(SF Fisherman's) Wharf victim's father says U.S. gun laws too lax

[alp227]

(02-01) 17:34 PST SAN FRANCISCO -- The father of a Fisherman's Wharf souvenir- shop employee who was gunned down over the weekend said Tuesday that the violence is proof that the United States needs to do more to restrict the availability of guns.

Bao Ying Chu said the shooting deaths of his son, Qiong Han Chu, 30, and fellow shop employee Feng Ping Ou, 30, were an outgrowth of U.S. laws that make guns widely available.

"That's what I'm most upset about," the Chinese immigrant, speaking in his native Taishan dialect, said in a brief phone interview from his San Francisco home.

Gun control laws in China are far more strict, Chu said.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/02/01/BAGP1HH9C1.DTL

[slackmaster]

1. I'm sorry for Mr. Chu's loss

He may not be aware that California has about the strictest STATE gun laws in the nation. In addition to the standard federal background check and paperwork, for handguns we have:

- Full registration of all transfers, including private-party sales (i.e. no "gun show loophole"),
- State-issued Handgun Safety Certificate required to purchase one,
- Additional proof of residency required, such as utility bills or vehicle registration,
- Requirement to physically demonstrate ability to safely unload a gun before you can take possession,
- 10-day "cooling off" waiting period, even if you already own one or more handguns,
- Child-Access Prevention law which provides criminal penalties if a kid gets hold of your gun and shoots someone.

California is one of only a handful of states with an archaic "may issue" system for concealed-weapons permits, which means you have to prove to your local chief LEO that you have what he or she considers a legitimate reason for carrying a concealed weapon.

[cleanhippie]

2. I think he means that ENFORCEMENT of US gun laws is lax...and this is a dupe OP.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=325335&mesg_id=325335

[alp227]

31. i thought that this would be moved to Guns if i posted on GD n/t

[nosmokes]

3. US gun laws are far too lax. That's why we have a murder rate that would

not be tolerated in any other 'civilized' nation. But how do you put the cat back in the bag?

[Glassunion]

4. Are you implying that "More Guns = More Crime"?

[nosmokes]

5. No. I'm stating it plainly.

[Glassunion]

6. Your statement is not based in fact. Unless you are privy to data that I am not.

In fact violent crime has been on the decline for quite some time now.
http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/table_01.html
As you can see, our crime rate has been on a steady decline for the past 20 years.

Here is the number of NICS background checks performed for the purchase of firearms.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/reports/total-nics-background-checks
And
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/reports/ptd_state_totals_by_purpose_codes


If I use your statement and compare it to the data, they do not jive. Do you have a source of information that I do not?

[Hoyt]

7. But, it's not because more folks are toting. I know that is what you want to believe though.

I don't really follow these stats because there are a lot of factors impacting the rates, and I'm not trying to rationalize toting a gun in public.

But a quick search indicates localities with the tougher gun laws -- like California and New York -- saw big declines too.

In any event, I do not believe more guns will decrease crime rates in the short or long term. Long-term, more guns is a serious problem. Besides, who wants to see a bunch of folks sporting their latest gun accessory walking around in public.

[Glassunion]

8. "I know that is what you want to believe though." You are mistaken.

I personally feel that there are many social reasons for the decline in crime. I also feel that addressing social ills would have the most impact on crime.

Thank you though for telling me what it is that I want to believe.

Personally, I do not thing that there is any correlation between the volume of firearms owned by the public and crime rates. I do however feel that our poverty levels, war on drugs, health and education systems, etc... contribute to our crime rates.

[Hoyt]

9. I agree, especially with your last sentence. Unfortunately, the guns in public folks think their

packing in public is the primary reason rates have decreased.

[Glassunion]

10. I have not seen that position here at DU. I have however seen that position taken

on other sites, and with that position I would disagree.

Personally, I feel that my carrying of a firearm in public does nothing to crime rates at all. It neither raises nor lowers the crime rate at all.

[X_Digger]

12. When someone here says that, then you be sure to jump right on that. n/t

[Hoyt]

18. Not worth thread-diving, but it has been said and implied by the carriers many times. In fact.

You can go to your beloved NRA site and find the following: "More guns, less crime."

Admittedly, for those who get bogged down in minutia to rationalize carrying and buying another weapon, it does not say "equals." But, I think you get the picture. Or, maybe not.

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=206&issue=007


If you can stomach it, gun nut Ted Nugent says the same thing.

[X_Digger]

20. When Ted posts here, you be sure to correct him.

You can read into the NRA page whatever you like, but if the 'mothership' doesn't equate the two, what does that say about your assertion that this position is widely held?

[PavePusher]

26. I believe it is a contributing factor.

Note that I said "contributing", not "only", "major" or any other descriptor.

[slackmaster]

13. I have been taught something quite different in every self-defense course I've taken, gun or not

The purpose of carrying a weapon is for defense of one's self and others, not to lower crime rates.

[Hoyt]

16. What exactly do you mean by "others.?" I personally don't want some gunslinger "protecting" me.

If you are talking your family -- well that's for you to decide. I've decided that walking around in public places with a gun does not protect my family in the short, or long, run.

[slackmaster]

17. Family, friends, neighbors, pets, property, or maybe even a stranger in distress.

I've decided that walking around in public places with a gun does not protect my family in the short, or long, run.

I'm glad that you have the mental capacity to make important decisions for yourself, and I respect the choices that you make for yourself.

[Hoyt]

19. Again, you are not trained/accountable to safeguard the public. Top 3 reasons I oppose toting.

The cowboy mentality is one reason guns need to be strictly regulated. You are not the police, judge, jury and executioner/cowboy. I know that is tough to accept for some of you guys.

[slackmaster]

21. Your're not making any sense here. I've never claimed to be responsible for the general public.

You are not the police, judge, jury and executioner/cowboy.

Straw man is a straw man. I've never claimed that I was. In fact, my posts up-thread indicate exactly the opposite.

BTW, I don't have a permit to carry in urban areas in California. I do sometimes carry when I am in the wilderness. You don't need to worry about me helping you out if you are being attacked by zombies. If you and I ever happen to meet, I'll almost certainly be unarmed. I might step in if you're losing in a bar fight, otherwise I'll be running like hell to save my own ass.

[X_Digger]

22. The Police aren't accountable for your safety, either. n/t

[Hoyt]

23. More accountable than the typical public gun carrier.

I know many here think they are ready to handle a situation in public -- after all, they've shot hundreds of paper targets and practiced in front of their mirror -- but they likely aren't.

[X_Digger]

25. *You* are the person most responsible for your safety.

If you call a cop and none arrive? Too bad, so sad, they're not legally liable for failing to protect you.

I carry to protect myself, not you, or your family.

[Hoyt]

30. I don't carry, and have managed to protect myself without a gun. It's not that hard.

[X_Digger]

32. *pats head* Good for you!

I respect your choice, I expect the same courtesy in return.

[Hoyt]

33. Packing not good for society. Sorry. Like smoking in public, mink coats, and the like.

[X_Digger]

34. You've yet to back that up with anything more than 'bad taste'..

What tangible harm does it present (numbers please), versus the good (self-defense uses)?

Your distaste does not count, sorry.


eta: There are about 6,000,000 people with one form or another of concealed handgun license. What problem have they caused?

[PavePusher]

40. So, letting myself be a victim....

is good for society?

Whut. Evah. :eyes:

[PavePusher]

28. Not accountable in any way, shape or form...

unless you are directly in their custody.

But you knew that already... :eyes:

[PavePusher]

27. And it's been a statictically significant problem... where? when? n/t

[rl6214]

15. No

They show that carrying in public has not caused the crime rate to grow out of control and the streets have not turned red with blood

[cleanhippie]

51. Much like your HuffPo article, you are making things up again.

No one has made that claim. Please show where that claim has been made.

[rl6214]

14. Concealed carry means

Concealed.

[krispos42]

24. Our non-gun homicide rate is as high as W. European nation's total homicide rate.

At the same time, the US homicide rate has dropped some 45% over the past 18 years despite the number and capacities of guns (per capita) remaining constant.


California also has very strict gun laws, I believe the strictest state-level laws in the nation.

[applegrove]

11. It will never happen in the USA. The military needs generation after generation

of kids fantasizing about gun play to fill the ranks of the army, navy, airforce, marines when they turn 18.

[PavePusher]

29. Can't help but wonder... just what you are trying to insinuate about the military...

and what is your historical evidence?

[beevul]

36. There you go...

There you go, "filibustering" the thread again...

:rofl:

[applegrove]

37. Are you insinuating that the military does not want a whole bunch of

lower middle class and working class kids with gun fantacies turning 18? Okay. You go with that.

[Euromutt]

41. You make the claim, you provide the evidence

That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

It might be noted, however, that North Korea, South Korea, Russia and Singapore (to name a few examples) all have significantly higher numbers of troops per capita than the United States does, even though the laws on private firearms ownership are much more stringent.

China has fewer troops per capita, but thanks to the size of their population, they have a million more active duty personnel than the United States does. The People's Liberation Army Ground Force is the largest standing army in the world. As a private citizen in China, you cannot legally possess anything more powerful than a .177-caliber air rifle, and you need a permit for that.

[applegrove]

46. I wasn't stating that it was a worldwide phenomena.

[Euromutt]

47. You haven't provided any evidence it's even a local phenomenon (n/t)

[applegrove]

49. So you don't agree that that is one of the reasons why gun laws are so lax in the USA. I see it that

way.

[Euromutt]

50. You're entitled to your opinion

Just don't expect it to be persuasive unless you're willing to provide some evidence, or at least a better argument than "it stands to reason," to support it.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

35. 80,000,000 gunowners but only 3,000,000 armed forces active & reserve personnel... ?!?

Your mini-rant doesnt make much sense. :shrug:
were you shaken as a baby?

[applegrove]

38. Oh and with recruiting issues the army doesn't need all the help it can get? Oh and that little

insult at the end of your thread... I touched a nerve didn't I.

[benEzra]

39. Yes, because Federal law encourages gun ownership prior to your 18th birthday

so you'll be ready to enlist. I can't wait to turn 18 (after my next negative-22 birthdays) so I can enlist too. :eyes:

(For those who don't know, you have to be 18 to purchase any firearm and 21 to purchase a handgun, and for obvious reasons almost all gun enthusiasts are older than 18.)

[YllwFvr]

42. you werent a gun enthusiast at under 18?

thinking back its odd, my family owned guns but they were very hush hush with them. My grandfather owned guns and, with supervision, let me shoot them all day at pop bottles. The target was the middle of the pepsi logo. I was a damn good shot. My father had guns, but I wasnt allowed to shoot them even when I was older. I lived for the day to plink with grandpa on his farm. I was certainly a firearms lover at 8 years old. Got my first paintball gun at that age.

I dont see the problem with buying a responsible child a cricket 22 or 410, or whatever you choose, to teach them firearms responsibility and safe handling practices. Of course, they shpuld be locked up away from the ammunition with all the other firearms in the house.

[benEzra]

43. I enjoyed shooting well prior, yes. Shot a Daisy lever-action BB gun so much

as a child that I eventually wore out the piston seals. Got a book on marksmanship from the library and shot paper with it. My parents introduced me to a .22 when I was a young teenager, along with the book First Rifle by C.B. Colby, as I recall (a book I still have, and will likely pass along to my daughter). I bought my first gun at 18, a Ruger mini-14 Ranch Rifle.

However, prior to 18, I owned nothing, nor (IIRC) would I have been legally able to purchase anything, even then.

[YllwFvr]

44. AFAIK they can be gifted cant they?

They can in my state. Pistols, only to immediate family, but long guns can be gifted freely.Perhaps other states restrict that

[benEzra]

45. I believe that in many (most?) states, the firearm must remain technically the adult's

and a lot of states have restrictions on unsupervised access by a minor, i.e. someone under a certain age can't have access to a firearm while not under adult supervision. Age cutoffs probably vary by state, and there is some exception for possession while hunting or target shooting in most states.

[Euromutt]

48. Well, if we're going to take one incident as proof of something...

...it could also be taken as evidence that the United States is making a mistake in letting in Chinese immigrants, or letting them compete with each other in importing and selling Chinese-made knockoff handbags, both of which are at least as inextricably linked to this incident as the availability of firearms in California. Besides, there's been a fair amount of evidence over the past few years that a sufficiently frustrated Chinese guy in China can readily kill multiple people by means other than firearms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yan_Yanming http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yang_Jia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Chinese_school_attacks http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebei_tractor_rampage), so arguably, the factors I listed were more important than the availability of firearms.

And frankly, speaking as an immigrant myself, I didn't come over here expecting the country to adapt to the way I thought it should be run, and while I am sorry for Mr. Chu's loss, he does need to remember that he chose to make his home here, rather than in China. I mean, he's been here 20 years; surely he had ample opportunity during that time to find out what American gun laws are like, and if he found them so objectionable, move back to China?

By the way, did everybody read this paragraph as well?

On Tuesday, the elder Chu deplored what was he said was a lax U.S. criminal justice system in which murderers sentenced to death can live in prison for decades while their appeals work their way through the courts. There is no such lag time in China, he said.

Well yeah, welcome to America. We're kind of funny over here in that we have remarkable numbers of private citizens murdering other private citizens, but we still have a bit of an inhibition regarding the government murdering citizens unless we're quite positive that the citizen in question actually committed the offense of which he's been accused and even convicted. And given the number of people who have been exonerated while on death row, that inhibition is far from misplaced.

And geez, living in an American state prison for decades; yeah, that sounds just fucking idyllic to me.