Not Wanting to Take Guns Away, But.....

[tekisui]

What is wrong doing our best to keep them out of the hands of mentally unstable people, those with a history of physical violence and children?

Why are people against legislation that would keep our children safe from accidental or intentional shootings by other children?

[atreides1]

1. As a gun owner

I don't have a problem with keeping guns out of the hands of convicted criminals or the mentally unstable.

[aikoaiko]

2. Most gun owners don't have a problem with either things, but quick access to

... firearms for self-defense is a legitimate concern.


There are mechanisms and legislation on the books to address those very concerns.

[Vickers]

3. I am a gun owner, and I agree. There are laws on the books

that address the very things you mention.

[marmar]

4. Nothing's wrong with it......and perhaps the laws should be tighter. There are still loopholes:

from the Minn. Star-Trib:


Minnesota gun control bill aims to close sales loophole
By BOB VON STERNBERG, Star Tribune

Last update: February 19, 2009 - 12:21 PM
Featured comment


Gun control advocates are taking another stab at changing a state law that allows people to buy handguns and assault rifles without a background check from unlicensed dealers.

A similar bill got nowhere in the legislature last year, but chief sponsor Rep. Michael Paymar, DFL-St. Paul, said he hopes tweaks in the bill's language will satisfy the measure's opponents.

"It's a good bill, a simple one designed to keep dangerous guns out of the hands of dangerous people," Paymar said.

The bill would close the so-called "gun show/Internet loophole." It would prohibit private sales of pistols or assault weapons unless the buyer or seller was a federally licensed dealer, or used a licensed dealer to transfer the weapon. That includes sales at garage and estate sales and over the Internet, which are currently exempt from background checks.

The bill is designed to block gun sales to convicted felons, people with a record of domestic abuse and those suffering from mental illness by requiring a background check that would reveal such people may not legally buy a gun, Paymar said.

Language in the bill that would have included private gun transactions between family members has been dropped from the legislation, he said.

The bill, which is to be introduced today, will be discussed at a news conference this afternoon held by Paymar, Citizens for a Safer Minnesota and the Peace Foundation of North Minneapolis.



http://www.startribune.com/politics/state/39844612.html?elr=KArksc8P:Pc:UHDaaDyiUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUU

[benEzra]

6. There is no such thing as a legal "unlicensed gun dealer."

All dealers must be licensed, per Federal law, and "engaging in the business of selling firearms" without obtaining a Federal dealer license is a felony. And all sales from ANY dealer require a Federal background check, approved ID, and BATFE Form 4473, whether the sale takes place at a gun shop, a gun show, or the dealer's front porch.

Most states allow private citizens with clean records to buy lawfully owned guns from other private citizens with clean records, but someone who sells repeatedly can be busted for violating the Gun Control Act.

[one-eyed fat man]

16. from the horse's mouth.........

The Firearms Branch of the BATFE maintains, with our tax money, a wonderful website full of good information.

Compare the lies and bullshit,..... "That includes sales at garage and estate sales and over the Internet, which are currently exempt from background checks." with this from the FAQ section of ATF P 5300.4 - Federal Firearms Regulations Reference Guide http://www.atf.gov/pub/fire-explo_pub/2005/p53004/index.htm

B. UNLICENSED PERSONS

(B1) To whom may an unlicensed person transfer firearms under the GCA?

A person may sell a firearm to an unlicensed resident of his State, if he does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law. A person may loan or rent a firearm to a resident of any State for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes, if he does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law. A person may sell or transfer a firearm to a licensee in any State. However, a firearm other than a curio or relic may not be transferred interstate to a licensed collector.

<18 U.S.C 922(a)(3) and (5), 922(d), 27CFR 478.29 and 478.30>

(B2) From whom may an unlicensed person acquire a firearm under the GCA?

A person may only acquire a firearm within the person’s own State, except that he or she may purchase or otherwise acquire a rifle or shotgun, in person, at a licensee's premises in any State, provided the sale complies with State laws applicable in the State of sale and the State where the purchaser resides. A person may borrow or rent a firearm in any State for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes.

<18 U.S.C 922(a)(3) and (5), 922(b)(3), 27CFR 478.29 and 478.30>

(B3) May an unlicensed person obtain a firearm from an out-of-State source if the person arranges to obtain the firearm through a licensed dealer in the purchaser’s own State?

A person not licensed under the GCA and not prohibited from acquiring firearms may purchase a firearm from an out-of-State source and obtain the firearm if an arrangement is made with a licensed dealer in the purchaser's State of residence for the purchaser to obtain the firearm from the dealer.

<18 U.S.C 922(a)(3) and 922(b)(3)>

"gunshow loophole" what does the ATF say?

(P16) Must licensees conduct NICS checks for sales of firearms to non-licensees at gun shows?

Yes. A licensed importer, manufacturer, or dealer may not transfer a firearm to a non licensee at a gun show without first complying with the requirements of the Brady law.

[ManiacJoe]

19. I see your confusion.

"Unlicensed person" does not equal "unlicensed dealer" but does equal "private seller".

Unfortunately, private sellers are currently prohibited from using the NICS checks.

[one-eyed fat man]

22. far from confused...........

I know the difference. What I was pointing out is that the claims about unregulated internet sales and that somehow the law does not apply at gun shows are bogus, false, prevarications, untruths or simply outright damned lies!

Now the standard about who is a 'dealer' is a little murky. In some states, for example, if you sell your car, there is no sales tax. On the other hand, if you sell some number of cars within some time period, the law presumes you are a "dealer" and must pay the sales taxes. (Remember, you don't have to collect the tax to make the government happy, just pay it.)

Very simplified, the Federal standard under GCA '68 is if you sell guns trying to make a profit, or if you sell guns across state lines, you need a license. The fact that you are lousy business man and didn't make a profit is no defense. The occasional INTRASTATE sale from a private collection is fine with the Feds as long as state laws are obeyed. Unlike the car example, above there is no corresponding Federal guideline that says if you sell some number of guns in some time period that the law presumes you are a dealer.

[ManiacJoe]

25. Thank you for the clarification.

[one-eyed fat man]

38. other requirements

Loosely, the Feds look at some element of business being involved. It doesn't have to be full time and transferring only one gun can be enough to qualify for needing a license for a transaction. Some examples, the Feds require pawn shops that take guns in pawn to have an FFL. They also must conduct NICS checks when an owner comes to redeem his own gun back, just as if he was buying it for the first time. If an owner had several guns pawned, they must also make the required reports to the local ATF office on multiple gun "sales" if he gets more than one of them out of hock at one time.

Depending on circumstances, gunsmiths, even those who only take in guns, repair them and return them to their original owners are required to hold an FFL.

Auctioneers may also be required to hold a license conducting estate sales involving firearms, depending on how the auctions are conducted.

All the details are on the ATF.gov website and in their publications so when some self-serving political hack gets on TV and makes the bald-faced lies about "unregulated sales" by unlicensed "dealers" or portrays a gun-shows as highly advertised conventions for criminals to sell illegal weapons to other criminals, it makes my blood boil. The dip-shit may as well claim that making you fill out a 4473 picking up a prescription at Walgreen's will stop the neighborhood crack peddler from selling dope to school-kids.

[benEzra]

5. Already current law, for the most part. Just not always implemented.

The Gun Control Act of 1968 bars anyone adjudicated mentally incompetent or involuntarily committed to inpatient mental health care from so much as touching a gun or a single round of ammunition, and the Lautenberg Act similarly prohibits anyone convicted of even a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence from owning or touching a gun. You are also automatically barred from gun ownership if you are subject to a domestic-partner restraining order.

Those things are all supposed to be entered into the Federal firearms background check database (NICS), but not all states do. We are working on that.

[Veritas_et_Aequitas]

7. I have bipolar disorder and to get a gun license, I had to get a letter from my doctor

attesting that I was under his care and that in his professional opinion I was not a threat to myself or society. At that point it was up to the state licensing board and my town's police chief if I were eligible for a license upon the completion of safety courses.

That's how it works in Massachusetts. I don't know about any other states.

[FudaFuda]

8. 18 USC 922

Google it. Federal law already exists. In addition to the 'prohibited persons' listed in section 922, there's also the "Lautenburg amendment" provision which prohibits gun ownership by any person convicted of a crime of domestic violence, and it's also unlawful for a person who is currently subject to a restraining order to possess firearms.

We've got more 'bans' against gun ownership in effect than most people realize.

[happyslug]

9. The problem is getting people with mental illness to seek treatment

Many people with mental illness do NOT seek help do to a fear that something will be taken away from them. It may be guns, cars, or something else. What has been found to be the best way to work around this problem has been to people seeking mental treatment that seeking mental treatment, being evaluated for mental treatment and even undergoing mental treatment will NOT be used against them in any legal forum, including their right to own a firearm.

Now, if the authorities found out about someone's mental condition INDEPENDENT of their seeking help, is a completely different story. In such cases the person can be involuntary committed and any psychiatric report is generated independent of the person seeking help. Such people's right can and are taken away, and other people with mental issue hear about these cases and worry that if they seek treatment that same thing will happen to them.

Thus the dilemma, how do you encourage people to seek help? Given that many people with mental problems are afraid of losing their rights if they seek help? The solution over the last 30-40 years has been to tell such people that, except for cases where the issue comes independent of seeking help, getting mental health treatment will NOT lose you any rights. To reduce the fear of seeking help, the Mental Health Community has even said it will apply the same rule to involuntary commitments UNLESS a court ruling is made in the case (i.e. involuntary treatment is also NOT permitted to be used against a person if the person agrees to treatment OR you are committed for more then three days in most states).

Firearms is a constant problem under the above, many people refuse to seek mental health treatment do to fear of losing their guns, since they never sought or was given any mental health treatment we have NO RECORD of them having any mental health problem. No Record of Mental Health problem, no grounds to take away their weapons (Or to deny them access to weapons). We have to encourage treatment and the best way to do so is to eliminate any fears (Real or Imaged) the person who needs help has, one way is to say we will treat them the same way as if they never sought treatment, i.e. no record released for any other purpose, for if they had NOT sought treatment no record would exist.

I know people want to use such records of mental health problems to deny people access to weapons, but how do we get such records without the cooperation of the person with mental health problems (Except in cases where such determination is made independent of the person seeking help)? The best way to get such people's cooperation is by telling them such cooperation will NOT be used against them, thus the best way to reduce such problems (getting people into mental health treatment) REQUIRES that mere seeking and getting help (and the evaluations based on seeking and getting help) can NOT be used in any way against what the person seeking help.

Firearms are just the tip of this problem (Automobiles are a bigger concern, but such accidents if it kills less then one to two people do NOT make national news) but it shows the problem. We need to encourage people to seek mental treatment, but if seeking and getting mental health treatment leads to a ban on that person regarding anything, that person will view that as a punishment and avoid seeking treatment. We have to encourage people seeking treatment, and a ban on using such treatment in regard to anything else, is the best way to encourage people to seek treatment (please note involuntary action are a separate issue, through related, but it is rare for such people to get firearms do to the criminal record tied in with the involuntary action).

[spin]

10. Existing law can be improved...

Information about people suffering from severe mental disorders needs to be entered into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).

Obama is in favor of computerizing medical records which might result in a better background check for firearm buyers.

But we may well see another big push for banning "assault weapons". It's always easy for politicians to pass "feel good" laws which make them look good but accomplish nothing. Many citizens are seeing the hypocrisy and demanding more focus on taking guns away from criminals, criminal gangs and people with severe mental problems.

[Paxton Uncensored]

11. I just cant seem to understand

how stricter gun laws will take weapons out of the hands of
criminals? 
all i can see it that the laws restrict law-abiding citizens,
because criminals are criminals for a reason, they do not
follow the law.

Please explain this to me.

I think that the only way that you can get the weapons out of
the hands of criminals is by enforcing the pre-existing laws.
Or by putting more law enforcement out there to seize the
illegal weapons.

[TheWraith]

13. No, but it can prevent unstable people from buying weapons legally.

The Virginia Tech shooter bought his handguns legally, after passing the NICS check, because it didn't filter for people with a history of diagnosed mental illness.

[Paxton Uncensored]

14. well shouldnt

they just make it so the NICS has to check for history of mental illness, instead of making a complete new law?

[TheWraith]

17. That's generally what's being proposed.

However, you need new legislation to amend the NICS check rules to include mental illness, as well as figuring out a way to keep a database of people determined to be mentally ill without it being a violation of medical privacy. Also we need to define what constitutes an unacceptably high risk in terms of illnesses. Obviously you wouldn't sell a gun to a paranoid schizophrenic, but what about someone with Obsessive Compulsive Disorder? And are there any conditions under which it can be said that somebody who has suffered mental illness has recovered enough to be trusted with a weapon? Those are the issues that need to be addressed in improving the NICS so that guys like the Virginia Tech shooter don't slip through the cracks.

[happyslug]

21. What is wrong with a paranoid schizophrenic and a firearm?

So someone is excessively paranoid (Afraid the Russkies are going to land any minute now) and have a trouble with logical thinking (The Russkies are invading to take my gun away). Unless you somehow enter his house WITHOUT his knowledge (and most people will not) he is not a harm to himself or others.

And what about a person with a Obsessive Compulsive Disorder? What if is obsessive compulsive is to keep his gun clean and guessed for use against the invading Russkies hordes? His Cleaning and greasing the gun is NOT causing anyone else any harm and again he is NOT a danger to himself or others.

The problem is the NICS does NOT need people with severe mental problems when such mental problems are NOT dangers to themselves or others. We do need it for people who are, but then who gets to decide that situation? It should be a Judge AND then only tell the person is stabilized (and that can happen quite quickly). Remember just because someone has a mental problem does NOT mean he or she is a danger to themselves or others. Right now, if a Judge has made such a ruling you are on the list (The Virginia Tech shooter should have been on that list, somehow he did NOT make it onto the list, mostly because the Psychiatrists kept saying he was NOT a danger to himself or others).

Furthermore, we have to make sure VOLUNTARY seeking of mental treatment does NOT come to be viewed as the quickest way to lose one's firearms, for if that becomes the case, many people who do NOT want to lose access to their firearms will NOT seek Treatment, and they need treatment. Just a word of concern when in comes to adding people with mental problems to the NICS, we must make sure what is done is NOT worse then what is going on now. We want people to seek mental health treatment. We do NOT want to put in their way any impediments to seeking such help, and any mandatory reporting of anyone being treated by the mental health professional is going to be viewed as threat by such mental health seekers. We have enough people NOT seek help do to fears, we do NOT need to create more.

Please note as I reported in my previous post, Cho, the Virginia Tech Shooter, had been INVOLUNTARY Committed for his actions on Campus, but it was NOT followed up by either the court that committed him, the hospital that treated him, or the consoling center he was referred to. The biggest problem was do to the lack of having access to his actions on Campus (Disturbing) his mental health treatment in Grade school and High School, his long history of mental problems and his various bad interactions with various teachers. All together these added up a person with severe mental health problems. Had a centralized record been available for all of these items, the danger signs would have come out on any computer program geared to look for such combinations. Once these other problems of the shooter been know to the court, the police, the hospital treating him, none of them would have called him what the Psychiatrists who last examined him called him.
mot a danger to himself or others".

[jeepnstein]

65. I have helped...

restrain a fellow who was convinced the "Ruskies" were invading. His world was complete with a chemical weapon attack, a fictional girlfriend held hostage by the KGB, and secret agent training. After we got him cuffed he kicked all the windows out of the cruiser with his bare feet. It would seem that Mr. Bond forgot to dress himself before heading out into -20F weather. No way, no how, do I ever want him to have a gun.

I also know a woman who went off her meds and was convinced that the Voice of God was telling her to offer up her son as a sacrifice. She built an altar in her kitchen and ran a butcher knife through her infant son's heart before his first birthday. Then she started walking down the road boldly proclaiming her victory over Satan. Even though heavily medicated she'll still tell you what she did was essential to the restoration of the Kingdom of God. No, I'm not loaning her my AR15.

Oh, and then there's the buddy I have who's getting a little help with his PTSD after multiple trips to Iraq and Afghanistan. He'll tell you if you don't have a touch of it after what he did then you're just not human. He's seeking the help voluntarily and as far as I can tell the government doesn't have a problem handing him a weapons system that indeed makes him the meanest killer on the battlefield. He can have the keys to my safe anytime. As if not having a gun would make him any less lethal.

Involuntary commitment for a mental health issue, NICS black flag. Voluntary enrollment in counseling, no problem assuming no other disqualifying conditions.

[happyslug]

20. You should read the report, on the Shooter, interesting,and questionable why he was NOT on any list.

The Virginia Tech shooter, Seung-Hui Cho, had had psychiatric problems since childhood. He had in Grade School, Middle School and High School good support from his family and the school, but lost both at about the same time (His parents worked long hours running a Dry Cleaner but had limited ability to speak English, his sister did most of the translation for the family, but as he finished High School she went off to Collage, then he graduated from High School and went to Collage and thus he lost his main connection to the rest of the world, his sister, just a few years before he lost the extensive support network provided by his High School.

In collage, he became even more withdrawn, and except for a brief time in high school was never put on any medication for any length of time (When he was hospitalized for his mental problems, he was given some medication but no indication that he ever took it afterward).

Some background on Cho:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Tech_massacre

To see the Actual Report issue by the State of Virginia on Cho and the shooting:
http://www.governor.virginia.gov/TempContent/techPanelReport.cfm

The real shocking part is that while Cho had been in front of a Master (acting as a Judge) in regards to his mental condition and that Master had recommend that he be committed, no one told his family. When he was released form his psychiatric care, he was told to go to his campus Consoling center for a follow up visits, but the campus consoling center only took the referral as a Voluntary act and when Cho stop going they told no one (There seem to be a complete breakdown in the exchange of data between the Hospital that kept Cho for three days and where he underwent his evaluation AND the Campus consoling center he was suppose to report to and seek further treatment, the Campus center had no paperwork from the Hospital nor the court and had no psychiatric at that time anyway).

Basically, Cho fell through the cracks in the system. Had he received the same level of treatment in collage he had received in High School, the shooting would never had occurred. Had the school informed his parents of their concerns, his parents would have stepped in a get him the treatment needed. Had the teachers just talk about him in a formal setting. his problem would have been seen, not as the one on one most of the teachers saw, but a consistent pattern of mal-adjustment and treatment would have been recommend. Had the courts, the Psychiatric hospital where he had been committed for a few days, and the campus consoling agency exchanged information, he would have been given a choice to seek treatment OR leave the campus (Either would have prevented the shooting).

Most of the above could be done by a centralized intake and data base. Such a database would have to be restricted to who has access (i.e. police who filed a similar complaint about the same person, get to see what else that person has been accused of, School administrators who want to know about a student they have a complaint about etc). I am of the opinion that in the effort to maintain everyone's privacy, we are NOT exchanging enough information about each other and thus NOT seeing the warning signs of future problems. Cho had reacted well to psychiatric treatment in High School, and should have been put back on them in Collage, but since no one had access to his high school records that he had treatment was NEVER found out by anyone (In fact Cho lied that he had NOT had treatment when he did). This is what is needed and a good debate on who should have access to the data base. Should the local police? Should the collage psychologist? Should the local courts (who can decided on a case by case basis who should have access)? The almost absolute bar we have now IS NOT WORKING, but the proposed opening of any and all records is also a bad idea (Quickest way to get people NOT to seek mental health treatment).

The best solution? I wish I knew, but it is somewhere is between the above two extremes, probably a combination of Doctor Access to anyone being treated by that Doctor, lawyer's access to any client (So the lawyer can defend why it should NOT go to certain people), a Judge's access in regards to anyone in front of him and a limited one for Police upon approval of one of the above (I do NOT like permitting a person to give up his right to privacy to the police, but if the police gets permission of a Judge I do NOT see any problems if the Police can state good reason why such records are needed by them). People will hate me for saying this but do to cases like Cho's, completely private records in NOT the way to go, but we also have to avoid the issue of completely public records (Through I agree to William Penn, the Founder of Pennsylvania, who wanted completely public courts and other records, as the best way to make sure justice and good records are done, because if it is NOT, the public gets to see it, since it is either a public Record OR done in front of the Public).

[spin]

15. You are exactly right...

More restrictive gun laws accomplish little or nothing.

Some cities are started to crack down on illegal guns on the street. For example Baltimore:

City leaders joined forces Tuesday to push for passage of two bills they believe will cut crime.

"These are illegal guns that are killing people in the city, and this is going to help our efforts. But we need the state to help us in this effort," Mayor Sheila Dixon testified.

One measure would eliminate good time credits for gun offenders. The second would eliminate bail for gun offenders with prior convictions.

"If we keep them in jail longer, they're less apt to be out on the streets playing their violent trade," said city state's attorney Pat Jessamy.

*********snip*********

Baltimore city's police union provided backup in the hearing room.

"It's not just a gun bill, but an offender bill, and another tool to keep violent offenders off the streets can only be a good thing for everyone," said city police union President Bob Cherry.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29127227/

[TheWraith]

12. Nothing. That's what the law already says.

If you have even a misdemeanor record of domestic violence, or have ever been judged mentally unstable or mentally ill, you are banned from owning any kind of firearm. The laws on that are so unwavering in some places that returning Iraq War vets are being refused carry permits because they received standard post-deployment mental health counseling.

[one-eyed fat man]

18. anti-vet bias

Carolyn McCarthy, the Congresswoman from New York has repeatedly introduced legislation to put military and VA health records into NICS. I guess from her perspective anyone willing to volunteer for military service is already a "ticking time-bomb!"

I guess the deranged "Viet Nam (Gulf War) vet loner" plot device has been used so much by Hollywood and the media that she and her co-sponsors believe it.

It's also their standard for the effectiveness of "spray-firing from the hip" assualt weapons firing effectiveness. Three days worth of planning and work by special effects experts, 30,000 bucks worth of blanks, squib charges and 10,000 Asian extras ready to fall down on cue........now who is the one that's really delusional?

The soldier coming back from his second or third combat tour or a Congresswoman who thinks "Rambo" is a documentary?

[Tejas]

40. mindset of antis towards Veterans

I posted once in response to an anti in GD, he/she had stated how frightful the thought was of "soon we'll have 140,000 trained killers returning home to our streets" (or words extremely close to that) in relation to the urgent need to limit firearms availability.

Pro-RKBA'ers are not only up against anti-BOR politicians etc, but also nutjobs that hold disdain for our troops.

imagine that!

[jody]

26. Please cite source for "Iraq War vets are being refused carry permits because they received standard

post-deployment mental health counseling."

[TheWraith]

29. Here you go.

http://www.military.com/news/article/vet-denied-gun-permit-over-ptsd-care.html

Short version, an Iraq War vet wanted to buy a pistol for personal protection. He disclosed on his application that he was receiving counseling for post traumatic stress. According to the Omaha PD, this made him ineligible for a carry permit. According to the rules, all returning combat troops are supposed to recieve at least basic PTSD counseling, so this could pose issues for others.

[jody]

36. Thanks, I'll bookmark this for future reference.

:hi:

[jeepnstein]

23. Most of those "children"...

you are concerned about shooting one another are violent criminals with no parental supervision. Their family is the gang and they'll kill to be accepted. I wish it weren't so, but to call them children really isn't fair to all the decent children in the world. They've never had a normal childhood and wouldn't know normal if it smacked them between the eyes. That's sad but it doesn't change the fact they're dangerous criminals.

It's against the law for felons to possess a weapon. How many of them parade around like it's deer season while they sell their illegal drugs? Drug dealing gangs are the heart of the violence. If the justice system dealt with this scourge instead of acting like it doesn't exist we'd all be better off.

[jody]

24. Makes sense to me, we should require every one in the U.S. to be evaluated by a psychiatrist or

psychologist to see if they are mentally competent to exercise inalienable rights.

If they are mentally unstable they should be required to wear an appropriate symbol, perhaps tattoo is more durable to let others shun them.

:sarcasm:

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

27. Several "gun nuts" here have put forth ideas about how we could do both.

Those ideas didn't even violate our Constitution.

David

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

28. It would help if we could start being honest about the problem.

It is very difficult to find the actual numbers about gun deaths, accidental or otherwise. The CDC wants to classify children through the age of 19 but then they group them in 10 year increments from 5 to 15 and 15 to 25 etc. Other groups want to classify children up to age 21. Let's be honest 18 and 19 year old gang members are not children. Go to the CDC web site and see if you can find data on gun deaths that is easily broken down. If you can let me know how you did it, I'd be very interested.

David

[TheWraith]

30. In rough terms, there are about 30,000 gun deaths per year in the US.

17,000 are suicides. 12,000 are homicides. The other 800 and change are accidents.

I don't mean to sound callous, but 800 deaths by firearm accidents per year, in a country of 300 million people, is close to being negligible. You're never going to get rid of a certain number of those any more than you're going to eliminate suicides, or motor vehicle accidents. 40,000 people a year are killed in car crashes in the US, but nobody cares because we recognize that one in 7,500 is not absurd odds. While every death is a tragedy to the people close to that person, we can't eliminate the risks inherent in driving a car, crossing the street, eating a burger, handling a gun, or even being born.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

31. I'm familiar with the numbers.

It just seems there is a bit of either deliberate or accidental clouding of the subject when it comes to youth violence and gun accidents.

David

[TheWraith]

32. Possibly. Also with regard to hunting accidents.

However, by their very nature those things are hard to quantify.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

33. True.

[russ1943]

44. It isn't the CDC deliberately or accidentally clouding anything.

Their hands have been tied. The CDC is faced with a conundrum. Facts regarding firearms death are considered propaganda by gun enthusiasts. When they publish accurate data they have been placed in the kill the messenger position, and their funding cut. Most of the academic world recognizes that the way to destroy bias is to publish more thorough and/or more accurate information, the gun enthusiasts never have accepted that approach.

[slackmaster]

68. That's nonsense - Accurate, unvarnished numbers are freely available to anyone with a computer

And Internet access.

http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/wisqars/

[russ1943]

85. We agree WISQARS is a reputable source.

Did you see the posts to which I was responding?
Start with #28 My response is #43.

To #31 I posted #44.

You now say the same thing (the info requested is available on WISQARS) I posted that very thing, in #43. You’ve added “that’s nonsense”.

If you want to respond to someone’s post, why wouldn’t you read what was being discussed?

[rq4a]

35. Easy to stop 17,000 deaths

17,000 of these gun deaths can be cured by mental help,
medication, and therapy.  17,000 of these deaths can be
stopped with out additonal background checks, registration,
serial numbers on bullets, buy backs, or gun free zones.

[jeepnstein]

39. You might cut it down some.

But thinking you're going to eliminate suicide is a bit optimistic. Some of those folks, at least in their own minds, have a very valid reason for doing it.

Mental health care in this country is absolutely pathetic. You ought to see the steady parade of souls marching through the jails in this wonderful nation who exhibit all manner of behavior that could be treated. I'll say one in ten are in jail mostly because they are mentally ill and society just can't deal with them.

[russ1943]

43. Since you asked;

Of the choices available the CDC’s WISQARS is one I can recommend to slice and dice statistics and which will provide you with what I think you are looking for. The data is a little dated, currently the 2005 statistics are the latest available.
http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate.html
First choose the “Year(s) of Data Options and make you choices.

Under “Advanced Options” the first category is “Select age groups”. Of the three choices available, the first “All ages (includes unknown age)”, I would guess will satisfy what you seem to be requesting. The “Age groups” section has the number grouped in 5 year increments. The last of the three choices is the one I used to acquire the following;
Eg; For 19 yr olds in 2005 there were; 821 deaths by firearms, crude rate 19.81 per 100,000.
19 were unintentional,
565 were classified as homicide,
9 were legal intervention,
222 were suicide &
6 were undetermined.

[rq4a]

34. Laws are already in place

Why?

Because there are already laws in place to keep guns out of
the hands of mentally unstable people and those with a history
of violence.  

Because there are already laws against children getting guns.

Anymore laws are really a dirty trick.  They are dirty tricks
to keep laws out of the hands of the mentally stable and no
history of violence.

[Tejas]

37. Such as in DC etc

[Taitertots]

41. Not Wanting to Take Guns Away, But.....

That is what you want to do


Far more children are killed in cars. Why do you want thousands of children to needlessly die?

[Joe Steel]

42. No Substantive Gun Control Can Be Permitted

What is wrong doing our best to keep them out of the hands of mentally unstable people, those with a history of physical violence and children?

Why are people against legislation that would keep our children safe from accidental or intentional shootings by other children?

The National Rifle Association has terrorized legislators at all levels of government. No substantive gun control ever will be permitted because it might lead to a decline in gun sales and that would anger the NRA.

[friendly_iconoclast]

45. Joe, the NRA has only 4 million members

Are you telling us your side can't come up with enough support to overcome
(approximately) 1.3% of the population?

I'd say it's more like the 80 million+ gun owners who disagree with you.

[Joe Steel]

46. The NRA has Terrorized Legislators Throughout Government

However many members the NRA has, they've manage to terrorize legislators throughout all levels of government. They do what the NRA tells them to do regardless of what the voters want.

In 1998, the only time concealed guns have been put before the public, Missouri voted against concealed guns. It didn't make any difference. The NRA wanted concealed guns so the vermin in Jefferson City forced them on the citizens anyway.

[benEzra]

47. I'd say it has as much to do with 80 million gun owners as with 4 million NRA members, (n/t)

[friendly_iconoclast]

48. More than a little paranoia here

However many members the NRA has, they've manage to terrorize legislators throughout all levels of government. They do what the NRA tells them to do regardless of what the voters want.

NRA = Stonecutters- very, uh, interesting theory. And I suppose it's just not possible that legislators might be voting the way *their particular* constituents want, then?
Politicians in a representative democracy who don't do what the voters want tend to have short careers

In 1998, the only time concealed guns have been put before the public, Missouri voted against concealed guns. It didn't make any difference. The NRA wanted concealed guns so the vermin in Jefferson City forced them on the citizens anyway.

I can just see this:

Street scene, Anywhere, MO- Truck screeches to a halt. Two NRA goons pop out and accost
passer-by

"Hey buddy, are you packing heat?"

"Why, um, no. Why?"

"We're from the NRA. You'd better put on this shoulder holster before we kick your ass!"

End scene.

Seriously, you are aware that:

1. No one is forcing anybody to own a gun, and

2. Thanks to the decision of all nine US Supreme Court Justices (in the Heller vs DC)
case, ALL Americans have the right to keep and bear arms suitable for self-defense.

Now, that might have your thong in a twist, but that is the law of the land now. You need to adjust.

Oh, and just what sort of bloodbath happened in MO after concealed weapons were legalized?

That's right, there wasn't one.

[Joe Steel]

51. More Guns. More Death.

Seriously, you are aware that:

1. No one is forcing anybody to own a gun,

But you are forcing me to bear a greater risk.

More guns. More chance of sudden, violent death.

[Taitertots]

57. So you have something to back your claim up

I would like to see what you have to back up this claim. I guess any place that has more guns must have higher rates of violent crime and homicide rates. Also any place with gun control should than also have lower crime and homicide rates.

Of course we both know there are places with lots of guns that have lower homicide rates and places with gun control and rampant violent crime.

[benEzra]

94. You mean, like in New Hampshire?

Safest state in the nation, most years.

Lawful gun ownership is not the problem. Illegal gun possession by criminals already prohibited by law from possessing them is the problem.

[Taitertots]

50. One of the largest member funded organizations in the nation

There is a reason legislators listen to the NRA. It has less to do with terror and more to do with them being the voice of 4 million paying members and 80 million gun owners.

[Joe Steel]

52. The NRA is a pressure group for the gun industry.

There is a reason legislators listen to the NRA. It has less to do with terror and more to do with them being the voice of 4 million paying members and 80 million gun owners.

It's real purpose is gun sales and all that civil rights babbling is just cover.

As I said earlier, in Missouri the General Assembly ignored the clear voice of the People, election results, to do what the NRA wanted.

[jefflrrp]

53. Mr. Steel . . .

If the 'clear voice' of the people of Missouri (i.e. a majority) voted to reinstitutionalize slavery in that state, would that make it right? While the 'clear voice' of many Missourians may not like the idea of concealed carry, it shouldn't stop the minority (i.e. gunowning law abiding citizens) from exercising their right to self defense.

Also, could you please find a link basing your assertion that the NRA is a gun-industry lobbying group rather than an organization that promotes gunownership and rights for its 4+million members and the 80+ million gunowners in the United States.

Maybe something that shows that gun-industry contributions outnumber private ones.

Facts. How bout that. Rather than just mindless drivel. Try that for a change, buddy.

Im just spitballing here, but maybe, just maybe, the members of the NRA believe in the civil-rights aspect of gun ownership. Maybe its just not hogwash spilled from the mouths of greedy lobbyists for the evil-gun corporations. I mean, afterall, a very large portion of the US population owns a firearm or three, and an awful lot of them are Dems. Way to ostracize fellow dems, Joe.

[Joe Steel]

54. Gun Control is Moral

If the 'clear voice' of the people of Missouri (i.e. a majority) voted to reinstitutionalize slavery in that state, would that make it right?

Yes. Morality is defined as a common sense of right and wrong. It is determined by the majority.

While the 'clear voice' of many Missourians may not like the idea of concealed carry, it shouldn't stop the minority (i.e. gunowning law abiding citizens) from exercising their right to self defense.

In fact, it should. That's the whole point of democracy.

Also, could you please find a link basing your assertion that the NRA is a gun-industry lobbying group rather than an organization that promotes gunownership and rights for its 4+million members and the 80+ million gunowners in the United States.

Maybe something that shows that gun-industry contributions outnumber private ones.

I doubt the NRA would publish that kind of information. They won't even allow the states to publish the identities of concealed gun permit holders.

Other than divine revelation, what else would you accept?

Im just spitballing here, but maybe, just maybe, the members of the NRA believe in the civil-rights aspect of gun ownership. Maybe its just not hogwash spilled from the mouths of greedy lobbyists for the evil-gun corporations. I mean, afterall, a very large portion of the US population owns a firearm or three, and an awful lot of them are Dems. Way to ostracize fellow dems, Joe.

Most Americans support reasonable gun control. The NRA doesn't. Why should they, instead of the majority of Americans, make policy?

[DonP]

55. You're really just making this shit up as you go along right?

"If the 'clear voice' of the people of Missouri (i.e. a majority) voted to reinstitutionalize slavery in that state, would that make it right?"

"Yes. Morality is defined as a common sense of right and wrong. It is determined by the majority."

So in your world anything a majority wants is OK and ethically right? Wow, people like you are scary.

Do you really think you live in a democracy?

Thankfully we have a representative republic with certain pre existing rights, one of which is the right to keep and bear arms (I'll give you a hint, it's number 2 on the list). A true democracy would actually allow you and your "majority" to reinstitute slavery, ban abortions or do just about anything else that struck a populist fancy as soon as you had 51% of the votes.

The entire US Gun Industry is only about $4 billion a year in sales. Actually tiny as an industry group, Americans spend more on potato chips every 3 months. But it makes such a nice boogeyman for the statistically and factually ignorant, doesn't it?

The manufacturers have the National Shooting Sports Foundation as their lobbying group, not the NRA. As previously noted the NRA has a over 4 million paying members at $35 a year. Plus their extended voting families. That's compared to gun control groups, the Brady organization being the "largest", with less than 20,000 members the last time they releases their membership numbers, a decade or so ago. If gun control is so popular, I'm sure you'll have no problem finding gun control chat boards online with thousands that share your viewpoint. Good luck, there are none.

The NRA political clout comes from being able to motivate voters in local, and sometimes national elections, not from big political donations, which in the last election had a record high contributions to candidates with a D behind their name.

The NRA very likely taught your local and state police both gun safety and marksmanship. They taught thousands of hunting safety course around the country too. For all their press releases no gun control group has ever taught a single person gun safety.

[Taitertots]

56. Don't let lack of knowledge slow you down

In fact, it should. That's the whole point of democracy
Good thing America is a constitutional republic

Other than divine revelation, what else would you accept?
So you know nothing about it. Don't make claims you admit you can't support.


Most Americans support reasonable gun control. The NRA doesn't. Why should they, instead of the majority of Americans, make policy?
The NRA doesn't make policy, the elected government does. Also refer to "constitutional republic" to understand why it is irrelevant if most people want it.

[slackmaster]

74. So, you must be OK with the state of California banning same-sex marriage

Interesting.

I can't recall ever seeing anyone on DU stating that it would be OK for a state to re-institute slavery if a majority of the people voted to do so.

[Joe Steel]

75. I see nothing in human affairs which would preclude it.

Interesting.

I can't recall ever seeing anyone on DU stating that it would be OK for a state to re-institute slavery if a majority of the people voted to do so.

While I would find its reinstitution repugnant, I see nothing in human affairs which would preclude it absolutely. The US Constitution is a mere paper barrier. It can be changed to permit slavery if a sufficient number of voters wanted to permit it. Ultimately, the will of the People is supreme.

[Iktomiwicasa]

103. Bullshit

Our rights aren't decided upon by the majority, we are "endowed" with certain "inalienable" rights, meaning that we are BORN with certain rights that a government cannot lawfully take away, regardless of popular vote.

[tortoise1956]

96. The Majority determines morals?

Wow, you really are different. I'm guessing you don't believe in absolute right or wrong. That would explain why you think a majority determines if an act is moral or immoral.

I've got news for you. Some things are immora;l, no matter what society says. for example, child molestation is wrong. Killing for sport is wrong. Bilking elderly people out of their life savings is wrong. I don't care what society may decide, because morality is not something that changes with a vote.

I feel sorry for you. It must be a cold and uncaring world you live in...

[paulsby]

58. right

and NARAL isn't about abortion rights. it's real purpose is abortion sales and all that civil rights babbling is just cover.

we can extend your fallacious argument to other civil rights organization to show you how absurd it is.

[Joe Steel]

59. Nothing But Truth

and NARAL isn't about abortion rights. it's real purpose is abortion sales and all that civil rights babbling is just cover.

we can extend your fallacious argument to other civil rights organization to show you how absurd it is.

That would be impossible because the argument is not fallacious.

What the Gun Industry and the NRA Don’t Want You To Know

[DonP]

60. Ah, a Tom Diaz link you must win then - Bwahahaha!

Your idea of substantiation of your ill thought through position and support of simple majority rule to violate the constitution is a gratuitous interview with the Brady Legal guy who got the crap kicked out of his Amicus brief in Heller last year?

My God, even liberal law professors, including Lawrence Tribe and Dershowitz thought the Brady brief was weak and poorly thought through. That's your idea of an authority?

But ... I guess if I worked for a Foundation funded organization with a miniscule membership, virtually no legislative support and had a grass roots organization more than 20 times the membership beating the crap out of me at every turn, I'd probably look for a friendly face and venue to buy my line of crap too.

OK, we get it you don't like guns or the people that own and use them.

But that link is some really weak shit.

[paulsby]

61. it's a classic

logical fallacy. attack the motivation of the advocate (in this case, NRA), instead of looking at the underlying facts.

iow, if we fall for the *NRA are just shilling for the evul gun industry and thus we can discount the fact that they are arguing to expand and recognize civil rights*, we can ignore the metric assloads of constitutional law scholarship.

for example, as you point out, even many liberal legal scholars who are against CCW as POLICY, are honest enough to admit that the 2nd amendment clearly protects and individual right.

[Joe Steel]

63. Read it and weep.

for example, as you point out, even many liberal legal scholars who are against CCW as POLICY, are honest enough to admit that the 2nd amendment clearly protects and individual right.

Not if it's read as English. The text clearly declares a collective right; "the right of the People" not any person or persons.

[X_Digger]

64. Here we go again..

Now I remember you.. "the people" is collective, so individuals don't have a right to free speech, right?

*sigh*

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=197785&mesg_id=198185

Activist judges have created an individual right of speech.

Vanna, I'd like to buy a clue for Joe Steel.

[Joe Steel]

67. Save your money.

Now I remember you.. "the people" is collective, so individuals don't have a right to free speech, right?

*sigh*

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...


Activist judges have created an individual right of speech.


Vanna, I'd like to buy a clue for Joe Steel.

Save your money. I don't need a clue. I have the answers.

Obviously you don't. You repeated both the issue and the answer.

[slackmaster]

69. The Fourth Amendment also refers to "the right of the People"

Does it mean that we the people have a collective right to be secure in our persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures; and that individuals do NOT have that right?

Logic is a pretty little bird singing in the middle of a field of beautiful flowers that smell bad.

[Joe Steel]

70. Is that why you stay away from it?

Does it mean that we the people have a collective right to be secure in our persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures; and that individuals do NOT have that right?

Logic is a pretty little bird singing in the middle of a field of beautiful flowers that smell bad.

Is that why you stay away from it?

The Fourth Amendment declares a right of the People (the collective sovereign) to be secure in their persons. That means no personal searches. It's like saying the King (because he is sovereign) may not be searched. The right protects the sovereign.

[jmg257]

71. Ahh - are you saying individual infringments are illegal, but collective infringments are OK?

You said: The Fourth Amendment declares a right of the People (the collective sovereign) to be secure in their persons. That means no personal searches.

Collective searches(???) would be OK, but not individual (i.e. personal) ones???

The Second amendment declares "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". That means NO PERSONAL infringments.

[Joe Steel]

76. Personal does not mean individual.

Collective searches(???) would be OK, but not individual (i.e. personal) ones???

Personal does not mean individual. It means body searches; "pertaining to the body, clothing, or appearance."

[slackmaster]

78. Please respect the right of my body to keep and bear personal arms

And we won't have a problem.

[Joe Steel]

79. Your rights end where my rights begin...

Please respect the right of my body to keep and bear personal arms

Your rights end where my rights begin...and your gun is a threat to my right to life.

[slackmaster]

80. It must be tough living with irrational fears

:hi:

[Joe Steel]

81. I wouldn't know. Mine is quite reasonable.

It must be tough living with irrational fears

I wouldn't know. Mine is quite reasonable.

However, I think your need to arm yourself against the mugger you think is around every corner or the foreign invaders you feel certain are ready to invade is quite irrational.

[slackmaster]

82. Yes, your fear is irrational and based on bad assumptions to boot

Statistically the probability that you will be shot by ANYONE is far less than a whole lot of other bad things that can happen to you. The probability that you will be shot by ME personally or even by a firearm that I once owned is infinitessimal, therefore it is irrational for you to be preoccupied with it. I assure you, in order to be shot by me you'd have to work very hard at it, and if it does happen it will be legally and morally justified.

However, I think your need to arm yourself against the mugger you think is around every corner or the foreign invaders you feel certain are ready to invade is quite irrational.

And there are the bad assumptions. I keep my firearms unloaded and locked up in a safe except when I am inspecting or using them, and have no fear of muggers or foreigners.

Zombies are quite another matter.

:sarcasm:

But seriously, it is rather odd to see someone with a hidden profile accusing others of paranoia. Stay out of San Diego and you'll always be safe. ;-)

[Joe Steel]

83. Is it?

Yes, your fear is irrational ...

But seriously, it is rather odd to see someone with a hidden profile

Is it?

You checked my profile.

[slackmaster]

84. Your response of "You checked my profile" digs you in deeper, Joe

The little icons that display to the right of your name and post count on your posts indicate that your profile is not available.

Click on the next to mine. Your posts don't display one, so you don't have a publicly viewable profile.

No, I haven't even attempted to view your profile because it's obvious you don't want to share that kind of information with people. I respect that, Joe. I expect you to respect my right to personal property in return. And just as you trust me not to crash my SUV into your car on the highway, you're just going to have to trust me not to shoot you.

[Joe Steel]

88. It just means I'm not familiar with the software...

Your response of "You checked my profile" digs you in deeper, Joe

The little icons that display to the right of your name and post count on your posts indicate that your profile is not available.

It just means I'm not familiar with the software not that I have nothing to fear. I have had posters on USENET track me and threaten me. My fears are not irrational.

[slackmaster]

89. You're twisting in the breeze, Joe

:rofl:

I have had posters on USENET track me and threaten me.

Me too. The Church of Scientology threatened to sue me for copyright infringement, and declared me Suppressive Person Level 2. But I'm not afraid of them.

What I don't understand, Joe, is that if you are indeed fearful as a result of interactions with people on Usenet, what are you doing posting on this or any other Internet forum? There are plenty of other ways to interact with people.

Maybe you crave the perception of danger.

[Joe Steel]

90. Only to the hopelessly dizzy

What I don't understand, Joe, is that if you are indeed fearful as a result of interactions with people on Usenet, what are you doing posting on this or any other Internet forum?

I'm not so fearful that I'm willing to abandon the fight against the evil of concealed guns. I just take precautions, precautions which are far less severe than arming myself with a concealed gun against the remote possibility of being assaulted in the course of daily affairs.

If you're so fearful of going to the store for bread and milk, why don't you have it delivered?

Do you crave danger?

[slackmaster]

91. You seem to have the same reading comprehension problem as TWiley

...I just take precautions, precautions which are far less severe than arming myself with a concealed gun against the remote possibility of being assaulted in the course of daily affairs.

If you're so fearful of going to the store for bread and milk, why don't you have it delivered?

As I have stated repeatedly and consistently, I don't carry a gun. I pointed out to you very recently that you had made a bad assumption in that regard, and that I keep my firearms securely locked up.

But if concealed guns are "evil", why don't the actual crime statistics show an increase in unjustified shootings in states that have implemented objective standards for issuing permits (a.k.a. "Shall Issue" laws)?

Your fear is irrational.

[friendly_iconoclast]

92. *There's* an easy one for you to counter, Joe...

But if concealed guns are "evil", why don't the actual crime statistics show an increase in unjustified shootings in states that have implemented objective standards for issuing permits (a.k.a. "Shall Issue" laws)?

Your fear is irrational.

All you have to do is:

1. Go dig out the 'real' figures showing the increase in unjustified shootings in states that
passed "shall issue" laws (like Minnesota, Kansas, Ohio, etc.)

2. Explain why the "shall issue" places have fewer unjustified shootings than places like
New York City, Chicago, and the District of Columbia.

Do that, and you're gold!

[Joe Steel]

98. Done

1. Go dig out the 'real' figures showing the increase in unjustified shootings in states that passed "shall issue" laws (like Minnesota, Kansas, Ohio, etc.)

The NRA controls gun and gun violence statistics. For instance, for the most part, the identity of concealed gun carriers is not available. This results from terrorizing state legislators and the ownership of most state legislatures.

2. Explain why the "shall issue" places have fewer unjustified shootings than places like New York City, Chicago, and the District of Columbia.

Are you serious?

You're comparing high-density, urban populations to swamps and fields.

[slackmaster]

101. "You're comparing high-density, urban populations to swamps and fields"

So the problem isn't availability of guns or people carrying them concealed, is it?

The problem is people.

[Joe Steel]

106. Of course the problem is guns.

So the problem isn't availability of guns or people carrying them concealed, is it?

The problem is people.

Of course the problem is guns. In high-density, urban populations the toll would be far higher if guns were as easily available as they are in gunnutdom.

[slackmaster]

115. Guns are easily available in high-density urban areas

There is a thriving black market in illegal firearms, and there is nothing to physically prevent people from taking them from one place to another in this country.

The problem in crime-ridden cities is people.

[Joe Steel]

120. Sure...

The problem in crime-ridden cities is people.

Sure...and the problem is greater when guns are easily available.

[slackmaster]

102. This is how conspiracy theorists usually dodge challenges based on hard facts

They expand the conspiracy so that any information that contradicts the conspiracy theory can be dismissed as tainted and unreliable.

[Joe Steel]

107. What conspiracy?

The NRA?

The NRA's control of state legislators and state law is known fact. It's not a conspiracy theory.

[slackmaster]

114. Argumentum ad populum fallacy

:hi:

[Joe Steel]

97. You're not very perceptive...

As I have stated repeatedly and consistently, I don't carry a gun. I pointed out to you very recently that you had made a bad assumption in that regard, and that I keep my firearms securely locked up.

You're not very perceptive; or maybe I've just expected too much of you.

The "you," in that case, was intended to mean the gun cult not you, yourself.

But if concealed guns are "evil", why don't the actual crime statistics show an increase in unjustified shootings in states that have implemented objective standards for issuing permits (a.k.a. "Shall Issue" laws)?

The NRA controls information on guns and gun violence. No reliable statistics exist.

[slackmaster]

100. More signs of irrational fear - A gun "cult" and an organization so powerful it controls information

You're not very perceptive; or maybe I've just expected too much of you.

Or maybe your communication skills are lacking. But thanks for conceding that I am not a member of the cult you believe exists.

The NRA controls information on guns and gun violence. No reliable statistics exist.

Perhaps you can explain how the NRA controls the FBI's crime statistics at http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm .

Please see also http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/wisqars/ .

[Joe Steel]

108. My communication skills are superior to most.

Or maybe your communication skills are lacking. But thanks for conceding that I am not a member of the cult you believe exists.

For showing you a bit of respect?

My mistake. It won't happen again. I'll just assume you really are the dumbass you seem to be.

Perhaps you can explain how the NRA controls the FBI's crime statistics at http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm .

UCR reporting is voluntary. No jurisdiction is required to report anything so if the numbers look bad, they don't report them. The NRA likes it that way.

Please see also http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/wisqars / .

I recall Congress prohibiting CDC from reporting gun shot wound statistics 10 - 12 years ago. I'll see what I can find about it.

[friendly_iconoclast]

118. "No jurisdiction is required to report anything so if the numbers look bad, they don't report them"

Wow, that means that places like Chicago, DC, and Baltimore must have actual crime & violence rates like
Rio De Janiero, Baghdad, and Ciudad Juarez. God knows the (allegedly) 'fudged' statistics are bad enough.

Makes for even *less* of an argument for gun control, then.

[Joe Steel]

119. vWhat's your point?

Wow, that means that places like Chicago, DC, and Baltimore must have actual crime & violence rates like

Rio De Janiero, Baghdad, and Ciudad Juarez. God knows the (allegedly) 'fudged' statistics are bad enough.

What's your point?

[friendly_iconoclast]

110. And you are claiming a conspiracy without offering any evidence...

...Just your assertion that:

"Legislation has been passed that I believe is not actually wanted by the voters
of the various levels of government that have passed these laws.

Therefore, the NRA did it. Also the Federal government is faking
publicly released statistics at the NRA's behest."

[Iktomiwicasa]

104. Bullshit again

My firearms aren't a threat to you, unless you become a physical threat to me.

[Joe Steel]

109. Nonsense.

When you're drunk or stoned, you and your gun are a danger.

[yay]

111. Not really....

I've been drunk, stoned, tripping on saliva and I still have yet too to go on a mass shooting rampage.

[Joe Steel]

121. Then you're a massacre waiting to happen.

I've been drunk, stoned, tripping on saliva and I still have yet too to go on a mass shooting rampage.

Then you're a massacre waiting to happen. If you have concern for your community, you'll get help.

[yay]

134. lol wut?

Get help for what? Getting stoned once every couple weeks? Getting drunk maybe once every 2 months? Doing salvia a grand total of 3 times? Tell me again how or why I need help?

[Iktomiwicasa]

113. Sorry pal

I don't drink alcohol or use any other drugs. Try again.

[Joe Steel]

122. Are you human?

I don't drink alcohol or use any other drugs. Try again.

Are you human?

Do you ever get angry or confused?

[Iktomiwicasa]

126. Ya know....

...if you don't trust yourself enough not to fly off the handle, then by all means, you shouldn't own a squirt gun, much less a firearm. But it would behoove you not to project your own shit on to others. Agreed?

[Joe Steel]

128. Your gun is intended to kill me.

Ya know....

...if you don't trust yourself enough not to fly off the handle, then by all means, you shouldn't own a squirt gun, much less a firearm. But it would behoove you not to project your own shit on to others. Agreed?

No.

Your gun is intended to kill me. Regardless of my control of my angry, your anger and your gun is a danger to me.

[ManiacJoe]

130. You are confusing actual vs potential.

Any object capable of causing damage is a potential danger. Until that object is put to use/abuse, you have nothing to worry about. It might be prudent to plan ahead in case bad things happen, but being prepared is not the same as worrying.

[Joe Steel]

131. I am confusing nothing.

You are confusing actual vs potential.

Any object capable of causing damage is a potential danger. Until that object is put to use/abuse, you have nothing to worry about. It might be prudent to plan ahead in case bad things happen, but being prepared is not the same as worrying.

Nonsense.

Danger is a function of the time elapsing between the onset of a threat and the occurrence of a possible injury. Guns are designed to make killing fast. An angry or confused gunman can use a gun to kill or injure before he realizes he was in no real danger. That makes the gun very dangerous.

[ManiacJoe]

133. Not even close.

Guns are dangerous because they are capable of causing small damage at a distance. Just as chainsaws are dangerous because they cause great damage up close.

It is this danger that makes both machines useful as tools. It is all about risk management. When properly used the resulting damage is helpful and legal. When misused, both machines will create damage that is not helpful in any normal sense, and may or may not be legal.

Left to themselves, neither machine will do anything more than rust and collect dust, their potential danger being just that, potential. When put into use, the machines do what they do, cause damage. If the user properly manages that danger, all is fine. If he does not, or he misuses the machine, then badness occurs at no fault of the machine.

> An angry or confused gunman can use a gun to kill or injure before
> he realizes he was in no real danger. That makes the gun very dangerous.

Guns are dangerous because of their capabilities to cause damage at a distance. This has nothing to do with who is holding it (or not holding it). Angry or confused people can be dangerous because they are not acting rationally or safely. Any object in their hands will amplify that danger if that object is used as a weapon, some more than others.

Since any object normally has a productive use, the misuse of the object is not a problem of the object. Society has a responsibility to keep dangerous tools away from its members who misuse them either on purpose or by mistake. Removing the useful object from responsible users is just foolish and lazy.

[Iktomiwicasa]

132. "Regardless of my control of my angry, your anger and your gun is a danger to me."

Like I said, it would be useful in a debate if you didn't project your own stuff onto others. That YOU don't have reasonable self control doesn't mean that others don't.

[Joe Steel]

135. My self-control is exquisite...

Like I said, it would be useful in a debate if you didn't project your own stuff onto others. That YOU don't have reasonable self control doesn't mean that others don't.

My self-control is exquisite but that doesn't every gunman also has good control of his anger and confusion. Presumably, self-control is normally distributed across humans and, at a minimum some gunman will have weak control. Worse, the mere fact someone has a concealed gun is strong evidence his fear has overwhelmed him and his self-control is poor.

[slackmaster]

116. Wow, it didn't take long for Joe to stoop to personal attacks

It's not surprising to me that you pissed people off on Usenet, Joe.

You wouldn't happen to be the same Joe Steel who until recently posted as Joe Steel on talk.politics.guns, would you?

http://groups.google.com/groups/search?as_q=&as_epq=Joe+Steel&as_oq=&as_eq=&num=10&scoring=&lr=&as_sitesearch=&as_qdr=&as_mind=1&as_minm=1&as_miny=2009&as_maxd=1&as_maxm=1&as_maxy=2009&as_ugroup=talk.politics.guns&as_usubject=&as_uauthors=&safe=off

[Iktomiwicasa]

117. Eh....

...no big deal. That is often what a person without an argument does.

[Joe Steel]

123. I've never started personal attacks.

It's not surprising to me that you pissed people off on Usenet, Joe.

I've never started any personal attacks. When they occur, invariably they are started by some poor, dumb gun nut in way over his head.

[slackmaster]

127. Irony is always lost on those who perpetrate it

:nuke:

[yagotme]

136. your/my rights

And my reply would be something like: And your attempt to disarm me may result in my loss of life.

[slackmaster]

73. It means EACH INDIVIDUAL has the right to be secure in his or her person

Just as the Second Amendment refers to the right of each individual to keep and bear arms.

[Joe Steel]

77. Perhaps but not because of the sanctity of his individuality.

It means EACH INDIVIDUAL has the right to be secure in his or her person

Perhaps but not because of the sanctity of his individuality. He may be protected because he is part of the sovereign.

[Joe Steel]

62. Majority rules?

Your idea of substantiation of your ill thought through position and support of simple majority rule to violate the constitution is a gratuitous interview with the Brady Legal guy who got the crap kicked out of his Amicus brief in Heller last year?

No. My idea of substantiation is the testimony of an expert. Did you read the article? Obviously Diaz is well-versed in the issue. Unlike Scalia, he's a credible source.

My God, even liberal law professors, including Lawrence Tribe and Dershowitz thought the Brady brief was weak and poorly thought through. That's your idea of an authority?

Tribe and Dershowitz? Certainly not. I've read some of their work. I'm not impressed.

But ... I guess if I worked for a Foundation funded organization with a miniscule membership, virtually no legislative support and had a grass roots organization more than 20 times the membership beating the crap out of me at every turn, I'd probably look for a friendly face and venue to buy my line of crap too.

Majority rules? Is that what you're suggesting?

[DonP]

66. What you and Diaz think is irrelevant to anyone but your mothers

It's nice that you think Diaz is "an authority" that makes two people. Well, I guess Helmke makes three.

Call us when Diaz or you get seated on SCOTUS, until then he's a hired mouthpiece and you are ... an unknown. Wait! Possibly you are one of those three law professors that filed an Amicus brief against Heller? Boy, that must have been embarrassing.

If Diaz thought he NRA or the NSSF would pay him more, he'd be working for them tomorrow morning. And based on the number of staff layoffs from the Brady group in the last year he may need a job soon.

But what you and Diaz think is really irrelevant to the law. What SCOTUS says is law and all 9 justices agreed on the fact that the 2nd confirms an individual right. The dissents were both focused on the level of scrutiny to be applied to it. So I guess you think that neocon Ginsburg and the rest of her right wing cabal is wrong too?

I'm sure Lawrence and Alan will be heartbroken to hear you are not impressed with their work. I'm sure that will slow sales at Law Schools of their last few books on constitutional law.

As for majority rules? You are the one that espoused the idea that anything the majority favors is ethical and moral, not me.

Me? I think it's pretty much the dumbest thing I've read here in the last year or two.

[Joe Steel]

72. Who are you?

Call us when Diaz or you get seated on SCOTUS, until then he's a hired mouthpiece and you are ... an unknown. Wait! Possibly you are one of those three law professors that filed an Amicus brief against Heller? Boy, that must have been embarrassing.

Who are you?

[tortoise1956]

86. Diaz is the expert?

So you think that Lawrence Tribe and Alan Dershowitz aren't good enough, eh? How about Sanford Levinson?

<http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/embar.html>

Look him up online and see if he qualifies as a constitutional expert...

[Joe Steel]

87. Yes.

Diaz is the expert?

So you think that Lawrence Tribe and Alan Dershowitz aren't good enough, eh?

I believe I said I wasn't impressed.

How about Sanford Levinson?

<http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/embar.html >

Look him up online and see if he qualifies as a constitutional expert...

What about him?

He has an opinion.

It's wrong.

[friendly_iconoclast]

93. Claiming to be wiser than all 9 Supreme Court justices might be a reach...

...but if that's how you want to play it, I'm sure your posts here will
be given all due consideration...

[Joe Steel]

99. You'll all be better-off.

Claiming to be wiser than all 9 Supreme Court justices might be a reach...

...but if that's how you want to play it, I'm sure your posts here will be given all due consideration...

I once read a great quote on that issue. Unfortunately, I can't recall it verbatim. Here's my version.

We like to believe the Supreme Court is authoritative because they're always right. In fact, the opposite is true. We accept them as right because they're authoritative. In other words, our justice system defines anything the Supreme Court does as correct without regard to it's fundamental propriety.

In denying a new trial in a death penalty case, for instance, Fat Tony Scalia said "actual innocence is no defense." Do you agree an innocent person should be executed just because he was found guilty? Scalia does.

[friendly_iconoclast]

105. Scalia also held that Texas' flag-burning law was un-Constitutional

In fact, he wrote the decision. So, are we to reject it because Scalia wrote it?

The problem with kicking Scalia is that all of the Justices held that the Second
Amendment was an individual right, even the dissenters. The differences came over
whether DC gun laws were an infringement of the 2A rights of Heller.

Another problem with the "nullification by majority" theory is that you might get enough popular
votes to override the Civil Rights Act, Brown vs Board of Education, Roe vs Wade.
Or Proposition 8 passes in California.

Do you say "this violates the 'equal protection' clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, it's un-Constitutional", or "the majority rules, too bad so sad. Next!" ?

[paulsby]

112. the real issue you completely missed

"In denying a new trial in a death penalty case, for instance, Fat Tony Scalia said "actual innocence is no defense." Do you agree an innocent person should be executed just because he was found guilty? Scalia does."

false.

what he said was that it was not unconstitutional FOR that person to be executed.

here's a little hint about constitutional law. a ruling on what the law IS, does not mean one agrees with it as a matter of policy, or likes the result.

for example, as mentioned elsewhere in this thread, scalia ruled that texas flag burning law was unconstitutional.

does that mean he LIKES flag burning? i sincerely doubt it. does it mean he thinks flags SHOULD be burned? no.

it means he thinks it is LEGALLY protected speech.


the entire basis behind rule of law and and a written constitution is that we don't judge law based on what we WANT the result to be , we judge based on ... wait for it... the law.

what scalia said was that "actual innocence is no defense" under the constitution, since the issue is due process not whether the person is actually innocent or guilty.

this is just as true of a guilty person (de facto) who is FOUND not guilty. the fact that they actually DID the crime is not dispositive, since due process was followed and they were FOUND not guilty.

so, in brief, for whatever his faults (and they are many - see medical mj case and the commerce clause for instance), scalia is NOT saaying an innocent person SHOULD be executed just because he was found guilty. he is saying that such a thing happening, in and of itself, is not violative of due process and the constitution.

[benEzra]

124. True. But when the 9 justices agree with 70+% of the electorate,

overwhelming majorities of Congress and state legislatures, the platforms of both major political parties, and nearly two and a half centuries of American political thought, then trying to void it as an individual right it is probably not a good idea unless you want your party to join the American Temperance Union in the political dustbin.

[HALO141]

125. surprisingly...

This is the first thing you've said that I agree with. The Court is not necessarily correct. In Heller, however, they were.

[Joe Steel]

129. Why should we believe...

This is the first thing you've said that I agree with. The Court is not necessarily correct. In Heller, however, they were.

We would like to believe the justices of the Supreme Court are unaffected by the partisan passions of politics. But are they? Each of them was nominated by a politician and was confirmed to the position by 100 politicians. Why should we believe their decisions reflect only law and not the special interests which drive politics?

[scrinmaster]

49. Violent offenders should be locked up for much longer,

Ending the drug war would both free up prison and jail space for those who really deserve it, and eliminate one of the largest causes of violence in America.

[krispos42]

95. Depends on who you ask

For example, one Gungeon regular does not like the federal government's National Instant Check System (NICS) because it contains medical information that disqualifies you from gun ownership in addition to criminal information. In other words when you're involuntarily entered into a mental-care hospital that information is kept in the NICS database. However, since that is medical information, this DUer feels that privacy rights should preclude this information from being in the NICS database. Other information, such as the conviction for robbing a liquor store, is okay.


And how far can we go in "protecting the children"? Is requiring that all privately-owned guns be stored in your local National Guard Armory unreasonable? Is allowing the police, without a warrant, to barge into your home unannounced to check your gun-storage setup reasonable?



Keep in mind, though, that actual "children" getting shot is a pretty rare event. Most "children" getting shot are in fact teenagers that have a pretty good idea of actions and consequences, and the shootings aren't accidental. Stupid or criminal, but not accidental.