JustJess

Please note, my views have been widened a bit after reading some interesting posts here. I used to think that no one should have a gun - what for, if you don't hunt? And even hunters I would (still do) get angry with that hunt but don't make full use of the animal they kill. That's another topic - I'm just trying to clarify my current thoughts on guns.

Currently, I don't believe in a full gun ban. But neither do I believe everyone should get to have one. Our laws ARE ineffective and in need of revision. But what do you think of the following situation?

Article from CNN:
Other neighborhood kid's quote:
A few questions, without many answers in this rather brief article:

1. Mental illness, anyone? I think that's pretty clear that he's gone off the deep end. He was seen measuring his lawn.

2. Gun control questions arise - let's infer that this guy was high-functioning. No mental illness history, or else he would not have been able to get the gun permit, correct? But clearly he's got issues that have developed into a serious problem. What do we do about these situations? How do we regulate idiots from being able to own guns? Do we require classes/training first?

I know that the real problems are with illegal gun owners - perpetrators of crimes are not concerned with permit laws. But it's these people, using their guns for crimes like this, that are clouding what might be a clear cut issue. While I wish for harsher penalties for perpetrating a crime with an illegal/unlicensed gun, it's things like this that make me not want regular people to own guns either.

What do you suggest, as REAL WORLD possibilities, as an answer to cutting down on crimes such as this?

__________________
My heart knows me better than I know myself, so I'm gonna let it do all the talkin'.

dksuddeth

Many people are obsessive/compulsive. I wouldn't necessarily consider this a mental illness, otherwise we'd all be declared incompetent. My hangup is dirty dishes, when they are supposed to be clean. I've been known to yell at my kids for not checking the dishes before they put them away and pulling them all out and washing them by hand. Does that make me a homicidal maniac?

short answer - you can't. People can, and do, flip out. Also, gun permits are not required for shotguns/long guns. This COULD have been prevented, but I have to place some blame on the kid and the parents of this kid. They KNEW this guy had an obsession with his yard, knew it for 5 years. That does not justify the murder though. This guy seriously overreacted and deserves the death chamber or life without parole. A tragedy on all counts.

senseless crap happens, thats life. MAYBE, if more people had taken an interest and helped to mediate, it could have been avoided. I really don't know.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Poppinjay

You? no. This guy? Yes.

In this case, it's the opposite. Death.

__________________
I think the Apocalypse is happening all around us. We go on eating desserts and watching TV. I know I do. I wish we were more capable of sustained passion and sustained resistance. We should be screaming and what we do is gossip. -Lydia Millet

dksuddeth

My point is, how would you know someone is going to commit homicide? because he measures his lawn? because he washes every dish in the cupboard by hand once a month? How about people who avoid cracks in the sidewalk? Or wash their hands 40 times a day?

I get your point, as I hope you get mine. different kinds of tragedies happen every day. Look at the number of kids who just disappear on a weekly basis. The arab student in north carolina with an SUV. college students in wyoming killing a gay kid. There is only so much you can do.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

jwoody

I would suggest a total ban on private ownership of all guns and the destruction of all privately owned guns in circulation. No ifs, buts or maybes.

A lot of people would be pissed off.

Many thousands of people would lose their livelihoods.

It would take at least one human lifespan for the effects to become apparent.

It would all be worth it, in my most humble of opinions.

__________________
.

Elphaba

JustJess, I really don't think the case given could have been prevented, but I do wonder what medications Mr. Martin might have been taking. I have known three older men who have exhibited rage (father, father-in-law, and brother-in-law) after taking steroids for a period of time. I realize this is merely anecdotal evidence, but I wonder if there is a known relationship between the two.

dksuddeth

jwoody, you are certainly entitled to your opinion, but I have to ask you this.

Is history taught to you guys in england?

You do know what happens when the people are disarmed, right? If not, I can certainly repost some of my past documentation.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

ubertuber

I'm pretty sure they teach history in the UK. Beyond that, I'm a little fuzzy on what your point is. Can you be more specific about WHICH history it is that you think is so relevant?

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

ratbastid

I'm with you, Jess, I used to be in favor of melting down guns and making little metal toys out of them. Now I'm not so sure.

In this case, I have to ask myself--what would our friendly neigborhood psycho have done if he didn't own a gun? Would he have charged out with a knife? Thrown a rock? Called the police? What flavor would the overreaction have taken, if he hadn't had a gun at the ready?

For sure, you've got to think that whatever he did would have been less lethal. Assault with a knife can certainly still cause death, but it's not the same level of physical trauma as a shotgun blast. There's a much better change an ER doc could put the kid back together, or that the assault might result in minor or superficial wounds. Not so with a shotgun--a hit is a hit. You either miss the kid, or you seriously mess him up.

So, okay, this guy shoudn't have had a gun. But do you base policy on anecdotes like this? Hard to think so. I'd like to know how many people every year successfully defend themselves from violence using guns.

jwoody

I'm fully aware that I've climbed right to the peak of Myopinion Mountain and planted my flag at the top but - that's my opinion.

If you feel the need to defend yourself against a corrupt govenrment then my solution would be to stop voting for corrupt governments or take the example of the Serbians.

They overthrew one of the most dangerous dictators in the history of government without a shot being fired (from the side of the overthrowers).

A truly awesome example of people power.

An alternative scenario is that of how Saddam Hussein became the dictator of Iraq. He and his cronies entered parliament with handguns and shot the government.

Hardly inspirational, is it?

__________________
.

dksuddeth

since he's from england, I'll start with the english bill of rights and its origin. After that, I could start talking about different regimes throughout history that have disarmed its populace and the resulting aftermath.

and again, you are certainly entitled to it. I just question the methods and reasoning that you came to that opinion is all.

If i'm the lone vote for a non-corrupt government, how does that help me against the majority? but thats irrelevant. Not all governments start out corrupt, not all governments end up corrupt. The point is that the people should always be armed and prepared in case it does.

and I can compare that with how america became a nation separate from england. there is good and bad with nearly everything.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

jwoody

The thread topic is:

What do you suggest, as REAL WORLD possibilities, as an answer to cutting down on crimes such as this?

__________________
.

Charlatan

Personally, I see no problem with long guns.

I say ban all handguns. Make the production of them illegal. Make the punishments for possession or use of handguns extreme.

I have heard the agurment and I see no really need for hand guns. The only real purpose of hand guns is antipersonnel.

At least with long guns they have some utility.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

dksuddeth

I understand that. I simply used an argument to counter your suggestion. If you'd rather not have me do that, tell me that you don't want to hear a differing opinion.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

dksuddeth

do gun bans of any kind work? will it really get rid of ALL guns of that type? prove to me where it has please.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Charlatan

In the past it has not. That is because no one really had the balls to either create strong laws nor enforce them.

I am talking about a major initiative. Starting with the manufacturing all the way down to the streets.

You make handguns you do time.
You sell handguns you do time.
You use a handgun you do major time.

I realize that this isn't going to happen. There are too many people with money and ego invested in the system of weapon supply. They rather see the death rate climb than take their pistols away.

Like I said, keep your long guns. Get rid of the handguns.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

dksuddeth

how much stronger can a law be than 'no handguns allowed'? DC has done it since 68 only to see their murder rate climb 200%. Daley in Chicago hasn't allowed handguns since 98, last year they were the no.3 city in the nation in murder rate. The only 'major' initiative you could institute would be mobilizing law enforcement, national guard, and the military and start sweeping every home, building, business, and back alley. wow, i just had a glimpse of the jewish ghetto in germany.

It's not just 'big business' though. Many individuals prefer handguns over long guns. My 5' nothing mother can't hold up the barrel of any of the shotguns in her home. Even with my proficiency in rifles and handguns, I can't shoot a shotgun to save my life. go figure that one. Too many people will take it upon themselves to make their own guns. it's a pandoras box thats already open, so instead of going the 'ban' route, lets come up with something that will work.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

JustJess

That's a really interesting idea, Charlatan. Mind you, in the case quoted, the kid was killed with a shotgun, but I see your general point. Do you think the cops should still have hand guns? I would say yes, for sheer practicality, as long guns would be difficult to maneuver in many situations.

Jwoody, when I said "real world possibilities"... a full gun ban wasn't one of them in my mind. To sound perfectly paranoid, neither do I want a government like ours having all the guns and us, none. Because if they instituted - and actually enforced! - a complete gun ban, there's no way they would stop having them for their own purposes. And that's just too dangerous, and would destroy what little balance we have. It's not that I think we have enough guns to do anything about our gov't, or that they're concerned with our owning guns, but that if we give up that right, we're giving up far more than metal. We're giving up a chunk of our power in the structure that is our society. It's along the same lines of why it's rude to sit while someone else stands in your office - you give the impression that you're in charge, not the other person.

I do think that there may have been no way, or regulation, that would have changed what happened to this 15-yo kid. That's a real shame.

As far as actual changes, what I currently propose:

1. I would strongly consider Charlatan's thought of banning all handguns;
2. Automatic fines of $1000 per gun per instance of being caught with gun (UNLICENSED ONLY, IE GANGS ETC.);
3. Removal of all illegal guns to be stripped and re-used, possibly for military/police use;
4. If criminal is unable to pay fines, then jail/probation/community service for minimum 5 years per offense (in addition to any other criminal penalties for any related/unrelated crimes);
6. Strict licensing requirements, INCLUDING GUN SHOWS - Pass basic psych eval and comprehensive gun safety tests.

That would help to cut down on some of the crap, I think.

__________________
My heart knows me better than I know myself, so I'm gonna let it do all the talkin'.

Charlatan

Banning guns in one city is small potatoes.

I'm talking nation-wide. The only way it can work is if everyone does it. It would take a nation effort and desire to stop the violence and to change.

I don't see this happening, not just because of Big Business. In my opinion, if your founding fathers saw the trouble it would cause, they wouldn't have added the clause to the constitution, or they would have been more specific in their language. I don't they had the ability to concieve the world of today, as far as handguns are concerned.

I guess I need to add to my list:

You make your own hand guns, you do time.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

The_Jazz

I have to agree with Charlatan on this one. I think that handguns are inherently evil. With only a few exceptions, their entire purpose is for killing human beings. Clearly the problem isn't going to go away in my lifetime, but I really don't see any reason why someone can't defend their home with a long gun.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

dksuddeth

So you would encourage the whole populace to chip in, hand over their guns?

I disagree. The founding fathers had seen what a totalitarian government could do with a disarmed populace and thats why they wrote the second amendment. The founders own quotes in preparing the BoR show that they intended for every american to be able to own arms for their defense and defense of the state. One of Thomas Jeffersons quotes - "Every citizen should be a soldier. This was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free state."

this sounds familiar, like - 'you make your own liquor, you do time.'
that worked out real well too.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

JustJess

DK - we're not talking total disarmament. We're talking about getting rid of things that are too often the source of unnecessary violence, and of making responsible gun owners look evil, when you're not.

Making your own liquor won't kill anyone (and if you counter with 'tell that to an alcoholic, so help me!). We DO have responsible, effective alcohol bans. It's called the 'no open container in cars/parks' law, the 'no driving while intoxicated' law. The penalties are stiff and are reasonably effective. So I'd say you're making my point.

__________________
My heart knows me better than I know myself, so I'm gonna let it do all the talkin'.

dksuddeth

I understand that. My issue is people are focusing on the tool, not the person misusing it and thats where we should be focusing.

yeah, tell that...ok, just kidding

but neither the penalties, nor the laws, are putting a stop to it. Others are right there to pick up the slack, so to speak. I'm not saying the DUI laws should be revoked though, lets make that clear, but it's obviously not stopping the problem.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Charlatan

Yes, or face procecution.

I'm sure they did and I restate that I don't think they could forsee the issues that have arisen from the widespread abuse of handguns.

You can live by Jefferson's words with your long guns. You don't need handguns to do this.

You are right. The difference would have to be in the prosecution. It *would* be difficult to enforce and it will be a long fight.

I see it as way more worthy a *war* than the war on drugs ever was.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

Poppinjay

Temperance failed because, well, it wasn't temperance. It was the government trying to cut off an addictive supply. That is a very unwise thing to do.

I'm a fan of rifles and shotguns. I hunted, fished, etc. I no longer own any, but they're fine by me. However, I agree with posters who advocate abolishing handguns.

As far as the DC murder rate goes, it's in a ten year decline, and nowhere near what it was 20 years ago.

__________________
I think the Apocalypse is happening all around us. We go on eating desserts and watching TV. I know I do. I wish we were more capable of sustained passion and sustained resistance. We should be screaming and what we do is gossip. -Lydia Millet

dksuddeth

whoa, another jewish ghetto flashback. Thats not encouragement, thats threats and intimidation and then we truly have the police state.

are handguns abusing the people, or are people abusing the handguns?

Lets further this 'scenario' then. What do you do when people start using long guns/shot guns in all their criminal activities? Do you start to ban those as well? Don't try to discount the possibility, people with criminal intent will take shotguns and shorten them to use in crimes.

which will have the same conclusion. The black market will just flourish more.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Charlatan

"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." - George Washington

You don't need a handgun to do this.

I promised myself that I wouldn't enter into a discussion with a pro-handgun person again.

...and so I leave you to it. I have no desire to pound my head against the wall.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

dksuddeth

In 1982, the DC murder rate was 26/100,000 with a total pop. of 631,000

in 1986, the DC murder rate was 31/100,000 with a total pop. of 626,000

In 1992, the DC murder rate was 75/100,000 with a total pop. of 589,000

In 96, the DC murder rate was 73.1/100,000 with a total pop. of 543,000

In 2002, the DC murder rate was 45.8/100,000 with a total pop. of 571,000

In 2004, the DC murder rate was 35.8/100,000 with a total pop. of 553,523

So yes, you are in a 10 year decline but how do you prove that this is a result of gun control and not some other factor? could it be the declining population? If ONLY the murder rate was going down, I could find some agreement that gun control was the factor, but I see ALL crime going down so I have to believe that there is another major determining factor instead of gun control.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

dksuddeth

i'm sorry you're getting frustrated charlatan, but the quote you posted from george should void any further argument. does the government have handguns? so should we, as having sufficient arms and ammunition.

as far as pounding your head against the wall, i know the feeling.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Charlatan

Jess, I realize the 15-year-old was shot with a long gun. I see his death as a horrible blip rather than a trend.

The thousands and thousands of deaths by handguns are a trend that can be fixed. They are too readily available to idiots who don't give a damn. Add to this the simple fact that handguns are not neccessary to live up to the words of your founding fathers.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

JustJess

Charlatan - after reading today's posts, I would agree.

Would you add anything to the restrictions other than those outlined?

DK - 2004's 35.8 = a 53% decline since 1992 in murder rates vs. only a 6% decline in population. So yes, I'd say the gun control laws should be credited more than population numbers declining in DC.

__________________
My heart knows me better than I know myself, so I'm gonna let it do all the talkin'.

dksuddeth

Please look at the rest of my statement, not focus on just one question.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Ustwo

I hear we can cut down greatly on deaths due to car accidents by banning cars. This will also promote public transportation, and cut down on those oh so deadly greenhouse gases, as well as making us less dependent on Islamic controlled oil supplies.

Lets do it!

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

dksuddeth

I didn't want to point out obvious things like that, last time I did it seems I pissed a couple people off. Especially when I said they should ban swimming pools because of the number of kids that drown in them.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

JustJess

My apologies. As you were using the murder rate as the example, I ran with it. IMHO, a overall crime rate decline could quite easily be largely attributed to a gun ban, along with increased police presence and stiffer overall penalties.

Your argument appears double-sided - first you say gun bans don't help, and then you quote numbers that support the idea that a gun ban does help - and claim that doesn't prove anything. What data makes you believe that it ISN'T helping? It certainly isn't hurting! If it's not hurting and it's not stopping long guns, why not institute changes like this country wide?

__________________
My heart knows me better than I know myself, so I'm gonna let it do all the talkin'.

Charlatan

Actually, we test drivers of cars for their competence and then license them. We police and highly regulate the use of automobiles.

If you could institute something similar for handguns I'd say go for it.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

JustJess

Actually, DK's instincts were correct in that this adds nothing to the discussion. No one's saying that accidents don't happen. This argument is specious and rather flamey.

__________________
My heart knows me better than I know myself, so I'm gonna let it do all the talkin'.

The_Jazz

Once you can show me how swimming pools or cars are designed to separate your body from your soul (assuming that you believe in such a thing) in the most reliable way possible, I'll jump right on your bandwagon to ban them. Until then, I'm sticking with the one product that I know is specifically designed to kill me.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

dksuddeth

actually, what I said was it 'could' explain. I'm certainly open to the possibility that it might work, but only in reducing a crime rate, not for getting rid of them completely. The numbers thing, what I was trying to say is that if ONLY the murder rate had gone down, I COULD believe that it might be because of the gun control laws, however, in looking at the crime statistics, ALL crime was going down. ALL crime would indicate that there were other factors instead of gun control. Criminals without guns will still use knives, clubs, etc. to commit crimes which would not lower property, assault, and rape crimes. Thats why I believe that there is some other factor instead of gun control laws.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

dksuddeth

I thought thats what handgun licenses and training classes were for?

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."