense to me.
the American government, which is now spending billions as well as liquidating all civil rights one by one in a frantic search for terrorists smuggling explosive shoes and shampoo, is logistically incapable of enforcing a gun ban if it became the law of the land? A gun ban on criminal ownership? Sounds like they are lying one way or the other.
Takuan @147
Again you are offering a false dichotomy, that one must choose between guns or peace. This is, once again, incorrect. Study after study has shown that gun control is not an effective way to reduce violence, so no matter what number i give you, it would be irrelevant. As Hazmat @149 points out, gun control only effects those who follow the law, c.f. the drug war.
Takuan @153
Im not following you.
What's odd about this is that I can't figure what Sapone was supposed to do. What were the shadowy people who hired her paying for? There's no secret what gun control activists want or support. I think she did subvert these organizations and steal confidential information. She sits on the board of several gun control organizations, and to take those positions when she intended to undermine those organizations is probably actionable as well, though perhaps not a crime.
Commentators who say that anti-gun groups have similar spies vastly overrate their resources and malevolence. Really, unless they intend subversion, why bother? And winning any political fight by subverting the opposition rather than open debate, speaks to a belief that what they want is superior to what citizens want--it is very much part of the anti-democratic attitudes of the radical right.
I suspect there's a much darker story here, waiting to be told.
ponder a moment then, I have to go whip the curs.
@146
Ok couldn't let that slide. Everything you said, I've said, that my country is not perfect but I used it as an example of a country that banned guns and gets along fine without. I also said it does not solve crime completely but with less guns means less fatalities, I also mentioned that here in the UK we have a knife crime problem, see how it moves from guns to knifes. And as I also said I would prefer my chances with a knife wielder than a gun wielder, the chances of fatalities is alot less. I also have said banning guns in such a place so used to guns would be difficult, but no-one seems interested in debating how, but rather that they shouldn't be banned full-stop. I have mentioned that here in the UK the ban was not fully thought out and we still have some undesirables with guns. I have constantly said these things, which is why I'm tired of repeating them again, so please stop looking for a reason to play the victim, do that and I'll stop with the pro-gun fetishist thing.
And yes I'm set in my ways of not wanting to kill another human being if at all possible, and it seems to me pro-gun people don't seem interested in alternatives (from what I've seen here).
So what i think you are saying @153 is that if our govt. can be sucessfull in the war on terror, then it can be sucessfull in enforcing a total gun ban. And the reverse, if our govt. cannot sucessfully enforce a total ban, then it cannot be sucessfull in the WOT.
Is that what you meant?
IDLEHANDS @158
"And yes I'm set in my ways of not wanting to kill another human being if at all possible, and it seems to me pro-gun people don't seem interested in alternatives (from what I've seen here)."
I disagree with that assertion. Owning a gun makes you very conscious of the implications of using it. Just because someone advocates firearm ownership does not mean they desire to use said firearms on someone.
May first is “Remember why we never ever ever let the government take away our firearms
What is that?
National Strawman Argument day?
National Slippery Slope day?
National Bifurcation day?
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=J7cWBrGAIcc
National Bifurcation day?
No thats just a banking holiday.
Owning a gun makes you very conscious of the implications of using it.
No. It doesn't. Guns don't come with a mind-meld technology that forces anyone to consider any of the implications of the use of deadly force. They don't even come with the technology to keep you from shooting yourself while you're cleaning it. Guns don't come with anything that force you to be conscious of what you're doing.
At all.
That is the point.
If guns actually did that, then gun control wouldn't be an issue because all those people who are NOT conscious of the implications of killing another human being suddenly would be.
But while you'd probably be one to argue that "guns don't kill people, people do", here you are making a completely opposite argument that guns somehow magically imbue their owners with some special insight into the moral implications of killing.
Guns aren't conscious of moral implications.
And some people aren't either.
the only reason to take them from law abiding people is so that they can then round up and shoot (them)
Like when they tell you you can't have a firearm on a passenger airliner. All that rounding up and shooting going on in all these airports every day. That's the only reason.
105 Greglondon "Can someone explain to me why my right to bear arms can be completely thrown out the window just because I'm getting on a passenger airliner?"
I don't know for sure, but i would imagine it is because a plane is private property, not a government service. You sacrifice some of your rights in order to get the service provided by that plane. Although, i would guess it is probably regulated by the govt. i dont know... just speculating.
"The right to keep and bear arms" is vague enough that I could use it as a defense for owning a nuclear weapon, so clearly either we need to know exactly what the framers of the constitution intended, OR we need to think of the constitution as a living document that can be changed to fit the times. We decided that "all men are created equal" means "men AND women of all colors", why the problem with defining "keep", "bear" and "arms"?
GregLondon @163
Ok fair enough. Let me restate then:
Owning a gun made me very conscious of the implications of using it.
Ill Lich @167 Heller V. DC says reasonable restrictions are Ok, no nukes seems reasonable enough.
Owning a gun made me very conscious of the implications of using it.
True that. I agree entirely.
back. The question is still open: What is the acceptable human sacrifice for unlimited guns? How many children? How many innocent adults? At what number does the return on universal guns fall below the curve? Someone pick a number.
#13 - Your post sent me into chuckles with the "Spy, not sapper, not sabo, not monkeywrencher" bit. All I could think of was TF2.
Spy sappin' my petition!
in the liberal utopia that is/was New Orleans, they decided that only the Gov't should have guns, but as it turns out, some of the police weren't that honorable in those trying times..
Yeah, that was one terrible episode of gun-confiscating, people-rounding-upping-and-shooting, that I've seen in a while.
They even made people leave a national disaster area.
Takuan: What is the acceptable human sacrifice for unlimited arrows? How many children? How many innocent adults? At what number does the return on universal arrows fall below the curve?
or clubs. or fists.
Are murderers with with guns really that much scarier than murderers without guns?
Guns don't make us barbarians.
Pick a number
All of us.
how many kids have shot themselves or a playmate with a bow and arrow from daddy's drawer?
@171
MDHatter already responded, but I think there is more to it. That's not a fair question any more than "What is the acceptable human sacrifice for driving cars?" is a fair question. I'm not claiming that guns are as useful as cars or that that is any kind of moral equivalence between them, but your specific question applies just as much to cars as it does to guns.
Cars kill people, both accidentally and criminally. They even hurt the environment. We could save all of those people and the planet if we outlawed cars, and there's not even a pesky constitution to get in the way. How many people are you willing to have die before driving cars falls behind the curve? Because there are currently a lot more of them than die from arrows or guns.
What is the acceptable human sacrifice for unlimited arrows?
Look, this is getting seriously stupid. There isn't a problem with unlimited arrows causing the deaths of massive numbers of people. But as it happens, some states do indeed have restrictions on bows and arrows, some don't allow possession of crossbows, and such and so on. Has anyone died from a gun permit requirement?
And if sixty foot tall trebuchets hurling five ton stones were a common problem throughout the land, causing the deaths of thousands of people every year, then I'd support some sort of permit process or something for trebuchets.
And if trebuchet owners want to howl in protest of the evils of trebuchet-permits, then let them howl.
Guns don't make us barbarians.
Guns don't STOP a person from becoming a barbarian either.
But gawd forbid there's a two-week waiting period, a serious background check, and various other basic requirements for weapon owners, to help separate the barbarians from the nonbarbarians.
You'll take my trebuchet when you pry it from my cold-dead hands!!!!
cars kill,cars have benefits. We tolerate cars because the benefits outweigh the deaths. Does the benefits of unlimited handgun ownership outweigh the associated deaths?
Takuan,
How many deaths is the price of unlimited guns? One? Ten? One hundred? One thousand? Ten thousand? How much are guns worth? 300,000,000?
This sort of drama really isn't helping. Not everyone arguing for guns are arguing for unlimited guns.
Why do you want a gun? Is it for hunting? Okay, how's this:
Bolt-action rifles. Shot guns. No registration. Good hunting.
That's all. Nothing semi- or automatic. No handguns, not even for cops. NOTHING ELSE.
If you want anything else ... get another hobby.
If you just love guns, you've got a screw loose. Seek help.
Bddy166 @180
Ttlly nrsnbl. wnt wpn fr slf dfns, s s my rght. Wht hv y ddd t th cnvrstn?
You mean you can't protect yourself with a Goddamn shotgun?
Maybe you need flame thrower! Or an RPG.
how many kids have shot themselves or a playmate with a bow and arrow from daddy's drawer?
Bad example. Me. When I was 12. So what?
no one will quantify the number of dead in exchange for unlimited guns because it is an indefensible argument. What everyone THINKS is "any number so long as it doesn't include me or mine". This is not how societies work. We band together and give up one thing to get another. The unlimited gun group wants to live the barbarian ethic. Fine, but whose agricultural society will they prey on?
As to defense, Buddy is totally correct.
Buddy166 @182
Covered that at #103
Also, i have only one arm.
Damn straight! Today the mad scientist can't get a doomsday device, tomorrow it's the mad grad student. Where will it end?
Takuan @184
No one will answer your question because it is a meaningless question. As i said, you havent proven that more guns means more death, and I dont think that you can. If you prefer i can just declair that the trade off is acceptable, like you did 178. In any event, it doesnt take a genius to see that any number above 0 will elicit the same reaction from you.
So i ask you again, prove that more guns mean more death.
Also, i cant help but note that you constantly refer to the "unlimited gun group" despite the fact that every pro-gun poster here has said there are restrictions. I dont know where this "barbarian ethic" you refer to comes from either, im not a barbarian and i dont want to prey on anyone.
One arm? Did you ever see ''The Rifleman"? Wouldn't be too hard to swing a Winchester .30.30 with that hacked cocking device he had. That would be cool, right?
@178
You seem to be saying that many deaths are OK on one side due to benefit and you are asking how many are OK on the other. So there must be some form of conversion factor for how many people can die for a particular amount of benefit. There's something like 42,500 highway deaths a year.
So if guns are equally as beneficial as cars, they can kill at least 42,500 people a year. If they are half as beneficial as cars, then they can kill at least 21,250 people a year. If they are 1/100 as beneficial as cars, they can kill at least 425 people a year. If they are 1/1000th as beneficial as cars, they can kill at least 42.5 people a year.
So now the only question is "how beneficial are guns, compared to cars?" But as long as they are even the least bit beneficial, you would be OK with them killing some number of people a year.
What's going on here? Takuan asks a rhetorical question and you cats turn yourselves inside out polishing up your vocabularies. I propose a simple rifle/shotgun model that might satisfy everyone's wishes, and all I get is a one-armed guy who can't figure out how to protect himself without packing concealed heat. Is no one serious about this ISSUE? Because I am, and I say Fill the streets with shotguns and rifles; let the world know that you will not be fucked with if push comes to lock and load.
And if you come across an 8 point buck....
When they build something big like a dam, they allow for so many deaths in the cost. We trade life and years of life for benefit every day in every way. It is pretty self evident from the heap of bodies at the end of every year that hand guns kill.
Very well, looking at places were they don't have hand guns in every pocket and the conspicuous lack of a large heap of bodies from handgun shootings - because they don't have hand guns - I think we can safely extrapolate that America trades human lives for hand gun ubiquity. What is the benefit of these hand guns? Is it big enough to outweigh the pile of corpses? You put up with traffic accidents because you need to get around. You don't put up with people driving 100mph everywhere because the benefit of getting there quicker isn't worth the even bigger pile of dead. Less hand guns, less dead people. You have to obey the lower speed limit of a shotgun over a hand gun, but isn't it worth it?
What do you really think? The minimal additional benefit of a hand gun over a shotgun is worth say, 300 children's lives?
So if guns are equally as beneficial as cars, they can kill at least 42,500 people a year.
OK, fine. quoting this: http://www.neahin.org/programs/schoolsafety/gunsafety/statistics.htm
:: Every day, more than 80 Americans die from gun violence.
80*365=29,000 people killed every year.
This lines up with some other estimates I found on other sites. about 30k people killed every year by guns
that's about 3/4 of car deaths a year.
I tried to find some statistics on the number of guns in teh US, but that's pretty fuzzy. In one decade, about 50 million guns were manufactured or imported.
According to the BTS, there are about 135 million cars in the US as of 2006.
http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_01_11.html
The positive affect of automobiles on the economy is mind bogglingly huge that I'm not even going to go into it, other than to say, I'd be out of work if it weren't for my car, and the ability to drive a non-walkable distance every day, and so would a lot of other people.
Direct positive effects of guns per year? (No, "feel good" isn't a positive in any measurable way)
Takuan @ 191
"Less hand guns, less dead people."
Prove it.
buy a plane ticket to Japan
Wtht rdng thrgh ths whl thrd jst wndr...
Wht r th nt-gn ppl s shmd f? f thy rlly thnk thy'r rght, nd t's nt pltcl thng, thn vrythng thy d shld b pn nd bv brds.
Rmnds m f NMBL.
perhaps you should read the thread before commenting. You remind me of something too. Would you like to apologize for your last remark?
JANN,
Why don't you tell us why you think anti-gun people are ''ashamed'' of themselves. I haven't noticed that. Do pacifists, those wonderfully brave people, have anything to be ashamed of? I don't have the courage to be a pacifist, and I admit it. Are Christians ashamed that Jesus was a pacifist?
Maybe I should be half-ashamed because I advocate banning all handguns. You think? Well, I'm not. I think handguns are for wankers and sissies. Maybe short-barrel enthusiasts aren't virile enough to bear powerful long-barreled weapons. Maybe they're the ones who should be ashamed. Or at least embarrassed.
What are they hiding?
Out of curiosity, but do people who claim we need to be armed to avoid government tyranny believe that civilians have the right to personal nuclear weapons? If the "right to bear arms" means more than the 18th century muskets the founders were referring to, what's the limit?
Takuan @#194 Ill take a world tour that includes Japan, Israel, Switzerland and Canada. They all have low rates of violence, despite having vastly different attitudes and laws concerning firearms.
Good question, JB. Would they let me own and bear a panzerfaust or a flamethrower? In the name of a possible future militia, that is. A logical argument can be made for musket-machingun-howitzer-nuke.
Wait. Do they say ''government tyranny''? No, no; a militia, a militia called up in support of the government! Where did they ever get the idea that a nice militia would rebel against the government? Certainly not from the Constitution.
Tom Jefferson is a communist.
#192
:: Every day, more than 80 Americans die from gun violence.
80*365=29,000 people killed every year.
WISQARS says 2005 had 29,338 firearms deaths, but 17,000 were suicides, which dont really count IMO. People who want to kill themselves use whatever method available, taking one away does nothing.
I, for one, welcome our loaded-gun-toting brethren into our national parks. Isn't that what the 2nd Amendment was all about? Can we also make sure they don't have hunting permits and aim like Dick Cheney?
29,338 firearms deaths, but 17,000 were suicides,
Leaving over ten thousand dead every year, about one-third of the total deaths from automobiles every year.
Cars are waaaay more than three times beneficial to America as a whole than firearms are. So, it seems to me that the natioanal cost of firearms (number of gun deaths plus total of gun-related crime) far overshadows the national benefit of firearms, especially when comparing the national cost of automobiles (number of auto deaths and so on) to the national benefit of automobiles.
Therefore, gun control laws seem perfectly reasonable, as a way of attempting to bring the cost more in proportion to the benefit. and as we've already agreed, we can restrict the right to bear arms without being unconstitutional, so, restrict them.
People who want to kill themselves use whatever method available
Actually, that's not true. Men generally (60%) use a firearm to commit suicide. Women generally (40%) use drug overdoses. in 2005, 26,000 men committed suicide, and about 7.000 women committed suicide. So, I think one could reasonably predict that lack of access to firearms would at least reduce the number of some suicides.
The thing is that you assume suicide is rational, it isn't.
A two-week waiting period might be long enough that someone buying a gun to commit suicide might end up seeking help instead (or someone might notice the guy is suicidal and call help for him). Either way, the harm that a two-week waiting period would inflict on the nation as a whole seems pretty miniscule, and the potential benefit seems to far outweigh it.
Seriously, when you go buy a gun, is it absolutely imperitive that you take it home the day you decide you want to go to the store? Will two weeks kill you? That's not a rhetorical question, because NOT having a waiting period might literally end up killing someone. Either by suicide, or someone who bought a gun in anger and wants to go use it against his ex-girlfriend who he just caught cheating on him.
Since the cost of guns in proportion to the benefit of guns seems to be much higher as compared to the cost of automobiles in propotion to the benefit of automobiles, it seems reasonable to try to attempt to reduce the cost that the nation as a whole must bear as a result of individuals having guns.
And since, for example, the cost of a two week waiting period seems miniscule compared to the potential benefit that could occur if a two-week waiting period were to literally save someone's life, can you seriously tell me you cannot stand to have a waiting period to buy a gun because of your interpretation of the second amendment?
Nice work, Greg.
Greg @ 203,
A 2 week waiting period and/or registration to buy a LEGAL handgun would accomplish about as much as the complete and total prohibition against some drugs has. If someone really wanted it sooner they would take their business to someone who would sell to them illegally and if they felt like being patient they'd wait and get it through legal channels.
WRT the crime angle, look at criminal law, there is not a SINGLE law on the books that has a less severe punishment if a weapon is used to commit it. In every case, if you use a weapon (gun, baseball bat, whatever) you will do more time and yet people still commit crimes and they still use weapons to do so. Why? Shouldn't the laws on the books against robbery, murder, rape, etc... already make people stop committing those crimes?
Oh, that's right people who set out to commit crimes often already know they're breaking the law and they don't care, so what's one more law to break? Don't believe me? Take a look at the rates of gun violence and general violent crimes between Mexico, the US, and Canada and look at what the gun laws are like. Violence isn't about what weapons we have available, it's about the conditions that people are forced to live in and the ways they can get out.
WRT suicide, I've known people who have succeeded and some who haven't. From talking to those that didn't succeed and what I know of those who did, I'd say that none of them wasted time worrying about the ways that they couldn't use to kill themselves. If someone is determined they'll think about the options they have and they'll pick the one that's most palatable. If they don't have a car they won't worry about driving themselves into a brick wall. No garage? Not going to try and asphyxiate with CO. No gun? Pick something else or find a way to get one (I knew a kid in HS who was under age and still managed to acquire a gun through illegal channels.... the kids in Columbine were all incapable of buying the firearms they used legally and yet they managed to get them by planning ahead).
It's easy to blame a gun for gun violence, just like it's easy to blame the alcohol for drunk driving, or a woman's clothes for a rape, but that doesn't mean that any of those are the actual culprits. The sad truth is that there are a lot of people out there who are quite ok with doing things that may hurt other people for the simple fact that they don't care about the consequences or they like hurting people. Taking guns away from people who are willing to work and live within a society only assures that the only people with guns will be those who are ok with breaking the rules and working outside of society.
We can't get rid of guns (any more than we've been able to get rid of drugs, prostitution, reality TV, etc...). The only things you can do are a) accept that bad AND good people will have them or b) make it so bad and a lot FEWER good people have them. I'd rather take my chances with more armed good people, and as I pointed out many comments ago, the adoption of the concealed carry law in Texas seems to bear out my preference. When the law was passed the anti-gun lobby spent a lot of time wringing it's hands talking about shootouts over fender benders, more Columbines, more family violence, pretty much more everything that guns could even remotely affect.
What did actually happen?
Violence in Texas has gone down since the law passed. Now I don't know if it's causation or correlation, but there certainly weren't any bloodbaths and chaos in the streets so I have to wonder why so many people who seem to have such little experience with guns seem to be so sure that they're the end all be all of evil in this world.
ABC news coverage, with broader context.
A 2 week waiting period and/or registration to buy a LEGAL handgun would accomplish about as much as the complete and total prohibition against some drugs has
The ludicrousness of this statement is simply too much. It's a nice and convenient handwave, but it's so broad and sweeping that it's impossible to seriously attempt to prove in any meaningful way.
And yet you present it as unquestionable truth, and as the opening truth upon which you base your massive post on.
Meanwhile, the simple fact is that a two-week waiting period would harm you almost nothing. Yet you argue VEHEMENTLY against it, which says to me, that you're not basing your judgement on the cost versus the benefits of any particular gun control measure. Rather, you OPPOSE ANY AND ALL gun control measures NO MATTER HOW SMALL, no matter if they actually impede whatever benefit you get from having firearms.
Simple question for you: Would a two-week waiting period harm YOU in any measurable way?
Simple question number two: Is there ANY gun control restriction that you would agree with?
You already posted your treatise as to why you oppose the horrible crushing oppression that is a "two week waiting period". If you oppose that so vehemently, then I assume that you can't possibly agree to any restrictions in any way.
Is there no gun restriction that doesn't massively oppress you that you must resist it with every fiber of your being?
@175 Has anyone died from a gun permit requirement?
Sadly, yes. And usually it's women who die. They get out of an abusive relationship and the man attacks and kills them. Unable to purchase legally a gun, and not knowing where to go to buy one illegally (or not willing to break the law themselves), these women are defenseless. Many of them do have restraining orders, but pieces of paper generally don't stop killers. A quick google finds lots of examples, unfortunately.
OK, logical arguments have completely left this thread. Googling "restraining order killed women" isn't the same as proving "two-week waiting period for gun period killed woman"
If a person is completely untrained with a firearm, then about the worst thing they can do is buy a gun and expect to use it properly in a life and death situation in the next couple days.
And how many restraining orders are filed every year? And how many of the people who filed that restraining order were killed every year? Most importantly, how many of those killed had tried to get a gun but had to wait two weeks and were killed before the two-week period was up?
this site says the number of restraining orders in the US is somewhere between 1.5 and 2.0 million a year. Also, this site would seem to indicate that not every woman who files a restraining order against someone should be issued a gun that same day just because she wants one.
Greg @ 205
Why was the statement ludicrous? Just because you decide to declare it ludicrous doesn't make it so. ALL of your arguments focus on making a statement like that and then proceeding to rant about one specific point. I brought up multiple issues in my comment, you fixated on "2 week waiting period" which I didn't even address. The only one handwaving is you
The ludicrousness of this statement is simply too much. It's a nice and convenient handwave, but it's so broad and sweeping that it's impossible to seriously attempt to prove in any meaningful way.
Fine, don't prove it, DISPROVE it! Convince us that somehow the government that's made us terrified of illegal immigrants with cheap labor and dirty bombs, and horrible life-ending drugs like heroin and pot (/sarcasm) can do a better job of stopping bad people from getting guns by instituting waiting periods or banning them outright
My overall point is simple. We currently try VERY hard to stop the importation and use of illegal drugs. People still get them. We've tried it with alcohol, bootleg merchandise, pretty much everything out there that someone tries to restrict finds its way onto the black market.
When people want something they get it. This is where my observations about Mexico and Canada come in to play. Clearly the economies and cultures of both countries are different and yet the one with the most restrictive gun laws has the worst gun violence of all three.
So tell me, since you're so smart, what good would the 2 week waiting period do if we can't actually stop people from getting illegal weapons in the first place? A 2 week waiting period is for LEGAL gun purchases. People already steal cars before using them to commit crimes, what's to stop someone from doing the same with guns? Or just buying them on the black market. Here's another thing to consider, as we've been having this discussion, the local paper opened one article about increased homicides with this:
Bats, stones, bricks, knives and guns were used in the separate slayings of six people that made July one of the deadliest months in recent years.
Iirc, guns didn't even factor into the majority of those crimes. Plus, if you look carefully the gun was used in a murder-suicide that took place in a car (and as cars qualify as deadly weapons it could have just as easily been used to commit the crime)
As far as what harm would the 2 week waiting period have on me? If executed properly, and accurately, probably not much. However, hmmmm let me think what was the last list that comes to mind that the federal government got involved in. Oh, that's right, the "Do Not Fly" list. The same government that can't stop drugs and drug violence is also the same government that can put congressmen and children on a list meant to catch terrorists and it CAN'T get them off.
Oh, and before you discount that general premise, tell me what good YOU would see from a 2 week waiting period, and if you don't like the potential harm I illustrated, then you shouldn't give me any hypothetical "stopping a deranged felon from legally buying a weapon and shooting me" scenarios because those are just as likely as "I accidentally get on the 'do not sell guns to' list and lose my ability to buy guns legally"
As for your second question... What restrictions are ok? hmmm let's see we have age restrictions, restrictions on who can carry them in a concealed manner, the kinds of ammunition that can be manufactured and sold for them, restrictions on discharging them in certain areas... I could go on, but I doubt it would do any good since you've repetedly IGNORED my points. IMO, restrictions of various forms can be ok, but outright banning of guns (like DC was) is wrong (based on our constitution) and outright banning won't even work because people will still, EASILY get guns if they want to use them for illegal purposes (see DC's statistics, given that guns were illegal there you'd expect to see a very very very low rate of gun crime... that didn't seem to be the case).
Restrictions can be ok and I've never said otherwise, try actually reading an comprehending my comments BEFORE you go off on how I "oppose the horrible crushing oppression that is a 'two week waiting period'"
Greg @ 208
Oh, and as a thought about your "sources"
The first is from a site called "Father's Unite" which states as it's goal "Dedicated to restoring justice and equal rights to both parents in a divorce" so I am inclined to think that they might be a bit biased against restraining orders and therefore might not be the best source for information when you're looking at their benefit in abuse situations.
The second comes from the New American Magazine which... well I think some of their positive reviews should shed some light on where their bias lies.
GREG LONDON:
Most importantly, how many of those killed had tried to get a gun but had to wait two weeks and were killed before the two-week period was up?
My bet is NONE. Literally a bet. $100. to the first gun-loving loudmouth who comes up with a documented case.
If you search and fail, then you pay me $10. I'll trust you at your word. All gun owners are honest Costitution-loving people, Ja?
Oh, anything from the NRA is inadmissable. Never trust the Devil to tell you about Hell.
Reading in The Rifleman about all those times guns saved people's lives and scared of the bad man reminds me of just how much worse it would be if there were no regulations.
Then every one of those gun nuts would have machine guns instead of pistols, and we'd all be screwed when one of them pops a vein and walks into a church guns blazing.
Reasonable regulations can, and have, limited the damage.
A world with no danger is a world with no people.
Oh, and as a thought about your "sources"
Your scare quotes don't scare me.
The second link points to a fact of history. A judge granted a crazy woman a restraining order againts David Letterman. That same crazy woman shouldn't own a gun, and if a two week waiting period and background check stops her, good.
The first link was used to guesstimate the number of restraining orders in teh US in a year. Their bias is irrelevant to the numbers. If you can find different numbers, I'm all ears. My point was that the number of restraining orders are huge compared to the number of people killed by the person they had the restraining order against.
That was the point of your emotional pleading about women killed by men they had a restraining order against, wasn't it? That they would all die if they had to wait two weeks for a background check for a gun. That restraining orders don't work, and that all these women will die if they have to wait two weeks.
Well, theres a million restraining orders signed every year in the US, and the vast majority of those people don't need personal firepower to make sure the restraining order isn't violated.
You're invocation of "women who are killed because the state failed to protect them and they need personal firearms and can't wait or they'll die" is bogus. It's a nice campfire story, but complete fantasy when one takes a quick look at the numbers.
Of course, the whole basis for your argument for stockpiling weapos is that the government can't be trusted, either to protect you from criminals, or to impose tyranny on you in some post-apocalyptic world. So, when you invoke the women-killed-because-the-government-couldn't-protect-them story, it plays right into your assumptiosn, and you don't feel the need to prove it or present any sort of numbers.
But the numbers say you are out to lunch, and that arguing that we can't have a two-week waiting period because of women-killed-after-restraining-order-fails is bogus.
Not to mention, your fantasy involves a million people filing restraining orders and going out and purchasing their first firearm, ever, and you posit this fantasy as if there would be no negative consequences from that many people going out and buying a firearm, with absolutely no training or experience, and having to use it in a deadly-force situation the next day without any negative consequences that would come from a million untrained weapons-users and whatever sort of situation needed a restraining order.
Fine, don't prove it, DISPROVE it!
Sorry, that isn't how it works. Whowever makes the assertion has to prove it. Whoever asserts that "A 2 week waiting period and/or registration to buy a LEGAL handgun would accomplish about as much as the complete and total prohibition against some drugs" has to prove it. Otherwise, it's nothing but emotive pleading (oooh, drug prohibition) followed by shiftign the burden of proof.
If someone asserts something ludicrous, then fails to prove it in any way, then calling it ludicrous and unproven is fair game. And I don't have to DISPROVE it if it hasn't been PROVEN in the first place.
If executed properly, and accurately, probably not much. However, hmmmm let me think what was the last list that comes to mind that the federal government got involved in. Oh, that's right, the "Do Not Fly" list. The same government that can't stop drugs and drug violence is also the same government that can put congressmen and children on a list meant to catch terrorists and it CAN'T get them off.
Yes, yes, more of the "the government can't do anything right, so we can't trust them to do gun control, we can't trust them to police the criminals, and we can't trust them to do their jobs, therefore I have to".
Just out of curiosity, how is it the government is made of people who can't be trusted to suck an egg correctly, but people who aren't in government are somehow perfect and wise and intelligent and will never abuse the power and technology and anything else they can get their hands on?
The point of gun control is that some people out there can't be trusted with a rocket launcher and so it should be made into a class III weapon requiring a federal firearms license and so on. As long as your arguments forward the notion that the government can be no better than a bunch of IQ50 ijiots, but that every single private citizen could certainly be trusted to not do anything that would ever require a legal restriction on their firearms, then I think we're done with the logical arguments and we're into the fear mongering and conspiracy theories.
Me, I think people are imperfect and I support the idea of government beign split up, checks and balances put into place, various ways to prevent an individual from abusing their power.
And that very same view of imperfect people tells me that we should likewise have some restrictions on firearms so some other idiot doesn't abuse the power he gets from having an RPG in his basement.
Here's a question for all the folks out there:
How many crimes have been committed using a legally registered machine gun (or other class 3 weapon) by its legal owner?
my understanding is that the answer is either none or really close to none. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong about this national statistic.
Georgia House of Representatives - 1995/1996 Sessions
HR 600 - Right to bear arms; protect; urge challenge to P.L. 103-159
" 2-11 WHEREAS, laws requiring a waiting period before the purchase
2-12 of a firearm have endangered the lives of law-abiding
2-13 Americans by preventing them from protecting themselves, as
2-14 demonstrated by the following examples:
2-15 (1) In 1991, Bonnie Elmasri of Wisconsin tried to get a
2-16 handgun to protect herself from her estranged husband,
2-17 but he returned home and killed her and her two children
2-18 before the 48 hour waiting period required by state law
2-19 had expired.
2-20 (2) In 1990, Catherine Latta of North Carolina tried to
2-21 buy a firearm but was told by police that it would take
2-22 her two to four weeks to get the necessary permit.
2-23 After telling the clerk she "would be dead by then," she
2-24 illegally bought a handgun on the street. Five hours
2-25 later she was attacked again by the man who had already
2-26 robbed, assaulted, and raped her. She used her handgun
2-27 to protect herself by shooting and killing him. Had she
2-28 not had a handgun, the outcome would have been much
2-29 different.
2-30 (3) Residents of Los Angeles were forced to wait 15 days
2-31 during the 1991 riots before they could legally buy a
2-32 firearm for protection, in spite of the fact that police
2-33 were admitting that they could not protect the people."
I'd like my $100 now :)
Greg @ 213
Hey, thanks for attributing other people's comments to me, again.
"That was the point of your emotional pleading about women killed by men they had a restraining order against, wasn't it? That they would all die if they had to wait two weeks for a background check for a gun. That restraining orders don't work, and that all these women will die if they have to wait two weeks."
Ummm... wtf? When did I say that? However, I'll see your crazy woman who got a restraining order against Letterman and raise it the 3 examples posted by Gandalf @ 215.
"Whowever makes the assertion has to prove it."
I'll put it simply in deference to you. To my knowledge the government has been unable to completely stop ANYTHING it has ever tried to prohibit if it's fairly widely wanted. Drugs, alcohol, bootleg Prada handbags, DVDs etc... In every instance that I can think of, when someone wants something illegal, someone else is willing AND able to provide it regardless of what the government says. For crying out loud they declared a WAR on drugs and they can't stop their importation and relatively easy acquisition on the black market in just about any city or town in the US. Ergo, since it hasn't been able to effectively prohibit ANYTHING I don't think guns will suddenly be the one thing that can be stopped by simply saying "ok now they're illegal"
Hopefully that's not too complicated, but that's the argument. Now, you say that's ludicrous, prove it. Demonstrate how my point that government has never been able to effectively prohibit ANYTHING is invalid and in fact ludicrous. I imagine you've got some great points to make since it's ludicrous, I must be completely and utterly wrong it should be easy to prove that my point is "ludicrous".
If someone asserts something ludicrous, then fails to prove it in any way, then calling it ludicrous and unproven is fair game. And I don't have to DISPROVE it if it hasn't been PROVEN in the first place."
Umm... no. I would encourage you to learn how to properly make your point. Moving right along...
This one is actually from me: Restrictions can be ok and I've never said otherwise, try actually reading an comprehending my comments BEFORE you go off on how I "oppose the horrible crushing oppression that is a 'two week waiting period'"
Your response, was:
"that ... view of imperfect people tells me that we should likewise have some restrictions on firearms
Which seems to make my point about how much you need to work on your reading comprehension.
How many crimes have been committed using a legally registered machine gun (or other class 3 weapon) by its legal owner? my understanding is that the answer is either none or really close to none. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong about this national statistic.
For those keeping score at home, and since no one wants to answer it, this pretty much proves that gun control laws can be implemented in a way such that they allow people to have firearms but the restrictions can help prevent those firearms from getting into the hands of criminals.
The number of crimes committed with legally owned class 3 firearms by their legal owners is statistically approaching zero. Hey, guess what, the gun control laws worked.
Georgia House of Representatives - 1995/1996 Sessions... (1) In 1991, Bonnie Elmasri of Wisconsin (2) In 1990, Catherine Latta of North Carolina
Wow. two examples... in a five year period... that were in other states.
Yeah, that so outweighs the 30,000 people killed every year in the US.
What we have here is standard operating conspiracy theory un-logic. two anecdotes from twenty years ago suddenly outweighs thirty thousand deaths that happen in a year... every year... year after year...
It's like the idiot who finds the story about someone who died in a car fire because he couldn't unhook his seatbelt, and therefore we shouldn't wear seatbelts and seatbelt laws must be a conspiracy by the government to kill everyone.
We're in the borderline crazy-psycho territory now.
Greg @ 217
Ok, I'm totally not getting your point. Who cars how many crimes are committed by legally owned firearms (of whatever classification)? Isn't the point how many are committed by ILLEGALLY owned ones? I mean if the argument is that weapon restrictions help make the country/world a safer place, should the requirement be that less crimes are committed because they're harder to get a hold of?
The only point to asking about legally owned weapons would be if there were no restrictions (as a way of justifying the need for restrictions). Once you have restrictions, you want to see how many crimes are committed by illegally acquired ones (or by legally and illegally owned ones) to see how effective those restrictions are. The restrictions are MEANT to make it difficult if not impossible for the wrong people to get the weapons legally or at all (e.g. think about how tightly we control the paper used to print money) so we'd want to know how many illegal ones are out there being used.
It would also be nice if you tried to discuss the issue without resorting to phrases like "We're in the borderline crazy-psycho territory now." That's not exactly conducive to having a reasonable conversation.
Who cares how many crimes are committed by legally owned firearms
Uh, of the many thousands of homocides committed in the US every year, some of them are committed by someone who had legally purchased the weapon.
But of all those homocides, none of them were committed by the legal owner of a legally purchased class 3 weapon.
therefore, restrictions on class 3 weapons work at keeping them out of the hands out of people who would commit crimes with them. That's the point of gun control laws, making sure the only people who can legally purchase a weapon are people who aren't going to use them for criminal activities.
The crimes committed with class 3 weapons involve stolen weapons or illegally modified semi-autos. None of the people legally cleared to purchase class 3 firearms have committed a crime with those weapons. Therefore, restrictions work.
@219, if your assertion is true then if you were to look at 1934 - 1968 there should just be tons and tons of crimes committed with legal machine guns, right?
The 1934 National Firearms Act said you had to pay a $200 tax for machineguns, prior to that there was no federal oversight.
Prior to the 1968 Gun Control Act you did not need to pay the $200 tax for a NFA weapon if you did not take it across state lines. So if I bought an M1 Carbine, for example, I could buy the full auto parts and put them in and have a select fire M2 carbine, legally, as long as I did not go outside of my state. And if I did leave the state with it, all I had to do was disassemble the gun when I crossed state line to be in the clear.
Also prior to 1968 destructive devices were not considered NFA items and no tax was required, so clearly people were running around committing crimes with legal grenades and bazookas and surplus WWII cannons.
if your assertion is true
Some gun facts are here:
http://www.atf.gov/pub/fire-explo_pub/pdf/followingthegun_internet.pdf
page 8: july 1996 to december 1998, about 84,000 firearms were converted from legal to illegal status.
page 23 explains who were the sources of those diversions of firearms from legal to illegal:
licensed dealer, including pawn broker: 40,365
gun show, flea market: 25,000
straw purchases (someone buys for someone else): 25,000
unlicensed seller: 22,000
stolen from licensed dealer: 6,000
stolen from residence: 3,000
But see how much the more crazed gun nuts will scream bloody murder if you talk about cracking down on illegal sales at gun shows. Not the gun shows, think of the poor defenseless children, they'll howl. Think of the four women in the last thirty years who tried to get a gun but the waiting period got them killed. We cannot restrict gun shows in case it restricts a single defenseless woman. insert gnashing of teeth and rending of garments.
Meanwhile, gun shows in a year and a half period ended up beign the source of TWENTY-FIVE-THOUSAND LEGAL WEAPONS beign put in the hands of criminals and used for criminal activity. Note these are just the weapons just captured from crimes and such. This doesn't include all the guns that got leaked during this time but haven't been recovered.
You want to talk to me about statistics? There's your statistics right there. And they point directly to somethign that gun control advocates have been trying to restrict for a few years now: Gun shows. Twenty-five thousand weapons converted into illegal uses in an 18 month period.
Now, how much have the true-blue gun nuts HOWLED at the mere mention of putting more restrictions on gun shows? Screamed bloody murder? You want to talk about "if my assertion is true"??? Give me a break.
Meanwhile, back to machine guns, according to this highly pro-gun website:
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcfullau.html
In 1995 there were over 240,000 machine guns registered with the BATF. About half are owned by civilians and the other half by police departments and other governmental agencies.
Also, from that same website, they list FOUR homicides committed with legally owned machine guns during the entire period from 1934 to 1992.
To become a registered machine gun owner, a complete FBI background investigation is conducted, checking for any criminal history or tendencies toward violence, and an application must be submitted to the BATF including two sets of fingerprints, a recent photo, and the signature of a chief law enforcement officer with jurisdiction in the applicant's residence.
Now, we can play games till the cows come home on this, but anyone who looks at all those numbers and all those facts, and insists that the stringent requirements to legally own a machine gun (the background check, the fingerprints, the photo, and signature of a local law enforcement officer) have nothing to do with the total lack of criminal activity from these legal owners, anyone who wants to play that game is smoking crack.
You've got a situation like a gun show where there are few restrictions and little oversight and little accounting of gun sales, and then you've got Class 3 firearms where every single transfer has to go through a very rigid process.
Gun shows leaked TWENTY-FIVE-THOUSAND guns into criminal hands in just over a year.
A total of FOUR legal class 3 machine guns have been used in homicides in a six-decade period.
Wow. No pattern there, huh?
What does it take to look at those numbers and FAIL to make a correlation between strict background checks and strict accounting -> guns stay out of criminal's hands, verus loosey-goosey gun show rules -> The biggest source in the nation of legal weapons being sold to criminals?
What does it take to be able to stare those blatantly obvious numbers in the face and shrug: Gosh. Hyuck! Hyuck! I just don't see a connection. Durrr.
Tell me again about the woman killed back in 1982 because of a two-week waiting period and I'll tell you about 84,000 legal weapons that made their way into criminal hands in a year and a half, and those weapons all being recovered by police in various criminal investigations.
And you wanna play "If my assertion is true" games?????
GANDALF,
The only example that meets the criteria is the first one, a Mrs. Bonnie Elmasri of Wisconsin in 1991. But I'll need better documentation than an NRA-inspired Georgia House of Reps resolution. I'm not trying to welsh (and damage my rep), but I'm going to need more in the way of ''documentation,'' I'm afraid.
The other two events don't fit the bill.
Buddy @ 222 What sort of documentation are you asking for here? Out of curiosity, I googled and found quite a few references to that specific case (I didn't have time to go through all of them to find a bona fide newspaper reference to the attack though). However, I also found the following (all with multiple references, I'm not sure how reliable they all are, but they'd probably meet bar for multiple independent sources):
Rayna Ross : On June 29, 1993, at three o'clock in the morning, a 21-year-old woman named Rayna Ross was awakened by the sound of a burglar who had broken into her apartment and entered her bedroom. The burglar was her ex-boyfriend, a man who had previously assaulted her. This time, having smashed his way into her apartment, he was armed with a bayonet. Miss Ross took aim with a .380 semiautomatic pistol and shot him twice. The burglar's death was classified as a "justifiable homicide" by the Prince William County commonwealth's attorney, which determined that Miss Ross had acted lawfully in shooting the attacker.
Miss Ross had bought her handgun one full business day before the attack, thanks to Virginia's "instant background check." Virginia's 1993 Democratic candidate for governor, Mary Sue Terry (endorsed by Handgun Control, Inc.), proposed that-although the Virginia instant check already checks all handgun buyers-Virginia handgun purchasers should undergo a "cooling-off period" of five business days. Had the proposal been law in Virginia in 1993, Rayna Ross would now be undergoing a "permanent" cooling-off period.
Sonya Miller: Armed with a knife, Charles A. Grant, Jr., sexually assaulted a 33-year-old woman on a Virginia beach one Tuesday in 1991. The assault was videotaped by a tourist who (not having a permit to carry a concealed handgun for protection) apparently could do nothing to help except record the crime.
The following day, Wednesday, Charles Grant raped a 12-year-old girl. News broadcasts of the videotape of Grant's Tuesday assault frightened many people in the nearby Nags Head community.
A young woman named Sonya Miller had been wanting a handgun for a while, and on that Wednesday, her father bought her a .38 Special revolver. He gave her the revolver that evening. At about 9 P.M., Miss Miller went to the post office to pick up her mail. As she stepped into the dimly lit parking lot near the post office, Charles Grant saw her, and she saw Charles Grant. They both screamed. Grant told the young woman he would not hurt her, but when she attempted to get into her car, Grant lunged at the door. He stuck a .25 caliber pistol in her face, began climbing into the car's back seat, and said, "I'm going to kill you." "No," she replied, "I'm going to kill you." Sonya Miller picked up the revolver she had acquired less than fifteen minutes before. When she pulled the hammer back (a step preparatory to firing), he dropped his gun and fled. Miss Miller drove home; her father called the sheriff's offices, and Charles Grant was apprehended. Regarding the handgun Miss Miller had just acquired, "It's the only thing that saved her life," her father observed.
and a bit more information about one of the suggestions you discounted:
Catherine Latta : In September 1990, a mail carrier named Catherine Latta of Charlotte, North Carolina, went to the police to obtain permission to buy a handgun. Her ex-boyfriend had previously robbed her, assaulted her several times, and raped her The clerk at the sheriff's office informed her the gun permit would take two to four weeks. "I told her I'd be dead by then," Ms. Latta later recalled. That afternoon' she went to a bad part of town, and bought an illegal $20 semiautomatic pistol on the street. Five hours later, her ex-boyfriend attacked her outside her house, and she shot him dead. The county prosecutor decided not to prosecute Ms. Latta for either the self-defense homicide, or the illegal gun.
I'm not really sure why you didn't think that qualified for the overall
However, it's hard to know exactly what sort of proof you would deem acceptable in order to pay out. Having done some research it seems like there are a LOT of examples of people (most often women) using guns to level the playing field in assaults and rapes and I came across several newspaper articles discussing how waiting periods aren't a good thing, however those looked to be editorials that referenced various cases.
I know you probably don't want to hear it, but it seems like your initial assertion that there isn't a single example was probably not entirely accurate.
So there were four homicides using legal machine guns from 1934 to 1992. Great. But from 1934 to 1968 it was legal to convert or build your own machine gun without paying the $200 tax and without going through the background check, as long as the assembled firearm was not taken across state lines. So how did those stringent background checks stop people from becoming crazed killers from 1934 to 1968?
I also assume that you are all for removing the ban on domestic manufacture or importation of machine guns to the general public since 1986? Since everyone has to be vetted by the FBI, surely it'd be ok to let us have new guns, right?
If has seemed odd to me that in one of the few cases where people will willing want to pay a tax the government says "Nope, sorry, no thanks, we don't want your money." I'd drop $1000 in taxes tomorrow if I could, and smile while doing it.
Anyway...
Licensed gun dealers, people with an FFL, have to do a background check at a gun show or anywhere else they sell a gun, same as they have to do one at their store. That's Federal law. And they have to abide by state mandated waiting periods at gun show or flea markets, just like they do at their store.
Most states do not require that a background check be done when a non-licensed person sells a personally owned firearm to another non-licensed person who is a resident of the same state. So when grandpa dies you can go down to the local gun show and sell his old deer rifles. Or you can put an ad in the classifieds, or the greensheet, or on craigslist (although it'll quickly get flagged there).
The gunshow is just a convenient place to sell firearms, since most people there are looking to buy. Kinda like if you have a nice old 50s car you want to sell, drive it to the Pate swap meet and you'll be more likely to sell it, as the people there are more interested in older cars and are looking to buy them.
It's not the gunshow that you have a problem with, it's the private transfers. And I'm not sure that Congress could do anything about it. A citizen of Texas selling a firearm that is already in Texas to another citizen of Texas is not involving interstate commerce, so I don't think Congress can regulate that. I think you'd have to get the rules changed state by state. How would the sytem be paid for? And how would it work? FFLs make a 800 number phone call to the ATF, who do an instant background check. I'm not sure if they are charged for this service now, but I imagine if it were to be opened up to anyone then they'd have to staff a lot more people and would probably have to charge for it. Or increase everyone's taxes. And if the states run their own version, would it talk from one state to the next? Or would a criminal in Colorado be able to buy a gun in Louisiana because the databases don't talk to each other. And of course if they do then who pays for it, and how do they talk to each other, and again there would need to be fees or something to pay or it, and it just seems like it would not work very well. But I could be wrong. And when Grandpa gets old and gives cousin Bill his deer rifle, did he just break the law because a transfer was made without checking Bill's background? How is that enforceable? Do we need more unenforceable laws?
And how did they come up with those statistics? I assume that either the criminal who had his gun taken by the cops said he bought it at a gun show, and/or the person who the gun was registered to or traced to somehow said he sold it at a gunshow? Gee...neither party there has a reason to lie. If Bob trades his gun to Jimmy for some crack, then the cops come by later asking where his gun is, is he going to tell them he traded it to Jimmy the crack dealer or that he sold it to some dude at a gun show or flea market? Jimmy the crack dealer is liable to a) stop selling him crack if he rats him out and b) beat his ass for ratting on him. Hmmm...
Buddy66, your rep is already damaged from your use of a racist term. :)
Greg @ 219
Ok, I'm really trying hard to understand your point, but I think it's completely wrong to leave out crimes committed by illegal guns. That's one of the main reasons why a lot of gun regulations are considered to not work. The entire point to a gun regulation is to prevent the wrong people from getting guns (e.g. minors, crazy people, violent felons etc...), if it doesn't prevent those people from having a gun then it's not working.
The crimes committed with class 3 weapons involve stolen weapons or illegally modified semi-autos. None of the people legally cleared to purchase class 3 firearms have committed a crime with those weapons. Therefore, restrictions work.
NO, a million times no. The restrictions would only work if they reduced or eliminated the number of crimes committed using class 3 weapons (or whatever weapon they're aimed it) in their entirety. It doesn't matter at all whether the crimes were committed by legally or illegally purchased weapons what matters is how many crimes are committed.
You can't just arbitrarily cut out the illegal weapons. It's called gun CONTROL for a reason, so long as there exists a black market that is well supplied by weapons the laws aren't CONTROLLING anything except a law abiding citizen's ability to legally purchase the weapon. It does nothing to affect gun violence or gun crimes because by definition a law abiding citizen isn't breaking the law and committing crimes.
Furthermore, using your metric:
"Also, from that same website, they list FOUR homicides committed with legally owned machine guns during the entire period from 1934 to 1992."
That means that we only need to count the number of homicides/deaths that resulted from use of legally purchased guns and firearms. ALL those other numbers you've thrown around don't matter one iota because we only need to look at "homicides committed with legally owned" guns so in fact we may not have any sort of gun problem at all and you effectively undue your argument here:
"Every day, more than 80 Americans die from gun violence.
80*365=29,000 people killed every year."
because you KNOW some of those deaths came from illegally acquired guns. How many of those 29,000 deaths came from illegal guns? According to you, we can't count those.
lots of countries have gun control. Since the average citizen there doesn't have a gun you can see gun control actually does work.
Takuan @ 226, isn't gun control supposed to prevent criminals from having guns? The "average" citizen isn't the one going murdering, selling drugs, and robbing banks.
It's not the gunshow that you have a problem with, it's the private transfers.
Statistically, the biggest source of legal firearms being put into the hands of criminals is through licensed dealers. Almost 40k. After that, three different sources tie at around 20k, gun shows, straw purchases from a licensed seller, and unlicensed sellers.
What I have a problem with is the knuckleheads who see those numbers and insist that nothing can be done to stop it from a gun control, gun law, basis, the idiots who claim the only valid response to all these weapons pouring into the hands of criminals year after year, is for everyone else to buy guns too to defend themselves with.
Yeah. That's logic for you.
Strip away all the bullshit and what you're left with is an assertion that laws can't stop criminals from getting guns. but statistics show machine guns restrictions have made sure that only 4 legal machine guns have ended up in the hands of someone who uses them in a crime, in the thirty years that the restrictions have been in place.
And yet, we can't do anything to restrict who buys a gun, idiots will say, because gun control doesn't work. Instead, buy a gun to defend yourself, the idiots say, that's their "solution".
how did they come up with those statistics?
This is pure bullshit. I quote BATF statistics, and because you don't like them, you question their validity without a shred of evidence.
Well, if you're only response to facts you don't like is "I disbelieve", then I guess we're done having any sort of reality based discussion, because that nonsense only works on other koolaid drinkers.
Greg @ 228
Strip away all the bullshit and what you're left with is an assertion that laws can't stop criminals from getting guns.
Correct.
but statistics show machine guns restrictions have made sure that only 4 legal machine guns have ended up in the hands of someone who uses them in a crime, in the thirty years that the restrictions have been in place.
That makes no sense. You keep harping about that 4, but how many machine guns (legal AND illegal) have been used to commit crimes? Think about it, the assertion is that guns can't stop criminals from getting guns, what does it matter how many crimes are committed by people who legally own the guns? What should matter is how many people BREAK the law in order to get guns and then use those illegally obtained weapons to commit other crimes.
Greg, seriously, the only koolaid drinker here is you.
Ooops, correction, the assertion is that LAWS can't stop criminals from getting guns...
You can't just arbitrarily cut out the illegal weapons. It's called gun CONTROL for a reason
Sure I can. The point of legal class three weapons statistics is that it proves that gun control laws requiring strict background checks pretty much guarantee that no criminals will get a legal machine gun.
That is one of the biggest aspect of gun control laws: background checks, waiting periods, and so on, to make sure no one gets a legal gun to use it in a crime.
And, hey, look at that, the government works. All the background checks it ran on Class 3 weapons WORKED. Not a single person was approved who turned out to be a criminal. (Four over the course of 60 years is pretty damn good).
But you can't acknowledge the government did it right there. You can't acknowledge that background checks actually worked at filtering out people who shouldn't have machine guns.
Why?
Because the entire basis for you owning a stockpile of weapons is (1) to defend yourself from criminals BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT CANT PROTECT YOU FROM CRIMINALS and (2) to overthrow a tyrannical government BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT CAN"T BE TRUSTED.
So, when "The government did something right" is shown by massive statistics over a sixty-year period, what do you do?
Blow a gasket. You can't even comprehend the facts for what they are and are arguing some nonsense about "ignoring the illegal weapons".
Anyone who looks at those numbers for class 3 firearms over the course of 60 years, anyone who isn't rabidly afraid of the government I mean, would say that the restrictions on Class 3 firearms, the background checks, all that, WORKED. They would say THE GOVERNMENT WORKED, it kept legal machine guns from ending up in the hands of criminals.
You? No. Not you. You can't say "class 3 background checks prevented legal machine guns from ending up in the hands of criminals". It goes against everything you believe in about how horrible, inept, and untrustworthy the government is. They CAN"T do something like this right. They just CAN"T.
so long as there exists a black market that is well supplied by weapons the laws aren't CONTROLLING anything except a law abiding citizen's ability to legally purchase the weapon.
Where in God's name do you think black market guns comes from? Some magical firearm fairy? Some keebler elves hiding up in a cave with a bunch of cnc machining tools?
Oh, wait, hey, guess what? EIGHTY THOUSAND LEGAL FIREARMS ended up in the hands of criminals in a two year period. Half of them sold directly to the criminal by a licensed dealer.
if they're so easy to get on the black market, WHY ARE CRIMINALS BUYING THEM THROUGH LEGAL CHANNELS? BY THE TRUCK LOAD? STRAIGHT FROM A DEALER?
The idea of gun control laws is to throttle off this river of weapons flowing into the hands of criminals from the source. Then combine that with law enforcement to reduce the number of black market weapons in circulation.
If we applied the approach of Class 3 weapons, using extensive background checks to make sure no one purchased a weapon that would use it for criminal purposes, if we tracked the firearms so that they don't just disappear without a new background checked owner, then we could throttle off the source of black market guns.
Won't stop it, but sure as hell put a dent in 80,000 weapons flooding teh black market in over a year. And with 30,000 gun deaths a year, it seems worth it.
Greg @213,
gun control laws requiring strict background checks pretty much guarantee that no criminals will get a legal machine gun.
Do you honestly think that any criminal gives a damn if the weapon they are about to use to commit a crime is legal or illegal? They care about how much it costs and whether or not it works. End of story.
Your obsession with whether or not criminals can get "legal" guns is astonishing. That's the sum total of your proof that gun laws work? Some people who want guns are prevented from buying them legally thanks to gun laws, end of story? Man, I wish the anti-gun lobby had you working for them.
All you need to do is make the law so difficult that very few people can get a gun and that means that the law was a success and gun crime has been stopped. I'm sorry, but that is the dumbest position I have ever heard on the subject of gun control.
Hell, even the Brady Center realizes that gun regulation is only part of the picture. They're actually putting a fair bit of effort into doing something about people who ILLEGALLY own firearms, why? Because those still kill and hurt people. A gun doesn't care if it's legal or illegal, it still does what it does and the people who use them for bad things still do what they do.
Look, I give up, your arguments make no sense, you're contradicting yourself left and right and you completely ignore any and all points that you know you can't effectively fight.
Fortunately for me, your opinion on the matter doesn't matter and I can still own what I want. So you can go ahead and keep foaming at the mouth over the issue, I'm done bashing my head against the wall of your inconsistent and inane logic.
Do you honestly think that any criminal gives a damn if the weapon they are about to use to commit a crime is legal or illegal?
Do you think 80,000 legal firearms should simply be sold to criminals?
Do you think 60 years of class 3 background checks with only 4 crimes being committed by legal machine guns in that time period is just an accident? That background checks had nothing to do with it?
Again, do you think the black market gusn are made by magical fairies? Where do you think those guns come from? You think keeping legal guns out of the hands of criminals isn't going to help?
They're actually putting a fair bit of effort into doing something about people who ILLEGALLY own firearms
Great. I'm all for going after black market weapons. But if you don't cut off the source in any reasonable way, if tens of thousands of new guns end up in the hands of criminals every year, you're not going to do anything effective about black market guns.
you completely ignore any and all points that you know you can't effectively fight.
Anecdotes of a woman from 1982 aren't really "points".
If you're against seat belt laws and tell a story about some guy who died in a car accident because his seatbelt was stuck and he couldn't get out of the car before it burned, well, that's one anecdote that ignores the rest of the facts. Statistically, seatbelts save lives.
The only "points" I've seen thus far are anecdotes and fear mongering.
I'm done bashing my head against the wall of your inconsistent and inane logic.
I'm sorry if overwhelming statistics confuse you.
Class 3 weapon background checks have prevented legal machine guns from being sold to criminals for over 60 years.
far less restrictive gun laws have allowed 80,000 legal guns to end up in the hands of criminals over the course of a couple years.
The "inane" logic is that strict background checks and such would help cut off the flood of legal weapons entering the black market every year.
Wow. That's like, rocket science or something.
Would you have to do something about the existing ILLEGAL weapons? Sure, but unless we cut off the SOURCE of those black market weapons, then who is spouting off inane logic?
Yes, lets put some foam on this fire that's burning out of control, but, oh, don't bother turning off that hose that's dumping all that gasoline into the fire. We'll just get more foam. I'm sure it'll be fine.
The entire basis for your argument is that, fundamentally, black market guns come from the Keebler elves. That laws meant to keep new guns from entering teh black market wouldn't be effective, because, because, because black market guns come from magic fairies.
http://underpower.non-essential.com/fanart/Drew_Gift_Art___Gun_Fairy.jpg
Tak, it's not really clear, what does someone leave under their pillow to get her to deliver a firearm?
Once again, the liberals are yelling at the conservatives for doing something that they do too... Maybe the conservatives should start using sneaky, underhanded tactics like that, but I bet the liberals would yell at them about it!
I am against gun control, but for a crackdown on illegal firearms, since the majority of gun crimes are either committed using illegal firearms or firearms that do not belong to the perpetrator.
for a crackdown on illegal firearms, since the majority of gun crimes are either committed using illegal firearms
BATF statistics say that in a two year period about 80,000 legal firearms were put into the hands of criminals.
Quoting the opening lines of that report I linked to earlier (it's in the section titled "Foreward by the Director":
http://www.atf.gov/pub/fire-explo_pub/pdf/followingthegun_internet.pdf
Virtually every crime gun in the United States starts off as a legal firearm. Unlike narcotics or other contraband, the criminals’ supply of guns does not begin in clandestine factories or with illegal smuggling(*). Crime guns, at least initially, start out in the legal market, identified by a serial number and required documentation. This means that virtually every crime gun leaves some paper trail.
(*) or keebler elves or gun fairies.
More from that same page:
The National Instant Check System (NICS), launched by the FBI and ATF in 1998, has
resulted in ATF receiving over 130,000 reports of prohibited persons attempting to buy firearms
from FFLs.
Gee, Wally, that doesn't make sense. Everyone knows that gun control laws don't work. Everyone knows you can't keep guns out of the hands of criminals at the source. These are simple immutable facts.
From page 42:
ATF estimates that trafficking investigations result in the actual seizure of about a quarter of the firearms ultimately shown to be trafficked by the targets. By arresting firearms traffickers, the number of firearms easily available to violent offenders can be reduced.
Which is to say, the "black market" for guns isn't some infinite supply of illegal weapons. That cutting off the source of guns entering the black market combined with law enforcement investigations of crimes removing guns from the black market, the total black market supply of guns can be substantially reduced.
If the most that you can derive from this thread is a vague intimation of liberals versus conservatives, you have my condolences.
I got a wordy summation of "Freedom To" vs. "Freedom From".
I'm squarely in the "freedom to" camp, but only to the extent that nobody is allowed to paraphrase "the fountainhead" at me and get away with it.
I got a "I want guns and I don't care what cost it puts on the rest of the world" versus common sense.
15 years ago my apartment was broken into. After the cops left, the FIRST thing I did was lock my Ruger P-85 in the trunk of my car and call a gun shop to put it up for sale. I knew the burglars would be back (they were, twice thanks to incompetent apartment management), that I wouldn't be there when they came (I wasn't) and that they'd find the gun if it was there.
In my opinion, if you don't protect your guns adequately from criminals (as we now do) you're partly to blame for what happens to them.
I stepped away from this thread for a while, and I'm trying to figure out what is frustrating me so much about it- just because you don't see a need for a freedom, remember that others may still want it. A gun is an object, nothing more- it can be used for good, or for evil, but by itself, it can't do anything.
I do find it contradictory that the same people that are very anti DRM (digital RIGHTS management) can be very willing to restrict other rights. Is this a matter of (1)I don't want to use that right, and (2) I'm a reasonable person, (3) no reasonable person want to use this right, so (4)I'm willing to let it be abridged?
Just because you don't see a need for a particular right does not mean you should ignore it, or worse yet, work to have it revoked. All rights come at some cost- freedom of the press means that people can publish hate speech- I support the right for them to publish, though I may not support the cause. Because someone sells illegally copied DVDs should DVD burners be illegal? Punish the criminal, not the legal users of the items.
A gun is an object, nothing more- it can be used for good, or for evil, but by itself, it can't do anything.
machine guns are objects too. I prefer them to be kept classified as Class 3 weapons, rather than have MAC10's being sold by automated, cash-based vending machines.
I do find it contradictory that the same people that are very anti DRM (digital RIGHTS management) can be very willing to restrict other rights. Is this a matter of...
It's mostly a matter of the fact that DRM doesn't kill 30,000 people a year
Punish the criminal, not the legal users of the items.
God, get over yourself. Is it so terrible that you have to have a driver's license? Is it such a horror that your car must be registered? That you are required to have a license plate? That you have auto insurance? That you have to wear a seatbelt? That you have to wear a helmet if your riding a motorcycle?
Are these such terrible "punishments"? The real criminals are the drunk drivers, the repeat offenders, the car thieves, the speeders, the reckless drivers who endanger the lives of everyone around them. They should be punished, you shouldn't be punished with all these legal requirements around cars just because they screw up?
Such insufferable horrors that you can't even go on with life?
Seriously?
the ATF report said that instant background checks kept 130,000 guns from getting into the hands of criminals in one year. Are background checks such an injustice that you'd do away with them and let those 130,000 guns go into the hands of criminals?
Really?
I never said I was against background checks or limitations on class 3 weapons- I'm trying to have a civil debate here- you (greglondon) are delving into personal attacks and assumptions that are diverting you from my point, which is pointing out the inconsistency of some people with respect to the expansion and/or limitation of rights.
I get frustrated that some will vigorously defend certain rights that they care about (for example, conversion of legally owned CDs to MP3), but in the case of rights that they are not exercising right now (for example owning a firearm), are willing to let them be abridged. If you assume that I want to abolish background - you are 100% wrong. I (and many other firearm owners) do believe in many of the laws that we have with respect to firearms. However, I do desperately want the laws that are enacted to be effective for their intended purpose.
Hidden agendas are what I fear the most. If you want to ban firearms- I respect (though disagree with) that view. We (in the United States) have methods to change the constitution. Work openly within those parameters. Those that made the constitution intentionally made it very hard to change- which is meant to ensure that the will of the people gets followed (if it is the actual will of the people is a different argument, outside of the scope of what I'm discussing).
Which ''hidden'' agenda or agendas do you mean? I also dislike a hidden hand, but I have no idea who or what you are referring to. The more common tactic is for ''gun rights'' people to ignore other agendas but their own. For example, some friends and I have for quite some time proposed the outright banning of ALL handguns for civilian or police use. As well as the banning of all civilian or police use of semi- or full automatic weapons. This has been either greeted with silence or stupefaction. There is as yet no debate. I do not expect there will be unless I troll, like so:
The subject of handgun ownership treads on such dangerous psychosexual terrain as to be off limits for rational debate.
See what I mean?
I get frustrated that some will vigorously defend certain rights
Hidden agendas are what I fear the most.
You've taken an anonymous "some", added "hidden agendas", stirred in "fear", and created the perfect conspiracy theory of how the gummint is gonna take your guns.
you invoke a slippery slope argument (if you let this pass, the "hidden agenda" people will just push for more) that you can't prove (because it's hidden) and it can only be disproved if someone could prove the non-existence of a hidden thing, which is impossible because you can always expand the conspiracy of the "hidden agenda" to encompass more and more. Ultimately, we would have to demonstrate that every single person alive is NOT a member of the "hidden agenda" to prove that no hidden agenda exists, and that's impossible.
Instead of disproving the existence of a hidden agenda, the appropriate response is to point out that it is a logical fallicy, an assertion with no evidence to support it.
I never said I was against background checks or limitations on class 3 weapons
You never said you were for any single gun restriction at all. You never said you were for background checks. You never said you were for class restrictions based on the type of weapon.
Your posts in this thread consist of #42, where you make the argument that restricting the right to bear arms will be some slippery slope to restricting other rights. i.e.
::the climate of taking away freedoms can spread- firearms, copying media, carrying a laptop across the border
Your next post was #147, where you argue that gun restrictions of any kind are closing the barn door after the horses have already gotten out. i.e.
::the cat is out of the bag- there are so many guns in both legal and illegal hands that if we did ban them all, we'd only be taking them out of the (reluctant) hands of the legal gun owners.
This doesn't sound like you support ANY sort of gun control restriction of ANY kind. What good would background checks do if "the cat is already out of the bag"?
And while you argue that any sort of restriction would only harm legal owners, I posted @239 hard facts that background checks kept 130,000 guns out of the hands of criminals.
While you argue for an infinite-sized black market for guns, the ATF report I linked showed that criminals had gotten access to 80,000 legal firearms and ended up using them in criminal activities in a two year period. This says that the "black market" source for a lot of criminal's guns is simply legal weapons being sold without any restrictions.
So, why would I assume you were in favor of background checks when you had previously argued that "the cat is out of the bag" and that restrictions would only keep guns out of the hands of legal owners? Why would I assume you were in favor of any gun control measure when your first post makes a slippery slope argument that any gun control measure could essentially be part of some hidden agenda?
Your previous posts argue that any restriction might come with some hidden agenda and would be pointless anyway. If you're now saying you support certain restrictions, then I hope you understand why I might be confused.
DRAGOVPM and GANDOLF,
''...how many of those killed had tried to get a gun but had to wait two weeks and were killed before the two-week period was up?''
That was the challenge. Please read it carefully. You are sending me stories of women shooting men in self defense. Good for them, I say. But that was not the challenge.
Only the alleged Wisconsin tragedy fills the bill; and I questioned the source. Come on, scholars! It's free money.