Nebraska

[cruiserlarry]

Wow - There are so many blanket assumptions in those arguments that I can't possibly take the time to respond to them - so all opposing views to any type of gun regulation must be perpetrated by "statists" is the brunt of each statement, which is just not based in fact. Very black and white; we have a society where some functions are the responsibility of the government to take care of for the citizenry - and as a democracy (at least in theory) WE ARE THE GOVERNMENT.

We have a problem with gun violence in this country that is real, whether you choose to see it, or explain it away doesn't change that fact. Seen a drive-by knifing lately ?

I am very tired of some propaganda by the gun lobby, and many who seem to support it verbatum, that anyone looking to control gun violence and regulate gun ownership is anti-gun. In the same light, many perpetuate the paranoid fear that some individual or government is going to knock on your door and confiscate your arsenal is not based in reality - even the anti-gun lobby is not interested in a government coup, and I'll be the first to stand with a legal gun owner in the far removed possibility that this could occur. Yet I failed to see any of this vocal minority of fear mongers scream when wiretapping, incarceration, and searches without warrants were authorized by our government in the name of "homeland security"; seems to me that was the closest we've ever been in this country to sacrificing our rights to the whim of the government, and yet to argue against it was "unpatriotic". This is the inconsistency that permeates many elements of the gun-control debate. It is this fear-based thinking that creates many of the same gun-toting fanatics that all of us are trying to protect ourselves from - a vicious circle of fear and violence.

I really don't want to debate endlessly on a topic that does not elicit arguments based on the reality of world-wide statistics, from Canada, to Europe, and virtually any civilized country on this planet - all have more restrictive laws (but not necessarily less gun ownership), and lower instance of gun crimes. Canada is home to more firearms per person than the US, with 1/10th the population - they love to hunt and shoot - but almost no instances of gun crimes, even relative to population size. Same is true for the UK, and we could go on forever. They educate their children on gun usage and safety, regulate gun ownership, and they punish criminals better than we do.

I'll change no one's views here - no surprise - but I hope it causes a few to just consider that not everyone who is concerned about gun control is anti-gun - and the repetition of certain general arguments just doesn't help address the reality that gun crime is out of control in this country right now compared to anywhere else in the world - and owning a gun for self-defense, while completely acceptable, even to me, is still to have a false sense of security.

And Ken, while I was remiss by not citing studies for you with my last statements, here is one that is actually more relevant to the argument of arming for self-defense:

Title: Investigating the Link Between Gun Possession and Gun Assault

Publication Date: November 2009

This is a case-control study that looks at the relationship between being shot in an assault and possession of a gun at the time.

The most striking finding from the study is that individuals in possession of a gun were 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession. Among gun assaults where the victim had at least some chance to resist, the adjusted odds ratio increased to 5.5.

The study concludes that: “On average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault.”

The researchers wrote that possessors of guns may be in more, not less, danger for a number of reasons. Offenders may use surprise to overpower their victims, making it difficult to use a gun for self-defense. If a victim is able to draw a gun, it signals to the offender that he must use maximum force to overpower the victim. In addition, the increased possibility of guns being carried in the community may lead to an escalation in the lethality of weapons brought to an argument.

This is a relatively strong research design that looks at the specific risk factor of possessing a gun at the time of assault and is an improvement on previous studies. In addition, methods were used to simulate high levels of misclassification bias (i.e. results were analyzed several ways to allow for possibility of undetected gun possession) and still did not find any overall evidence for gun possession providing protection against assault.

I will let DaveK tear this up without rebuttal - I need something more upbeat to think about for a while - like BorregoFest

[cruiserlarry]

Licensing does not insure the person will be responsible. Licensed drivers break traffic laws all the time.

I'm a little surprised that this argument is still ever presented - it is moot.
The statement that a regulation or law can't be effective in a society because some will not adhere to it is not realistic or accurate - there are ALWAYS those who violate the law, be it driving, shooting, camping, campaigning, etc. Yet laws DO protect and serve for the benefit of MOST people within a given society.

[ki6kui]

Licensing does not insure the person will be responsible. Licensed drivers break traffic laws all the time.

I'm a little surprised that this argument is still ever presented - it is moot.

The reason this argument is still presented is because there still isn't a good answer for it. I have a driver's license but it in no way indicates I know the current traffic laws. I have renewed it online and by mail for over 20 years and have not taken a test to renew it. How effective is that type of licensing other than it creates government jobs and revenues to help pay for those jobs. Other types of licensing are similar, such as professional licensing.

I would assume that gun licensing would probably be more stringent given the political stature of gun control. However, the amount of manpower (government employees) and other resources it would take is probably not feasible in this current economic client.

Another problem with licensing is that it would need to be on a state-by-state basis. The tenth amendment has already been invoked by several states to keep the feds at bay on various issues including gun control. Unlicensed guns could still enter from a state that does not require licensing.

I am in favor of gun safety, and I don't think licensing is the best way to accomplish it.

[ki6kui]

The study you cited apparently isn't for public view. However, the abstract indicated it was a study of urban areas. This could skew the results as compared to other areas as well as the type of victim.

[cruiserlarry]

The study you cited apparently isn't for public view. However, the abstract indicated it was a study of urban areas. This could skew the results as compared to other areas as well as the type of victim.

Last time I checked, we both live in urban areas. While I'm concerned about the situation across the country, my primary concern, and the area where the problems are most prevalent related to guns and crime, are urban areas. (There should be no problems when your nearest neighbor is 10 miles away in farm country... )

[cruiserlarry]

The reason this argument is still presented is because there still isn't a good answer for it. I have a driver's license but it in no way indicates I know the current traffic laws. I have renewed it online and by mail for over 20 years and have not taken a test to renew it. How effective is that type of licensing other than it creates government jobs and revenues to help pay for those jobs. Other types of licensing are similar, such as professional licensing.

I would assume that gun licensing would probably be more stringent given the political stature of gun control. However, the amount of manpower (government employees) and other resources it would take is probably not feasible in this current economic client.

Another problem with licensing is that it would need to be on a state-by-state basis. The tenth amendment has already been invoked by several states to keep the feds at bay on various issues including gun control.
I am in favor of gun safety, and I don't think licensing is the best way to accomplish it.

Well, at least not licensing alone.
(What is it about licensing has gun owners so worried ? That paranoia that the government confiscate your arsenal in the night, or that the government will know who you are ? Too late. They know who you are. And based on the funding allotted most public programs, they don't really care who you are. )
So, I agree with you almost completely - current licensing standards, whether for a driver or a gun owner, are not up to snuff in assuring a reasonable and current knowledge of the laws and safe control of either cars or guns. I may be a lot of things, but I'm not a hypocrite - we need to substantially overhaul all of the laws that affect public safety, and that includes those for obtaining a driver's license. Again, most countries have much stricter regulations for drivers - and they allow for faster speeds, with lower insurance costs and fewer fatalities (adjusted for the difference in driving population). Better regulation, enforced efficiently, works.

Regarding the using tenth amendment to keep the Feds at bay, it may have worked for states so far for gun laws, if only because the government (despite the paranoia ) is more pro gun then given credit. Look at how ineffective this same argument has been in protecting state-legalized pot dispensaries, for whom the Feds have no respect at all - CA has been continually invaded by Federal forces despite several legal mandates from the citizens and the state courts.

[DaveK]

- so all opposing views to any type of gun regulation must be perpetrated by "statists"

We just call 'em as we see 'em.

I really don't want to debate endlessly on a topic that does not elicit arguments based on the reality of world-wide statistics, from Canada, to Europe

Everybody that wants to end up like England, France, Germany,China, or any of the others, raise your hand.

owning a gun for self-defense, while completely acceptable, even to me, is still to have a false sense of security.

Let's take a poll here. Everyone who thinks that having a gun for self defense, is false security, post up!

I will let DaveK tear this up without rebuttal

Yeah, right!

[ssc]

Larry,
I have tried to get some info on the article you referenced. I have not been able to do so. I tend to understand that articles can be slanted any way a journal decides. If this study refers to gangbangers attacking one another then I understand. However, I doubt it demonstrates criminals attacking your average lawabiding, armed citizen. It seems to indicate that everyone should be unarmed and submit to criminal attack in the conclusion. It seems to say one should submit to criminal attacks and one will be less harmed.

I can quote many articles and studies which say just the opposite. I have been the intended victim on at least 4 occassions and guess what kept me safe.

I remember all the articles and studies I had to read as a college student. My major was criminal justice option law enforcement. The actual studies up to today support certain conclusions: 1 areas with strict gun control, still have some of the highest rates of crime. 2 many areas with lax gun laws have less crime. I would refer you to the FBI crime statistics. If I can find it, there was a very liberal college professor who was all in favor of gun confiscation who wrote an article and did his own studies. He wasn't happy with his finding, but he published them. I wish I could remember his name. His conclusion was that most gun control laws did not have any negative effect on criminals nor did it lessen crime.

Laws only affect law abiding folks. You claim we have a problem with "gun violence." I think otherwise. I think we have a problem with violence and people who have no respect for the law nor are they responsible for their actions. What ever method they use to inflict damage on others is not the issue--it is an object; be it a gun, knife, car or penis.

Rape is a violent crime. The recidivism rate for rapists and child molesters is--according to studies I have read--60 to 70 percent. Yet we don't cut off all male organs--though I guess it might stop most rapes. Yet, the system keeps releasing these folks back into society as well as other dangerous criminals. Many are the times we read about crimes and the perp is a repeat offender or someone on parole. I know what I think should happen to these people, but none the less, the reality is that violent criminals are on the street and I refuse to be a victim.

A pet area for me is drunk driving. The carnage is substatial and outweighs gun violence. Every day families are turned upside down due to this action. People are killed and injured daily. The costs are extreme and it is easy to stop. The first offense --state prison 24 months, no discretion. DUI would drop by 95% tomarrow. I am not going after the car nor the alcohol, nor does this amount to govt infringing on my rights. I can still drink and get drunk. I can drive, but not while under the influence.

I use the same logic for gun laws. Don't intrude on my rights. Does this mean no laws--for me no. It must be a reasonable and rational and the least intrusive as possible. I can live with instant check when I buy a gun, but waiting ten days is ridiculous. Instant check takes a few minutes and verifies that I am not in the group of restricted people who are not allowed to have guns. If it was cash and carry, then it is conceivable that felons etc would utilize this method.

Hence, it isn't a gun issue, it is a people issue. We have bad people who need to be locked up. The criminal justice system does a terrible job. Reform is a joke. We need more people like Sherrif Joe Arpaio. --the guy who has chain gangs and makes the inmates where pink etc. It is time we had real criminal control not more useless gun control laws which don't affect crooks.

I still love you Larry

Regards, Steve

[cruiserlarry]

Steve-

There are plenty of other issues, all with many levels involved, but we were dealing with gun violence. Of course there is other violence, and all requires different regulation and enforcement. I'm not talking about crime like rape that usually have psychopathology attached to it (I have no problem with castration for repeat offenders, BTW), or drunk driving, which usually has a medical condition attached to it (I'm all for putting a breathalizer in EVERY SINGLE VEHICLE sold - we'd all be safer on the road, for very little personal inconvenience). Your statement for resolving the drunk driving issue goes against your own logic - criminals don't follow the law, so the punishment is not a deterrent. And with an alcoholic, 10 years in jail won't prevent that drink when he gets out, and back behind the wheel, so like your rape example, we're back to square one. My problem is if you get drunk you CAN drive - your judgment is absolutely altered, and you could make a bad decision, without being a criminal or having criminal intent. I'd rather keep you from making that decision - breath into your own, personal tube - if you're drunk, you CAN'T drive any car, and you and everyone else is safe (unless that makes you angry, and you pick up a gun ). I'm not condoning either crime, so let's not start a new debate - I'm just saying there are factors in the majority of cases that require different type of enforcement and punishment.

The fact that your life has been threatened 4 times is extraordinary - most people will never be in any type of life threatening situation that could require defensive action - but many over-arm for this remote possibility, without training necessary to effectively defend themselves in any situation. You are highly trained, and I'd guess,were in these situations as a result of professional service. You are not the problem.

Look, there is a lot of gray area in this debate. We can do this forever, and as I'm alone here, I don't have the time to rebut 4 or 5 responses for each statement I make. I don't even have to be on the same street as a shooter, let alone be the target, to get killed by a gun. No knife-wielding ninja-trained, golden-glove rapists can do that - so guns are different, regardless of how many arguments are presented to make them seem like any other "hobby" or defensive option we might have.

You are a good man, a skilled marksman, and a (relatively ) sane human; but I will continue to agree to disagree, and I'm positive you will too.

I'm done here - so you and Dave can finish preaching to the choir

[BorregoWrangler]

All we need now is a campfire, with favorite beverage in hand, to sit around and chat.