Gun Control

[Smith Wesson]

For all you candidates out there who are fervently anti-gun control (Marilyn O'Grady) I have a Suburban Sniper with a semi-automatic assault weapon I'd like you to meet.

[TY COBB]

not funny

[Smith Wesson]

I agree, the postion of gun "enthusiasts" is not funny.

Nor is it realistic.
Nor is it consistent with mainstream interpretations of the constitution.
Nor is it consistent with the historical role of guns in our society.
Nor is it consistent with the position of 78%+ of registered voters in NY-4 CD.

Better Gun Control Now!

[Publicus]

Thank you Carolyn. Now go back to your home in the Hamptons.

[Smith Wesson]

How irrelevant a comment.

Someone is blasting people away at random and the best you wackos can come up with is a snide remark about going to a home in the Hamptons.

What stupidity.

All of you avoid the issue like the Pollyanna's you are.

You are unamerican!

[Publicus]

First, you begin this Board with a statement that you would like all pro Second Amendment Candidates to be shot by a sniper (!) (specifically mentioning Marilyn O'Grady) and then you call my comment absurd? You need help. If you want to have a meaningful discussion/debate regarding gun control then don't begin by threatening candidates with a considered, but differing, opinion. As a postscript, I don't believe that anyone in their reasonable mind would want to see free, unlicensed sales of long range, high powered sniper rifles, particularly to people like you who would use them against anyone who's opinion differs from your own! Also, your name calling fit is not appreciated.

[ridinghi]

Publicus, you have way too much class and intelligence to waste your breath on smut waste (smith wesson).

That he/she actually belives that the "sniper" is proof we need stronger gun laws shows he/she is a typical "feel good" non thinking liberal.

For all the "tolerance" liberals claim to have, this individual threatens Marilyn O'Grady.
________
Grape ape marijuana strain (http://trichomes.org/marijuana-strains/grape-ape)

[Dem1]

no class at all....

[TY COBB]

I don't own a gun but the 2nd Amendment guarantees my right to purchase one. If society requires proper licensing and training to drive a car why can't we require the same for a gun? I doubt any responsible gun owner wants to bring back the old west.

I know, criminals don't care about these things , they just want a gun to commit crimes. that's why we need severe punishment for crimes committed with guns reasonable people can disagree but unfortunately the extremists on both sides get all the attention.

[Pete Moss]

I'm just curious. I own a .22 rifle and it's not all that high-powered at all. There are guys at the range who practically have bazookas.

This sniper is using a .223. Anyone have experience with these? I thought that class of gun was for varmints, not "larger game" like people.

I don't mean to sound callous ... just curious.

[AMERICAN SPORTSMAN]

THE .223 ROUND BEING USED BY THIS MONSTER IS THE STANDARD ROUND OF THE US MILITARY. IT IS DESIGNED WITH VERY HIGH VELOCITY AND IS QUITE LETHAL. THE RUSSIANS USE A SIMULAR ROUND. THE "EXPERTS" THINK HE IS USING EITHER AN AR-15(M16 CLONE) MADE BY SEVERAL MANUFACTURERS OR A RUGER MINI 14.bOTH RIFLES CAN BE FITTED WITH A SCOPE MAKING THEM EASY TO USE AT 500 YARDS.

BY THE WAY, TY COBB YOU ARE RIGHT ON ONE POINT I SEE SOME GUYS AT THE RANGE THAT ARE CLUELESS . I DO NOT WANT THE WILD WEST EITHER

[Publicus]

Where's the debate on the merits? Haven't seen you post on this issue in days. Who is "avoiding the issue like a Pollyanna"? It seems that there are many thoughtful posters ready to debate. If you want a meaningful debate on gun control lets have it.

[wuzzagrunt]

Guns are morally neutral. When used by bad actors, they are instruments of evil. So are Boeing 757's and mixtures of fertilizer/diesel fuel. Rep. Carolyn McCarthy is a particularly fine example of the liberal penchant for sloppy thinking. She is so ruled by fear and grief over her loss (it couldn't possibly be political ambition) that she's incapable of seeing that if several legally armed citizens were aboard that LIRR train, Colin Ferguson's rampage might have been stopped early on. He certainly would not have been able to reload and continue the carnage. Instead passengers were forced to take the only action available to them: cowering under the seat like a veal in a pen. If that is your preferred tactic you are welcome to it but let's be pro-choice about this shall we?

The question is not whether Americans have a right to own a gun. The question is whether we have a right to self defense. The police can not prevent someone from attacking you and have no legal obligation to do so. Court case after court case has held civil authorities harmless when they fail in their "duty" to protect individual citizens from assault and murder. Even when that failure is the result of negligence.

The fact is: "the people" do have a right to defend themselves (collectively and individually) from the predations of common criminals and tyranical governments. That right did not originate with the Constitution or even with the United States. The right merely is. No act of Congress or, interpretation of the Constitution can take it away. It follows that if you have a right to self defense, you have a right to the means to defend yourself. That means the right to own militarily useful weapons. The whole idea behind the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is to defend against "the tyranny of the majority". If 99% of Americans agreed that the freedom to criticize the gov't or, worship as you choose are too dangerous and should be abolished--does that mean you don't have those rights any longer? What if the Constitution were "legally" redrafted to prohibit those activities? And, how can you have the right to resist but not have the right to the means of resistance?

Quote: In Texas v. Miller: Id. The Supreme Court explained:
The right ... of bearing arms for a lawful purpose ... is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent on that instrument for its existence. Id.

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights were written in plain language that was easily understood by plain folk. It says what it says and everybody (who has bothered to read it) knows what it means. Those who believe they know what's best for everybody twist the meaning because that plain language is an obstacle to their social engineering. Those who say: "The Constitution is a living document" really mean: "the Constitution means what we say it means". The Consitution has foundational meaning or it has none at all.

The architects of our republic (not democracy) believed people possessed "natural rights" which no government may limit. By extension, the people retain the right to resist infringment of those rights by the government. That is, after all, what they did to free themselves from a repressive but legally constituted regime. They were, in fact, "traitors" under the laws of England.

As to the reference to "going back to the wild west": northeasterners are sooooooo divorced from reality! The trend is now for states to pass "shall issue" concealed carry permit laws for handguns. That means: if you have no criminal record, you get a permit. Curiously, the predicted "bloodbath" has not materialized. If you'd like to see a bloodbath in the making, take a look at the UK. They've totally banned handgun ownership and effectively stamped out long gun ownership with draconian regulations. Sounds good to you? Think again!

Quote: (excerpt from) Telegraph.co.uk
By David Bamber, Home Affairs Correspondent

GUN crime has almost trebled in London during the past year and is soaring in other British cities, according to Home Office figures obtained by The Telegraph.

Police chiefs fear that Britain is witnessing the kind of cocaine-fuelled violence that burst upon American cities in the 1980s. Cocaine, particularly from Jamaica, now floods into Britain, while the availability of weapons - many of them from eastern Europe - is also increasing.

Detectives in London say that the illegal importation of guns started after the end of the Bosnia conflict and that they are changing hands for as little as £200. During the 10 months to January 31, there were 939 crimes involving firearms in the Metropolitan Police area compared with 322 in the 10 months to the end of January, 2001 - an almost three-fold increase.

If a small island nation with one of the worlds most powerful navies can't prevent gunrunners from smuggling their product into the country--what chance does the US have? We have thousands of miles of border with other countries and many times more miles of coastline than Great Britain.

One prediction has come true: "....only outlaws will have guns".
Edited by: wuzzagrunt at: 10/17/02 4:19:15 pm

[confused]

I am going to start out by telling you that I am not an expert on guns, or gun control, or gun violence. I do, however, have a few questions which might help me understand your argument:

1. In the last 10 years, how many private citizens successfully saved either a life (theirs or someone else's) or prevented a violent crime by using (if not discharging) a firearm?

2. In the last 10 years, how many peole were killed by the accidental discharge of a firearm?

3. In the last 10 years, how many people were purposefully killed by a firearm at the hands of someone they knew-wife, husband, mother, father?

If the answers to these questions are that substantially more people were killed by accident or at the hands of someone they knew then were saved by the use of a gun, wouldn't it be reasonable to place restrictions on using firearms to avoid accidential killings and killings at the hands of people known to the victim?

By the way, do you believe that a restriction on the manner and mode in which a 'right' is excercised is the same as violating that right?



________
1957 Ford specifications (http://www.ford-wiki.com/wiki/1957_Ford)

[riding hi]

Your question, while not addressed to me, is fair and reasonable.
According to all the research I've done, thousands of people have been saved because they or a neighbor had a gun. Whereas the accident rate of shootings is miniscule, in fact there are more documented cases of medical malpractice in a year that accidental shootings.

[wuzzagrunt]

First, let me say: THANK YOU for asking intelligent questions!!!! I despise bumper sticker debates. Yours are tough questions with complex answers and I appreciate the challenge. Hard thinking is good for the brain. Let me also say that I am not one who is obsessed with the 2nd Amendment. I see assaults on the Constitution from all sides (Campaign Finance Reform, The Patriot Act, etc.).

Quote: ...do you believe that a restriction on the manner and mode in which a 'right' is excercised is the same as violating that right?

The short answer is: not necessarily. The idea of absolute and inviolable rights is attractive but not practicable. When does a reasonable restriction on the exercise of a right become a violation? To paraphrase Justice Potter Stewart: "I can't define it but, I know it when I see it." The First Amendment guarantees our God given right to speech without restriction yet you can't approach a member of a jury to try to influence his decision--even if you are not the one on trial. The people have a compelling interest in seeing the process through, without interference. There are proper exceptions and limitations to any right.

IMHO, the pro gun lobby would be far more amenable to "reasonable restrictions" and "common sense gun laws" if they did not--quite correctly--view them as incremental steps toward total abolition and confiscation. The history of the gun control debate is replete with "them" saying: "We don't want to take your guns we just want to regulate this or that particularly dangerous class of firearm." and "us" saying: "they won't stop at Saturday Night Specials or Assault Rifles or Sniper Rifles". And, "they" never will! The devil is in the definitions. Incidentally, the pro-abortion activists have the same opinion of "reasonable restrictions" proposed by the other side--and, they would be correct. The debate is not being conducted honestly.

Quote: If...substantially more people were killed by accident or at the hands of someone they knew then were saved by the use of a gun, wouldn't it be reasonable to place restrictions on using firearms to avoid accidential killings and killings at the hands of people known to the victim?

Statistical models and analyses are inherently problematical. Studies that rely on polls all have serious flaws. Studies done by proponents of either position are open to legitimate questions with regard to methodology. I'll cite some studies in my answers but, I take them with a grain of salt and I suggest you do as well. Both sides make claims, as to cause and effect, that may or may not be supported by the evidence. In the words of my two favorite political commentators:

Quote: There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and, statistics. -- Mark Twain.

Quote: If patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels then, statistics are the first. -- Wuzzagrunt.

It would be quite a stretch to claim there are no restrictions on gun ownership. There are federal laws, state laws and local ordinances aplenty. Whether any of those laws can be credited with reductions in crime is impossibe to say and--to some degree--beside the point. If elimination of violent crime were the sole test: then, declaring the 4th, 5th, 6th and, 8th Amendments to be "obsolete" would efficacious, as well. None of the afore mentioned amendments are particularly popular with crime victims.

Quote: In the last 10 years, how many peole were killed by the accidental discharge of a firearm?

According to National Safety Council, Injury Facts, 2001 Edition: total accidental "gun deaths" for year 2000, were 600 as compared to 3,900 accidental drownings and 11,700 accidental poisoning (by solids, liquids).

Gun accidents are generally committed by unusually reckless people with records of heavy drinking, repeated involvement in automobile crashes, many traffic citations, and prior arrests for assault. Each year about five hundred children under the age of five accidentally drown in residential swimming pools, compared to about forty killed in gun accidents. I don't mean to sound flippant but, people who leave guns around for small children to play with will likely find other ways to kill their children if guns aren't available to them. BTW, accidental shootings have been declining. Fatal gun accidents declined by almost sixty percent from 1975 to 1995, even though the number of guns per capita increased by almost forty percent and the population increased.

Quote: In the last 10 years, how many people were purposefully killed by a firearm at the hands of someone they knew-wife, husband, mother, father?

The stats aren't broken out that way. It should not come as any great surprise that most shootings (and stabbings, beatings, burnings, stranglings, window throwing outings, etc., etc.) are commited by intimates ("intimates" could mean "business partners" who share ownership of a Meth lab). Neither should it come as any surprise that the perpetrators of these acts have long histories of drug use, alcoholism, felony convictions and domestic abuse.

Researchers in the public health arena (AMA and CDC) who leap to the conclusion that responsible, law abiding adults who keep guns are endangering their loved ones, are guilty of Procrustean data torturing, which is defined as "deciding on the hypothesis to be proved and making the data fit the hypothesis."

Quote: In the last 10 years, how many private citizens successfully saved either a life (theirs or someone else's) or prevented a violent crime by using (if not discharging) a firearm?


Dr. Gary Kleck, a Florida State University criminologist found, in a national survey conducted in 1993, that there are approximately two million defensive gun uses (DGU's) per year by law abiding citizens. Prior to Dr. Kleck's survey, thirteen other surveys indicated a range of between 800,000 to 2.5 million DGU's annually. However these surveys each had their flaws which prompted Dr. Kleck to conduct his own study specifically tailored to estimate the number of DGU's annually.

Quote: From Dr. Kleck's study:

If we consider only the [Respondents] who believed someone almost certainly would have been killed had they not used a gun, and apply this figure to estimates....it yields national annual estimates of 340,000 to 400,000 DGUs of any kind, and 240,000 to 300,000 uses of handguns, where defenders stated, if asked, that they believed they almost certainly had saved a life by using the gun. Just how many of these were truly life-saving gun uses is impossible to know. As a point of comparison, the largest number of deaths involving guns, including homicides, suicides, and accidental deaths in any one year in U.S. history was 38,323 in 1991.

Since as many as 400,000 people a year use guns in situations where the defenders claim that they "almost certainly" saved a life by doing so, this result cannot be dismissed as trivial. If even one-tenth of these people are accurate in their stated perceptions, the number of lives saved by victim use of guns would still exceed the total number of lives taken with guns. It is not possible to know how many lives are actually saved this way, for the simple reason that no one can be certain how crime incidents would have turned out had the participants acted differently than they actually did. But surely this is too serious a matter to simply assume that practically everyone who says he believes he saved a life by using a gun was wrong.

Subsequent to Kleck's study, the Department of Justice sponsored a survey in 1994 titled, Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms. Using a smaller sample size than Kleck's, this survey estimated 1.5 million DGU's annually.

There is one study, the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), which in 1993, estimated 108,000 DGU's annually. Note: National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) data indicate that even in the very disadvantageous situation where the robber has a gun, victims who resist with guns are still substantially less likely to be injured than those who resist in other ways, and even slightly less likely to be hurt than those who do not resist at all. Why the huge discrepancy between this survey and fourteen others?

Quote: Why is the NCVS an unacceptable estimate of annual DGU's? Dr. Kleck's Answer:
Dr. Kleck states, "Equally important, those who take the NCVS-based estimates seriously have consistently ignored the most pronounced limitations of the NCVS for estimating DGU frequency. The NCVS is a non-anonymous national survey conducted by a branch of the federal government, the U.S. Bureau of the Census. Interviewers identify themselves to respondents as federal government employees, even displaying, in face-to-face contacts, an identification card with a badge. Respondents are told that the interviews are being conducted on behalf of the U.S. Department of Justice, the law enforcement branch of the federal government. As a preliminary to asking questions about crime victimization experiences, interviewers establish the address, telephone number, and full names of all occupants, age twelve and over, in each household they contact. In short, it is made very clear to respondents that they are, in effect, speaking to a law enforcement arm of the federal government, whose employees know exactly who the respondents and their family members are, where they live, and how they can be recontacted."

"...88% of the violent crimes which respondents [Rs] reported to NCVS interviewers in 1992 were committed away from the victim's home, i.e., in a location where it would ordinarily be a crime for the victim to even possess a gun, never mind use it defensively. Because the question about location is asked before the self-protection questions, the typical violent crime victim R has already committed himself to having been victimized in a public place before being asked what he or she did for self-protection. In short, Rs usually could not mention their defensive use of a gun without, in effect, confessing to a crime to a federal government employee."

Quote: On the Other Hand: Studying the Studies--Excerpted from ABCNEWS.com:

The political climate surrounding guns is so intense that studies have been done of studies that have been done about studies. Philip Cook, the director of Duke University's public policy institute, has examined the data behind the 108,000 and the 2.5 million figures and suspects the truth lies somewhere in between. "Many of the basic statistics about guns are in wide disagreement with each other depending on which source you go to," says Cook, a member of the apolitical National Consortium on Violence Research. "That's been a real puzzle to people who are trying to understand what's going on."

I believe a clever researcher could "prove" that statistics are a leading cause of violent homicides. I can only go by my own experience. In one instance, (I believe) I averted a serious assault by making it known that I was armed. On three other ocasions--I am sure--a serious crime was prevented by having an ugly and ill tempered Rottweiler Dog. My wife was to be the victim of one of those crimes. Again, it's not about guns but self defense.

Some will point to Japan as the paradigm for reducing gun violence. They look to their low homicide rates and assign causality to the absence of gun ownership. They will, curiously, overlook Japan's high suicide rate (higher total numbers than the US rate). If you want Japanese crime rates you must take the whole package. That package includes rigid conformity to social mores and, acceptance of a police state. Their high suicide rate, in many cases, amounts to self inflicted death penalties for "crimes" (behaviors) that Americans consider to be enriching to the social mosaic.

Even comparing crime rates between US states is of little value. Comparing Vermont (the least restrictive state laws/very low crime) and Ohio (quite strict laws/much higher crime) proves nothing. Places like Vermont, Utah, Texas, Ohio, Massachusetts all have unique cultures unto themselves.

Well I could go on forever but I think I've hogged enough bandwidth for one day. Perhaps, if there's interest, we'll organize a little field trip to the rifle range for a few open minded souls. Edited by: wuzzagrunt at: 10/18/02 4:31:40 pm

[wuzzagrunt]

It's true! Liberalism (a wildly inaccurate term--leftists are the most reactionary folks in the world) is more endocrinology than ideology Anything that stimulates the pituitary to release endorphins is "good" policy. Anything that stimulates the adrenal glands is "bad" policy.

Nothing stimulates the secretion of adrenalin like a debate on the merits of an issue. Still, I thought somebody would want to scold me about "the children".

[Publicus]

The winner and still undisputed champion...

[Rudy Fusco]

If it is undisputed, then what is all the fighting about?
(just kidding).

[reply to wuzzagrunt]

Oh, and even though there may have only been 600 accidental deaths in the U.S., the total gun deaths per year are over 11,000! (That's about 10 times more than the nearest country)

I'm all for resposible people owning simple rifles for hunting, but who needs a fully automatic Uzi in their living room?

-JB

[Conservative]

What! are you kiddin me.Ok let me gather my thoughts here so you are saying that just because some crazed lunatics decide that they are going to terrorize people by shooting them at random then that is your argument for gun control.I think you are taking advantage of a situation that is completely irrelelavant with the point you are trying to get across.If your opinion based on your explanation was correct we should be practising air travel control because in my opinion and you will have to agree that has caused more problems for us than a simple lunatic sniper.What I am saying is that the gun is not the problem, the sniper is,just as the plane is not what we should concern ourselves with,but the terrorist.
________
FREE APPLEBEES GIFT CARDS (http://bestfreegiftcard.com/applebees-gift-cards/)

[Publicus]

The key phrase in your fallacious argument is "responsible people." Someone who is responsible is not likely to be the source of the 11,000 gun deaths. The source is irresponsible people. Not irresponsible guns. I doubt that there are too many "responsible people" toting "a fully automatic Uzi" in their living room. There are 1000s of laws on the books already that if fully enforced or enforced properly would make sure that sales are only to "responsible people." By the way, isn't the NRA all about making sure that responsible people learn how to handle guns responsibly?
Your statement that your in favor of responsible people owing rifles for hunting runs contrary to the anti-gun crowd's position which wants to see all guns banned.

[Reply to Publicus' reply]

I guess since nobody could shut me down, let alone reply in the past week, I am the new undisputed champion of the Gun Control Issue!

I feel bad for you, outsmarted by a teenager.

-JB

[Publicus]

Before you gloat man-child, be aware that I was waiting to see the movie "Bowling for Columbine" (on your recommendation) before I responded to your post.

[just posting]

I know you think you "arguments" are new, fresh and devastating but you just hopped on this merry-go-'round. It's all been said before. I can forgive your hubris because when I was your age I knew everything too. Before you bill yourself as an intellectual you should at least be conversant with the writings of Jean Paul Sartre, Friedrich Hayek, Ludwig von Mises, John Locke, Friedrich Nietzsche, Karl Marx, John Stuart Mill, Thomas Hobbes and, Jean-Jacques Rousseau. You should also be able to discuss how their ideas have influenced modern thought. There are many, many more but that's the starter kit. Regurgitating the half-baked ideas of such luminaries of the cognoscenti as Michael Moore and your Social Studies teacher does not make you an intellectual. Before you call yourself a citizen, you should (at minimum) be conversant with the Articles of Confederation, the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Federalist Papers (again, the starter kit).

Your snide reference to the "Michigan Militia" is insulting and bigoted. I doubt you know very much about them but your implication was clear. It's easy to disregard ideas you can't debate if you label your adversary as a violent, knuckle dragging, white supremacist but you'll have to do better than that. My ideas are also "eerily similar" to those of the Militia at Concord and Lexington. I don't advocate violent revolution but I believe it will probably become necessary some day. I hope it will not happen in my lifetime. My handle describes me as a Marine Corps vet. What have you or Michael Moore ever risked for your country?

Was the NRA's failure to cancel their convention irresponsible? It was, if you consider their advocacy of a return to a traditional interpretation of the Constitution to be responsible for the deaths in Columbine. I reject that but I'll accept my share of responsibility if you and other advocates of victim disarmament will take ownership of the mass murder and genocide committed by governments upon their--not coincidentally--unarmed victims. The Peoples Republic of China under Mao had a negligible homicide rate--unless you count 30-60 million civilians killed by the government to be homicides. They didn't count them as such. I do.

BTW, the US DOJ statistics on "homicides" includes suicides, justifiable shootings by civilians and justifiable shootings by law enforcement officers. If you read my post you would see that Japan has more total suicides--without guns and with a much smaller population. The UK had a virtually non-existant "gun homicide" rate at the turn of the last century. The US rate was much higher even though both countries had similarly unregulated gun ownership. The US is currently experiencing a growth in the number of firearms and a declining homicide rate. The UK has effectively banned private firearms ownership and is experiencing explosive growth in their overall crime rate and, specifically crimes committed with firearms.

Gun laws are irrelevant to crime rates!
Edited by: wuzzagrunt at: 11/23/02 7:47:04 pm

[mc]

According to the Constitution I have the right to bear arms, arm bears, and the such. Who in the world has heard of a gun or a bear ever hurting anyone?

I don't get you liberals, if you don't like America, move to Commie China, or Canada, or something. I am the voice of all true Americans. If you disagree, get the heck out.

GOP & NRA, partners forever!
________
Amateur Tube (http://www.fucktube.com/)

[wuzzagrunt]

That last post bent the needle on my Troll Meter.

[mc]

Is that some kind of shot at my intellegence?
________
Vaporizer (http://twitter.com/vaporizer)

[wuzzagrunt]

Negative, good buddy. 10-4

Semper Fi

[Gene]

No ammount of arguement has ever or ever will sway my opinion and that of everyone I know: Gun control does not affect crime as long as criminals do not play by the rules honest citizens do. Disarming women, old folks, people like me, will never stop crime it will make it safer.

People like me do not rob stores, we have jobs. We do not rape women, we shoot rapists. We do not hijack planes, we kill hijackers. We do not terrorize schools, we teach and protect our children. We do not mug people, we make our own money, and we do not worry over fits of rage and mental halth issues. Gun control will not curb these problems. People like me have passed the stringent tests needed for that square of plastic that enables me to carry my gun undetected in public. People like me are not paranoid, criminals are paranoid of us.

Last but not least, we did not kill people during 911 nor the school masacres, we honest citizens were unarmed and riding in the planes or waiting for the police, who stood and debated strategy with their fancy guns while the criminals did the killing. Gun control is a facade, and always will be.