Gun Controll question.

[R. Richard]

In case no one is aware, Australia is an island, a large island, but an island. It is easier to keep guns [or whatever] from people when they live in an island.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

australia tightened its gun laws very recently, so its gun crime rates may be evidence of an impact; it's sharply debated.

prime minister Howard's recent remarks assserted his belief that Australia's clampdown after its massacre has been effective: no mass murders since.

...

RESULTS OF THE AUSTRALIAN GUN
"BUYBACK" & NEW GUN LAWS

{Pure: as alpers points out, much of the 'negative' data is related to crimes such as simple assaults and even robberies which are often without guns.

It is common for the 'pro gun' analysts to look at the 'violent crimes' stats in Australia and Canada as a whole, rather than do the obvious 'break out' of the gun related violent crimes. For example, an increase in 'violent rapes' is NOT necessarily anything to do with guns.}

And do you know why the violent crime went up? 'Cuz they now know the victim won't be carrying a gun to defend themselves.

 

[Weird Harold]

Was this revealed to you by God? Is there any evidence? There are laws criminalizing possession of 1) pot, 2) narcotics, 3) prescription drugs, 4) (I think) anti tank guns, 5) small atomic devices, 6) child porn. There are also laws *controlling* possession of many of the above things, e.g., prescription drugs.

You either haven't read or are ignoring the full body of my arguments in this thread. If you had, you would know that I believe that the laws you cite as good laws I consider bad laws that should be repealed.

3. It will be illegal [[extra time]]for anyone to be carrying a weapon during commission of a crime.

As far as I know, this provision is pretty much already enacted in most US jurisdictions, (including the UCMJ and Federal law,) and is a law I have no problem with. Now if we could just get prosecutors to quit plea bargaining the charge away and actually enforce that law, it might actually do some good.

 

[Pure]

note to wh. note to rr.

you missed the point, WH

P: Was this revealed to you by God? Is there any evidence? There are laws criminalizing possession of 1) pot, 2) narcotics, 3) prescription drugs, 4) (I think) anti tank guns, 5) small atomic devices, 6) child porn. There are also laws *controlling* possession of many of the above things, e.g., prescription drugs.


WH You either haven't read or are ignoring the full body of my arguments in this thread. If you had, you would know that I believe that the laws you cite as good laws I consider bad laws that should be repealed.

P: You asserted that a law against possessing something would not be effective. You cite no evidence. I happen to agree that some such laws are silly and perhaps ineffective in controlling 'recreational' and 'euphoric' substances like pot and alcohol. But that doesn't mean they *never* work; i think the criminalization of possession of child porn is working, to some extent.

You've given no reason to think all 'possession' laws don't work, other than your opinion that they're 'bad laws.'

In any case you've simply muddied the waters with the "possession" vs. "action" distinction, since, for things like alcohol [and pot], the laws regarding actions (e.g., selling) were also not very effective during prohibition. IOW, the ineffectivess of some of these laws is NOT due to a focus on 'possession' as opposed to action; rather it's due to huge demand, the desireable nature of the substances, etc.

Further I stated some plausible gun laws which didn't criminalize simple possession, and according to you these wouldn't be [defined as] 'gun control' laws, and i've heard no objection to them. If laws against "actions" are fine with you, then gun laws may be phrased in terms of buying, selling, and carrying the thing outside one's own home; in the latter case, excepting for direct trips to and from a shooting range.

What i mostly object to is your attempting to address the matter with a priori opinions and dogmas. For me, what law will "work"--i.e.,*well enough*-- for a given substance or practice, is a matter of empirical testing and fact. It's also dependent on the society and culture time: I'd suppose that laws against possessing atheistic material have "worked" in some (western) societies, in some periods.

I might point out further that no law "works" perfectly in the sense of either preventing or deterring or punishing. Rapes occur no matter what; in countries with laws against carrying guns, criminals will break these laws; but that's not a good argument against those laws.

===

rr., that's an interesting theory that, in the case of australia some violent non gun crimes have increased *because* of the limits on guns. the alternate theory is that they increased for reasons unrelated to the limits on guns. you've presented no evidence supporting this theory: in at least some cases it makes little sense. for instance, if rapes have increased in Aus since gun controls, i really don't suppose it's because lots of ladies used to 'pack' and try to shoot rapists and now they can't.

your theory is something like the theory that things would have gone better at VA Tech, had lots of students--and maybe profs-- been 'packing.' i know of no evidence for this theory.

it's some kind of right wing mantra that all kinds of evils from government tyrrany to robbery to rape to school shooting can be prevented if lots of 'honest citizens' are packing and guns are easy for anyone to obtain.
yet none of you'se guys ever present evidence for this position.

 

[Kev H]

it's some kind of right wing mantra that all kinds of evils from government tyrrany to robbery to rape to school shooting can be prevented if lots of 'honest citizens' are packing and guns are easy for anyone to obtain.
yet none of you'se guys ever present evidence for this position.

Which really makes it more of a belief than a theory, but let's not call names or further turn this into a black-and-white argument. (I, too, have yet to see any evidence that makes this more than a belief every bit a credibility-staining as the belief that removing all guns--uninventing them, in a sense--will make us all better and safer.)

Show us how gun controls can be implimented in a cautious, honest, and consistent way, without some ultimate motive of removing guns from the hands of all but the criminals and the cops, and you will have my full attention (and support, for the sake of this debate).

 

[Pure]

Kev, i suggest you google for australia and gun legislation. i provided a couple links above. there is no reason to suppose the aussie gov had evil motives in its approach to the problems associated with lots of guns.

Here is a small sampling of news of several countries besides Australia. The first article is quite recent, but other articles refer to events less current; iow, countries are having experiences with their legislation; how and if it works, etc. a doctrinaire position is that no legislation will work (=be effective), but probably the facts will not bear that out.

i suspect the dogmatists will then say, "OK, those laws do 'work' but they are bad laws since they curb liberties and make people slaves." I doubt the Japanese, Brits, or Belgians are slaves, but facts never matter to dogmatic persons.

====

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/04/25/asia/AS-GEN-Japan-Gun-Control.php

Japan tightens gun-control guidelines following gangster gun shootings

The Associated Press , Published: April 25, 2007
==========
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/23/AR2007042301794.html

Britain's Gun Laws Seen as Curbing Attacks
By Mary JordanWashington Post Foreign Service
Tuesday, April 24, 2007; Page A18

LONDON -- At 9:35 a.m. on a March day in 1996, a disgruntled former scout leader walked into a primary school gym in Dunblane, Scotland, with four guns and killed 16 children and their teacher in Britain's worst mass shooting. The crime still causes Britons to recoil when they recall the victims, many of them only 5 years old.

That rampage, with guns purchased legally -- as were those used in last week's killings at Virginia Tech -- led to a near-total ban on handguns, and Britain's current laws are considered among the most restrictive in the world. Days after the shooting, hundreds of thousands of people signed petitions demanding tougher gun control, and weeks later more than 22,000 illegal or unwanted guns, and nearly 700,000 rounds of ammunition, were turned in to authorities under a special amnesty.
===
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3678624.stm
Sept 22, 2004
Brazilians get tough new gun law

Tough new anti-gun legislation comes into force in Brazil on Wednesday, in a bid to curb what the UN says is the world's fourth-highest murder rate.
Under the new rules, anyone carrying a gun without a licence will face a prison sentence.
Permits will be issued only to police, security guards and others in high-risk professions - but they must be at least 25 years old.
Anyone else caught carrying a firearm will face up to four years in prison.
"Those who currently have permits can carry their weapons until midnight, then they turn into pumpkins. After that, they'll be breaking the law if they take their guns out of their houses," a Brazilian justice ministry spokeswoman said on Tuesday, before the law took effect.
The BBC's Steve Kingstone in Sao Paulo says the law is part of a concerted effort by the Brazilian government to reduce the number of people killed in gun-related incidents - nearly 40,000 of them during 2003.

======
http://www.expatica.com/actual/article.asp?subchannel_id=48&story_id=16553

Tough new gun law promised

3 February 2005

BRUSSELS – Belgium’s justice minister has pledged to implement a tough new law on the possession of guns.

Laurette Onkelinx told the federal parliament she intends to propose new rules to ensure no one in Belgium owns a gun without a licence.
"Permission will only be given if there’s a legitimate motive," Onkelinx told MPs.
She said at the moment there were 641,781 personal guns owned in Belgium and 27,492 military guns, an official total of 669,273 guns.


But those figures don’t take into account a huge number of guns which have not been registered, including a large number of hunting weapons.
Experts say that in reality Belgium has around 2 million guns in circulation.

 

[R. Richard]

As far as I know, this provision [note: extra prison time for committing a crime using a gun] is pretty much already enacted in most US jurisdictions, (including the UCMJ and Federal law,) and is a law I have no problem with. Now if we could just get prosecutors to quit plea bargaining the charge away and actually enforce that law, it might actually do some good.

Yes, it well might. However, any defense attorney worthy of the name simply offers the prosecutor a deal, "My client will plead guilty if there is no extra time for using a gun." Since a prosecutor is rated upon percentage of convictions, he takes the offer.

 

[R. Richard]

Let me explain to you why gun control laws, short of a total ban, will not work.

We get your Senator to pass the gun control law that you want. The gun control law might work within a state, but not within the United States. You have a whacko like Cho, who has been involuntarily put into a mental hospital. He has no right to buy a gun. HOWEVER, the ban depends upon the gun seller learning that Cho has been in a mental hospital. If the state in which Cho lives 'doesn't have the budget,' then the state has no record of Cho's mental hospital visit and Cho gets a gun. If Cho gets a good fake ID, then he is no longer Cho, the guy who was in the mental hospital, he is Goodguy, who has never been in a mental hospital or jail.

OK, the state decides to actually enforce the gun control laws and has, in their database, records of mental hospital stays, hail stays, etc. So, Cho drives to another state, where his granny lives and buys a gun there, using granny's address. You see, there is no central, national database where Cho's mental hospital stay is available in a state other than the one in which he stayed in the mental hospital.

OK, we will create a national database. No you won't. A national database would require a positive ID system and would constitute a national ID system, which you won't accept under any circumstances.

OK, we will create a national database. No your Congressperson won't. A national database would need to have a physical location [two physical locations actually, so that there would be a backup.] Then we have the question of the physical location. There would be only two physical locations for budgetary reasons. There are 50 states.

QED

 

[colddiesel]

Re consider?

In case no one is aware, Australia is an island, a large island, but an island. It is easier to keep guns [or whatever] from people when they live in an island.

Australia is 32 square miles smaller than the contiguous USA.

It has a population of only 20 million and the longest navigable coastline of any country in the World at about 25000 kilometers.

Its navy which does the coastguard work has about one ship for every 1000 kilometers of coast.

Any Aussie will tell you that anything or anybody can get what they want in or out pretty much how and when they like.

And incidentally, the nearest neighbour is the World's most populous Moslem country Indonesia with 220 million people , most of whom are ok but not all

 

[cantdog]

see, colddiesel, this is where you make your floater. You took RR seriously. He nearly never has any remote idea what he's talking about.

 

[Pure]

note to rr

RR Let me explain to you why gun control laws, short of a total ban, will not work.

We get your Senator to pass the gun control law that you want. The gun control law might work within a state, but not within the United States. You have a whacko like Cho, who has been involuntarily put into a mental hospital. He has no right to buy a gun. HOWEVER, the ban depends upon the gun seller learning that Cho has been in a mental hospital. If the state in which Cho lives 'doesn't have the budget,' then the state has no record of Cho's mental hospital visit and Cho gets a gun. If Cho gets a good fake ID, then he is no longer Cho, the guy who was in the mental hospital, he is Goodguy, who has never been in a mental hospital or jail.

OK, the state decides to actually enforce the gun control laws and has, in their database, records of mental hospital stays, hail stays, etc. So, Cho drives to another state, where his granny lives and buys a gun there, using granny's address. You see, there is no central, national database where Cho's mental hospital stay is available in a state other than the one in which he stayed in the mental hospital.

OK, we will create a national database. No you won't. A national database would require a positive ID system and would constitute a national ID system, which you won't accept under any circumstances.

OK, we will create a national database. No your Congressperson won't. A national database would need to have a physical location [two physical locations actually, so that there would be a backup.] Then we have the question of the physical location. There would be only two physical locations for budgetary reasons. There are 50 states.



===
Your points have some validity against current systems in operation in the US. The degree of autonomy of the states works against gun control-- and attempts to control or regulate many thrings from malpractice to education.
I believe VA had a two minute background check which would be pretty limited to federally and VA recorded criminals.

You points above, however, deal mostly with the 'background check' problem.
For a different starting point, consider a ban on semiautomatic weapons, and pistols generally, esp. ones capable of firing up to 30 bullets from a single loading (magazine). Since the VA Tech shooter fired 170 shots he must have had several of these high capacity magazines {i.e. at least 6}, for i'm unaware of any that hold more than 30 bullets, and usually they hold less, sometimes only 8. There is no reason for a civilian to have a pistol like that. IOW, the law should say that the onus is on the person to show imminent danger and a necessity of arming himself in that way.

For Kev, I deliberately widened the discussion to other countries. I've posted about Brazil, Australia, Japan, UK and Belgium. Some of these may be centralized enough to have effective bans on guns except for legitimate hunters and 'sports shooters' at ranges. Canada has controls on handguns, but they're smuggled in from the States. Perhaps Canada cannot solve the problem if the US has and sells millions of guns. European nations may be better able to work together.

In any case, RR, it's a matter for testing and experience, not armchair arguments, how to reduce the number of guns in a society and the wrong people's access to them. Outside the US, where 'gun rights' are not recognized, the problem is going to be easier to solve, but may take some tinkering. I gather neither Britain nor Australia have had the mass shootings like those that inspired their respective clampdowns.

---
NOTE: In another post, you raised the issue of violent crimes. You're correct that 'gun control' or even 'gun bans' do not eliminate violence, which is as old as humans and chimps. Societies need to look into how to reduce violence, including the common low-level violence of gangs armed with knives.
Since you can't ban knives, other approaches have to be tried; generally insuring that the dope addicted, the zealous, and the desperate have no reason to turn to guns, knives, bombs, etc, and good alternatives available to seek and/or get what they want in life (where that's legal).

 

[Weird Harold]

For a different starting point, consider a ban on semiautomatic weapons, and pistols generally, esp. ones capable of firing up to 30 bullets from a single loading (magazine). Since the VA Tech shooter fired 170 shots he must have had several of these high capacity magazines {i.e. at least 6},
...
Since you can't ban knives, other approaches have to be tried;

As far as I know, it takes a federal firearme license to own any a "high-capacity magazine" for any weapon; 14 rounds for a pistol, five rounds for a rifle, and three rounds for a shotgun, IIRC. If the Va Tech shooter had 30 round magazines for either pistol, he was breaking an existing (federal) law. (he probably wasn't breaking any laws because AFAIK, there are no magazines made for either of his two guns that will hold 30 rounds, and legal magazines are easy enough to accumulate.)

As for knives, yes you can ban knives -- certain sizes and types of knives are already restricted or outright banned almost universally -- "bolo" or "butterfly" knives, switchblades, stilettos, most knives over five inches or knives that have a "guard."

The ban on knives is far less political than gun control, but it's roughly as effective -- i.e. almost totally ineffective, which is probably why you don't think banning knives is possible.

 

[R. Richard]

As far as I know, it takes a federal firearme license to own any a "high-capacity magazine" for any weapon; 14 rounds for a pistol, five rounds for a rifle, and three rounds for a shotgun, IIRC. If the Va Tech shooter had 30 round magazines for either pistol, he was breaking an existing (federal) law. (he probably wasn't breaking any laws because AFAIK, there are no magazines made for either of his two guns that will hold 30 rounds, and legal magazines are easy enough to accumulate.)

As for knives, yes you can ban knives -- certain sizes and types of knives are already restricted or outright banned almost universally -- "bolo" or "butterfly" knives, switchblades, stilettos, most knives over five inches or knives that have a "guard."

The ban on knives is far less political than gun control, but it's roughly as effective -- i.e. almost totally ineffective, which is probably why you don't think banning knives is possible.

It was 10 rounds for a pistol. However, the ban was largely a joke. The European version of weapons sold legally in the US with 10 round magazines often had 12, 14 or even 30 round magazines. The high magazines were routinely imported privately from Europe as 'calculating machine parts,' or some such. The high capacity magazines were 'impossible' to obtain if you were a barefoot pilgrim. Else the high capacity magazines were available under the counter at quite high prices.

 

[Weird Harold]

It was 10 rounds for a pistol. However, the ban was largely a joke....

Which is essentially my entire point in this thread: The entire history of gun control laws -- and other "prohibition campaigns" -- are largely jokes and far too often create more problems than they purport to solve.

 

[The_Fool]

As far as I know, it takes a federal firearme license to own any a "high-capacity magazine" for any weapon; 14 rounds for a pistol, five rounds for a rifle, and three rounds for a shotgun, IIRC. If the Va Tech shooter had 30 round magazines for either pistol, he was breaking an existing (federal) law. (he probably wasn't breaking any laws because AFAIK, there are no magazines made for either of his two guns that will hold 30 rounds, and legal magazines are easy enough to accumulate.)

As for knives, yes you can ban knives -- certain sizes and types of knives are already restricted or outright banned almost universally -- "bolo" or "butterfly" knives, switchblades, stilettos, most knives over five inches or knives that have a "guard."

The ban on knives is far less political than gun control, but it's roughly as effective -- i.e. almost totally ineffective, which is probably why you don't think banning knives is possible.

The High Cap Magazine Federal Law expired. It is currently legal to buy them in most areas, except where municipalities or California have outlawed them.

 

[Pure]

thanks for the info rr.

while it's possible the VA shooter had fourteen or so of the legal 12 round magazine, it's plausible that he had high capacity mags, as many as 30 rounds-- apparently easily obtainable in VA. in the latter case, he'd need as few as six magazine, for the case of the 30s, and eight or nine in the case of 20s.

as to WH
Which is essentially my entire point in this thread: The entire history of gun control laws -- and other "prohibition campaigns" -- are largely jokes and far too often create more problems than they purport to solve.

i agree that many 'prohibited items' (possession) laws are ineffective and cause problems (depending on one's point of view: maybe some of the Cheney bunch are not unhappy to see lots of young Blacks doing time for 'possession.')

i don't think, however, you've made anything like a general case. for instance i think it's pretty hard to get Plutonium. same for Polonium-- used to kill the Russian ex-spy Litvinenko-- although it's apparently available in minute quantities over the 'net.

where the laws fail, e.g., during Prohibition, it's because the general populace WANT booze, just as now they want pot (maybe even cocaine).
here's where a cultural argument comes in: IF we assume that most Americans are NRA-line in their thinking, a ban would be very difficult.

Fortunately the Aussies, the English, and the Japanese are apparently less of this 'you may take it from my cold dead hands' school of thought. for them, as opposed to Americans, the alleged limit on liberty is more than outweighed by the social benefits in lessing gun crimes.

We have to look at facts, not sit in armchairs in debating the effects of laws attempting to contro. or regulate various items.

if i'm not mistaken, though, i think it's pretty hard for Joe Blow, a US resident to purchase a shoulder held rocket launcher {tomahawk?}. or one of those suitcase size mini-A-bombs, or 50 gallon steel drum of cyanide, or a copy of the security precautions manual that American Airlines issues to its pilots and employees. correct? that's as it should be. the argument that some evil person is going to get ahold of one is NOT a good argument against a ban.

likewise the general point that NO LAWS work--i.e. deter all or lead to punishment of all who commit the crime-- cannot be deployed, without lots of detailed supporting arguements, against gun control.

 

[R. Richard]

We have to look at facts, not sit in armchairs in debating the effects of laws attempting to contro. or regulate various items.

The problem with gun control laws, other than the fact that they really have no effect other than to keep guns out of the hands of the law abiding is that the laws are a 'feel good' argument that we have done something to try to solve the problem. Of course, the laws have no real effect. The fact that the laws have no real effect means that innocent people are put into jeopardy.

The facts are that again and again we see criminals use guns to commit murder and mayhem, despite the fact that said criminals have no right to own the guns in the first place.

 

[Weird Harold]

i don't think, however, you've made anything like a general case. for instance i think it's pretty hard to get Plutonium. same for Polonium-- used to kill the Russian ex-spy Litvinenko-- although it's apparently available in minute quantities over the 'net.

You're ignoring my previous points about public health and safety, ignoring the argument that guns are fail-safe and resorting to ad absurdium arguments again. Handling Plutonium without creating a threat to public health and safety is is NOT a fail-safe proposition; it's a serious poison even disregarding it's radioactivity and bomb making potential.

You're also disregarding the "targeting the wrong people" argument: Why should law-abiding people be restricted and put to additional time and expense to continue doing something they've been doing without threatening public health and safety -- I refer you back to starkkers account earlier in this thread of her family's experiences with the effect of Australia's gun ban on law-abiding citizens who find they need to replace those guns they turned when they were banned.

where the laws fail, e.g., during Prohibition, it's because the general populace WANT booze, just as now they want pot (maybe even cocaine).
here's where a cultural argument comes in: IF we assume that most Americans are NRA-line in their thinking, a ban would be very difficult.

The High Cap Magazine Federal Law expired. It is currently legal to buy them in most areas, except where municipalities or California have outlawed them.

The high capacity magazine ban failed, not because the general populace wanted them, but because the general populace didn't care and didn't feel any safer because they'd been banned -- and there was no recent massacre involving them to generate fear of high-capacity magazines to support a move to continue the ban.

I don't really need to make a general case against prohibition, the history of Prohibition and The War On Drugs pretty much make that case for me. The more people who want something that is banned, the more money it makes for criminals and the more money it costs law enforcement to try to enforce the ban.

I just need to make a general case for laws being ineffective in controlling guns (and their accesories). The Brady Bill, the Federal High-capacity Magazine ban, and the Assault Weapons ban make that case for me; all three were highy touted "victories" for the gun control lobby and all three were allowed to expire because they made no detectable difference in crime statistics.

The assault weapons ban is a good example of why "gun control" as currently proposed by the gun control lobby is a waste of legislator's time and the genral public's tax dollars -- it identified several visible characteristics that an AK-47 has in common with other notorious "assault rifles" and banned any weapon that shared those visible (cosmetic) feaures. The law made no reference to any feature of the banned weapons that actually make them suitable for an (infantry) assault.

The assault weapons ban was also a pointless and useless law in that the true "assault weapon" version of the banned guns have been severely restricted since 1935.

I suspect that the reason that so many attempts at gun control are useless and/or unenforceable is that anyone who knows anything about how guns work won't have anything to do with the anti-gun lobby's attempt to impose it's "fear of things that cause loud noises" on the general populace.

 

[Pure]

WH //The assault weapons ban is a good example of why "gun control" as currently proposed by the gun control lobby is a waste of legislator's time and the genral public's tax dollars -- it identified several visible characteristics that an AK-47 has in common with other notorious "assault rifles" and banned any weapon that shared those visible (cosmetic) feaures. The law made no reference to any feature of the banned weapons that actually make them suitable for an (infantry) assault.

The assault weapons ban was also a pointless and useless law in that the true "assault weapon" version of the banned guns have been severely restricted since 1935.

I suspect that the reason that so many attempts at gun control are useless and/or unenforceable is that anyone who knows anything about how guns work won't have anything to do with the anti-gun lobby's attempt to impose it's "fear of things that cause loud noises" on the general populace. //

It's obviously going to hard to ban one kind of gun, since there will always be gray areas. I'd propose a further reason for the 'holes''; i think some lawmakers want 'holes' to please the gun lobby. If some laws are jokes, I think that's the intent; then the NRA can say, "proves the point." For instance the present 'holes' around 'gun shows' are there for a reason--i.e., to weaken the law.

Obviously to ban assault rifles you have to specify the basic features, e.g., semi automatic, number of bullets and bullets per second, etc.

Then of course the gun nuts stay up a few nights and figure a way around: sell something just short of the features, BUT also sell a kit to modify the thing in 10 mins! (e.g. go from semiautonomic to automatic.)


Canada has a fairly effective ban on handguns, but not they're being smuggled up from good ole US.

Probably the world can just let Americans shoot each other and argue about the second amendment. Perhaps a Darwinian process will help reduce the problem. I see NO evidence that reducing guns is impossible in other less macho and rightwing cultures.

---
NOTE to rr: the "criminals will get them anyway" is NOT a good argument, since it applies to nuclear weaponry; and most of like the laws limiting possession of such weapons.
===

The really important point is getting lost here: How does a society reduce violence? What laws help? What practices help (e.g. regarding exposure of kids to violence)? What values and customs help? As long as 'macho' is desired, the pariahs, and the otherwise weak, are going to after it in spades, like Cho, the VA shooter. For about 3 hours he became a "Big Man"; and he leaves a legacy of many poses [in photographs] to encourage other deranged souls (thanks to the media).

 

[SeaCat]

Okay, as has been mentioned here by myself as well as by many others the mandatory laws are not being enforced. As a case in point this morning two young men were arrested for multiple armed robberies in the area. This was reported on the local news. The local news also showed video footage of these robberies where the two young men, (both convicted Felons,) armed with AK Style firearms.

The only problem for me was the comment made by the reporter where he stated the two young men were facing a total of five years in jail. Well what a nice touch for them when the laws here in Florida clearly state that the possesion of an illegal firearms is the basis for ten years in jail. Using said firearm is grounds for twenty years in jail, all of this of course is mandatory. (Or so they say.)

Now another thing that has been brought up is the common argument that all that anyone who wishes for gun control wants is banning of firearms. I no more wish for the banning of firearms than I wish for a return to Prohibition. Oh hell no. What I would like to see is a universal Permitting System that is recognised in all states and has a mandatory minimum training level. (Sorry WH and RR.)

Yes I did say mandatory minimum training. This training would require the bare minimums of safety both personal and public. As a basis for this I can only cite what I so often see at the public ranges I go to. Too often I see people who know absolutely nothing about firearms safety. They put themselves and everyone one at the range at risk. These are some of the same people who are out there packing concealed. A minimum of training would at least allow them to shoot at the range without getting hurt or hurting others. (Personally I would like to see anyone who has a Concealed Carry Permit have to go through the sam training as the Police.) Also these people need to be tested every year or so, just as people who have to handle other dangerous materials have to be tested.

Cat

 

[Weird Harold]

The really important point is getting lost here: How does a society reduce violence?

We don't agree on much, but I agree with this point. The problem isn't guns, drugs, computer games, movies, or any other singular cause celebre, the problem is violence and Society's failure to deal with it.

However, I oubt that we'll disagree with how to solve the problem, because my solution is basically one of the points that has been raised by several people in this thread: "We don't need new laws, we need to enforce the law we already have effectively."

Seacat provided a convenient example:

Okay, as has been mentioned here by myself as well as by many others the mandatory laws are not being enforced. As a case in point this morning two young men were arrested for multiple armed robberies in the area. This was reported on the local news. The local news also showed video footage of these robberies where the two young men, (both convicted Felons,) armed with AK Style firearms.

The only problem for me was the comment made by the reporter where he stated the two young men were facing a total of five years in jail. Well what a nice touch for them when the laws here in Florida clearly state that the possesion of an illegal firearms is the basis for ten years in jail. Using said firearm is grounds for twenty years in jail, all of this of course is mandatory. (Or so they say.)

How many time in their lives have those two young men been shown that the letter of the law doesn't apply and a plea bargain will get you off with a "slap on the wrist?"

How many ways have our young been taught that there is no such thing as personal responsibility?

It starts in daycare or kindergarten (if not sooner) where "harsh words" are the only deterent to asocial behavior (but not too harsh because we don't want to inhibit budding criminals.)

It continues through primary school where being disruptive is ignored and displaying genious is discouraged -- and neither has any bearing on advancement through the system.

IMHO, It's all Dr. Benjamin Spock's fault.

However, All of that is another, larger debate than this thread is aimed at.

 

[rgraham666]

If you want to reduce violence, reduce the romantic hold it has over us. Make it a tool of last resort, a sign of failure rather than a way to success.

 

[R. Richard]

Okay, as has been mentioned here by myself as well as by many others the mandatory laws are not being enforced. As a case in point this morning two young men were arrested for multiple armed robberies in the area. This was reported on the local news. The local news also showed video footage of these robberies where the two young men, (both convicted Felons,) armed with AK Style firearms.

The only problem for me was the comment made by the reporter where he stated the two young men were facing a total of five years in jail. Well what a nice touch for them when the laws here in Florida clearly state that the possesion of an illegal firearms is the basis for ten years in jail. Using said firearm is grounds for twenty years in jail, all of this of course is mandatory. (Or so they say.)

Seacat, you have already made my argument for me. There is a law(s) in place to punish people for the violation of gun control laws. However, the laws are not being enforced against criminals.

Now another thing that has been brought up is the common argument that all that anyone who wishes for gun control wants is banning of firearms. I no more wish for the banning of firearms than I wish for a return to Prohibition. Oh hell no. What I would like to see is a universal Permitting System that is recognised in all states and has a mandatory minimum training level. (Sorry WH and RR.)

If the scumbags won't enforce the law against criminals, then they attempt to make up for it by overenforcing the laws against normally law abiding citizens. The Permitting System [we already have one, its called the Second Amendment to the US Constitution] will eventually be 'interpreted' by some scumbag to disallow posesssion of guns by law abiding citizens.

Yes I did say mandatory minimum training. This training would require the bare minimums of safety both personal and public. As a basis for this I can only cite what I so often see at the public ranges I go to. Too often I see people who know absolutely nothing about firearms safety. They put themselves and everyone one at the range at risk. These are some of the same people who are out there packing concealed. A minimum of training would at least allow them to shoot at the range without getting hurt or hurting others. (Personally I would like to see anyone who has a Concealed Carry Permit have to go through the sam training as the Police.) Also these people need to be tested every year or so, just as people who have to handle other dangerous materials have to be tested.

You did say mandatory minimum training. However, what the politicians heard was 'mandatory minimum taxing.' The yearly training woukld get very expensive, very fast. As far as going through the same training as the scumbags, Cat, I can't eat that many doughnuts.

 

[Weird Harold]

Yes I did say mandatory minimum training. This training would require the bare minimums of safety both personal and public. As a basis for this I can only cite what I so often see at the public ranges I go to. Too often I see people who know absolutely nothing about firearms safety. They put themselves and everyone one at the range at risk.

That sounds like a problem the range management/"safety officer" should deal with.

Starkkers provided a prime example from her personal experience why I'm against mandatory training/qualification testing as a pre-condition to ownership:

We owned four firearms when the laws changed. Three of them were made illegal. And my husband's licence was revoked (we lived in the city at the time and had no legally acceptable reason to need a licence).
...

Now we are back in a rural area. My husband is currently going through the ridiculous hoops to get his licence back. And we'll have to buy new firearms, which he can't even touch until he's licensed, let alone order. ...

... And I'm not allowed to have access to them unless I get a gun license too.

All this so we've got something to kill the foxes when they get into the chook house...

 

[Pure]

dear starrkers. re foxes

try a baseball bat... works against all foxes i've ever seen.

lacking that, a non-lethal trap, such as they use for trapping racoons.

then there's MOAB. probably RR can sell you one. and WH will applaud the exercize of your freedom.