Nebraska

[Chazz Layne]

99% of people are respectful, rational folks - but in CA, our 1% is a huge number...

I would also venture to think it is a bit higher than 1%. Something about cities seems to attract most of those folks, and something about countryside seems to push most of those folks away. Its probably something more like 10% in urban areas and .001% out in the boonies (which is why I left).

[cruiserlarry]

I would also venture to think it is a bit higher than 1%. Something about cities seems to attract most of those folks, and something about countryside seems to push most of those folks away. Its probably something more like 10% in urban areas and .001% out in the boonies (which is why I left).

I'd say the percentages are the same - you just are able to identify and isolate the 1% when your area population is 2,000...as opposed to 5 million...I've spent time in some areas of the southeastern United States that seem to still be in the early stages of human development, so I would say its hard to generalize - there are plently of completely disfunctional small towns in this country, too

[Chazz Layne]

...I've spent time in some areas of the southeastern United States that seem to still be in the early stages of human development

[DaveK]

Larry:

I believe that I am now beginning to understand what is going on here. There are at least 4 major misconceptions I need to address.

1. The first is contained in your comment that, “the larger the numbers of people involved, the more likely you'll have more regulations to keep things civil.” If you and I are in agreement that we already are burdened with far too many laws in California, then we can state, in unison, that we don’t need any more. Civility will not be enhanced or improved with more laws. Please NOTE that at no time have I suggested that we don’t need laws, we just have enough and we have for many decades. Therefore, if we have enough and crime continues to rage on, then OBVIOUSLY, the solution lies elsewhere. The answer is simple, but it is not education. While I do not believe that the legal system in California is broken, it certainly needs some serious repairs. When it takes 10 years for the legal system to process the endless appeals in a death sentence case, justice is not served. We have a legislature and a court system that have run this state into the ground and whose solution to our economic woes is to release prisoners before their sentence is up. We have people who want to excuse an admitted child molester from prosecution but want to lock up innocent people who want to buy some ammunition. Is there really any question where our problems lie?????? The solution is the essence of simplicity, enforce existing laws, do so swiftly, and punish the bad guys.

2. The second is contained in your comment that, “ [it is ridiculous] to be allowed to own as many guns as you's like”. The problem we have here is that this kind of thinking leads to governmental limitations on how many things we are allowed to have. To impose such a regulation would be as ridiculous as the argument that you should not be allowed to own as many cars as you want, or own as many GPS units for your FJ as you want, or own as many ham radios as you want. Once we start letting someone else determine what we want, like or need, we have lost it all. It is no one’s business but mine how many of anything I own. Please note that even in California, there are no limits, as you seem to want.

3. The third misconception is contained in your comment, “Laws will deter some bad guys from further evil”. Name one.


4. The fourth misconception is contained in your statement that, “no easy solution will solve this dilemma, and much discussion is still needed, by rational, informed people, to work a fair compromise to those who choose to keep firearms, and for those who do not.” We must be consistent. We cannot agree we have enough laws and then state that we need more compromises from gun owners to solve the crime problem. By your own admission, more laws are not the answer. Gun owners are not the problem. We don’t need to compromise anymore. Enforce the law, do so swiftly, and punish the bad guys.


Oh, and by the way, my retirement is doing just fine, thank you for asking! As far as cats are concerned, I believe there should be a limit (just for you, Larry)

John: you are my new hero - those were great videos.

[Chazz Layne]

I had the same experience in Utah a few weeks ago. I may move to Arizona when my kids are off to college. Not just for the guns, but the business climate.

It is cheaper for me to have an AZ corporation and drive across the river for work than it is to do business as a CA corporation.

[cruiserlarry]

Dave -

There are no misconceptions in my statements - just opposing, defensible arguments; while we agree on the basics, we disagree on the causes and solutions.

As luck would have it (yours, not mine ) my page long rebuttal to the statements you presented just vaporized when I hit the "submit" button (do I smell conspiracy here ? ), and I'm way too tired to bullet point this again in detail.

We agree there are too many laws, in general. We agree that law enforcement and the judiciary need to do their part to make enforcement of law functional. And, I think that we need to overhaul current laws to allow for swifter, more effective, more rational enforcement. We will continue to differ on the causes of our current situation regarding the plethora of laws on the books (which goes way beyond just second amendment issues - virtually every facet of regulation is overwritten and under-enforced).

But, I am surprised how some folks who are not happy with the current state of laws and enforcement are so firmly against the discussion of solutions between educated, informed, and rational parties on both sides. You've commented on statements I didn't make; whether compromise is required needs to be discussed - but an unwillingness to discuss leads to no change. By your own admission, we have too many bad laws; so blanket enforcement is not the answer -we need to rewrite the laws to be fair to those who choose to bear arms, while not infringing on the safety of the general public, or those who choose not to bear arms.

When talking about firearms, we are talking about a product whose only purpose is to kill; so to compare it to a GPS or other product regarding regulation is to undermine your argument; and all illegal firearms were once legal firearms, so the more are available, the more that are available to criminals isn't a misconception, it's math.

Oh, geez, my fingers are tired....

[BorregoWrangler]

John: you are my new hero - those were great videos.

Those are both true and hilarious, John! Too bad the second one was presented by those @$$h0l3s, Penn and Teller.

Thanks.

Dude, how'd you get your avatar so big?

[ssc]

Larry the same thing happened to me. I guess it was a long post--to the point, please don't say all firearms are for killing-not true. I have travelled the world with guns and have shot competition matches. Look up USPSA, IPSC,trap, skeet, hi power, bianchi cup, bullseye, camp perry, sass and you will see the shooting sports are alive. We even have shooting sports in the olympics.

Yes, some guns are utilized for self defense and to stop a threat and to do bodily harm, but to say their only purpose is to kill is not accurate. I know of many people who are alive today or not the victim of violent crime due to the fact that they were armed at the right time--Myself included and I had my daughter with me. Suffice it to say the bad guys didn't do so well.

Regards, Steve

[cruiserlarry]

Steve -

I understand about sport shooting; despite the specialization of certain weapons for sport, all firearms are based on the original premise - to kill. Race cars aren't worth a crap as a daily driver, but cars were designed to be modes of transportation. Sport shooters, like race car drivers, are not a threat to the general population. But all drivers are required to be educated, trained, and licensed - I think the same should be required to own firearms.

I'm not against sport shooting; I'm not anti-gun. I'm anti-fanatic, and anti-irrational. I have great respect for your ability, and for those who are trained to properly handle firearms. But most who buy firearms, hoard ammunition, and panic about the "government" coming to take away their weapons are not as well trained and well informed as you and Dave. Most gun crimes that occur in this country are crimes of passion, and not self defense. That is my problem - the ease with which any person can quickly escalate a bad situation into a fatal one in a moment of irrational, emotional instability. The argument that proper regulation and enforcement won't help is nonsense - this can be seen in every other civilized country in the world. Crime happens everywhere - but crimes involving fatal shootings rarely happen anywhere but here.

A neighbor who collects tons of stamps is no threat to my family; if they choose to hoard video games, I'm not going to have to look over my shoulder; but if that neighbor feels the need to stockpile arms and ammunition for possibility of some imaginary threat, I've got a big problem - one that just being armed in response won't eliminate, but likely escalate. I understand that some people feel the need to protect themselves and their family members by having a firearm at the ready - and I think a trained, educated, licensed person should be allowed to. Stockpiling a personal militia in the privacy of your own home - I'm not OK with that.

No system is failsafe; and hard-core criminals cannot be stopped. If all gun owners where as concerned about safety and had the respect for firearms that you do, there would be no problem.

I respect your right to own a firearm - but I remain concerned about a lot of folks out there who don't respect the firearms they own...

[unwiredadventures]

We agree there are too many laws, in general. We agree that law enforcement and the judiciary need to do their part to make enforcement of law functional. And, I think that we need to overhaul current laws to allow for swifter, more effective, more rational enforcement. We will continue to differ on the causes of our current situation regarding the plethora of laws on the books (which goes way beyond just second amendment issues - virtually every facet of regulation is overwritten and under-enforced).

These laws are supposed to make us safer. Keep guns out of the hands of criminals. But there are too many cases of otherwise law abiding citizens who unfortunately find themselves on the other side of poorly written laws or overly aggressive prosecutors.