They don't want voluntary worship either. They demand unconditional worship of themselves by the enslaved. Look at Fidel Castro if you don't believe me
Forget it Joel, you're barking up the wrong tree. Dennis is enamored by Castro becuase it's a from of government he likes. Heck he hasn't even once mentioned the political prisoners in Cuba, why ? who knows. Take a look at the slavery thread for the perfect example of that.
not often I get agreement from you so its appreciated. Now, Joel, well, I cannot say that I like everything you have posted but we seem to share some basic ideas.
Dennis seems to have control issues. What I find interesting is that he compalins about having his rights trampled but doesn't seem to see that his proposed laws would do the same thing - only to people other than himself. Does that make it okay, then, Dennis? If it doesn't apply to you, because you would not be buying guns, then by all means trample peoples' rights?
We might not always agree but I will always let someone know if I agree or think they have a good idea even if otherwise I might tend to disagree with them on many other issues. I am not that prideful or worried that just because I let someone know I agree or think it's a good idea too that I somehow I am giving in on other issues. I'm not wired that way and don't see it as a sign of weakness. I always try to be civil and constructive but fail miserbly sometimes because I am passionate as are most who take time to exchange ideas. So my apologies up front if I do. I also agree wholeheatedly with your last post as well.
I happen to think your idea is a great solution and would love to see it implemented in place of the current bulky system. Frankly I think that it's mostly window dressing when it comes to more laws but we have to make the politicians feel good and appease anti gun lobbies don't we. Why it's never been proposed in that manner I don't know, perhaps it makes too much sense :)
Sometimes I feel as if I don't belong to any group in America, but then I am not sure that is such a bad thing in and of itself.
I do belong to the group of gun owners and to the group who wants as much freedom as humanly possible without anarchy. I feel good about belonging there. .
I have always liked the expression: "I live in my own little world. But it's OK. They all know me there".
We need some govt. and we should be a nation of laws, not men. But those laws must protect the general freedom and security of the society at large. We seem to have tossed out the freedom part, to only work on the security side of the equation. I am not sure that will lead us to the promised land.
We might not always agree but I will always let someone know if I agree or think they have a good idea even if otherwise I might tend to disagree with them on many other issues.
Oh. As the church lady would say: "Well isn't that special."
Second, Joel twirls more than the Spin Doctors trying to get a top-ten hit, yet is reduced to admitting that the private-sale loophole exists and can be exploited by terrorists. The fact that a loophole closure could possibly be circumvented is no excuse for avoiding said closure. If another form of abuse susbsequently arose, it, too, should then be appropriately addressed.
Third, if it were reported tomorrow that terrorists had committed a heinous crime with weapons obtained at a gun show, the NRA would immediately go into feverish damage control to try to place their special-interest agenda above needed action to curtail, if not entirely stop, one definite venue of armament/supply for terrorist activity.
In other words, put a narrow fetish above a national emergency.
The Hestonites are more worried about having to REGISTER a gun purchase than they are about our kids getting blown away by terrorists, partially in absence of precisely such registration, with accompanying background scrutiny.
Fourth, look at this line from my post: "All we are saying (besides 'give peace a chance')..." It had no intended meaning beyond the first four words preceding the others in the John Lennon mantra. It was a feeble attempt at humor on my part. But thanks for assuming it had some freako-devo-pervo-weirdo-pinko international conspiracy connotation that endangers your right to be violence-oriented in your solution to "crime".
Fifth, sixth and seventh follow, as separate little posts of their own.
How many guns did the terrorists use during the 9/11 events? How many of those came from a gun show? How many firearms have terrorists used in the US since 9/11 to blow up babies and children? How many of those guns came from gun shows?
If all that is wanted is to have the non FFL sales at a gun show go through a background check, you may get some agreement from me, since we have NICS now. I still don't think background checks stop criminals from getting weapons, but I discussed that already. Why are the politicians who are pushing this non existant crisis of the "gun show loophole" so bent on adding a bunch of other extremist laws that would virtually shut down gun shows? Since gun shows are held on weekends, a 3 day waiting period for a background check is going to prevent many sales at gun shows. Who will want to go to a gun show and be registered by the govt. for doing so? Should we register your peace protestors who helped do so much damage in Seattle? Why is it OK to sell a gun from my private collection from my house, but it is not OK to sell it at a gun show.
Why is this viewed as such a crisis? Three terrorists got less than 5 shotguns at a gun show in the last 3 years, none of which were used in a crime here. As someone mentioned above, do you think the Taliban and Al Qeada really needed a few shotguns to fight US troops, when they seem to have an unlimited supply of full auto rifles, RPG's, shoulder fired missiles, etc.?
By the way Dennis, nice way to call NRA members "baby killers". Is that what you called our brave soldiers returning from their tours in Viet Nam?
Do you mean heavy metal as in lead? Yes. Yes. I do love heavy metal music. Rata tat tat. Bang. Boom. Crack. I love the sound of a lead projectile leaving the barrel in the morning! As a matter of fact, I love that sound anytime.
Guess who one of my favorite Rockers is Rockenan? Yahhhhh. Its Ted Nugent! The Motor City Madman. I got you in a stanglehold baby. I bet you really love Nuge! Kill It and Grill It!
Have you watched the Osbournes? Wow. Are they out there. Kind of like watching a British version of the Simpsons, only real instead of a cartoon. Not really my style, but I did watch once for a little while just to see what it was about.
It's o.k Joel, the examples of Dennis' blatant hypocrisy are appearing like dandelions. He's all for rights as long as they are rights that benefit him. He'll only complain when it's a right he believes in and whine like a 2 year old that we are trashing the constitution only when it suits him. He'll only complain of innocent life lost if it fits his argument. It's not about freedom or rights it's about advancing an agenda by any means neccesary, it doesn't matter who he or others from his band use, they will use vet's, children, minorities, women, the poor,political prisoners etc. They will use them for the cause d'jour. They claim to care more and sit on a percieved morally superior perch castigating others. It took me a bit longer than it should of to see that but they don't care more about people,not a wit. They use them at will to advance their cause and pay not another thought to them when they've won or moved on to another cause that advances their mantra using people and running over whoever stands in their way. They are hypocrites who wish to pick and choose what rights to defend and who advances that cause.
Fact is, we don't know how many other terrorists may have visited gun shows with arsenal-enhancing success.
Three were caught, luckily.
Additionally, it's wrong to focus on just Islamics or the absence of firearms in the 9/11 attacks to try to evade loophole closure.
One of those apprehended was an IRA fellow, with intentions of bringing the weapons into gunplay in Northern Ireland.
Some might say, why worry about what foreigners do in their far off countries? Such folks would perhaps argue that they, and their circumstances, aren't worth risking gun "restrictions" here.
I submit that's a profoundly immoral notion.
Furthermore, what about domestic terrorists, and militias, arguably sometimes one and the same?
Where do the bigoted, camo-clad, supremacist outfits that are perpetually a hair's breadth away from openly advocating hate crimes against minorities get their guns? Not Iran or Iraq.
From contacts within America.
I've been to gun shows. I've seen John Birch Society yahoos yucking it up with dudes from the next table over, heavy with guns, joined by some fella in a Davey Crockett get-up. Although I've never been to one in Idaho, I'm speculating you wouldn't have a hard time locating Aryan Nation members...or at least supporters.
As for background checks or even licensing, what's the big deal?
We need licenses to fish, hunt, get married, drive, function in various professional capacities, etc. Why not to "own and operate" firearms?
It's an authorization of a specific activity, not something like a national ID card, which smacks of Apartheid's passbook abomination, and needs to be resisted on civil liberties grounds rooted in profiling abuses, even if (and especially because) the whole population would be profiled.
In these times particularly, rationality demands greater supervision of the gun-buying process -- which is not "control" aimed at "confiscation" of already-owned guns.
The issue can't be held hostage by wingnuts who think the Feds are about to swoop down in flying machines and strip their cabinets bare.
Finally, as an aside...
Rob, I've noticed you'll argue with me about anything, anywhere.
I suggest we debate the merits, or lack thereof, of...lard.
but a lack of a fishing license would. just as in licensing the owning of firearms, a lack of a license would prevent ownership. the simple fact is licensing firearm ownership turns that right into a privilege, which is unacceptable. beyond that, the state may not cause the exercising of one's constitutional right to be a criminal act. were i ambitious, i'd find a citation or 3 to back that up.
Are you saying that --whether it's a "license" or background-check registration -- the government has no legitimate authority to deny even known, outrageous criminals, the wildly insane, or documented terrorists...their 2nd Amendment right to guns?
not in the least. nothing wrong with a background check, imho. but doing background checks to keep guns out of the hands of those who are legally forbidden to own them is far from licensure to own them.
If you want to talk about only doing background checks for all gun purchases at a gun show, then drop the requirements for up to 3 days of delay, the registration of antendees, the registration of conversations about making a firearm purchase at a gun show, and start locking up people who attempt to purchase guns if they are prohibited by law from having them. Then we will have some agreement. Other wise, you will be seen by pro freedom, pro choice (to have guns) advocates, and gun owners as trying to harrass gun shows, their promoters, the sellers and the attendees, and you won't get very far with those people.
As to licensing, the Supreme Court has already ruled that you cannot license a right as it then becomes a priveledge. They have also ruled that criminals cannot be forced to license and/or register their firearms as that would be a self incriminating statement, as they are not allowed to own guns in the first place. Again, you would only be affecting the law abiding, and besides, it is a RIGHT, which should not require govt. paper work to exercise. I know you don't like that, but then work to repeal the 2nd A. and see how far you get. With over 75% of the population agreeing with the Justice Dept. statement that the 2nd A protects a broad right to individual firearms ownership, even though that right may be narrowly restricted for prohibited persons or firearms which may be particularly suitable for criminal purposes. (It should be a hoot watching them define that last phrase). You and your like thinking friends will have a hard time selling your ideology on that issue.
One last note. If you carefully read the 2nd A., and you look at it with an open mind, with the writings of the Founding Fathers, and with a good understanding of the English language, it is quite clear what that amendment does.
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".
Well regulated in those days meant well trained, or operating efficiently.
Notice the statement of the "right". It already exists in this phrase. It doesn't say "the people shall have a right to keep and bear arms which shall not be infringed", which would ESTABLISH the right and then protect it from infringement. The right already exists and it is being protected from infringement. Even if you could repeal the 2nd Amendment, it would not mean the right did not exist, it would only mean the protection of that right by the govt. would now be lifted. I highly doubt any one of the Bill of Rights could be repealed without a revolution. Those are the PEOPLES' rights.
The militia phrase is the preamble. This amendment could say exactly the same thing if written this way: "Because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".
Legal scholarship has now in the majority found the right to be an individual one.
Licensing would be a major infringement on the right, making it a priveledge. If govt. did not want any more guns, they could merely stop issuing licenses. Plus, if you didn't have a license, you would not be able to keep and bear arms, an infringement on your rights.
The Honorable John McCain United States Senate 241 Senate Russell Building Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator McCain:
On Behalf of the U.S. Catholic Conference Bishops, I am pleased to offer my endorsement of S. 890 and H.R. 2377, The Gun Show Loophole Closing and Gun Law Enforcement Act of 2001.
As Catholic bishops, we are committed to changing our American culture of violence into a society that values and promotes human life. As we stated in our 1994 statement, “A Culture of Violence,” violence is fed by multiple forces and no on response can address this complex problem. Therefore, the Conference has taken strong positions on several different legislative initiatives designed to curb violence, including opposing easy access to handguns. For example, we have endorsed common sense legislation like the Brady Bill which requires a background check of anyone buying a gun at a gun store. According to a June 200 report on gun trafficking by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, gun shows rank as the second leading source of illegal guns recovered by federal law enforcement. This is a frightening statistic and we are with those who believe it is time to close this dangerous loophole.
We support S. 890/H.R. 2377 because we believe it effectively extends background check requirements to gun shows and public events. Another important reason we support the legislation is because it authorizes funds to help states modernize and automate their criminal history and other Brady records.
Your leadership on this issue has presented Congress with an explicit opportunity to reduce crime by providing for more comprehensive enforcement of current gun laws and much needed funding for state efforts. Thank you for your efforts and be assured of our support. With every good wish, I am
Faithfully Yours,
Theodore Cardinal McCarrick Archbishop of Washington Chairman, Domestic Policy Committee
I have no problem closing this supposed loophole, fine, it will make everyone feel better and nowadays just feeling better seems to be enough for somoe people. Sadly it will have little or no impact on crime or the wrong people getting weapons because they will and do circumvent the law, that's why we call them criminals. No amount of laws will protect innocent people when others still will take life at a whim. Witness the 3 gang members who were convicted in St.Paul yesterday for killing 4 year old Davisha. They knew they had killed her and bragged about it. No amount of laws will ever prevent idiotic wastes of air like that to have a shred of decency. Locking them up forever is the only sure way to gurantee at least they won't be doing it again. So pass the law, fine, now we all feel better great. Until citizens who are law abiding and wish to protect their family can do so with thier own choice of using a firearm the criminals will feel better and safe too.
Oh and one other thing. Not to Catholic bash since I feel it's much like Islam where their religion is being ruined by some evil people. I am not Catholic but the Bishops should perhaps be concentrating on other issues right now.
Criminals and gun-runners have figured it out – according the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, gun shows are now the second leading source of guns recovered in illegal gun trafficking investigation...
So far, only 18 states have closed the gun show loophole and require background checks for all gun show sales (or require some kind of firearms ID card for purchasing a gun). Colorado and Oregon recently closed the loophole by a vote of the electorate -- loophole-closing ballot initiatives in both states passed by wide margins in the 2000 election. But in 32 states, the loophole remains wide open.
That is why AGS is backing federal legislation sponsored by Senators John McCain and Joe Lieberman. Their bi-partisan bill will require background checks at gun shows and would finally close this dangerous loophole that allows criminals, domestic abusers and even terrorists to get guns.
Opponents of the legislation argue that requiring background checks for private sellers would “shut down gun shows.” That is simply a myth. Gun shows are thriving in the states where background checks are required: Pennsylvania, which closed the loophole in 1995 when then-Governor Tom Ridge signed a law requiring background checks for all private handgun sales, hosts the second most gun shows of any state in the country. And of the top 5 gun show states, three (PA, IL and CA) require background checks or a firearms ID card for gun purchases.
--Americans for Gun Safety
Closing the gunshow loophole is...urgent, and a mild restriction compared to measures being discussed to defend against further terrorist attacks. Authorities are swiftly moving to tap more phones and crack down on visas. The people who inspect airplane luggage will have to be U.S. citizens and undergo criminal background checks. But there are no records of sale and no background checks of people who purchase firearms from unlicensed dealers -- at gun shows, on the Internet and at flea markets. Such buyers are not even required to show identification, much less prove citizenship or legal alien status.
There is bipartisan support for two Senate measures that would close this loophole. Republicans may embrace the move in an effort to close the gender gap and attract women voters. One of the sponsors, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., says he expects to push for such a change after the Christmas recess, possibly as part of a homeland security bill. "I believe the terrorists are exploiting a loophole in our laws so they don't have to have a background check," he told The New York Times.
The gun lobby has criticized such efforts as taking advantage of fearful citizens reeling from attacks that had nothing to do with guns. But Mr. McCain is hardly a hysterical gun control advocate.
Criminals and gun-runners have figured it out – according the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, gun shows are now the second leading source of guns recovered in illegal gun trafficking investigation...
and the first source would be? which part of "criminals don't care about the law so making more isn't gonna be a deterrent" isn't getting through?
but your chances of getting through to Dennis are slim to none - his mind is made up guns=crime=bad so let's just ban them all and then w will have the crime rate of other countries which, as you know, is skyrocketing because the criminals know that the homeowners and dogwlkers etc don't have guns. Whereas here, now, they cannot tell if you are carrying or not. They also do not know if this house they plan on robbing has weapons or not. The uncertainty makes them think twice. Gun laws may not be a detterent but getting yourself slaughtered definitely is. Please remember that burgulars have volunteered for this.
oh i know, kit. which is why for the most part i come and go in these debates. i leave when i get bored, and come back when i get bored with whatever else i was doing. now that civil war debate on the other hand, that's a pretty good one.
Are you saying that --whether it's a "license" or background-check registration -- the government has no legitimate authority to deny even known, outrageous criminals, the wildly insane, or documented terrorists...their 2nd Amendment right to guns?
First of all, thanks for admitting that it is a right of the 2nd ammendment for people and not states to bear arms.
Secondly, 2nd ammendment speaking, does the government have the right to limit in any way the keeping and bearing of arms?
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Are we infringing on this right? Does background checks, etc. infringe on this right in any way? It does say that keeping and bearing arms shall not be infringed.
I am not advocating anything here, just asking the questions.
Does background checks, etc. infringe on this right?
the first thing to remember is that a criminal no longer has that right. but that's something that i think most of us will all agree on. so as long as the background check is there for the sole purpose of determining whether or not there's a criminal history in the buyer, no, it doesn't infringe the right. of course, there's no reason why such a check can't be instantaneous. you've either been convicted of a disqualifying crime or you haven't.
You know Dennis, I think we all agree that we don't want guns to get in the hands of bad guys. Trouble is, the bad guys don't give a shit about laws, waiting periods, or gun safety.
No amount of laws is going to change that. These laws simply make the lives of law abiding gun owners more complicated.
And that statement about the number of "illegal" guns traced to gunshows; they leave out a whole bunch of important facts here. Were those guns purchased from FFL's at a gunshow and then provided to the criminals later in straw man purchases? Were these guns purchased through FFL's and then later stolen? How many of these "illegal" guns were purchased at a gun show WITHOUT a background check. If you can show me those numbers, and they support your position that criminals regularly purchase firearms at gun show without going through a background check, then you will have my support to close this tiny, eye of the needle loophole. Otherwise, stop trying to blowing smoke up our rears.
BATF information also shows that only .7% of criminals acquired their guns at a gun show. 39% percent of them got them from family or friends. 34% got them through the legal channel (went through an FFL). Some were stolen from homes, some were stolen from the police, the rest went to the street and the black market.
Typical of anti gunners to toss out these statements that on the surface appeal to the emotion of the illinformed, or uninformed. Dig a little deeper and you find that the real data doesn't support their position very well. But that is what propaganda is all about. Just ask Josef Goebels, the Nazi propaganda minister. If you are going to lie, tell a big one, tell it often, and repeat it over and over again. If anyone attempts to refute it, label them as extremists, and call them such publicly over and over again.
THOSE WHO LIVE BY THE GUN...DIE BY A T-REX BITING THEIR NUTS
I fish, but practice catch and release exclusively, since I don't feel morally comfortable with taking a life, any life.
I don't hunt because there's no way to do so without killing, unless one considers photographing animals "hunting".
But that's me.
Others have their own beliefs and values.
So, hunters, knock yourselves out.
I mention the foregoing to underscore that, while I personally believe that gun fetishism is silly at best (and the potential basis for a Mad Max deterioration of society into bloody chaos), I recognize and honor the right of hunters, target shooters, collectors, etc., to freely participate in the activities of their passion.
Furthermore, having guns for protection is no problem with me, provided they aren't carried about in public -- either concealed or otherwise. Folks who advocate public carrying can attempt to show the alleged benefits of doing so until they're blue in the face. Every fiber of my being, based on an appreciation of the many biases and prejudices that trigger so many to rash, angry behavior in America, screams that public carrying would ultimately do far more harm than good.
Plus the more guns in active movement, as opposed to safe lock-up at home, the greater the chances of accidental mayhem.
As for loophole closure, there's a part of me -- albeit tiny -- that actually sees a smidgen of logic in these words: "In these times of terrorism, we should fight against any efforts to make guns more difficult for Americans to obtain, just in case we have to fight the terrorists ourselves, should government fail to protect us."
But if you substitute the word "criminals" for terrorists, what you wind up with is the basic NRA argument for what actually amounts to an endorsement of the vigilante concept, which I'd reject even in the abstract.
Now here's where my opposition gets really acute:
There is in America today a popular dichotomization that sees us divided between good and upstanding citizens...and "criminals". Exponents of this view feel that they're firmly within the ranks of the former, and that the latter are evil by some innate failing, thereby responsible, as deficient individuals, for our whole culture's descent into the gutter.
("Help! A monster's got me by the jewels!" --conclusion)
While seldom spoken outright, class and racial assumptions are vividly at play in all this. It's "them" against "us", and we'd darn well better arm to be certain to win.
To me, this is fundamentally wrong. First, criminals are made, not born, and they could just as easily arise from our own ranks, given reversed socio-economic influences.
As things stand, "they" are predisposed by their environment -- which we permit to exist in unremedied, ongoing deterioration -- to become street criminals. We, in the circumtances of our much different surroundings, tend more to become perpetrators of schemes, frauds, crimes in the suites...when our morality weakens and we succumb to siren songs for easy, illegal money.
The point being: There's enough criminality in our own daily affairs, as a part of the Enron-Anderson nature of our broadly corrupt, systemic goings on (even more so when we factor in our foreign policy sins), that the demonization of just "them" becomes ridiculous.
We're either directly or indirectly complicit in some of the worst, grand-scale criminality in the whole world -- but we want to take up arms against a scapegoat rather than acknowledge our own responsibility, at root, for creating both their and our joint skid toward ethical oblivion.
Scapegoaters with guns, as history teaches us, ultimately don't do nice things.
Furthermore, they bring only disaster upon themselves.
Yes, there's a chance a street criminal could attempt to do harm to you some evening as you're out on the town. And, yes, having a gun on your person could foil his intentions.
Or it could result in mutual fatality...which reminds me of a set of two dinosaur fossils that were found once, both having perished, simultaneously, as they fought one another to a lethal draw.
They died with their teeth and claws in each others bodies.
We can do better, and we should.
We're opting for cheap-shot solutions with our exclusive gun fixation (no pun intended) and it -- with all other accompanying propensities for violence, including militarism -- will be our eventual undoing if we don't find alternatives rooted in peace, justice, universal opportunity...and enlightened grounds for the maximization of our human potential.
Turning to the gun is a cynical and shabby cop-out -- and the way to disaster.
i have but one worry when it comes to issuing concealed-carry permits on demand, and its not that we'll go off blowing each other away on a whim. its that someone would pull that gun in self-defence, and not be willing to follow through with pulling the trigger, and/or dealing with the psychological consequences thereof, ya know, having that other life on your hands and all.
Catch and release?!?! What, put them through the torment of being caught and then its all for no reason!?!? Talk about cruel. Did you follow up and check on the fish's condition later, Dennis, to make sure s/he came to no harm? I have no sympathy for your position. As they would eat us,eventually, so will I eat them now. Matter is neither created nor destroyed but only recycled.
Yes, drawing a gun and not using it is far worse than being unarmed - so if you carry use the damn thing! Self defense is permitted. Using a weapon to defend others is allowed. God may be tough but s/he isn't blind!
If that were the case, Cops would be in THE safest career of them all... wouldn't they?
If it were not a deterent, why do "cops" carry weapons?
there are people who think that crime is still a force to be reckoned with only by presenting more guns to people to "Protect" themselves with.
In 1979, out of more than 32,000 attempted rapes, 32% were actually committed. But when a woman was armed with a gun or knife, only 3% of the attempted rapes were actually successful.
U.S. Department of Justice, Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, Rape Victimization in 26 American Cities, 1979, p. 31.
In 1982, Kennesaw, Atlanta passed a law requiring heads of households to keep at least one firearm in the house. The residential burglary rate subsequently dropped 89%.
Gary Kleck, 'Crime Control Through the Private Use of Armed Force,' Social Problems 35 (February 1988):15.
3/5 of felons polled agreed that 'a criminal is not going to mess around with a victim he knows is armed with a gun.'
U.S., Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, 'The Armed Criminal in America: A Survey of Incarcerated Felons,' Research Report, (July 1985): 27.
74% of felons polled agreed that 'one reason burglars avoid houses when people are at home is that they fear being shot during the crime.'
U.S., Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, 'The Armed Criminal in America: A Survey of Incarcerated Felons,' Research Report, (July 1985): 27.
57% of felons polled agreed that 'criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police.'
U.S., Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, 'The Armed Criminal in America: A Survey of Incarcerated Felons,' Research Report, (July 1985): 27.
34% of felons said they personally had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim." 69% said that they knew at least one other criminal who had also. 34% said that when thinking about committing a crime they either "often" or "regularly" worried that they might get shot at by the victim."
James D. Wright & Peter H. Rossi, Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms (1986).
In 1966-67, the media highly publicized a safety course which taught Orlando women how to use guns. The result: Orlando's rape rate dropped 88% in 1967, whereas the rape rate remained constant in the rest of Florida and the nation.
Kleck, 'Crime Control,' at 13.
In 89.6% of violent crimes directed against women, the offender does not have a gun; and only 10% of rapists carry a firearm. Thus, armed women will usually have a decided advantage against their attackers.
Don B. Kates, Jr., Guns, Murders, and the Constitution: A Realistic Assessment of Gun Control, (1990), at 29, citing U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Criminals are deterred by higher penalties. Just as higher arrest and conviction rates deter crime, so does the risk that someone committing a crime will confront someone able to defend him or herself. There is a strong negative relationship between the number of law-abiding citizens with permits and the crime rate—as more people obtain permits there is a greater decline in violent crime rates. For each additional year that a concealed handgun law is in effect the murder rate declines by 3 percent, rape by 2 percent, and robberies by over 2 percent.
Gun ownership is at an all time high. You have stated that the crime rate is almost half of what it was 10 years ago. Consider Great Britain, where handguns were banned in 1997 following the massacre at Dunblane. Within two years, gun violence was up 40 percent.
I guess any statistic can be distorted to convey ones posistion. But overwhelmingly studies and stats have shown that an armed citizen IS a deterrent to crime. Look at any place that has adopted conceal and carry and the resluts are pretty lopsided in that crime has either dropped or not gone up. It's not the wild west shootout that the anti second ammendment crowd would have you believe through their hysteria. Quite the opposite is true. Take a look at Australia as another nation as a good example. Fact is that in places where they allow conceal and carry it has not been the doomsday that some would have you believe, in fact quite the opposite.
One of the most basic rights as I see it is the right to defend yourself wherever that might be. The job of police for the most part is catching criminals which of course is AFTER the crime is committed. Police really aren't a deterrent to crime unless they are present when a criminal is contemplating commiting a crime, but sadly they can't be everywhere so their job is usually catching the bad guys once a crime has been committed. So what about all the places they can't be ? So just because I am outside my home I have no right to defend myself ? The police can't do it.
I personally probally wouldn't carry a firearm except when I hunt. I have small kids and so mine are now locked up in the safe. But I don't wish to deny someone else that right.
We have a myriad of things that can harm people in public. Fact is that all these things are just tools that can be misused. Cars are probably the best example. Cars are a weapon as well that can be misused by careless driving, DWI, or intentionally to kill someone and they kill thousands every year when they are misused excluding simple accidents but they can and are misused.
I hear the pro gun control people say one of the main reasons people are against conceal and carry is they are worriying about people going into a rage or making bad judgement. Well guess what we have people doing the exact same thing in cars and it costs many many lives.
Knives or simple boxcutters were used on 9-11. And are used in thousands of murders over the years. Why no call to ban these things ? Probably because most people realize that it's simply that those are tools as well. Anything can be misused by someone to kill maim, etc. But the minute we say "gun" emotions take over rational thought. We have demonized a piece of metal. It's an inanimate object like all other tools that can be misused. Some say I don't want them in public, well guess what ? They already are by criminals. I don't want em in public. O.K how about knives ? Why no outcry to ban them in public, after all someone might go into a rage and turn into a vigilante. Why no call to ban them ? Do we ban them simply because someone abuses that privelege? The other thing as I know it's been said before is this, does anyone really think that these measures will stop someone from getting weapons ? I prefer to leave it to each law abiding citizen to decide. I would agree that training and liscensing should be involved in some way. Implementing it gets you into a whole other debate. My point, let's have an honest debate based on those facts instead of emotions or demonizing a piece of machined metal. Unless you want to demonize every tool simply because it can kill.
Yes Dan it does, but I don't even know where to start to DEBUNK most of the LAME statistics you just listed.
Perhaps because you cannot? If you can, please take the time to do so. I would find it most interesting.
For Example: How many times did a woman HAVE a gun during the attempted Rapes? (answer...maybe twice).
So you wish to deny these two women you claim were the only ones the right to defend themselves? You would rather they just lay there and take what is coming to them? You can not possibly think this way, but yet you want them not to be able to protect themselves. Why?
Second, most of your "Statistics" are outdated by at least 15 years.
Yes, and???? Are you claiming that they are not facts after a certain time period? If so, what is the limits placed on facts as far as time is concerned?
And lastly, Guns have been "Outlawed" in Great Britain for a lot more than 6 years.
Not handguns. Their crime rate has been skyrocketing as well. According to the International Crime Victim SurveyEngland and Wales went from 19.4 in 1988 to 30.9 in 1995 and the U.S. went from 28.9 in 1988 to 24.2 in 1995. The ownership of firearms has been on the rise for quite a while in the U.S. and these numbers reflect it.
Dan, YOU are the one that stated the "Rape Facts", so it would be nice to see YOU put up at least ONE link to the facts behind your claim.
The statistics came from the U.S. Department of Justice as stated.
If it was based upon 100 rapes, then lets see that fact. If it was based upon 1 million, then lets see the data. Got Any?
1. 32,000 is the estimated number of rapes and attempted rapes by strangers in the 26 cities surveyed. The number of rapes and attempted rapes by strangers in the sample was about 1600.
2. The completion of rapes by strangers was 1024.
3.gun/knife was used for self defence in only 21 of the cases.
4. The completion of 1 rape was when the woman "used/brandished gun or knife" (Response 1, Question 136 on the original survey.)
So out of 21 attempts at rape against a women with a knife or gun, only one was successful. Not exactly a +/- 1% survey, but still an amazing difference.
The fact is, that of course ANY woman who was holding a knife or gun under the chin of her rapist would be LESS likely to be raped(what dope wouldn't know that?),
Apparently you are the dope that didn't know that...until now. Remember this?
Little Green Peace Party to mother ship: "Beam us up as soon as peace settles over the earth. Over."
Forget it Joel, you're barking up the wrong tree. Dennis is enamored by Castro becuase it's a from of government he likes. Heck he hasn't even once mentioned the political prisoners in Cuba, why ? who knows. Take a look at the slavery thread for the perfect example of that.
Thank you, Luv2Fly
not often I get agreement from you so its appreciated. Now, Joel, well, I cannot say that I like everything you have posted but we seem to share some basic ideas.
Dennis seems to have control issues. What I find interesting is that he compalins about having his rights trampled but doesn't seem to see that his proposed laws would do the same thing - only to people other than himself. Does that make it okay, then, Dennis? If it doesn't apply to you, because you would not be buying guns, then by all means trample peoples' rights?
Kit,
We might not always agree but I will always let someone know if I agree or think they have a good idea even if otherwise I might tend to disagree with them on many other issues. I am not that prideful or worried that just because I let someone know I agree or think it's a good idea too that I somehow I am giving in on other issues. I'm not wired that way and don't see it as a sign of weakness. I always try to be civil and constructive but fail miserbly sometimes because I am passionate as are most who take time to exchange ideas. So my apologies up front if I do. I also agree wholeheatedly with your last post as well.
I happen to think your idea is a great solution and would love to see it implemented in place of the current bulky system. Frankly I think that it's mostly window dressing when it comes to more laws but we have to make the politicians feel good and appease anti gun lobbies don't we. Why it's never been proposed in that manner I don't know, perhaps it makes too much sense :)
Article by Jeff Booth of The Federal Observer.
http://www.federalobserver.com/index.php?section=The+Right+to+Keep+and+Bear+Arms
Good article, in my opinion.
Sometimes I feel as if I don't belong to any group in America, but then I am not sure that is such a bad thing in and of itself.
I do belong to the group of gun owners and to the group who wants as much freedom as humanly possible without anarchy. I feel good about belonging there. .
I have always liked the expression: "I live in my own little world. But it's OK. They all know me there".
We need some govt. and we should be a nation of laws, not men. But those laws must protect the general freedom and security of the society at large. We seem to have tossed out the freedom part, to only work on the security side of the equation. I am not sure that will lead us to the promised land.
We might not always agree but I will always let someone know if I agree or think they have a good idea even if otherwise I might tend to disagree with them on many other issues.
Oh. As the church lady would say: "Well isn't that special."
Replies:
First, Eve was framed.
Second, Joel twirls more than the Spin Doctors trying to get a top-ten hit, yet is reduced to admitting that the private-sale loophole exists and can be exploited by terrorists. The fact that a loophole closure could possibly be circumvented is no excuse for avoiding said closure. If another form of abuse susbsequently arose, it, too, should then be appropriately addressed.
Third, if it were reported tomorrow that terrorists had committed a heinous crime with weapons obtained at a gun show, the NRA would immediately go into feverish damage control to try to place their special-interest agenda above needed action to curtail, if not entirely stop, one definite venue of armament/supply for terrorist activity.
In other words, put a narrow fetish above a national emergency.
The Hestonites are more worried about having to REGISTER a gun purchase than they are about our kids getting blown away by terrorists, partially in absence of precisely such registration, with
accompanying background scrutiny.
Fourth, look at this line from my post: "All we are saying (besides 'give peace a chance')..." It had no intended meaning beyond the first four words preceding the others in the John Lennon
mantra. It was a feeble attempt at humor on my part. But thanks for assuming it had some freako-devo-pervo-weirdo-pinko international
conspiracy connotation that endangers your right to be violence-oriented in your solution to "crime".
Fifth, sixth and seventh follow, as separate little posts of their own.
There's a photograph of me taken when I was five.
I'm brandishing a cap pistol and wearing a cowboy hat.
Draped from my shoulders, on strings, is a goofy cardboard representation of Roy Rogers' horse "Trigger".
I'd step into the dual-sided center part to slip it on.
But I grew up.
And put away my toys.
Go back to the shooting range, Wyatt.
Join the boys in running down that evil Sarah Brady.
Thrill to the prospect of one day plugging a "criminal" cleanly through the heart.
Do pro-gun guys like heavy metal music?
If not, they should.
And their favorite band ought to be called "Kalashnikov Kulture".
How many guns did the terrorists use during the 9/11 events? How many of those came from a gun show? How many firearms have terrorists used in the US since 9/11 to blow up babies and children? How many of those guns came from gun shows?
If all that is wanted is to have the non FFL sales at a gun show go through a background check, you may get some agreement from me, since we have NICS now. I still don't think background checks stop criminals from getting weapons, but I discussed that already. Why are the politicians who are pushing this non existant crisis of the "gun show loophole" so bent on adding a bunch of other extremist laws that would virtually shut down gun shows? Since gun shows are held on weekends, a 3 day waiting period for a background check is going to prevent many sales at gun shows. Who will want to go to a gun show and be registered by the govt. for doing so? Should we register your peace protestors who helped do so much damage in Seattle? Why is it OK to sell a gun from my private collection from my house, but it is not OK to sell it at a gun show.
Why is this viewed as such a crisis? Three terrorists got less than 5 shotguns at a gun show in the last 3 years, none of which were used in a crime here. As someone mentioned above, do you think the Taliban and Al Qeada really needed a few shotguns to fight US troops, when they seem to have an unlimited supply of full auto rifles, RPG's, shoulder fired missiles, etc.?
By the way Dennis, nice way to call NRA members "baby killers". Is that what you called our brave soldiers returning from their tours in Viet Nam?
Do you mean heavy metal as in lead? Yes. Yes. I do love heavy metal music. Rata tat tat. Bang. Boom. Crack. I love the sound of a lead projectile leaving the barrel in the morning! As a matter of fact, I love that sound anytime.
Guess who one of my favorite Rockers is Rockenan? Yahhhhh. Its Ted Nugent! The Motor City Madman. I got you in a stanglehold baby. I bet you really love Nuge! Kill It and Grill It!
Have you watched the Osbournes? Wow. Are they out there. Kind of like watching a British version of the Simpsons, only real instead of a cartoon. Not really my style, but I did watch once for a little while just to see what it was about.
It's o.k Joel, the examples of Dennis' blatant hypocrisy are appearing like dandelions. He's all for rights as long as they are rights that benefit him. He'll only complain when it's a right he believes in and whine like a 2 year old that we are trashing the constitution only when it suits him. He'll only complain of innocent life lost if it fits his argument. It's not about freedom or rights it's about advancing an agenda by any means neccesary, it doesn't matter who he or others from his band use, they will use vet's, children, minorities, women, the poor,political prisoners etc. They will use them for the cause d'jour. They claim to care more and sit on a percieved morally superior perch castigating others. It took me a bit longer than it should of to see that but they don't care more about people,not a wit. They use them at will to advance their cause and pay not another thought to them when they've won or moved on to another cause that advances their mantra using people and running over whoever stands in their way. They are hypocrites who wish to pick and choose what rights to defend and who advances that cause.
Fact is, we don't know how many other terrorists may have visited
gun shows with arsenal-enhancing success.
Three were caught, luckily.
Additionally, it's wrong to focus on just Islamics or the absence of
firearms in the 9/11 attacks to try to evade loophole closure.
One of those apprehended was an IRA fellow, with intentions of bringing the weapons into gunplay in Northern Ireland.
Some might say, why worry about what foreigners do in their far off
countries? Such folks would perhaps argue that they, and their circumstances, aren't worth risking gun "restrictions" here.
I submit that's a profoundly immoral notion.
Furthermore, what about domestic terrorists, and militias, arguably sometimes one and the same?
Where do the bigoted, camo-clad, supremacist outfits that are perpetually a hair's breadth away from openly advocating hate crimes against minorities get their guns? Not Iran or Iraq.
From contacts within America.
I've been to gun shows. I've seen John Birch Society yahoos yucking
it up with dudes from the next table over, heavy with guns, joined by some fella in a Davey Crockett get-up. Although I've never been to one in Idaho, I'm speculating you wouldn't have a hard time locating Aryan Nation members...or at least supporters.
As for background checks or even licensing, what's the big deal?
We need licenses to fish, hunt, get married, drive, function in various professional capacities, etc. Why not to "own and operate"
firearms?
It's an authorization of a specific activity, not something like a
national ID card, which smacks of Apartheid's passbook abomination,
and needs to be resisted on civil liberties grounds rooted in profiling abuses, even if (and especially because) the whole population would be profiled.
In these times particularly, rationality demands greater supervision of the gun-buying process -- which is not "control" aimed at "confiscation" of already-owned guns.
The issue can't be held hostage by wingnuts who think the Feds
are about to swoop down in flying machines and strip their cabinets bare.
Finally, as an aside...
Rob, I've noticed you'll argue with me about anything, anywhere.
I suggest we debate the merits, or lack thereof, of...lard.
Be forewarned, I'm a lard hardliner!
Why not to "own and operate" firearms?
because the second amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear arms. period.
But my fishing license doesn't prevent me from using my Rapalas.
And John Ashcroft hasn't confiscated my tacklebox.
(Although I'm starting to worry...)
but a lack of a fishing license would. just as in licensing the owning of firearms, a lack of a license would prevent ownership. the simple fact is licensing firearm ownership turns that right into a privilege, which is unacceptable. beyond that, the state may not cause the exercising of one's constitutional right to be a criminal act. were i ambitious, i'd find a citation or 3 to back that up.
Are you saying that --whether it's a "license" or background-check
registration -- the government has no legitimate authority to deny even known, outrageous criminals, the wildly insane, or documented terrorists...their 2nd Amendment right to guns?
not in the least. nothing wrong with a background check, imho. but doing background checks to keep guns out of the hands of those who are legally forbidden to own them is far from licensure to own them.
If you want to talk about only doing background checks for all gun purchases at a gun show, then drop the requirements for up to 3 days of delay, the registration of antendees, the registration of conversations about making a firearm purchase at a gun show, and start locking up people who attempt to purchase guns if they are prohibited by law from having them. Then we will have some agreement. Other wise, you will be seen by pro freedom, pro choice (to have guns) advocates, and gun owners as trying to harrass gun shows, their promoters, the sellers and the attendees, and you won't get very far with those people.
As to licensing, the Supreme Court has already ruled that you cannot license a right as it then becomes a priveledge. They have also ruled that criminals cannot be forced to license and/or register their firearms as that would be a self incriminating statement, as they are not allowed to own guns in the first place. Again, you would only be affecting the law abiding, and besides, it is a RIGHT, which should not require govt. paper work to exercise. I know you don't like that, but then work to repeal the 2nd A. and see how far you get. With over 75% of the population agreeing with the Justice Dept. statement that the 2nd A protects a broad right to individual firearms ownership, even though that right may be narrowly restricted for prohibited persons or firearms which may be particularly suitable for criminal purposes. (It should be a hoot watching them define that last phrase). You and your like thinking friends will have a hard time selling your ideology on that issue.
One last note. If you carefully read the 2nd A., and you look at it with an open mind, with the writings of the Founding Fathers, and with a good understanding of the English language, it is quite clear what that amendment does.
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".
Well regulated in those days meant well trained, or operating efficiently.
Notice the statement of the "right". It already exists in this phrase. It doesn't say "the people shall have a right to keep and bear arms which shall not be infringed", which would ESTABLISH the right and then protect it from infringement. The right already exists and it is being protected from infringement. Even if you could repeal the 2nd Amendment, it would not mean the right did not exist, it would only mean the protection of that right by the govt. would now be lifted. I highly doubt any one of the Bill of Rights could be repealed without a revolution. Those are the PEOPLES' rights.
The militia phrase is the preamble. This amendment could say exactly the same thing if written this way: "Because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".
Legal scholarship has now in the majority found the right to be an individual one.
Licensing would be a major infringement on the right, making it a priveledge. If govt. did not want any more guns, they could merely stop issuing licenses. Plus, if you didn't have a license, you would not be able to keep and bear arms, an infringement on your rights.
June 6, 2002
The Honorable John McCain
United States Senate
241 Senate Russell Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator McCain:
On Behalf of the U.S. Catholic Conference Bishops, I am pleased to offer my endorsement of S. 890 and H.R. 2377, The Gun Show Loophole Closing and Gun Law Enforcement Act of 2001.
As Catholic bishops, we are committed to changing our American culture of violence into a society that values and promotes human life. As we stated in our 1994 statement, “A Culture of Violence,” violence is fed by multiple forces and no on response can address this complex problem. Therefore, the Conference has taken strong positions on several different legislative initiatives designed to curb violence, including opposing easy access to handguns. For example, we have endorsed common sense legislation like the Brady Bill which requires a background check of anyone buying a gun at a gun store. According to a June 200 report on gun trafficking by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, gun shows rank as the second leading source of illegal guns recovered by federal law enforcement. This is a frightening statistic and we are with those who believe it is time to close this dangerous loophole.
We support S. 890/H.R. 2377 because we believe it effectively extends background check requirements to gun shows and public events. Another important reason we support the legislation is because it authorizes funds to help states modernize and automate their criminal history and other Brady records.
Your leadership on this issue has presented Congress with an explicit opportunity to reduce crime by providing for more comprehensive enforcement of current gun laws and much needed funding for state efforts. Thank you for your efforts and be assured of our support. With every good wish, I am
Faithfully Yours,
Theodore Cardinal McCarrick
Archbishop of Washington
Chairman, Domestic Policy Committee
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
Is loophole closure a good thing?
Does the Pope wear holy shorts?
Dennis,
I have no problem closing this supposed loophole, fine, it will make everyone feel better and nowadays just feeling better seems to be enough for somoe people. Sadly it will have little or no impact on crime or the wrong people getting weapons because they will and do circumvent the law, that's why we call them criminals. No amount of laws will protect innocent people when others still will take life at a whim. Witness the 3 gang members who were convicted in St.Paul yesterday for killing 4 year old Davisha. They knew they had killed her and bragged about it. No amount of laws will ever prevent idiotic wastes of air like that to have a shred of decency. Locking them up forever is the only sure way to gurantee at least they won't be doing it again. So pass the law, fine, now we all feel better great. Until citizens who are law abiding and wish to protect their family can do so with thier own choice of using a firearm the criminals will feel better and safe too.
Oh and one other thing. Not to Catholic bash since I feel it's much like Islam where their religion is being ruined by some evil people. I am not Catholic but the Bishops should perhaps be concentrating on other issues right now.
So far, only 18 states have closed the gun show loophole and require background checks for all gun show sales (or require some kind of firearms ID card for purchasing a gun). Colorado and Oregon recently closed the loophole by a vote of the electorate -- loophole-closing ballot initiatives in both states passed by wide margins in the 2000 election. But in 32 states, the loophole remains wide open.
That is why AGS is backing federal legislation sponsored by Senators John McCain and Joe Lieberman. Their bi-partisan bill will require background checks at gun shows and would finally close this dangerous loophole that allows criminals, domestic abusers and even terrorists to get guns.
Opponents of the legislation argue that requiring background checks for private sellers would “shut down gun shows.” That is simply a myth. Gun shows are thriving in the states where background checks are required: Pennsylvania, which closed the loophole in 1995 when then-Governor Tom Ridge signed a law requiring background checks for all private handgun sales, hosts the second most gun shows of any state in the country. And of the top 5 gun show states, three (PA, IL and CA) require background checks or a firearms ID card for gun purchases.
--Americans for Gun Safety
There is bipartisan support for two Senate measures that would close this loophole. Republicans may embrace the move in an effort to close the gender gap and attract women voters. One of the sponsors, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., says he expects to push for such a change after the Christmas recess, possibly as part of a homeland security bill. "I believe the terrorists are exploiting a loophole in our laws so they don't have to have a background check," he told The New York Times.
The gun lobby has criticized such efforts as taking advantage of fearful citizens reeling from attacks that had nothing to do with guns. But Mr. McCain is hardly a hysterical gun control advocate.
--St. Louis Post-Dispatch
Criminals and gun-runners have figured it out – according the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, gun shows are now the second leading source of guns recovered in illegal gun trafficking investigation...
and the first source would be? which part of "criminals don't care about the law so making more isn't gonna be a deterrent" isn't getting through?
Sorry, Ares,
but your chances of getting through to Dennis are slim to none - his mind is made up guns=crime=bad so let's just ban them all and then w will have the crime rate of other countries which, as you know, is skyrocketing because the criminals know that the homeowners and dogwlkers etc don't have guns. Whereas here, now, they cannot tell if you are carrying or not. They also do not know if this house they plan on robbing has weapons or not. The uncertainty makes them think twice. Gun laws may not be a detterent but getting yourself slaughtered definitely is. Please remember that burgulars have volunteered for this.
oh i know, kit. which is why for the most part i come and go in these debates. i leave when i get bored, and come back when i get bored with whatever else i was doing. now that civil war debate on the other hand, that's a pretty good one.
Are you saying that --whether it's a "license" or background-check registration -- the government has no legitimate authority to deny even known, outrageous criminals, the wildly insane, or documented terrorists...their 2nd Amendment right to guns?
First of all, thanks for admitting that it is a right of the 2nd ammendment for people and not states to bear arms.
Secondly, 2nd ammendment speaking, does the government have the right to limit in any way the keeping and bearing of arms?
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Are we infringing on this right? Does background checks, etc. infringe on this right in any way? It does say that keeping and bearing arms shall not be infringed.
I am not advocating anything here, just asking the questions.
Does background checks, etc. infringe on this right?
the first thing to remember is that a criminal no longer has that right. but that's something that i think most of us will all agree on. so as long as the background check is there for the sole purpose of determining whether or not there's a criminal history in the buyer, no, it doesn't infringe the right. of course, there's no reason why such a check can't be instantaneous. you've either been convicted of a disqualifying crime or you haven't.
the first thing to remember is that a criminal no longer has that right.
Why is this the only right in the Bill of Rights that states it will not be infringed upon and yet it is the only one taken away?
Guns should never be banned.
But their access needs to be more judicously administered in our Columbine/9-11 world.
In accordance with common sense and public safety.
Is reconciling those two views really so hard?
Dennis Rahkonen 6/14/02 4:44am
You know Dennis, I think we all agree that we don't want guns to get in the hands of bad guys. Trouble is, the bad guys don't give a shit about laws, waiting periods, or gun safety.
No amount of laws is going to change that. These laws simply make the lives of law abiding gun owners more complicated.
And that statement about the number of "illegal" guns traced to gunshows; they leave out a whole bunch of important facts here. Were those guns purchased from FFL's at a gunshow and then provided to the criminals later in straw man purchases? Were these guns purchased through FFL's and then later stolen? How many of these "illegal" guns were purchased at a gun show WITHOUT a background check. If you can show me those numbers, and they support your position that criminals regularly purchase firearms at gun show without going through a background check, then you will have my support to close this tiny, eye of the needle loophole. Otherwise, stop trying to blowing smoke up our rears.
BATF information also shows that only .7% of criminals acquired their guns at a gun show. 39% percent of them got them from family or friends. 34% got them through the legal channel (went through an FFL). Some were stolen from homes, some were stolen from the police, the rest went to the street and the black market.
Typical of anti gunners to toss out these statements that on the surface appeal to the emotion of the illinformed, or uninformed. Dig a little deeper and you find that the real data doesn't support their position very well. But that is what propaganda is all about. Just ask Josef Goebels, the Nazi propaganda minister. If you are going to lie, tell a big one, tell it often, and repeat it over and over again. If anyone attempts to refute it, label them as extremists, and call them such publicly over and over again.
THOSE WHO LIVE BY THE GUN...DIE BY A T-REX BITING THEIR NUTS
I fish, but practice catch and release exclusively, since I don't feel morally comfortable with taking a life, any life.
I don't hunt because there's no way to do so without killing, unless
one considers photographing animals "hunting".
But that's me.
Others have their own beliefs and values.
So, hunters, knock yourselves out.
I mention the foregoing to underscore that, while I personally believe that gun fetishism is silly at best (and the potential basis for a Mad Max deterioration of society into bloody chaos), I recognize and honor the right of hunters, target shooters, collectors, etc.,
to freely participate in the activities of their passion.
Furthermore, having guns for protection is no problem with me, provided they aren't carried about in public -- either concealed or otherwise. Folks who advocate public carrying can attempt to show the alleged benefits of doing so until they're blue in the face.
Every fiber of my being, based on an appreciation of the many biases and prejudices that trigger so many to rash, angry behavior in America, screams that public carrying would ultimately do far more harm than good.
Plus the more guns in active movement, as opposed to safe lock-up at home, the greater the chances of accidental mayhem.
As for loophole closure, there's a part of me -- albeit tiny -- that actually sees a smidgen of logic in these words: "In these times of terrorism, we should fight against any efforts to make guns more difficult for Americans to obtain, just in case we have to
fight the terrorists ourselves, should government fail to protect us."
But if you substitute the word "criminals" for terrorists, what you wind up with is the basic NRA argument for what actually amounts to an endorsement of the vigilante concept, which I'd reject even in the abstract.
Now here's where my opposition gets really acute:
There is in America today a popular dichotomization that sees us divided between good and upstanding citizens...and "criminals". Exponents of this view feel that they're firmly within the ranks of the former, and that the latter are evil by some innate failing, thereby responsible, as deficient individuals, for our whole culture's descent into the gutter.
("Help! A monster's got me by the jewels!" --conclusion)
While seldom spoken outright, class and racial assumptions are vividly at play in all this. It's "them" against "us", and we'd darn well better arm to be certain to win.
To me, this is fundamentally wrong. First, criminals are made, not born, and they could just as easily arise from our own ranks, given reversed socio-economic influences.
As things stand, "they" are predisposed by their environment -- which
we permit to exist in unremedied, ongoing deterioration -- to become street criminals. We, in the circumtances of our much different surroundings, tend more to become perpetrators of schemes, frauds, crimes in the suites...when our morality weakens and we succumb to siren songs for easy, illegal money.
The point being: There's enough criminality in our own daily affairs, as a part of the Enron-Anderson nature of our broadly corrupt, systemic goings on (even more so when we factor in our foreign policy sins), that the demonization of just "them" becomes ridiculous.
We're either directly or indirectly complicit in some of the worst, grand-scale criminality in the whole world -- but we want to take up arms against a scapegoat rather than acknowledge our own responsibility, at root, for creating both their and our joint skid toward ethical oblivion.
Scapegoaters with guns, as history teaches us, ultimately don't do nice things.
Furthermore, they bring only disaster upon themselves.
Yes, there's a chance a street criminal could attempt to do harm to you some evening as you're out on the town. And, yes, having a gun on your person could foil his intentions.
Or it could result in mutual fatality...which reminds me of a set of two dinosaur fossils that were found once, both having perished, simultaneously, as they fought one another to a lethal draw.
They died with their teeth and claws in each others bodies.
We can do better, and we should.
We're opting for cheap-shot solutions with our exclusive gun fixation (no pun intended) and it -- with all other accompanying propensities for violence, including militarism -- will be our eventual undoing if we don't find alternatives rooted in peace, justice, universal opportunity...and enlightened grounds for the maximization of our human potential.
Turning to the gun is a cynical and shabby cop-out -- and the way to disaster.
i have but one worry when it comes to issuing concealed-carry permits on demand, and its not that we'll go off blowing each other away on a whim. its that someone would pull that gun in self-defence, and not be willing to follow through with pulling the trigger, and/or dealing with the psychological consequences thereof, ya know, having that other life on your hands and all.
Piffle.
Catch and release?!?! What, put them through the torment of being caught and then its all for no reason!?!? Talk about cruel. Did you follow up and check on the fish's condition later, Dennis, to make sure s/he came to no harm? I have no sympathy for your position. As they would eat us,eventually, so will I eat them now. Matter is neither created nor destroyed but only recycled.
Yes, drawing a gun and not using it is far worse than being unarmed - so if you carry use the damn thing! Self defense is permitted. Using a weapon to defend others is allowed. God may be tough but s/he isn't blind!
If that were the case, Cops would be in THE safest career of them all... wouldn't they?
If it were not a deterent, why do "cops" carry weapons?
there are people who think that crime is still a force to be reckoned with only by presenting more guns to people to "Protect" themselves with.
In 1979, out of more than 32,000 attempted rapes, 32% were actually committed. But when a woman was armed with a gun or knife, only 3% of the attempted rapes were actually successful.
U.S. Department of Justice, Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, Rape Victimization in 26 American Cities, 1979, p. 31.
In 1982, Kennesaw, Atlanta passed a law requiring heads of households to keep at least one firearm in the house. The residential burglary rate subsequently dropped 89%.
Gary Kleck, 'Crime Control Through the Private Use of Armed Force,' Social Problems 35 (February 1988):15.
3/5 of felons polled agreed that 'a criminal is not going to mess around with a victim he knows is armed with a gun.'
U.S., Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, 'The Armed Criminal in America: A Survey of Incarcerated Felons,' Research Report, (July 1985): 27.
74% of felons polled agreed that 'one reason burglars avoid houses when people are at home is that they fear being shot during the crime.'
U.S., Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, 'The Armed Criminal in America: A Survey of Incarcerated Felons,' Research Report, (July 1985): 27.
57% of felons polled agreed that 'criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police.'
U.S., Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, 'The Armed Criminal in America: A Survey of Incarcerated Felons,' Research Report, (July 1985): 27.
34% of felons said they personally had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim."
69% said that they knew at least one other criminal who had also.
34% said that when thinking about committing a crime they either "often" or "regularly" worried that they might get shot at by the victim."
James D. Wright & Peter H. Rossi, Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms (1986).
In 1966-67, the media highly publicized a safety course which taught Orlando women how to use guns. The result: Orlando's rape rate dropped 88% in 1967, whereas the rape rate remained constant in the rest of Florida and the nation.
Kleck, 'Crime Control,' at 13.
In 89.6% of violent crimes directed against women, the offender does not have a gun; and only 10% of rapists carry a firearm. Thus, armed women will usually have a decided advantage against their attackers.
Don B. Kates, Jr., Guns, Murders, and the Constitution: A Realistic Assessment of Gun Control, (1990), at 29, citing U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Criminals are deterred by higher penalties. Just as higher arrest and conviction rates deter crime, so does the risk that someone committing a crime will confront someone able to defend him or herself. There is a strong negative relationship between the number of law-abiding citizens with permits and the crime rate—as more people obtain permits there is a greater decline in violent crime rates. For each additional year that a concealed handgun law is in effect the murder rate declines by 3 percent, rape by 2 percent, and robberies by over 2 percent.
An interview with John R. Lott, Jr. Yale Law School scholar.
Gun ownership is at an all time high. You have stated that the crime rate is almost half of what it was 10 years ago. Consider Great Britain, where handguns were banned in 1997 following the massacre at Dunblane. Within two years, gun violence was up 40 percent.
Doesn't all this tell you something?
Bill,
I guess any statistic can be distorted to convey ones posistion. But overwhelmingly studies and stats have shown that an armed citizen IS a deterrent to crime. Look at any place that has adopted conceal and carry and the resluts are pretty lopsided in that crime has either dropped or not gone up. It's not the wild west shootout that the anti second ammendment crowd would have you believe through their hysteria. Quite the opposite is true. Take a look at Australia as another nation as a good example. Fact is that in places where they allow conceal and carry it has not been the doomsday that some would have you believe, in fact quite the opposite.
One of the most basic rights as I see it is the right to defend yourself wherever that might be. The job of police for the most part is catching criminals which of course is AFTER the crime is committed. Police really aren't a deterrent to crime unless they are present when a criminal is contemplating commiting a crime, but sadly they can't be everywhere so their job is usually catching the bad guys once a crime has been committed. So what about all the places they can't be ? So just because I am outside my home I have no right to defend myself ? The police can't do it.
I personally probally wouldn't carry a firearm except when I hunt. I have small kids and so mine are now locked up in the safe. But I don't wish to deny someone else that right.
We have a myriad of things that can harm people in public. Fact is that all these things are just tools that can be misused. Cars are probably the best example. Cars are a weapon as well that can be misused by careless driving, DWI, or intentionally to kill someone and they kill thousands every year when they are misused excluding simple accidents but they can and are misused.
I hear the pro gun control people say one of the main reasons people are against conceal and carry is they are worriying about people going into a rage or making bad judgement. Well guess what we have people doing the exact same thing in cars and it costs many many lives.
Knives or simple boxcutters were used on 9-11. And are used in thousands of murders over the years. Why no call to ban these things ? Probably because most people realize that it's simply that those are tools as well. Anything can be misused by someone to kill maim, etc. But the minute we say "gun" emotions take over rational thought. We have demonized a piece of metal. It's an inanimate object like all other tools that can be misused. Some say I don't want them in public, well guess what ? They already are by criminals. I don't want em in public. O.K how about knives ? Why no outcry to ban them in public, after all someone might go into a rage and turn into a vigilante. Why no call to ban them ? Do we ban them simply because someone abuses that privelege? The other thing as I know it's been said before is this, does anyone really think that these measures will stop someone from getting weapons ? I prefer to leave it to each law abiding citizen to decide. I would agree that training and liscensing should be involved in some way. Implementing it gets you into a whole other debate. My point, let's have an honest debate based on those facts instead of emotions or demonizing a piece of machined metal. Unless you want to demonize every tool simply because it can kill.
Yes Dan it does, but I don't even know where to start to DEBUNK most of the LAME statistics you just listed.
Perhaps because you cannot? If you can, please take the time to do so. I would find it most interesting.
For Example: How many times did a woman HAVE a gun during the attempted Rapes? (answer...maybe twice).
So you wish to deny these two women you claim were the only ones the right to defend themselves? You would rather they just lay there and take what is coming to them? You can not possibly think this way, but yet you want them not to be able to protect themselves. Why?
Second, most of your "Statistics" are outdated by at least 15 years.
Yes, and???? Are you claiming that they are not facts after a certain time period? If so, what is the limits placed on facts as far as time is concerned?
And lastly, Guns have been "Outlawed" in Great Britain for a lot more than 6 years.
Not handguns. Their crime rate has been skyrocketing as well. According to the International Crime Victim SurveyEngland and Wales went from 19.4 in 1988 to 30.9 in 1995 and the U.S. went from 28.9 in 1988 to 24.2 in 1995. The ownership of firearms has been on the rise for quite a while in the U.S. and these numbers reflect it.
obviously .. for example
No statistically it woulds have to be at least 30. Unless you are postulating that 95% of women going armed carry a knife, not a gun.
And only one rape where 10 would be expected is an anomoly significant enough to be worthy of analysis.
Actually Kit, it's not "even when". Burglary is much easier when the homeowners are there to tell you where the valuables are hidden.
Esp. when you point a gun at their heads
so I am sure more went down than just simple burgulary.
Dan, YOU are the one that stated the "Rape Facts", so it would be nice to see YOU put up at least ONE link to the facts behind your claim.
The statistics came from the U.S. Department of Justice as stated.
If it was based upon 100 rapes, then lets see that fact. If it was based upon 1 million, then lets see the data. Got Any?
1. 32,000 is the estimated number of rapes and attempted rapes by
strangers in the 26 cities surveyed. The number of rapes and
attempted rapes by strangers in the sample was about 1600.
2. The completion of rapes by strangers was 1024.
3.gun/knife was used for self defence in only 21 of the cases.
4. The completion of 1 rape was when the woman "used/brandished gun or
knife" (Response 1, Question 136 on the original survey.)
So out of 21 attempts at rape against a women with a knife or gun, only one was successful. Not exactly a +/- 1% survey, but still an amazing difference.
The fact is, that of course ANY woman who was holding a knife or gun under the chin of her rapist would be LESS likely to be raped(what dope wouldn't know that?),
Apparently you are the dope that didn't know that...until now. Remember this?
they will rationalize that by claiming that it will "Deter" criminals. If that were the case, Cops would be in THE safest career of them all... wouldn't they?
Do I sense a slight change of heart from your earlier statement? Welcome to the dark side, Fold.