Further Gun Control Questions
 

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?

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.

You? no. This guy? Yes.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

The thread topic is:

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 :thumbsup:

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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!

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Glad to see that's working so well.

Gun control laws - and let's continue to be clear that we mean handguns and not long barrelled guns - should be part of an overall initiative.

I never meant to imply that no handguns = no crime. Not at all. What I am saying is that it should be a vital piece of the safer society pie. I doubt we'll ever get rid of crime altogether - there will always be someone who has more, and someone else who wants it. But we CAN reduce the numbers and make the crimes that do occur less likely to be fatal to the victims AND the perpetrators.

Here's my next question to our fine folks: if we get rid of handguns altogether - no civilian ownership, none being sold, stiff penalties for owning/making them, don't we make it more difficult to obtain them illegally as well? It's a lot harder to smuggle guns than drugs, really... so much harder to disquise them etc. If the gov't wanted to, they could cut down on the black marketing of them pretty well. (I personally feel they aren't doing all they can on drugs - it's just too easy, something's off. /end threadjack)

are you saying that all handgun crime is committed by licensed and legal handgun owners/carriers?

Can we just end the gun control threads or perhaps endulge ourselves with a gun control sticky thread where everyone can repeat themselves over and over again and occasionally mix in some examples to completely unrelated items?

two things.....how is a knife, baseball bat, tire iron less fatal (especially to elderly individuals), and why should I have any sympathy or desire to be less fatal to a perpetrator intending to harm another person to commit a crime?

IF the government truly intended to implement a handgun ban on its citizens, they would absolutely have to triple the border patrol, put national guard on the borders (north and south), triple or quadruple the size of the coast guard to prevent illegal imports from east or west, and the ATF would have to have gestapo like powers (like they don't already) to be able to search any machine shop. You might also have to start registering all metal milling machines and monitor them on a regular basis to make sure that they aren't being used to produce handguns illegally.

I might just do that. Until someone can show me undeniable proof that a gun control law stops criminals from getting guns or a gun ban will stop crime, nothing/nobody is going to be able to convince me that I need to give up my guns/handguns. If the government can guarantee my safety from all crime, I could consider it.

Are you suggesting that death by cars is done by drivers that don't have licenses?

A a knife, baseball bat, tire iron all have other (primary) uses besides killing poeple. A gun has only one purpose. Killing.

I never said such a thing, but it seems like you're trying to equate traffic accidents with intentional shootings. Now, if you want to equate intentional motor vehicle deaths with intentional shootings, maybe that would work.

I could get ridiculous and say that you can use a handgun as a hammer, paperweight, etc. but that would be pointless, wouldn't it.

It shouldn't matter whether a knife, bat, or tire iron have other primary purposes. If it's used to kill someone, its a weapon at that point. It still killed someone. Someone that probably couldn't defend themselves from it.

I was following the discussion:

Ustwo suggested that cars kill people, ban cars (a purposely ridiculous statement)
I pointed out that cars are highly regulated and licensed
You pointed out that so are legal guns and asked if the majority of deaths were done by licensed, trained gun users.
I point out the falicy of that question by asking you my question.

Licensing hasn't really done anything to solve the deaths by car and it doesn't do anything to solve the deaths by guns.

It's a draw.

This is a straw man argument and not really worth addressing:

Ok, I follow what you're saying, except that I disagree on the solving deaths by guns, because licensed carriers aren't out there shooting innocent people, criminals are, therefore, they aren't going to get a license anyway.

not worth addressing? If someone were to say 'I played baseball with a shotgun', you'd be right. thats a strawman. But people die from stab wounds, whether its a knife or a screwdriver, and people die from being beat with baseball bats and tire irons. How is that a strawman?

sorry, I forgot you said that it wasn't worth addressing.

On the subject of cars killing people, therefore ban cars.

I think that we need to vehemently protest the cops using the excuse of someone trying to run them over with a car, thats attempted murder, so they can shoot them.

THATS a strawman.

All the nicities aside, the Victim Disarmament debate must, in the end, be reduced to this:

850,000 dead bodies.
MINIMUM.

That's the number of people, at the very least, that you anti-Rights people are going to have to pile up in order to make even a handgun ban a reality. There are 85,000,000 known, legal gunowners in this country; if even 1% decide to resist you, you will have to kill nearly a million people. You'll also have to bury an unknown ( but probably at least an equal ) number of your Jackboots. You'll be right up there with Pol Pot, aren't you proud?

10% resistance ( a more likely figure, IMO ) puts the body-count you'll need to rack up at 8.5 MILLION. You're getting into Hitler Country now, man...really moving up in the world.

Try to disarm us, and we will SHOOT YOU. You will have to kill us, in significant numbers, to make us stop SHOOTING YOU. You will have to exterminate whole families; women and children and babes-in-arms. You will have to commit a genocide which will write your names in blood and infamy for all of history. You will have to destroy a distinct culture with its' own language and way of life. You will have to become monsters.

If you're fine with that, go ahead. But don't cringe from me and say "That's not what we're going to do! We're just trying to help you! Yes, it IS what you're trying to do. You are intentionally ( and in many cases gleefully ) pushing towards a situation which will precipitate genocide, mass murder, the death of a civilization. You are slouching towards Armageddon, my friends; continue and join the ranks of the Damned. Just don't say nobody warned you.

The Dunedan, welcome to the thread, and please answer me this.

If we knock on your door and say, "you have rifles and shotguns? Great! Keep them. But we want the handguns, and you'll be compensated for them. In fact, use the money to go buy another rifle."

Would you still be in a shooting frame of mind? It's worked fairly well in England.

Yup. You can no more be "half free" or "half disarmed" than you can be "half pregnant." Either you're free and armed, or enslaved and disarmed.

As for England's much-vaunted gun-grab: check out their swiftly rising rates of all violent crimes, across-the-board, for the last decade or so. Check out their 100%-plus increase in "hot" burgalaries and home-invasions. Check out the assault rate in Scotland, which is now the highest in the developed world, according to the UN. Then get back to me.

So, if you have a 12 guage shotgun, you're unarmed. The pregnancy analogy makes no sense to me. Have a rifle, you're armed. Don't have a rifle, you're unarmed.

as for Scotland, much of the violence has to do with factional differences.

As for England, crime rate=much lower than ours.

...and The_Dunedan underscores just why a handgun ban would never work in the US.

Not only would the expense be huge but the negative political points earned would be too substantial. The cost in lives lost by handgun deaths every year is a much lower price to pay.

Sadly, the handgun free possibility of America sailed with the founding fathers.

In raw numbers, yes. In certain percentages ( notably rape ) yes. But the overall rate of violent crime passed that in the US about two years ago, and the UK's overall rate for assaults ( all types ) burgalary ( all types ) and home-invasions passed the US rates about six months after that, if I'm not mistaken. It also hasn't stopped the illegal market in guns; my boss is from Manchester by way of Oldham, and he's repeatedly told me that it is easier to procure a firearm ( even a machinegun ) illegally in the UK than legally in the US. Cheaper, too.

As for having a shotgun and not being disarmed; in my State it is illegal for me to carry a long-gun openly inside any city limit, within 1,000 feet of any school or other Gov't building, or in any manner which an asshat cop decides is "brandishing." Therefore, absent a sidearm, I -am- disarmed.

Lastly, this debate is not fundamentally a practical one; it i a debate of principal. Anti-Rights activists and gun-banners believe that I ( and everyone else ) lack the intelligence, morality, cognence, or common sense to govern and protect ourselves. I and those like me believe that the vast, vast majority of people are more than capable of taking care of themselves. Anti-Rights activists believe that they should be in control of Situation X ( guns, drugs, free speech, etc ) because only -they- are smart/competant/wise enough to handle it. I believe that this naked lust for power proves them totally unworthy of my trust, my money, or my obediance. I don't go in for grovelling to Massa and asking permission to live like a free human being.

next, take a look at switzerlands crime rate and the fact that firearm ownership is practically a mandate. keyword, practically.

The gun banners also lose points because they lump the law abiding handgun owners with the criminal element simply because they own a handgun. Thats like comparing all pro-choice people with the nazis because they promote infanticide. not a fair comparison at all.

Thank you for welcoming Godwin to the thread.

I wasn't actually comparing them to nazi's. I said it was 'LIKE' comparing them to nazi's. Thats not invoking godwin. it's drawn to show how invalid the lumping of law abiding handgun owners in with criminals.

Reality Check:

People die violent deaths every day
Guns are used in some
Violent people will be violent whether they have a Gun or Not
Banning a gun might slow down a few murders
Banning Abortion might slow down a few Abortions

Neither is a viable answer to a problem

I dont care if you own a Gun, it is unlikely to affect me in any way
I dont care if you get an Abortion, it is unlikely to affect me in ant way

I draw this link between the two because they both involve the same concept....ie:

This is a free country, and as long as actions do not pose a threat to others, they are none of your business.

well said.

Concealed carry has benefits

When the Texas Concealed Handgun Law took effect in 1996, pundits and naysayers predicted anarchy. Any minute, there would surely be mass violence as armed Texas citizens began roving the streets settling arguments with gunfire. Certainly, several proclaimed, within a year there would be blood in the streets as Texas returned to the days of the Wild West.

Ten years later the facts paint a different picture. Texas under the Concealed Handgun Law isn't the Wild West, but the Mild West. No recurrent shootouts at four-way stops, no blood in the streets. Quite the contrary, Texans are safer than before.

But why are we safer? Why did the fears of the naysayers fail to materialize?

One of the reasons I authored Senate Bill 60, the Concealed Handgun Law, was because I trust my fellow Texans. Contrary to opinions expressed on almost every editorial page across the state, I knew that when law-abiding Texans' constitutional right to keep and bear arms was restored with the passage of S.B. 60, they would exercise good judgment and behave responsibly.

Ten years later, and the statistics continue to prove the point.

Since the passage of the Concealed Handgun Law, the FBI Uniform Crime Report shows an 18% drop in handgun murders, down from 838 in 1995 to 688 in 2004. And a 13% drop in handgun murders per 100,000 population, down from 4.5 murders per 100,000 Texans in 1995 to 3.95 per 100,000 in 2004.

In 2000, on the fifth anniversary of the Concealed Handgun Law, the National Center for Policy Analysis issued a report that indicated Texans with concealed carry permits are far less likely to commit a serious crime than the average citizen.

According to the report, the more than 200,000 Texans licensed to carry a concealed firearm are much more law-abiding than the average person.

The report illustrated that Texans who exercise their right to carry firearms are 5.7 times less likely to be arrested for a violent offense. They are 14 times less likely to be arrested for a non-violent offense. And they are 1.4 times less likely to be arrested for murder.

H. Sterling Burnett, a senior policy analyst at the NCPA and the author of the report, concluded:

"Many predicted that minor incidents would escalate into bloody shootouts if Texas passed a concealed-carry law. That prediction was dead wrong," Burnett said.

With 247,345 concealed handgun licenses active in Texas as of December 2005, the number of law-abiding licensees has had a positive effect on the crime rate.

Texas Department of Public Safety Uniform Crime Report indicates the overall crime rate in Texas has continued to drop over the past 10 years. In 1997, DPS reported 5,478 crimes per 100,000 Texans, based on a population of 19,355,427 Texans. In 2004, with almost 3 million more Texans, the crime rate is 5,032 per 100,000.

The effect of the Concealed Handgun Law has been so positive, it has converted some of its most outspoken initial critics.

John Holmes, former Harris County district attorney, wrote to me several years after the passage of the law.

"As you know, I was very outspoken in my opposition to the passage of the Concealed Handgun Act. I did not feel that such legislation was in the public interest and presented a clear and present danger to law abiding citizens by placing more handguns on our streets," Holmes wrote. "Boy was I wrong. Our experience in Harris County, and indeed state-wide, has proven my initial fears absolutely groundless."

Glenn White, president of the Dallas Police Association, shared this view. "I lobbied against the law in 1993 and 1995 because I thought it would lead to wholesale armed conflict. That hasn't happened," White told the Dallas Morning News. "All the horror stories I thought would come to pass didn't happen. No bogeyman. I think it's worked out well, and that says good things about the citizens who have permits. I'm a convert."

To the supporters of individual liberty and the constitutional right to keep and bear arms, this outcome is no surprise. However, the Concealed Handgun Law isn't just about personal safety. Perhaps even deeper than its roots in constitutional freedom, the Concealed Handgun Law is about trust.

And after ten years, the Concealed Handgun Law is a shining example of what happens when elected officials have faith in their fellow Texans.

The legacy of Senate Bill 60 is grounded in the concept that our government should place its trust in us, not the other way around.

Wow... just, wow.

Is this satire?

why would you think thats satire? Actually, that would be a conservative estimate

Can you guys help me out? I've been looking for corroboration on this, but all I've found is evidence of about that many known, legal GUNS, and I'm assuming many legal owners have more than one. 85 million would suggest about one gun owner for every 3.5 citizens. I know this is just anecdotal, but my personal experience doesn't come close to confirming that. Anyway, I'd appreciate it if you could point me in the direction of a good source on that.

as requested.....

http://www.justfacts.com/gun_control.htm

Thanks Tecoyah - that's amazing.

Such casual disregard for the deaths of millions of fellow citizens, even in a hypothetical scenario - there's no point to continuing the conversation if this is "real" to the poster. I thought it might have been done tongue in cheek. It'd be like talking to a Martian, I doubt there is any common frame of reference.

http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-fa...4-0-Screen.pdf

There are over 228 million guns in the US. Yes, it would be safe to assume that the 85 million gun owners, most of them own more than one.

It's not casual, by any means. You're talking about something that ALOT of people feel is, not only a constitutional right, but a god given right. If ANY group/government attempts to remove that right, they will fight.

Just to clarify, who are these" millions of fellow citizens" you're talking about here?

A Cop, and Fed, or a Dogface who tries to disarm me, my family, or my country is no "fellow" ANYTHING of mine. He/she is a jackbooted Statist thug, a robber and murderer and tyrant dressed up in fancy clothes and carrying a gun that I paid for, and is fit for nothing more than a hangman's noose.

If you're talking about the million-plus gunowners ( at least! ) that such a ban would necessitate the murder of, then I suggest that it is the anti-Rights gungrabbers who have a casual attitude towards millions of deaths, since they persist in their agenda, knowing the endgame, after having been warned about the outcome for the past THIRTY YEARS.

Well said, again, Dunedan. Well said.

Well, at least one thing is clear.
It's even harder to discuss this rationally than it is to discuss abortion or partisan politics.

I must note that I feel that The_Dunedan's arguments are a bit excessive, and go away from the questions we were posing and discussing. Clearly, no one actually wants or suggested that we kill off all the gun owners, and there is not general support for complete gun bans. We know the laws need revision, and that's what we're trying to figure out - what ways can we improve the situation?

Rhetoric like this only breaks down further communication possibilities, IMO.

wow--this is quite a thread.

i looked through it because, while i am relcutant to participate in these debates, i am interested nonetheless--my positions about gun control had shifted as a function of some more measured debates on this that have happened in politics---but this particular thread seems to have veered off into some curious militia group haze.

so let me get this straight...

over the last page or so, this is effectively what i saw:
try to take "our guns" and the result will be worse than civil war---anarchy, the war of all against all resulting in lives that are nasty brutish and short....

nice, folks.

the assumption behind the emphasis on law abiding gun owners in rural contexts primarily in arguments against any form of gun control works when the assumption that these folk are sane also works. and in general, there is no reason to think otherwise.

but in this thread, there is reason to think otherwise: the arguments against gun control that depart from a threat of wholesale, indiscriminate killing as a response are sociopathic.

they make the worst possible case for your position because they allow for a pathologizing of gun ownership---which i assume is a point that you who advance these positions are trying to counter. so i do not see what you imagine yourselves to be accomplishing by heading down this path.

i do not personally like guns.
i do not accept the argument that they make you free or anything else--any more than owning a gas grille makes you a physicist.
i live in a city and have lived in cities for many years--i fully support the right of localities to control guns in principle and would actively support gun control in urban spaces.
the shift in my position is in that--i have come to understand that what guns signify in an urban environment is particular. so any controls should be enacted at the local level.

but i have to say that had i come to this thread wondering about how to modify my position on the matter, it would have hardened the other way.
i hope these represent a very small minority view.

I'm confused, whats not rational or excessive about dunedans arguments? Of course you're not suggesting that you send out death squads to collect the handguns of gun owners, but when they resist, what do you think is going to happen? Here is your scenario:

1: pass laws banning handguns
2: provide 30-60 day grace period for all handguns to be turned in voluntarily
3: realize that with only 2,000 handguns turned in to the authorities, you'll have to go round them up.
4: send out the local police in each community to knock on doors, demand said handguns, rinse and repeat at next house.
5: Police call for backup after they meet resistance and get shot/shot at by homeowner(s) who refuse to give up handguns claiming constitutional rights.
6: Call S.W.A.T. team to invade home because homeowner(s) opened fire with their collection of semi-automatic assault rifles.
6a: for those homes that have legally registered and taxed automatic weapons, you send BATFE squad of 45 body armoured men with automatic weapons, storm house, shoot anyone who resists, then gather weapons including the ones you weren't intending to collect anyway because all adults inside are dead.
7: Call in National guard units to surround large neighborhoods because news reports showing armed incursions by law enforcement authorities prompted said gun owners to band together in large buildings with all of their guns and ammunition and are firing upon any law enforcement agents attempting to approach.

You see the eventual outcome?

Dksuddeth,

It's the part that gets from step 4 to 5 that seems extreme - escalating from resistance to violence. As roachboy points out, it kind of makes gun owners seem more pathological than I ever thought they were. Particularly the part about 850,000 dead. I'm not really commenting much on that - I'm more watching and absorbing at this point, but I'm willing to bet that is the part where Jess is taken aback. It certainly threw me for a loop...

say that, instead of 'taking our guns', it was the government invading and arresting people for protesting, or talking bad about the government. Maybe it could be that the government was confiscating all of the radios and tv's and the only newspaper to be distributed was called 'the republic of americas daily government news'. It could be ANY assault against those rights and freedoms supposed to be guaranteed by the bill of rights, but no longer are. would you still feel the same? What if the 13th and 14th amendments were repealed?

And by 'sane', should I assume you mean that to be 'law abiding enough to just hand over all handguns. after all, we're not asking for rifles and shotguns, right? But could they not be next on the list?

what is sociopathic about upholding your constitutional rights? and indiscriminate is an incorrect word. IF gun grabbing were to occur, we would not be going house to house shooting people at random. We WOULD be stopping those that came after us though, and then we'd go after the ones that ordered it.

In other words, you would recommend that people should just let the authorities take our guns, right? we should not violently respond, only peacefully protest.

If people have guns, are they not 'free' to live in the relative safety they are capable of providing themselves?

Why should the 14th amendment apply to everything except guns?

Minority, so it would be easier to enact what you think would make us all safer and more free?

Let me ask you, do you think that everyone is going to comply? As we stated, there are around 85 million gun owners in this country, they are not all little sheeple. A good many of them fully believe in the freedoms guaranteed by god/the US constitution. There are 22 million people in Texas, probably 7 million own guns, if not more. A majority of texans are firm believers in the second and most of those would have no trouble deciding to resist.


That number, 850,000 dead, is conservative. Thats about how many gun owners you would have to kill, because they will not give up their guns.

To the advocates of gun grabbing: Would you take a 72 year old woman's hand gun away from her? A 72 year old woman who lives by herself, in the house she's lived in for 42 years. A woman who has legally owned and operated a gun for the last 42 years. A gun that she knows how to use. A woman who (when her family was living in that house) had dozens of guns (loaded and ready) and never once in 42 years was their an accident. Never once was there a "stray bullet" or someone shot. Now all she has for protection is her gun. which she sleeps with, as she, her husband, sons, did and do. Becasue if you advocate taking her gun away, I can assure you she will be one of the 850,000 you would have to kill. Its my grandmother. I asked her. She said if the police came to take her guns away they would have to take them from her dead hands.

As I've said elsewhere, and roachboy points out, one of the the real disconnects here is between the Urban and the Rural.

As I have said, the genie is out the bottle. Gun control isn't going to happen anytime soon. No politician in the US is going to risk it. Interestingly, three of the four major parties running in the last Canadian election supported a complete ban on handguns. I think this is a direct refelction of the fact that the majority of the Canadian population is an Urban one.

In the end, the only practical soloutions that I can see for the US are:
1) greater control over who gets to legally carry handguns, nationwide
2) stronger punishments for those who use and guns in crimes
3) stronger fines and/or punishments for those who misuse their weapons

More than this and it would be political suicide at the Federal Level. On the local or state level, you will see some attempts at gun bans (like D.C. and San Francisco) but in the end they will matter very little. Their borders are pourous and the ability to enforce the ban nearly impossible to enforce.

As I said before the only way to truly make a hand gun ban work would be to:

1) make it nationwide
2) halt the manufacture of handgun, except for police and military
3) make the laws strong and with harsh penalties
4) enforce those laws

In the end, this would never jive with America's "we are a free nation" ethos (not to mention the whole constitution isssue). In the end, as I said above, it is easier to keep the death rate at around 10,000 per year than it is do something about it.

My grandmother doesn't live in a rural area - at all. I think the disconncet comes from people who think they know what is best for everyone else and people who think they know whats best for themselves, but leave everyone else out of it.

charlatan made most of the arguments that i was going to better than i had said them, so you get this non-post and a referral to his, above.

I would think in DC guns circulate in a more unrestrictive manner than they do in Miami. Any civillian in DC with a gun is breaking the law and the guns that flow from one civ to another are unrestricted. At least in miami the majority of guns are restricted (such that they are licensed and registered).

sorry about vaporizing the post i had up stevo---i saw yours and charlatan's after i scrawled it and thought mine redundant.

i am unclear--are we actually agreeing on this or not?
i cant tell because the post is so short...

I suppose that depends on what you mean by unrestrictive circulation. To me banning guns=more unrestrictive, while not banning, but having a legal registry=more restrictive.

Kind of like booze during prohibition. All booze was unrestricted. Once prohibition was lifted booze became restriced again.

ok--thanks---are you opposed to cities taking action on their own to implment different levels of restrictions (i am going to mess this up terminologically, i just know it...) or not?

personally, i do--and i would think that the logic of local control would prevent any such measure from necessarily become a unified national policy one way or another. i would think this a viable compromise between the various factions on the question of gun control--what do you think?

Kansas senate and house override the governer veto of concealed carry.

47 down, 3 to go.

Roach, the huge underlying issue that everyone will face with municipality controlled restriction is that instead of having 50 laws to know (meaning one for each state), you will have a hodge podge circus of thousands of laws to know. Will you be breaking a local law by driving through willow grove IL to get to the mall? It would create a nitemare of hoops to wonder whether you had to go under, over, or through them just to remain law abiding.

No, I don't think that everyone would comply. However, to me there's a pretty big gap between non-compliance and lethal violence. That's where my surprise comes from - that number [850,000 dead] emphasizes to me that there's a disconnect between me and others that is incredibly deep, and I didn't even realize it was there. And I'm NOT a proponent of gun controls like we're talking about. Don't feel like you have to reply to me unless you're really moved to - the issue over lethal violence and body counts is sort of besides the point. The other issues of level of jurisdiction and types of controls are much more topical.

maybe i'm not understanding what you mean by 'disconnect'. I'm also not understanding how you see a big gap between 'non-compliance' and 'lethal violence'. I think its pretty logical when you get down to it. when the authorities confront a gun owner to turn in his handguns and said gun owner does not comply, whats going to happen? Will the police say 'ok, we'll be on our way then'? Not likely. Once force is instituted, it will quickly escalate way out of control.

anyway, you are right and its not really on the topic of what methods of gun control can be used. Just trying to point out where that type of gun ban/control is going to lead.

Gun owners in San Francisco are fighting the ban there, at least through the courts. However, when their legal options expire (I should say if, sorry), do you expect the legal gun owners of that city (soon to become the illegal gunowners, according to the ban) to resist the law with violence? I am well familiar with the 'cold, dead fingers' sentiment, living in Texas, but this would seem to be a good situation to watch, to see if it is all just bluster, or if the attempt to take guns from responsible owners will in fact lead to a gun-fight. Some people might write it off as just fruity San Fran, but there are hundreds of thousands of folks who are anything but liberal who live there. SF is a big place with a lot of owners, so it isn't just like some small suburb or town that runs like a commune or something has passed this law. I suspect there are possibly as many as a quarter to a half a million gun owners who will be affected, either because they live there, work there, or routinely travel through the city. It's no Sebastopol--a very progressive small town in the Sonoma Valley which is an island of far left experimentation.

Do I expect a violent resistance? Not in San Fran. What I expect to see, IF the courts rule for the ban, is that very few will actually turn them in. Some people will up and sell getting the hell out of S.F. Most others will just find ways to hide them. As in the steps that I put down up above, unless there is an armed incursion by the authorities, very little violence will happen. Some will comply, some will leave, most will just hide them.

I generally agree with you in that. The thing is I really think this is what would happen elsewhere in the country too given the same scenario. But compliance is going to happen even if you don't turn in your gun. You might no longer carry it in your car because a traffic stop could result in a gun felony. Even in your home you may have your gun more hidden than normal, reducing your access to it in an emergency. You might feel compelled to move, but this also would be a form of compliance, removing your gun from the city.

I know it is easy to say, well that's SF, and we all know they are just a bunch of lefties, but there are some real conservative folks there too. Why wouldn't they act the same as a Texas conservative (I've been both places, and in fact Cali right-wingers can be a lot more reactionary than Texas righties at times). I mean to contemplate the passage of a national law, one would have to assume that it could only be done in a political climate similar to the one that led to SF's ban, but on a national scale. If the fact that they are surrounded by a liberal majority cows the actions of SF conservatives, wouldn't the same thing apply nationally, if that were the political climate (we are obviously talking hypothetical)?

Personally, I don't think that the ban will have a significant effect on violent crime in the city. The rate may go up or down, and the appropriate side will claim that as evidence they were right. I do believe a society free of guns is safer from violence within the community than one with lots of guns. I also believe that a society in which a significant number of responsible, proficient gun owners and carriers exist is safer from violence within the community as well. Both sides are right as far as crime goes. It is what we have in the middle, where we have a society in which guns are numerous, yet we do very little to ensure that the operators are responsible and proficient, that is the worst of both worlds.

I respect a city's right to govern itself and take the steps necessary to fulfil the citizens' desires for safety. If that means banning arms within the city limits, that is their perogative, whether I agree or not. If that means requiring gun ownership, as has been done in some towns, then again, whether I agree or not it is their perogative. If Pflugerville, Texas attempts to adopt either approach, I have my vote and will use it accordingly.

However, all of this only addresses the crime-related aspects of gun existance. There is another, very important side to this matter that I personally have underrated in the past, and that is the importance of retaining the citizen's capacity to retain their freedom from their own government, should it cease to be 'theirs' and become an agent against their rights as naturally and constitionally guaranteed.

While I think both sides are right on the crime issue, and that both approaches can work, I have personally concluded that the danger to people from crime and other threats within our communities are probably a price worth paying to ensure that we have the ability to keep our government working for us and not against us. It is also why I am adamant about needing to ensure as much as possible that those who do own guns are responsible and proficient owners. Unregulated gun propagation is very hazardous, and we see the results on our streets. If we want to have guns, and I think they are a way to retain the ability of revolt that I speak of, we have to be responsible with them.

on a local scale, if SF bans guns, like I said, you will not see a violent resistance mainly because there are still places that the gunowner, who refuses, can go to. The violent opposition we'll see is if it goes national. With no place left to go to, those that have had enough, will say 'enough'. Now, with that said, those localities will have to decide whether the loss of a tax base (depending on how many move out) was worth it, the rise in crime was worth it, or if it even worked at all. Local gun bans will not stop crime, violent or property, as evidenced in places like morton grove, evanston, and especially chicago IL. All it will do is allow the spread of rhetoric from gun grabbers saying that its easy weapons from (put any other location here) allowing crime to continue here, and the pressure will continue.

Now, not that i'm advocating a mass exodus for pro-gunners, I'm almost of the mindset that I think California, Illinois, and New Jersey should just outright ban guns, all of them. Let those who want to move out go to any other state, and see how the bans work out. Maybe that would show the anti's, once and for all, that gun bans don't work, but i'm afraid that it would just end up the same. They would start the rhetoric that only a national ban would work and we'd be at the same place we are now.