Gun control laws in the US

[RolandtheHeadless]

I'm posting my thoughts about US gun laws here because the other thread begins by calling me a "gun nut" -- a bad way of inviting civil discussion.

We shouldn't even begin to discuss new gun laws until we enforce the ones we already have. Otherwise, we wind up with a bunch of laws on the books which everyone ignores, which in turn encourages general disrespect for the law. I'll give a couple of examples here, though there are a lot more.

1) Before you can buy a gun from a dealer here, you must first complete and sign, under oath, federal firearm transaction Form 4473. This form (and federal statutes) prohibit purchase of any firearm if you are a felon, fugitive, illegal drug user, illegal alien, have been committed to a mental institution, or fall into other prohibited categories. See here: http://www.atf.gov/forms/download/atf-f-4473-1.pdf

It's a violation of federal law to falsely complete or sign this form. It's a violation of federal law to attempt to buy a gun if you are in one of these prohibited categories. It's also a violation of federal law to buy a gun for purposes of resale or to make a straw purchase for someone else.

The second step before you can leave the store with your new gun is that you must pass an FBI background check, to verify that you're not prohibited from buying a gun. These background checks used to take hours (or days), but are now completed in about fifteen minutes by computer -- not an unreasonable burden at all for gun owners.

Over the years, hundreds of thousands of illegal gun sales have been stopped by these background checks. Yet, in the entire time the checks have been required, less than 100 people have ever been prosecuted for illegally trying to buy a gun!

Why? Because the federal Department of Justice, under both parties' administrations, have failed to allocate resources to such prosecutions. Why do they fail to allocate the resources? Because the public largely remains ignorant of these facts and doesn't express outrage to elected officials.

So negligent and inexcusable lack of enforcement by the feds leave criminals, druggies, and others who are banned from gun ownership free to go buy their guns on the private market, where no background checks are required!

2. The Connecticut school shooter already violated numerous state laws. How would more gun laws -- which I've already shown are laxly enforced -- have stopped him?

The most obvious law violated is the one against MURDER. I suggest that a man who's prepared to commit murder, and then suicide, isn't going to be influenced by another law telling him what guns he can use.

But wait -- there WERE other laws telling Lanza he couldn't have these guns, and he DID ignore them. These Connecticut laws include prohibitions against:

a) possession of an "assault rifle";

b) possession of a handgun by someone under age 21;

c) transportation of any loaded guns in a vehicle;

d) transportation in a vehicle of handguns by someone under 21;

e) possession of any gun by anyone on school grounds.

As a gun-owner, I would agree to certain additional gun restrictions, like mandatory background checks for private and gun-show sales, and magazine limitations to fifteen rounds. But only after we start enforcing the gun laws we already have.

 

[Tim Roberts]

I'm posting my thoughts about US gun laws here because the other thread begins by calling me a "gun nut" -- a bad way of inviting civil discussion.

We shouldn't even begin to discuss new gun laws until we enforce the ones we already have. Otherwise, we wind up with a bunch of laws on the books which everyone ignores, which in turn encourages general disrespect for the law. I'll give a couple of examples here, though there are a lot more.

1) Before you can buy a gun from a dealer here, you must first complete and sign, under oath, federal firearm transaction Form 4473. This form (and federal statutes) prohibit purchase of any firearm if you are a felon, fugitive, illegal drug user, illegal alien, have been committed to a mental institution, or fall into other prohibited categories. See here: http://www.atf.gov/forms/download/atf-f-4473-1.pdf

It's a violation of federal law to falsely complete or sign this form. It's a violation of federal law to attempt to buy a gun if you are in one of these prohibited categories. It's also a violation of federal law to buy a gun for purposes of resale or to make a straw purchase for someone else.

The second step before you can leave the store with your new gun is that you must pass an FBI background check, to verify that you're not prohibited from buying a gun. These background checks used to take hours (or days), but are now completed in about fifteen minutes by computer -- not an unreasonable burden at all for gun owners.

Over the years, hundreds of thousands of illegal gun sales have been stopped by these background checks. Yet, in the entire time the checks have been required, less than 100 people have ever been prosecuted for illegally trying to buy a gun!

Why? Because the federal Department of Justice, under both parties' administrations, have failed to allocate resources to such prosecutions. Why do they fail to allocate the resources? Because the public largely remains ignorant of these facts and doesn't express outrage to elected officials.

So negligent and inexcusable lack of enforcement by the feds leave criminals, druggies, and others who are banned from gun ownership free to go buy their guns on the private market, where no background checks are required!

2. The Connecticut school shooter already violated numerous state laws. How would more gun laws -- which I've already shown are laxly enforced -- have stopped him?

The most obvious law violated is the one against MURDER. I suggest that a man who's prepared to commit murder, and then suicide, isn't going to be influenced by another law telling him what guns he can use.

But wait -- there WERE other laws telling Lanza he couldn't have these guns, and he DID ignore them. These Connecticut laws include prohibitions against:

a) possession of an "assault rifle";

b) possession of a handgun by someone under age 21;

c) transportation of any loaded guns in a vehicle;

d) transportation in a vehicle of handguns by someone under 21;

e) possession of any gun by anyone on school grounds.

As a gun-owner, I would agree to certain additional gun restrictions, like mandatory background checks for private and gun-show sales, and magazine limitations to fifteen rounds. But only after we start enforcing the gun laws we already have.

It's obviously working very well the way it is!

 

[RolandtheHeadless]

There will always be psychopaths and killers. The question is, are there any additional gun laws that would work.

A better case could be made for banning violent video games, which seem to teach young men that human beings are shot just to improve your score. Alan Boraas: It's time to confront our gun mythology | Opinion | ADN.com

However, banning either guns or video games seem to be unconstitutional by recent Supreme Court decisions under our First and Second Amendments to the Constitution. So where does that leave us? Better mental health care, education, and security for our schools, perhaps.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

However, banning either guns or video games seem to be unconstitutional by recent Supreme Court decisions under our First and Second Amendments to the Constitution.

This discussion will be greatly aided if you make sure you keep it straight that gun control is not synonymous with a ban.

Even here in Japan, guns are not banned. Its just extremely time consuming to get one and you have to pass rigorous testing and throw your search and seizure rights down the drown (if it can even be said those rights existed in Japan in the first place).

There will always be psychopaths and killers.

Yeah, but better they only have access to rocks and pointy sticks than to guns.

 

[RolandtheHeadless]

What if they still have access to gasoline, lawn fertilizer, bleach, Drano, and dozens of other household chemicals that can be used to make bombs?

 

[Mark of Zorro]

Yet, in the entire time the checks have been required, less than 100 people have ever been prosecuted for illegally trying to buy a gun!

Does not actually matter so much. Usually when you have one person selling and the other buying, one of the two is going to try and obey the law.
The real problem is that there are just plain too many guns already in circulation.
The second problem is that there are loopholes in the law, like exemptions for gun shows.

The most obvious law violated is the one against MURDER.

Apparently you believe the country would be better off to just erase this law, since some people will murder anyway?

We shouldn't even begin to discuss new gun laws until we enforce the ones we already have.

Most of the ones we already have have been hobbled by various factors.
Until there is a comprehensive licensing and registration system, all laws on the subject will be hobbled.

---------- Post added at 10:27 ---------- Previous post was at 10:21 ----------

I'm posting my thoughts about US gun laws here because the other thread begins by calling me a "gun nut" -- a bad way of inviting civil discussion.

I don't remember anyone calling you a gun nut. However, it seems you identify with what was said about gun nuts and so you took offense. I think that is a problem dude.

---------- Post added at 10:34 ---------- Previous post was at 10:27 ----------

What if they still have access to gasoline, lawn fertilizer, bleach, Drano, and dozens of other household chemicals that can be used to make bombs?

A horrible and self serving set of hypotheticals. Those things are already easier to obtain than guns or at least, as easy. But making bombs requires certain arcane knowledge to make them work and also to not injure or kill oneself in the acts of making and transporting them. The overwhelming majority of people who even considered making homemade bombs to murder people gave up for all the difficulties. So much so, that there is little reason to think that even a significant minority would be able to successfully construct and detonate a bomb if they chose to go that route for not being able to get a gun.

But I think you are well aware of this and just trying to throw sand in our faces to protect your precious guns. Its really too bad that so many people are dying, including small children, but you feel the need to stiff arm everybody with disingenuous arguments for your own selfish gain.

 

[RolandtheHeadless]

It takes arcane knowledge to pour gasoline in a bottle and stuff a rag in the end of it?

Molotov cocktails are well known, but I'm not going to go into other means of bombs here.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

It takes arcane knowledge to pour gasoline in a bottle and stuff a rag in the end of it?

I am sorry. I thought you were talking about explosive bombs rather than incendiary devices. Could be that the point was to kill people directly and quickly rather than hope that arson on a building or vehicle would take its toll eventually. Are you under the impression that Molotov cocktails are flung at people in an attempt to kill them?

Have you ever made or used one? It might be a bit more tricky than you imagine.

But since you think its so simple and comparable to gun use, would you care to explain why people go to great lengths to obtain guns if they can't get them easily but hardly ever make Molotov cocktails in their own garage much less actually make use of them?

 

[RolandtheHeadless]

I doubt you could generalize about all cases, but one common explanation may be that guns -- and black "assault rifles" and handguns especially -- are so glamorized in the movie and game media that these killers think they're the cool thing to use.

Note that all these recent mass killers are young males in their teens or early twenties.

I don't want to go into how a Molotov cocktail could be used in a classroom, but if you can't figure it out you've got less imagination than you've shown so far.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

I don't want to go into how a Molotov cocktail could be used in a classroom, but if you can't figure it out you've got less imagination than you've shown so far.

This might surprise you, but I too don't want to go into situations that exist mostly as a figment of your imagination. Its nothing to base any law on.

And no, I don't think movie glamorization of guns has nearly as much to do with their frequent use in murder as a host of other things. In fact, I believe the TV news which reports real use of guns with no attempt at glamorization has more to do with the choice.

The gun is extremely powerful. Its obvious to all but those who work overtime trying to obfuscate the issue. Guns have range. They have speed in the fact of how many single attacks you make in a short space of time. They are very easy to use, so easy, that even little children have managed to kill themselves and others with them with absolutely no training whatsoever. Guns are durable. They are relatively common. They do not require much motion to implement (unlike with a sword) which aids surprise attacks and again, make them easy to use. All you really need to wield one is enough strength to carry one. But even that is not necessary. You could lay one on the table and kill someone or yourself if strength is an issue.

They are quite simply too powerful and too easy to use to allow a populace of untrained, unvetted people to have them just because they have a clean back round.

Now I know you are about to hit me with a bunch of fresh "what-ifs", but seriously I wish you would refrain and just deal with the facts. Because you know as well as I that all your what-ifs will be countered by all the developed countries in the world that did not experience your doomsday predictions for implementing solid gun control.

 

[Tim Roberts]

Roland, it seems to me that you have as many questions about gun control as many of us do, but i think you need to get your frustration under wraps because it is not clear what stance you are taking. The beauty of a forum is that you can just as well take a stance as you can have an open discussion of the issues involved. I think you are trying to do both at the same time, neither effectively.

If we are serious about finding resolution on this issue, we can't bleed into other aspects of society and make them another focus of cause and blame. We may, and probably can not solve the problem entirely, but the best step might be the smallest one. It is clear that the gun laws of the usa need to be changed, but aiming for a complete solution is also probably never going to happen. Any changes to the gun laws that results in better outcomes is a positive step forward. Each step taken is worthwhile, no matter how small or specific. I hope that the usa comes up with a plan that will take many steps. What i do have a problem with are people that say that nothing needs to be done and nothing should change in the usa.

 

[RolandtheHeadless]

My position is:

We don't need to put more gun laws on the books until we make reasonable efforts (and spend the money) to enforce the ones we have. New laws shouldn't be enacted just to placate fear and hysteria, if they won't do much to stop the problem and are just going to be laxly enforced.

From 1994 - 2004, we had a ban on "assault weapons" and high-capacity (over ten rounds) magazines in the US. During that period, in 1999, we had the worst mass shooting ever to occur in a high school, at Columbine High in Colorado. Two mentally disturbed students killed and wounded a bunch of their classmates using non-banned firearms and HOME-MADE BOMBS.

My niece was a student at Columbine at that time, and my brother and his wife were among the distraught parents waiting outside the school as the authorities carried out the dead and wounded. Fortunately, his daughter was safe and unharmed. My brother, who doesn't own any guns, doesn't think guns are the problem. He recognizes that mental illness and lack of parental responsibility are the problems. Those two killers were too young to legally have access to guns.

You can see in Zorro's post an example of someone seeking solutions out of fear. He's not familiar with guns, he didn't grow up around them or learn to handle them safely, so he's scared of them.

He really ought to be scared of all the dangerous people we have running around lose, particularly since President Reagan gutted government funding for the mentally ill and turned lots of them loose on the streets.

I'd favor some new gun laws (closing loopholes in background checks, safety training, making adults responsible for failing to secure their guns), but it makes no sense to me to add new laws when we're not enforcing the ones we already have.

 

[Tim Roberts]

I of course, being from Australia, have heard a lot about the Columbine shooting. Is it known however, how they got access to the weapons? The making of bombs probably either came from the internet or from an associate through which they acquired the guns. I agree that gun laws on their own won't solve the problem, but did you ever hear about the Port Arthur massacre here in Australia in 1996, killing 35, wounding 23, of whom some were children?
Port Arthur massacre (Australia) - Wikipedia [I googled it in case you are wondering] It came at a time, much like it was in the Usa and all over the world, when not just gun violence, but violence of all kinds were escalating. Within weeks, our government acted to ban all automatic and semi-automatic weapons, instituted a gun buy back program and required that all firearms be only single shot (no 6-shooters). The over-arching philosophy was not to limit the right to bare firearms, it was to enforce responsible gun ownership. Two additional features of the legislation required the attainment of a gun license provisional to the completion of a firearms training course, and each registered weapon must be housed in an approved, child-proof locker. People whinged and complained about it at the time, but there is no one now that will say it didn't work. People began shopping for other forms of personal protection, which gave rise to a burgeoning 'personal security' movement, a seemingly subtle difference. There was some gun violence that persisted for a while, but the laws made it possible for authorities to free up their resources to target these incidents more effectively. And so began a series of changes that led to the tightening of the web on both illegal firearms and gun crime. Now, our only source of gun crime comes from organised crime gangs in the more lucrative drug trade, but even they only amount to a small handful of incidents each year, not often resulting in death, and extremely rarely involving innocent bystanders. People have gotten the message. I cannot recall a single bomb incident in recent years, and the only serious forms of violent crime we face now, are teenage/young adult gang violence (mostly crafted knives), and family/spousal violence (physical abuse). The most salient problem our youth face in the current climate, is substance abuse, and almost all violence that does occur involves drugs and alcohol.

We are able to live in a country not concerned with mass killings and frequent violence as a direct result of these laws, the confidence of parents and their children being able to enjoy a free, safe and non-violent lifestyle is very high, and none of us are strangers to each other, nor afraid to be. I have been to the Usa and Canada, and the thing i found over there very quickly was how shocked people were that i had no reservations about coming up to them just to have a friendly chat or to ask directions. If i wasn't wearing any identifying Australiana attire, they would initially treat me as though i was looking for an angle to find an advantage over them or rob them (more often than not, but admittedly only in the cities). You certainly can't do that in Detroit and New York. I love Los Angeles by the way. Canada is different, and kinder in ways.

The gun laws here made a big difference, and i am not saying the same dynamic exists in America, but clearly some room for improvement exists in current law and enforcement strategies. I also agree that it will take more than gun laws to change the culture of violence in the Usa, but you aren't gonna have much luck trying to convince teens not to carry hand weapons, if their older peers are using assault weapons, shotguns.. and bombs.

America needs to take a drastic stand, starting with gun laws, but going well beyond it, if it plans to put violent crime on the ropes. If the Usa as a nation continues to biquer about what are responsible gun laws and what difference its all going to make, nothing will change. They will take 2 steps forwards, and 3 steps back (I imagine that is similar to what happens when someone draws a gun on you).

In fact, Australia's only real problem with violent crime, is that we don't experience any. Yet, we are a very resilient nation of people.

 

[RolandtheHeadless]

The USA is not Australia. We won our freedom by force of arms -- mostly firearms -- not by groveling to the British until they deigned to set us free.

One big difference between the US and Australia (and I've debated this with a couple of AU friends) is that we have a Bill of Rights included in our Constitution. In your country, a tyrannical majority, totalitarian government, or tyrant can take away individual rights, including the fundamental human right to self-defense. Thus, I consider your country and Britain to be human-rights violators.

In the US, our Bill of Rights protects individuals from tyrants and majorities who would take away our rights. Our Second Amendment assures us of the right to keep and bear arms for self and collective defense.

You admit you still have criminals and gangs with guns and knives. Against criminals, a gun is an equalizer. It makes a woman or elderly person the equal of a young 250-pound home intruder, murderer, or rapist. Your people may prefer to just lie down and be victims, but we do not. Every year, thousands of Americans protect themselves or their homes with guns. Several personal crime incidents in my youth convinced me that every home should be protected by a gun.

The police can't protect you. By the time they arrive at the scene, it's almost always too late. They'll look for your killer or rapist, but they won't protect you from the crime.

 

[nahadef]

I'm happy to be in Japan, and not America. It's not worth it.

Do Armed Civilians Stop Mass Shooters?
Do Armed Civilians Stop Mass Shooters? Actually, No. | Mother Jones

 

[Mark of Zorro]

I am in complete awe of the number of frankly insane notions you are stubbornly hanging onto in defense of your precious guns Roland. Its pathological.

You can see in Zorro's post an example of someone seeking solutions out of fear. He's not familiar with guns, he didn't grow up around them or learn to handle them safely, so he's scared of them.

If I feared guns I would doggedly advocate getting rid of all of them from civilian hands. I don't. I went into detail about how I favor a requirement to be a member of a private local gun club to handle licensing and registration and storage of firearms. I hinted that the security that would provide would be such that I would support fully automatic weapons being owned by civilians.

And you equate that with a fear of firearms?? The first gun I ever fired was a stub-nose .38. I was 9 years old. Second to shooting bow, one of my main hobbies was shooting my pellet gun. Later I found an old rifle in my grandfather's closet after he died (he had to hide it as the women in my family were very anti-gun), but I was allowed to keep and shoot that. My father gave me a pistol when I was about 15. My mother kept a pistol after she divorced my abusive step-father. I grew up in West Virginia where gun shots could be heard on a daily basis during hunting season and quite often during all the year as people were target practicing in their own yards. Yet I still went for walks in the woods, where I myself would target practice. I was once shot at as some local hillbillies confused me with bigfoot. I was once robbed at the store I worked at. I asked the guy to stop pointing the pistol at me, because it was not necessary. I did not freeze with fear. I took charge.

No dude, I am not afraid of guns. I am concerned about nuts with guns. There is a huge difference. And while I never accused you of being a nut, you are doing a good job of making yourself look like one.

we had the worst mass shooting ever to occur in a high school, at Columbine High in Colorado.

It is this sort of misleading sentence that exposes how selfish and desperate you are. Why else would you feel the need to specify "high school"? What about hospitals, colleges, parks, hell, ANYWHERE else?? And do you know how many mass shooting deaths were prevented by the assault weapons ban? Of course you don't! Nobody does! Nobody can say what was prevented by any law, and only a retard would think its really possible.

So would you advocate repealing all laws on murder as murder still happens? Would you argue that since some murders still happen, that laws on murder are useless? Of course not! Only a retard would think way! But when it comes to guns, you suddenly turn retarded! Why is that?

Two mentally disturbed students killed and wounded a bunch of their classmates using non-banned firearms and HOME-MADE BOMBS.

This is also misleading and selfishly desperate. No one at Columbine was killed by a bomb. I don't even know if anyone was injured. All were killed with guns. The overwhelming majority of injured were injured by guns, if not all. Two of the bombs failed to explode. Why? Because its hard to make bombs! Its easy to shoot a gun! I know of a pipe-bomb that did explode at Columbine. As far as I know, no injuries. And if there were? Who cares! Injured is nothing compared to dead!

Yes, the assault weapon ban did not prevent the Columbine Massacre. Can you name any law that ever 100 percent prevented anything ever? OF COURSE YOU CAN'T! A real lawyer would know that!

The police can't protect you. By the time they arrive at the scene, it's almost always too late. They'll look for your killer or rapist, but they won't protect you from the crime.

This is true. Its as true as your own gun being used against you.

You keep retardedly arguing absolutes, as if one will be absolutely safe from death or harm if they just carry a gun. Its NOT true. Gun free societies are are more safe from death. And what is harm compared to death?

Even so, given the complications of America being armed to the teeth, I forwarded a proposal which would allow you to keep your damned guns. But you just turned your back on it with a mutter about the constitution.

I have not called you a gun nut before. But dude, the evidence just keeps piling up! Why else would you diss legislation aimed at making sure nuts don't have guns? Are you concerned you won't make the cut?

---------- Post added at 09:38 ---------- Previous post was at 09:15 ----------

In the US, our Bill of Rights protects individuals from tyrants and majorities who would take away our rights. Our Second Amendment assures us of the right to keep and bear arms for self and collective defense.

One minute you swear words on paper protect no one. Next minute you swear its the ultimate protection! You are more conflicted than a cartoon cow advertising T-bone steaks!

 

[Tim Roberts]

The USA is not Australia. We won our freedom by force of arms -- mostly firearms -- not by groveling to the British until they deigned to set us free.

One big difference between the US and Australia (and I've debated this with a couple of AU friends) is that we have a Bill of Rights included in our Constitution. In your country, a tyrannical majority, totalitarian government, or tyrant can take away individual rights, including the fundamental human right to self-defense. Thus, I consider your country and Britain to be human-rights violators.

In the US, our Bill of Rights protects individuals from tyrants and majorities who would take away our rights. Our Second Amendment assures us of the right to keep and bear arms for self and collective defense.

You admit you still have criminals and gangs with guns and knives. Against criminals, a gun is an equalizer. It makes a woman or elderly person the equal of a young 250-pound home intruder, murderer, or rapist. Your people may prefer to just lie down and be victims, but we do not. Every year, thousands of Americans protect themselves or their homes with guns. Several personal crime incidents in my youth convinced me that every home should be protected by a gun.

The police can't protect you. By the time they arrive at the scene, it's almost always too late. They'll look for your killer or rapist, but they won't protect you from the crime.

You have no idea what you are talking about, but you certainly have revealed yourself to be a rock on the face of a volcano.. its funny how you privileged few [Americans] never get it. WE DON'T NEED GUNS to fight! (or bare our arms)

Wouldn't it be awesome if we had mini-nukes to throw at each other. BUT I DONT F***ING LIKE YOU! As long as we don't quite destroy each other, its all good. Are you serious?

I bet you sleep with a shotgun under your pillow. Why would you fire it anyway? And Roland.. you clearly don't listen to anyone else than yourself. But hey, don't let it end that way!

I understand though, you are not to blame for being born into your reality, nor taking the time to understand yours is not the only one, nor to understand that you can choose to do whatever you like as long as you aren't accountable for it, but wait, you're not, my bad. Where did you come from anyway? The human race?

Where to from here? I have a brilliant idea! NOWHERE!

 

[RolandtheHeadless]

I'm happy to be in Japan, and not America. It's not worth it.

Do Armed Civilians Stop Mass Shooters?
Do Armed Civilians Stop Mass Shooters? Actually, No. | Mother Jones

I don't recall saying anywhere that armed civilians are the solution to mass shootings. I don't carry a gun to do the job of the police; I carry it to protect myself and family from two- and four-legged predators when the cops aren't around.

Nevertheless, I did read your article. The author dismisses cases where the armed citizen did stop the shooters because the former were ex-cops and police officers. Well, yeah -- these people are among the civilian population and are better-trained in firearms. The author also says the shootings were finished when the shooters were stopped. Yes, of course they were -- the shooters were stopped.

The author's own data shows that the number of cases where shooters were stopped outnumber the two incidents where the armed civilians were killed or injured. Finally, the author can cite no cases where the armed citizen injured any third parties or interfered with the police.

My conclusion is that this author's conclusions aren't supported by his own data, and therefore his opinions are biased. Not surprising, since Mother Jones is a far-left organization that has long opposed gun-ownership.

It's curious that since the 2004 "assault weapons" ban was ended, violent crime has gone down in the US. And it's gone down further in the last few years as states have relaxed their concealed-carry laws. FBI — Violent Crime

These statistics by themselves don't establish any causal link, but they are interesting and tend to belie any claim that an armed citizenry cause more violence.

But to emphasize it again: I don't think armed civilians are the solution to mass shootings (though I'd certainly rather be armed than unarmed if I have to face one). And I don't think teachers should carry guns -- too much chance of a student getting his hands on one. I think schools should be protected by metal detectors and armed security guards, just as we now protect our government buildings. It's a shame we've come to that, but here we are.

 

[nahadef]

It's a shame we've come to that, but here we are.

I can agree with that.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

It's curious that since the 2004 "assault weapons" ban was ended, violent crime has gone down in the US. And it's gone down further in the last few years as states have relaxed their concealed-carry laws. FBI — Violent Crime

If you could just drop your EXTREME bias for half a second you would find its NOT curious at all.

The violent crime rate in the U.S. had been on a steady decline since 1991, INCLUDING the ENTIRE time the assault weapons ban was in force. What IS curious is that you act like it should have risen during that period but it DIDN'T. It dropped massively.

Now we have hit a plateau...in the last few years...since conceal carry laws have been relaxed and the AWB is gone. A PLATEAU.

This son is what is known as a GRAPH. You will astutely note that it includes more than just a beginning and end of something I wish to prove. It is very COMPREHENSIVE.



You can CLEARLY see violent crime rates dropping just before and SINCE the assault weapons ban of 1994.

But lets look at something very important. The crack epidemic lasted from 1984 to 1990. Does that match up with anything? Why yes it does! It matches up perfectly with the rise and fall of the violent crime rate!

At the very worst, the assault weapons ban did not do a DAMNED THING. Even at that, I would call it a victory. Why? Because it dispels all the crazy, wild doomsday predictions of GUN NUTS quite clearly.

And its still DEATH we are really worried about, despite your constant attempts to make this about violent crime, which is a strawman and further sand you try to throw in our eyes.

Kids DIE. You just make excuses to keep your precious guns. And what is really bad is that you don't even have to! What most people want is just a sane situation, even with the guns. But you just fight everything tooth and nail in your paranoia. Why can't you just chill, and work with the gun control advocates to make sure only sane people have guns? Why must you fight every single thing no matter how insane you appear?

The only answer I have is that you really are, and you are scared $#!TLESS people will find out, and take away your guns.

Edit: Above where I say sane and insane, I don't mean clinically. I mean people who are trained and vetted and deemed responsible enough to own a gun....or not.

 

[RolandtheHeadless]

Some people argue that guns should be registered. Some states and localities already have this requirement, and the following current story shows why gun-owners oppose such steps.

New York Journal News Publishes Gun Owners' Names In Westchester, Rockland Counties

To summarize, these local governments require that all handguns be licensed and registered. A newspaper demanded a list and map of such owners as public information, and published the names, addresses, and locations of all gun-owners in those communities.

So now a criminal knows exactly where he might be able to steal a gun.

He knows who doesn't have any home protection and will be easy victims.

If he has a grudge against a judge or law enforcement officer, he knows right where to find them.

And aren't homeowners without guns now realizing that their vulnerability has been published? If I were one, the first thing I'd do is rush out and buy a gun.

 

[Tim Roberts]

The publishing of gun ownership information sounds kinda stupid. Why would you want to allow a criminal to have access to that sort of info?

Gun registration however, is necessary for accountability, and i am actually shocked that you are telling us that it is not required in all states. If the usa was serious about gun laws and violent crime, they'd impose federal legislation. I understand why some special persons and organisational bodies would want to have some exemption, but why on earth does anyone need something more than a single shot firearm? That's messed up big time. Those gun laws are a bad joke.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

It actually was not necessary to open a thread to have a conversation with yourself Roland.

There are lots of reasons why there should not be a database of gun ownership, but that is not really an inherent problem of licensing and registration.

And that is why I suggested licensing and registration be done locally at gun clubs equipped for those purposes.

He knows who doesn't have any home protection and will be easy victims.

Of course by home protection I imagine you can only think of having a gun. Sure seems that way.

Might be safer just to have a dog or two. Then there is making sure all doors and windows are secure, having a locksmith rekey your locks, bars on 1st floor windows, starting or getting involved with a neighborhood watch, buying a burglar alarm, having a safe, installing security cameras, etc, etc.

I admit I would buy a gun if I needed security for right now or tonight. But I would probably get rid of it once I had done some of the above. The gun is quick and easy. It is NOT the safest or the best. How many kids have been killed by dad's gun?

 

[RolandtheHeadless]

Sorry if I offended Australian sensibilities, but our history and culture are very different from yours. More importantly, our mythology is different from yours. Mythology is never to be dismissed; you can tell a lot about a culture by its mythology.

My understanding is that AU was settled solely by British (mainly convicts) and without guns. The US was settled by various European super-powers (England, France, Spain) who were warring on our lands for a couple of centuries. You blokes didn't have these various Europeans invading your land and killing your people.

AU didn't have large populations of hostile Natives. At least I don't recall hearing of many aboriginal massacres of white settlements there.

AU didn't have any large dangerous animals to contend with. A grizzly would make mince-meat out of a pack of dingos.

Our mythology includes the citizen minuteman who would grab his rifle to fight for independence against the Brits and their brutal German mercenaries; the west-bound pioneer who needed guns to contend with Indians and animals; the sheriff who cleaned up crime-ridden towns; the cowboy who used his six-gun to drop runaway horses and ornery steers; and the armed citizens who still use guns to defend themselves against criminals.

You will NEVER get Americans to think like Australians. The number of guns in private ownership here is 270,000,000 -- almost one for every member of our population, man, woman, and child. Guns in the United States: Facts, Figures and Firearm Law

Ban all but one-shot firearms?!! That sounds so absurd to me that I can hardly figure out where to respond. Carry a one-shot weapon in grizzly country? I know the old mountain men did that, but that's only because they didn't have repeaters. Limit personal defense guns to one-shot? Why don't you tell the police to do that, and see how far you get. What do you do with multiple assailants or some meth-crazed attacker who doesn't even feel your first shot?

I was raised with guns and have been handling and shooting them for almost four decades. To me, a gun is a tool for meat-hunting, sport, and defense -- to be respected, yes, but no more inherently dangerous than a chainsaw or automobile. Mr. Roberts, you and I will probably never understand the other's perspective.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

To me, a gun is a tool for meat-hunting, sport, and defense -- to be respected

Its all about you. Don't let anyone ever try to tell you any different. Its not about the other people getting massacred. Its about you!

no more inherently dangerous than a chainsaw or automobile.

Tell ya what! You can have both but nothing more. I get an AR-15, stock, along with any attachments and ammo I can find legally in stores, but nothing more. Duel to the death at Salt Flats.

Tim, please don't bring up bans any more. Its really pointless and feeds Roland straw men. Gun control is not synonymous with banning things, but he will keep acting like it is as long as you use the word ban. Try a word like "restricted" out for size, because in many places, that is actually what is going on. They say guns are banned in Japan, but they aren't. They are restricted. Roland could potentially get a shotgun and rifle here, but it would take time.