17 shot, 2 fatally, in Baltimore Sunday night

[sharesunited]

Guns in the hands of the general public is not a good thing.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/baltimore-city/bal-shooting0727,0,5516871.story

[slackmaster]

1. Guns in the hands of known criminal gang members is not a good thing

Normal people don't go around shooting up backyard parties.

The smart money is this being a case of criminals shooting at other criminals, with a few innocent family members getting in the way.

I managed to get through the weekend without shooting at anyone. So did an overwhelming majority of my fellow gun owners. If you don't trust yourself with a firearm, don't buy one. But keep your grubby paws off of mine.

K&U

:kick:

[sharesunited]

3. If the law abiding can get them, guns and ammo WILL be in circulation.

Sorry, but the Great American Hobby of dealing death needs to be pinched off at the source.

No new guns and ammo sales.

[slackmaster]

6. So your solution is of course to ban them all

Except for government use.

[sharesunited]

9. Start by shutting down the sale of new guns and ammo.

Let natural attrition take it from there. Wear and tear, corrosion, expenditure of existing rounds, and the limits of shelf life eventually declaw the beast.

[slackmaster]

10. So in maybe 100 years there might be an improvement in public safety?

Please leave my party and go start your own. We don't need that kind of cockamamie idea being circulated and attributed to Democrats. All it will do is alienate tens of millions of voters.

[sharesunited]

11. Are you concerned about alienating racists in the civil rights struggle?

Or are you concerned about raising consciousness and promoting justice?

[slackmaster]

12. False dilemma

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/false-dilemma.html

I don't want my party to lose control because of gun control extremists like you.

Here's an example of what things would be like if only cops had guns:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6159835

[sharesunited]

13. Their names are probably not Bill. But they are dead.

Or dying, wounded, crippled, brain damaged, forced to wear an ostomy bag, or never bathing normally again.

[notesdev]

14. Wasn't the original driving purpose of gun control

to keep blacks from fighting back against the Klansmen who terrorized them?

Gun control falls into that category of ideas that sound nice at first, may look good on paper, but hasn't a prayer of doing any good in the real world.

[TheWraith]

18. There's a lot of stories around like that.

For instance, the motivation here in New York for our absurd pistol laws was to keep guns out of the hands of "undesirable" immigrants. (Read: Italians.) Over in the UK back in the 30s, the bogeyman was socialists and Marxists who they were afraid would launch an armed revolution. Generally though, most gun control laws are passed by exploiting fear, which is not a good way to legislate.

[TheWraith]

17. Right, because it's not like you can get illegal things in this country, like cocaine.

And it's a SHITLOAD easier to make guns and bullets than it is to make cocaine.

[sharesunited]

19. When goofs are forced into metalworking, then we will finally be getting somewhere.

[TheWraith]

20. You know how many decades that would take?

Simple guns like revolvers (the weapon most preferred by many criminals) can last 100 years with reasonable care.

The idea that you can wish guns away is a fantasy.

[sharesunited]

22. The longest journey begins with the first step. Think kiddie porn will take 100 years?

[Pholus]

26. Yes

Because you can't outright ban something without creating monetary incentives.

Gun types always say "just enforce the laws on the books" but I think that needs to go hand in hand with exceptionally harsh minimum sentences for gun offenders.

Additionally, responsible gun owners (and there are a lot of them) need to get on board with reasonable regulation. Cop killer bullets? Not really needed. Assault weapons? A bit overboard. The gun show background check loophole? Close it.

But, that seems like too much sacrifice for them.

[slackmaster]

28. "Cop-killer" bullets are banned, AWs are rarely used in crime, and there is no gun show loophole

Any gun transfer that requires a federal background check at a gun store requires one at a gun show too.

[Pholus]

29. So what ARE AWs used for?

[slackmaster]

31. Collecting, target shooting, hunting, self-defense

The same as all other civilian-owned firearms.

I'll take a wild guess that you think AWs are fully automatic, or some other propaganda-fed misconception.

[Pholus]

34. So how about a water-cooled 0.30 Browning -- Collector item?

Look Trixie, even the M1 Garand could be made full auto by filing down some parts. Just because I think there are too many gun loons out there doesn't mean that I don't know anything about guns.

[slackmaster]

36. Yes, that would be a great addition to any gun collection

Look Trixie, even the M1 Garand could be made full auto by filing down some parts.

Thanks for demonstrating your complete ignorance of the subject.

BTW personal attacks are prohibited by the posting rules. I have chosen to respond to your insult rather than hitting Alert this time. Please clean up your act.

[Pholus]

39. Good thing I'm not in the same room, or I'm sure you'd be reaching for your sidearm.

It does show that gun worshippers are hardly all-knowing, even about their own subject.

Cheers (or was that a personal attack?)

[slackmaster]

42. Your ignorance and prejudices are showing - Thanks for letting the Sun shine in

I don't carry a sidearm. But you had no way of knowing - You just ASSumed without asking me.

[Statistical]

57. lol....

Filing down some parts.... your killing me.

The govt has released nearly 1.1 million surplus garands back to the public.

If you could make one full auto with a file..... don't you think there would be a single news story about it.

You can get a Garand for a little as $300. 5 minutes with a file could turn it into a full auto weapon worth couple grand to gang bangers.... yet nobody not one of the millions of crminals out there has thought to do it.

You fail sir.

[AtheistCrusader]

84. Probably because a 3+ foot long 10lb 8 shot weapon doesn't make ANY sense

as a fully-automatic weapon. BRRRT-Ting! and you're done.

[AtheistCrusader]

83. An 8 round full auto?

What a useful weapon.

Edit: I hope you weren't insinuating that other weapons are as easily modified.
Post 1986 you're dead wrong.

[TheWraith]

32. The same thing all other rifles are used for.

They are no different than any semi auto hunting rifle. Except that the hunting rifle is generally more powerful.

[inkool]

33. Please give me a...

definition of what an assault weapon is, and I will be happy to tell you what they are used for.

[Pholus]

37. The M6A2

What can it uniquely do that justifies it's existence?

[slackmaster]

38. Thanks for proving beyond doubt that you have no idea what you are talking about

The M16A2 is legally classified as a machinegun. It was never an "assault weapon" even during the ban that expired in 2004.

:nuke:

[Pholus]

41. The lack of a "1" was not a typo. Please READ instead of knee jerk react.

[slackmaster]

43. Well now, that makes no sense at all

Lack of what '1'?

WTF are you blathering about?

The M6A2 is a machinegun too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=762Ds0VqXYg

[Pholus]

45. I said the M6A2, not the M16A2.

But you're too caught up in looking for some technical point to declare "victory" to actually think.

[slackmaster]

47. Also a selective-fire weapon

Please watch the video in my previous reply.

[AtheistCrusader]

87. HAHAHAHAA look at you flailing around, so funny.

Select Fire means machine gun, even if the weapon only has 3 round burst.

Neither weapon is available for sale to the public. Period. End of story. Please play again.

[inkool]

44. Only the millitary or law enforcement can own them.

You may want to read up on the National Firearms Act of 1934 and the Firearm Owners' Protection Act of 1986.

[Pholus]

46. Then I guess I need to make a report to law enforcement.

An acquaintance was proudly showing one off recently and he apparently is neither. Thanks for the tip.

[inkool]

51. Oh you mean the...

semi-auto only version. My mistake, but you could have been a little more clear as to the model you were referring too.

It is no different then any other semi-auto rifle. Which can be used for lots of things. Target shooting, hunting, etc.

[TheWraith]

52. Was it the real thing, or a knockoff?

There's tons of semi-automatic knockoffs of "military" weapons out there. Most likely that's what he has.

Of course there is the alternative that he registered under the National Firearms Act of 1934 and bought a real one, but those cost in the tens of thousands of dollars.

[Pholus]

60. Well, I can't tell you if it's a knock off...

Since it wasn't fired, and my friend is a bit of a bragger. But it definitely matched the lines of photos I've seen online and it was identified as such.
Nor has he went on any convenience store rampages either, so what business is it of mine.

My main problem with guns these days is how they've been forced on the rest of us, witness the current bill in the senate. It's just too much in my opinion.
That is not a condemnation of your rights (which I believe in), but it is an opinion that I am allowed to have.

[AtheistCrusader]

90. If it's a civilian knock-off, its not an M6A2.

If it's a semi-auto it might be a M6A2-D or other variant. The M6A1 and M6A2 are flat-out not available for civilians, per federal law.

The M6A2-D is a totally different model. There is probably yet another model for civilians (the -D is DEA/LEO only, even though it's semi-auto, probably because the reciever can accept parts from the M6A2, without modification)

I don't know what model IS available to the public, but what your friend had is probably not an M6A2.


Edit: Civilian semi-auto with reciever that cannot accept full auto parts appears to be the M6A2-R5, per the manufacturer's catalog. The distinction is important, because replacement parts for the M6A2 will not fit in the reciver for the R5, preventing easy conversion to full auto. You would have to create parts that are not there, re-create parts that are different, and do not fit, plus you run the risk of the reciever not standing up to the punishment of extended full-auto fire.

[AtheistCrusader]

89. By all means, do so.

Weapon was designed, let alone MADE after 1986, so yeah, unless he's LEO or Military (and Military wouldn't be out and about showboating with it) you were in the presence of a soon-to-be felon.

Unless of course, he had some other civilian weapon that looks like it, and he quoted you the wrong model number.

[AtheistCrusader]

86. The M6A2 is not available for sale to the public. LEO and Military only.

So, there's your purpose, Military and Law Enforcement.

If you see one for sale to the public, by all means, call the cops. It's not an 'Assault Weapon' either, it's an Assault RIFLE, because it's a select-fire weapon. The Assault Weapons ban, neither the expired federal ban, nor the California state ban, touched weapons like this, because they are already off-limits to the public.

But of course, you don't know anything about the subject.

[sharesunited]

68. All good steps, but you're still on the margins.

Harsh punishment is closing the barn door after the horses have left.

People are required to die or be injured as a condition precedent, which is plain unacceptable.

[AtheistCrusader]

102. Cop Killer bullets have been illegal for decades.

Please try and keep up.

The rest of your 'topics' are equally incorrect. Please tell me what you can do at a gun show, that you cannot do in your local newspaper classified ads.

[Howzit]

110. "Assault weapons? A bit overboard"

If you believe that assault weapons are "a bit overboard", why do you have an AK47?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=242101&mesg_id=242158

[TheWraith]

30. You've ceased even trying to present a coherent rebuttal.

You're going an AWFULLY long way out of your way to avoid dealing with the real root of most violence in America, which is poverty.

[sharesunited]

53. Those are separate problems. Poor and armed?

That's the formula for your Sunday Night Massacre in Baltimore.

[TheWraith]

56. They're not seperate problems at all.

If you think that poverty and violence are seperate, then you need to open your eyes. Why do you think that our inner cities fuel so much violence?

[sharesunited]

65. You're advocating making it easy for poor people to commit violence.

By insisting that gun and ammo proliferation somehow don't make violence easier to commit.

My eyes are open to the cause and effect here. You're in denial about it.

[TheWraith]

71. So you think poor people are inherently violent?

Some kind of sick, barely controlled animals, and the only thing we can or should do is try and disarm them? Rather than, say, provide a reason not to turn to a life of crime?

How wonderfully right-wing of you.

[sharesunited]

75. Wait, you just declared that poverty and violence go together.

And I said the means to conveniently commit violence should be curtailed.

Now suddenly I'm an enemy of the poor?

I'll tell you what I am an enemy of: Death and disability from the proliferation of guns and ammo and easy access thereto. Regardless of economic class or condition.

[TheWraith]

79. I pointed out the fact that poverty feeds violence.

The desperate, impoverished young adult population of the inner cities, stuck with no other hope in life, are ripe recruits for the gangs and the drug trade that is the single largest source of violence in America. If you give those kids an education, a chance at a decent life, a way to get out of the circumstances they were born into, then you'll see those gangs and their violence dry up and wither away. Your solution, on the other hand, is just to leave them to rot as long as you can wall them up and keep them away from the "acceptable" people.

The availability of guns has, in fact, very little to do with rates of violence. Rich people in this country own FAR more guns than poor people do or ever will, but you don't see the shareholders of Goldman Sachs doing a drive-by shooting. Guns aren't magical objects that turn everyone near them into homicidal maniacs. It's society, it's cruelty, and simple hopelessness that drives people to the point of not valuing their own lives or the lives of others. A social cruelty that you've just displayed in spades.

[sharesunited]

80. Wall them off??? You want them to kill each other off! Interesting solution oh liberal one.

[TheWraith]

85. That's your solution, not mine.

My solution is the one that involves schools and jobs.

Yours is the one of ignoring the problem and pretending that banning guns puts an end to it, no matter what the facts are.

[sharesunited]

88. It's settled then! Yes to schools and jobs. No to guns and ammo.

[AtheistCrusader]

103. Poor people are a lot more likely to be victims of crime than I am

camped out here in middle-class suburbia. Some particular reason you think poor people should be relegated to unarmed victim status?

[AtheistCrusader]

101. You don't think poor people have the same need for implements of self defense than I do?

I would actually argue they have GREATER need than I do.

In Seattle, a Homeless man was attacked by some punk, kicking and beating him in broad daylight on a downtown Seattle street. No one moved to help stop the attack. The homeless man had a concealed pistol, and the appropriate license. He killed his attacker. No charges filed, justifiable homicide.

The extremely poor are among the most vulnerable people in our population. They have every right to the same implements of personal defense that I have.

[Euromutt]

108. Because, of course, the criminal element would never seek alternative sources

For example, in western Europe, organized criminals (and unorganized ones, for that matter) are utterly unable to lay their hands on firearms smuggled in from elsewhere. The residents of the former Yugoslav republics who act as hitmen for rival criminal syndicates in north-western Europe wouldn't dream of bringing their weapons with them, and taking them back after the job's been done. Volkert van der Graaf (the guy who murdered Pim Fortuyn, thereby committing the first political assassination in Dutch history since the murder of William the Silent in 1584) certainly wasn't able to buy a Spanish-made Star 9mm pistol off some guy in a bar. Mohammed Bouyeri was unable to murder filmmaker Theo van Gogh in 2004 since Bouyeri was unable to lay his hands on a Croatian-made HS-2000 9mm pistol. Rhys Jones, an 11 year-old boy from Liverpool, wasn't fatally shot by then-16 year-old Sean Mercer, as the latter was unable to acquire a handgun in the United Kingdom.

Oh, except all those things did happen, because the best isn't prepared to give up its claws, or even let them get dull. So the only thing your idea would achieve is unilateral disarmament on the part of the people who aren't the problem in the first place.

I mean, Christ, it doesn't occur to you that people who are involved in a business that involves smuggling thousands tons of contraband into the United States every year might be able to smuggle in firearms and ammunition as well?

[JonQ]

78. I know, just like if we guarantee free speech to everyone

people like the Klan, or neo-nazis will be able to use them as well. Better just to ban it for everyone to be safe.

I believe the ACLU is working on doing away with any rights that may be misused by a small minority of people in the country. You know, for the children.

[mnhtnbb]

2. Wild, wild west. My nephew lives right across the street from Johns Hopkins.

[slackmaster]

4. Baltimore has some of the scummiest, most run-down, crime-infested neighborhoods I have ever seen

I accidentally drove into the area near where last night's shootings occurred. It was very dark and scary. Street lights out, windows broken, groups of belligerent young black men on the street corners shouting things at me.

I made sure the doors on my rented SUV were locked and drove the hell out of there fast.

[notesdev]

16. Hey I went to college there

Where's the "line of death" marked these days?

[goclark]

5. I agree but try to get that one passed

Please don't beat me up, I sincerely want to know....

The "right to bear arms" seems so out of touch in today's world. :shrug:

I have a problem even with hunting animals so I'm not the one to ask but America has got to grow up and stop the Gunfights.

Seventeen lives! That is horrible.

Aren't some cities paying people to turn in their guns?

[slackmaster]

7. Please go back and read the story again

It was TWO lives, and odds are they were criminals.

[goclark]

23. I'm from Baltimore

And whatever the odds, there are too many innocent people and criminals getting killed.

[rrneck]

15. It seems so out of touch

until you are the one getting assaulted. It seems out of touch to me as well because I live in a low crime area so I don't feel the need to be armed all the time. A lot of people don't enjoy that luxury.

[goclark]

25. I'm from Baltimore

And in a urban area or any city ~ guns are just not my thing.

[SteveM]

95. The Right to keep and bear Arms is quite up-to-date...

in this and a few other countries. Since we live in a fairly violent civil society, the law-abiding general population would be well-advised to take precautions; where they live, work, travel, etc. This includes (but is not limited to) bearing arms. In this manner, citizens can take more of the responsibility for self-defense and not let the burden fall upon law enforcement (which is not obligated to protect the citizenry from crime, but instead to gather evidence for presentment to grand juries, and for arrest of suspects).

Hunting animals (which I do) has little to do with RKBA and efforts at self-defense.

The "gunfights" appear to be largely criminal gangs who prey on the people in their territory. If the gangs are black and they are operating in black neighborhoods, in many northern cities like Baltimore they are reassured their potential victims are unarmed -- except for other gang members. The anti-gun policies of many northern cities are a hold-over from Jim Crow laws.

Gun "buy backs" are shown to be ineffective.

[goclark]

105. Yes I am aware of the right to bear arms

I was married to a decorated Police officer for many years. He was head of the Criminal Conspiracy Division in a major city.

He had the right to bear arms and I still worried about him night and day.

My brother just retired as Chief of Police.

I worked for two years as a Jury Consultant.

[Euromutt]

109. Baltimore isn't a "northern city"

Remember Maryland's south of the Mason-Dixon line, and was a slave state until the passage of the XIII Amendment in 1865.

Not that there aren't northern cities that aren't just as bad, in much the same way. Detroit is a prime example; it alternates with Baltimore in having the highest number of homicides every year, and the Michigan state requirement of "handgun safety inspections" (in which the buyer of handgun had to present it at the local police station) was mainly to ensure the gun owner wasn't black.

[Tim01]

8. None of my guns have ever shot anybody. Nobody cut with my knives.

Criminals hurt people with guns and knives and sticks and fists.


The criminals will hurt people as long as they are not confined.

[Pholus]

21. "Normal" people don't worship guns, either....

It isn't going to work to "ban" guns. It's not in our tradition and I would think we should have learned our lessons about the societal consequences of outright banning things by now. But what IS it with the current gun idolatry going on with some folks?

Consider this thread: Oh, yes, this shooting was in inner city Baltimore -- it's THOSE people's fault, not mine. I'm a RESPONSIBLE owner and you can take my word on that. Of course, I have 75 guns in my collection, including an SKS and an AK-47 and I subscribe to groups on the web that teach me how to turn them full auto with just a metal file but you can trust ME cause I'm a law-abiding owner. Well, Trixie, everyone is law abiding right up until the instant that they're not so forgive me for not being reassured. I don't know so you haven't earned my trust.

My parents generation had a few guns around the house for hunting, but they didn't BRAG about the size of their collection. Nor did they spend all day crowing to the world about how they had their guns to make them feel safer and how we should all thank them for the sacrifices they make as they concealed carry a pistol into every store, bar, hospital and church that we might also want to use. They also didn't feel the need to buy guns specifically designed to kill lots of people quickly or magazines with 50 rounds. Those types of weapons were, sorry to tell you, considered basically distasteful and immoral. The people who lusted after them were spoke of in hushed whispers as being the sort of person to stay away from. Semi-autos and assault weapons were reserved for law officers and the military, not the socially insecure and the self-appointed guardians of public safety.

Look guys, there is NOTHING wrong with guns, but like any hobby if it defines you so much you feel compelled to ALWAYS militantly defend and justify them, perhaps it's time to do some self-examination.

[spin]

35. The reason gun owners are defensive...

is that there does indeed exist a large number of people who would love to see draconian gun control laws passed.

These laws will do little or nothing to solve the problem of crime and violence in this country and will lead to even further draconian gun laws.

Gun owners can see this country following the path of Great Britain, Australia or Canada.

Of course, many people who believe in strict gun control would love to see this happen.

[Pholus]

That's reasonable.

And the day someone tries to ban guns outright, I'll be reminding people about the 2nd amendment too. On the other hand, I've seen close up the damage that is done to people who get too caught up in guns. We need to find some middle ground. Guns should exist but we can't have them completely unregulated either!

[TheWraith]

54. Guns are far from "completely unregulated."

They're very regulated already. There's something like 18,000 seperate gun laws in the US. Stringent background checks, laws on what you can own, how you can store it, where you're allowed to use them--the only private possession that's subject to as much scrutiny in the US as a gun is a car.

[inkool]

55. Firearms are not anywhere close to completly unregulated. n/t

[Pholus]

61. You're right

and yet the problems seem to exist more. Other than me starting to carry, what am I supposed to do?

[TheWraith]

64. Stop listening to the media. The fact is, problems exist LESS than they used to.

The murder rate in the US has dropped by a third since the early '90s. But you'd never know it from looking at the media, because they tend to highlight murders, shootings, child abductions, etcetera, that are in fact incredibly rare. You know how many children are abducted in the US by someone other than family in a given year? About 125, yet the media has people believing that kidnappers are around every corner. Same with shootings: for the US, all murders involving guns in a year total up to about the number of people who die from lack of healthcare in the period of three weeks.

[Pholus]

69. Yet if this is true...

Why do we need to expand CCW laws nationwide? Doesn't the decrease mean that the personal threat is lower? Won't increasing the number of places and situations people can carry increase the rate?

Statistically I will agree that there are far larger threats, but why this constant barrage to loosen the rules?

[TheWraith]

74. Concealed-carry licensees commit crimes at 13% of the rate of the general public.

And at half the rate of police officers. They are not, by any stretch of the imagination, a threat to you or anybody else.

As for why we should standardize rules, why not? When you drive across state lines, your driver's license doesn't stop working, nor does your marriage license (unless, of course, you're gay). In a free country, there needs to be a clear and pressing reason for something to be illegal, not for it to be legal. The statistics clearly show that concealed carry is not a threat to public safety, so why shouldn't it be allowed? There's plenty of people who benefit. A good example is truckers: a lot of long-haul truckers carry a firearm for self defense, since truck stops and industrial areas tend to be disproportionately dangerous. Right now, many of them are inadvertantly committing a crime as they drive through different states, even if they have a CCW license in their home state.

[SteveM]

97. On "loosen"-ing the rules...

One of the great trends missed by most civil rights activists/observers is that the right to keep and bear arms is "just another" right which has been strengthened since the 1950s. All the rights were strengthened; the First, the Fifth, Sixth, the Seventh, and for a time the Fourth. Those experiencing the "loosening" of the rules were minorities, women, gays & lesbians, the accused. Yet, there are some who are surprised that the Second should be seen in this light of strengthened civil liberties & rights. They shouldn't be. It was in the South where the gun bans were strongest, all the better to keep blacks disarmed in the face of Jim Crow Restoration. Some of we "liberals" should take a better look at this whole discussion.

I think it ironic that the best summation of the racist nature of gun-control can be found in the brief submitted by www.georgiacarry.org on behalf of Heller in the SCOTUS decision some 13 months ago. Can you imagine a largely white Southern organization having to honestly recount its own history then come out for a "liberal" outlook on the Second Amendment? Some here cannot.

[inkool]

72. What problem exists more? n/t

[spin]

82. We have reasonable gun laws and they have helped...

We can also find common ground in improving existing law.

The NICS background check can be improved by incorporating more state records and by including some mental records. This system could also be opened for use by private sellers.

A lot could also be accomplished by enforcing existing law.

[TheWraith]

48. You're obviously VERY misinformed.

"Consider this thread: Oh, yes, this shooting was in inner city Baltimore -- it's THOSE people's fault, not mine."

You mean the people who shot up a party? Yes, it IS their fault.

"Of course, I have 75 guns in my collection, including an SKS and an AK-47 and I subscribe to groups on the web that teach me how to turn them full auto with just a metal file but you can trust ME cause I'm a law-abiding owner."

You cannot turn ANY current weapon into full auto with a metal file. Period. Any weapon which is easily convertible to fully automatic is already regulated as a machine gun. Anyone who tells you otherwise is either lying or being misinformed. Unfortunately, you're perpetuating the lies you've been told about "automatic weapons" and "guns designed only to kill people" and a lot of other stuff. Newsflash: all guns were originally designed "only to kill people." Virtually every rifle or handgun ever made, right back to Grandpa's Enfield or single-action revolver, was originally a military gun or design. Just because technology advances and you feel like modern guns look scarier than the ones Grandpa had doesn't mean that you're justified in trying to describe all gun owners as some kind of sociopaths poised on the brink of going nuts.

"Well, Trixie, everyone is law abiding right up until the instant that they're not so forgive me for not being reassured. I don't know so you haven't earned my trust."

You haven't earned by trust behind the wheel of a car, but that doesn't give me the right to revoke your driver's license, nor does the fact that maybe I don't approve of how big your car is, or how flashy, or I think it's designed only to recklessly break the speed limit. In a free country, you are not just expected by in fact required to accept the rights of others to do as they wish, regardless of whether you approve or not. The alternative is to be like the fundies, and think that you and only you have the God-given right to regulate everybody else's lives. No matter how good you feel your intentions are, you are not the supreme moral arbiter of the world, and you cannot appoint yourself so on the grounds that given rights, a few people will abuse them.

"Those types of weapons were, sorry to tell you, considered basically distasteful and immoral."

No, they weren't. Saying anything else is dishonest. Semi-automatic weapons have been in private ownership all throughout the 100 years or so that they've been in mass production. Most of the "bad" designs are about as old as my father. The notion that the character of gun ownership as a whole has changed, or that the world is on a downhill moral slope, does not pass inspection.

[Pholus]

59. So I don't have a point -- great rhetoric...

> You haven't earned by trust behind the wheel of a car, but that doesn't give me the right to revoke your driver's license

I've completed basic competency training and my drivers licence is proof of that. Additionally, each and every car I own is registered and regularly tested for compliance with basic safety regulations. I carry insurance which goes in force against the possibility that my car and my driving injure someone. When these requirements are universally made for all gun owners, I will have less of a beef. I'll bet you wished you picked a slightly different analogy right now....

[TheWraith]

63. And someone who buys a shiny new gun has passed a background check.

A person with a concealed carry license has passed a background check and usually competancy testing as well. So the fact that you haven't personally witnessed them behaving in a responsible manner carries as much weight as me not having personally watched you driving properly.

[Pholus]

67. Concealed, yes. Universally, no.

I'm sure a thorough investigation would find people who'd take exception to my claims of driving properly. :)

Except for their odd desire to bring their guns with them everywhere I understand that the concealed permit crowd has had to pay some dues and as a result represent a more responsible class of gun owner. But why is it such a great abridgement of basic rights not to demand that all gun owners comply?

I loved the Arizona Daily Red Star last week's article which juxtaposed the "Concealed Carry in Bars" law with the sparklers ban. It points out how wacky we have
let things get.

[TheWraith]

77. You don't need to register or inspect your car either, if you're not going to take it out in public.

The government has no compelling interest to regulate private property that's not going to affect safety. Furthermore, a lot of people are concerned that registration makes it easy for some people to play on a wave of fear to get legally owned weapons banned. Examples have already been set in places like California, where first guns were registered, then they were later seized despite their owners having not committed any crime other than having a "scary looking" rifle.

Actually here in New York, we do have a requirement for universal registration of handguns in the form of a "pistol permit," which makes it very difficult and expensive for anyone to buy a handgun. Fact is, it didn't stop us from having something like 800 gun murders in 2007, almost all of which were committed with handguns, and almost all of which were committed with ILLEGAL handguns. Studies have shown that nationwide, the vast majority of crimes are committed using guns which were illegally acquired, either stolen or gotten through a straw purchaser. This is one of the reasons people complain about new laws targeting legal gun owners. In California, they're trying to ban the sale or transfer of more than 50 rounds of ammunition a month, which would inconvenience all gun owners EXCEPT criminals, who don't need more than that.

The ONLY methods that have been proven to reduce violent crime are simple: put more police on the streets, and do something about the poverty problem that feeds gangs and the drug trade in America.

[rrneck]

70. Lets see how it measures up.

I've completed basic competency training and my drivers licence is proof of that.

Competency training is required for a firearm carry permit. No competency training is required for a car if it is not driven on a public road.

each and every car I own is registered and regularly tested for compliance with basic safety regulations

Again, because it is assumed you will drive your car on a public road. And of course, a firearm is a much simpler and more dependable piece of technology. You can put it in a drawer and it will still go bang twenty years from now.

Analogies are never perfect. That's why they are analogous and not identical. And I'm really tired of the car analogy. It seems that firearms are special in a lot of ways that make it difficult to discuss them in relation to other technologies and methods of regulating them. When you need a gun, you need it really bad and you need it right now no matter why you need it. When a firearm is used for defense or offense that use occurs as a last resort. To regulate them we have to make a ton of assumptions regarding the motives of their owners. That's always shaky ground when it comes to people's civil rights.

[Pholus]

73. That analogy was poor

I certainly never would have brought it up myself but when the door opened...

However, considering that we're allowing these things everywhere in public spaces I don't think it unreasonable that registration and ballistic testing be required. Other than fears that this a prelude to confiscation are there any other good arguments why it shouldn't be required?

[rrneck]

76. Those are already required

to the best of my understanding. Back home I had a CHL for a while and I was required to undergo an extensive background check, firearms regulations and safety training conducted by a state trooper, and a range test. It was presented as serious business to everyone there, and we treated it as such.

That was years ago but as far as I know CHL laws are pretty uniform in that regard.

As far as registration, well, if you have a CHL the powers that be know who you are.

[iverglas]

93. they like the analogy when it suits them

When it's pointed out that no one has yet invented a cloaking device, or shrinking device, that would make it possible to take a vehicle off one's property unseen or in one's pocket, and suggested that since the things in question are dissimilar on that rather largish point and that this dissimilarity is relevant and actually quite major, and suggested that perhaps the regulations that apply should take that dissimilarity into account, they fall strangely silent ...

[AtheistCrusader]

94. This is moving in a more productive direction.

Most gun owners do not carry or fire on public property. Some of us do, but very few. I would not impose the same restrictions on them that you have to operate a vehicle on public roads, if they do not intend to carry on public property.

None of those automobile requirements apply if you are using the vehicle only on private property.

[SteveM]

98. Actually, you don't need a license to own or even drive a car...

until you venture onto public rights-of-way and streets. Then you need an operator's license. Similarly, you don't need a license (in most states/localities) to own and operate a gun in/on your own property. When you venture off your property, you come under the auspices of any number of laws, governing: where and how to store in a car, the gun's loaded condition, the plug in your shotgun, the distance from a highway, the condition of concealment, the condition of open-carry and many more. If you want to carry-concealed, you need a license because you are off your property. As far as I know the only state where it is not a "universal" requirement to have a license for concealed carry is Vermont.

I for one will stick with the analogy.

[Lorax]

49. Socially insecure and self appointed guardians?

Gun ownership is not the sole province of the socially insecure and self-appointed guardians of public safety. I also don't think it defines the majority of people who post on this board.

But back to the OP... I live just blocks north of the Baltimore city line. I have lived here for 10 years. Growing up an Air Force brat, I have lived in quite a few different places. Just before moving to MD, I lived in NJ. My former career had me regularly working in and/or driving through all of the most crime-ridden parts of Northern NJ (i.e. Weehawken, Newark) and NY. I have sat surveillance in Harlem and Hell's Kitchen (before the gentrification), and I felt safer than I do when driving through parts of Baltimore city. Baltimore can be a hideous place.

Baltimore's horrendous drug problem, coupled with incredible poverty, is what fuels our incredibly high murder rate. Tightening gun control in this state is not going to address the core issues. Violent crime in Baltimore will never be reduced until we start getting serious about the drug and poverty issues.

There are many violent attacks in Baltimore that don't even involve guns. The current thing that is happening frequently is bands of young men attacking random people walking along the street either alone or with one other friend. These young men have beaten their victims into unconsciousness, permanent disability, and sometimes to death, with nothing more than their fists and their feet.

How is banning gun ownership by law abiding citizens going to stop that?

[Pholus]

62. I apologize

Man, I'm a sucker. Look, I get hot about this periodically (check my posting history). I have nothing against the second amendment, but I am really seeing things
get out of hand. This bill in the senate for example. Why is it that a state with NO CCW restrictions will get to dictate policy to my state? It's a step
backwards in my opinion.

[SteveM]

99. The Articles of the Constitution provide for full faith and credit...

This is what the advocates of concealed-carry have in mind. I for one am in favor of some sort of full faith and credit law, though I am a little concerned about the one proposed. I don't like the idea of rolling out a new federal law only to have the gun-controllers immediately start pecking away at it to enact a registration/restriction regime from a central and nationalized vantage point.

I'm not sure about what to do the disparate laws among states; they already exist for other things. Even driving.

[AtheistCrusader]

91. Oh goodie, a slam-fire full auto modification

Just what I want within 3 miles of me. :sarcasm:

Not only illegal, but highly unsafe. Your 'forum buddies' are darwin awards waiting to happen.

[SteveM]

96. Gun "worship," gun "idolatry" are terms used by gun-controllers...

I don't know what "thread" you are referring to, but please note that in Baltimore it is very difficult for law-abiding folks to get guns, but not difficult for the gansta to obtain them; clearly the problem there are the anti-gun politicians (those still in office and not up on indictment). As to "subscription" to groups that teach how turn turn semi-auto to full-auto, please tell me which ones will do that -- up front -- on the web. This urban legend ignores the reality that it is far less difficult to smuggle a full-auto than to essentially re-mill/replace major pieces for a gun that is not designed as full-auto in the first place.

As for trust, one of the things you learn in urban settings that in most situations you have to trust others: crossing streets, driving on fast, crowded roads, shopping in "gun-free" zones, etc. In fact, that applies in rural areas.

Clearly, you are far removed from how you were brought up. Where we were brought up, there was no big thing made of our family's 42-gun collection; they were working weapons, and they included semi-autos (one of which was made in 1905).

I agree that there is "NOTHING" wrong with guns, but guns are more than a hobby for the vast majority of people. Further, as long as there are "militant" gun-control advocates (and you know they are in these pages) who foam-at-mouth for punishment and rigorous unconstitutional laws, then you can be assured that there will be a vigorous, sustained defense. Respectfully, I turn it around: perhaps it is time for gun-control/prohibitionists to "...do some self-examination."

[pipoman]

104. You've already proven your lack of knowledge

by repeating this completely, demonstrably false assertion, "...I subscribe to groups on the web that teach me how to turn them full auto with just a metal file...". Since there are literally MILLIONS of these guns in private hands I am sure you can point to just ONE crime committed with a so called "easily converted" automatic weapon in the last, say, 10 years...just one...should be easy, eh? You can google 'til your fingers fall off and you will not find a single case. Further, here is a statement from the LA county armorer on this very subject while testifying under oath before the California assembly:

Los Angeles Detective Jimmy Trahin testifying before the California State Assembly,"in my 12 years within the unit, considering the enormous amount of firearms we have taken into custody, and that's over 50,000 I would say, and these include ones from the hardcore gangs and the drug dealers, our unit has never, ever had one ak47 converted, one Ruger Mini 14 converted, an H&K 8193...never converted, an AR180 never converted, so this media blitz of these military style assault weapons being converted to fully automatic is not true."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysf8x477c30

If you take the 10 minutes to watch the video, you will leave with a much better understanding of this issue. It is done by police officers, with statements from the director of the BATFE and others who understand this issue.

[Katya Mullethov]

106. You need to subscribe to better groups

Google " out of battery "

[gorfle]

24. Gang related.

Police said they didn't immediately know of a motive in the shootings, and no arrests were reported.

Hmm. Wonder if this might be related?

One of the victims at the cookout shooting was Steven Blackwell, 25, whose younger brothers were abducted last April in what police said was part of an escalating feud between rival drug organizations.

[notesdev]

27. the real culprit is prohibition

doesn't take more than a rudimentary understanding of the Prohibition Era to understand why organized crime exists and why they are shooting at each other. As usual, the real culprit is not guns but politicians.

If someone wants to circulate a petition to ban politicians, pass it this way!

[TheWraith]

58. The culprit is a lack of willpower on the part of the public.

To do away with archaic laws about drugs, and provide a sensible framework that doesn't create a multi-billion-dollar criminal empire. To do serious work with regard to fixing poverty and inner city education in this country. To stop simply allowing poor brown kids to kill and be killed for no better reason than that they were born into a place where the only "job" with opportunity for advancement is slinging drugs.

[notesdev]

66. Is it the public?

Or is it the near-complete absence of actual representation in our allegedly representative republic?

I bet any person here could name a half-dozen things that have 80%+ support among the general public but get nowhere in the halls of power.

[SteveM]

100. You have a point. The Top 40 and the Big 3 networks were community forums...

which are now virtually dead. In the digital age how does one effect change? How do we recognize it when it occurs? Cronkite is truly dead.

[yost69]

40. Well i am general public

and i have yet to shoot anyone with any of my firearms, and hopefully never will. But according to this story, which has alot of unanswered questions, this guys brothers were abducted in what police say is part of an escalating feud between rival drug organizations.

My thought is why doesn't everyone that is trying to take the guns and things away from the law abiding citizen, put their time and resources to uses that may actually make a difference. Like getting the illegal drugs out of the country? Less drugs equals less crime. Less crime equals less people getting murdered.

[goclark]

92. I am the general public as well

Of course I want to remove illegal drugs.

That is just one part of the Crime situation in America.

[benEzra]

50. Sounds like Maryland's focus on harassing the good guys isn't doing the job.

According to law enforcement sources, at least two of the shooting incidents appeared to be connected. One of the victims at the cookout shooting was Steven Blackwell, 25, whose younger brothers were abducted last April in what police said was part of an escalating feud between rival drug organizations. Police sources at the time told The Baltimore Sun that the abductions may have set off a wave of as many as five retaliatory homicides over the course of three months last summer.

Hit men for drug cartels are not the "general public". Those people could smuggle guns in disguised as routine cocaine shipments even if the general public were somehow disarmed.

And yet again, no one questions the War on Non-Approved Herbs, even though this is exactly what happened during alcohol prohibition...and the cure is the same: repeal prohibition, legalize, and regulate.

[Name removed]

81. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[spin]

107. The newspapers now report what I suspected...

drug gangs were involved.

According to law enforcement sources, at least two of the shooting incidents appeared to be connected. One of the victims at the cookout shooting was Steven Blackwell, 25, whose younger brothers were abducted last April in what police said was part of an escalating feud between rival drug organizations. Police sources at the time told The Baltimore Sun that the abductions may have set off a wave of as many as five retaliatory homicides over the course of three months last summer.


Sunday's cookout was to commemorate the one-year anniversary of the fatal shootings of Quinton Hogan, 23, who police believe was connected with the Blackwells, and Donell Rogers, 21. They were fatally shot July 25, 2008, shortly after Hogan appeared in District Court. Blackwell showed up to pay his respects, and was among those struck Sunday night, sources said. He received a gunshot to the forearm, the sources said.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/baltimore-city/bal-shooting0727,0,5516871.story

12 shot, injured at Baltimore cookout in drug feud

BALTIMORE — A gunman burst into a backyard cookout held in the memory of two men who'd been shot to death a year earlier, wounding 12 people in a shooting police say was sparked by a gang feud, Baltimore police said Monday.

****snip****

The cookout shooting and a drive-by shooting three hours later were both related to a long-running feud between rival drug gangs, Bealefeld said.

The apparent target of the cookout shooting, Steven Blackwell Jr., 25, was shot in the arm, police said.

Blackwell had been under police surveillance for some time, Bealefeld said. Blackwell's two younger brothers were abducted last April as part of a drug feud, and police believe that incident led to a series of retaliatory shootings.

Blackwell was charged with attempted murder in separate incidents 2000 and 2001, according to online court records. The initial charges were remanded to juvenile court, where records are sealed. The later charges were dropped.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j-uHsWntNR-v2WDWYMxmG0yrbYuQD99MVTRG0

[slackmaster]

111. Criminals shooting at criminals who are celebrating crimes committed against other criminals

We're supposed to feel sorry for them for living the life they created, and if you don't agree that making it harder for the people who weren't involved to get guns would fix the problem, you must be some kind of RW fanatic.

:crazy: