Yes i second that Wal-Mart has great prices on ammo. a box of 100 9MM ammo runs about 10 bucks and its Winchester
PacMan777 My hypothetical(not theatrics)is an all to real outcome of gun proliferation. The US has one of the highest murder rates in the civilized world because guns are so easily purchased by anyone. In Florida they can be purchased at flea markets. I wasn't debating an individual's right to own one, I was debating the carelessness with which they are sold to certain individuals. My father was a hunter, and although I didn't choose to hunt, I respected his choice to do it. Guns without oversight are a hazard to any civilized nation.
Sophocles Your "hypothetical" appeared theatrical the way it seemed to be staged; especially the part about letting us know what your character was thinking and feeling. Anyone as scared as the character in your "hypothetical" needs to stay home in a closet or at the nice, safe, local mental health facility. There's fewer shootings from mental patients wandering down alleyways than drive-bys, gang violence, and criminal activities. Mental patients usually stage the more spectacular shootings. A real life story where an innocent was gunned down would be more effective for your argument. We don't seem to be at odds here, both of us want to see responsible firearms use. I agree, there's a lot of people who shouldn't own guns. Likewise there's a lot of people who shouldn't own cars and there's doctors who shouldn't practice. As I mentioned before, the sins of part of the group shouldn't be laid at the feet of the entire population.
Pacman777 What is it with these attacks? If you want to make it personal then just say so but the thread said "Neph's POLITE gun Debate." The hypothetical character wasn't about fear, it was about what could happen if a weapon should fall into the hands of a person with an unbalanced mind, which happens all too often. Remember Virginia Tech? Don't you think that a little gun control might help reduce such incidences. The United States is one of a few nations in the industrialized world that has no gun control laws. Here's a US government statistic: http://0-www.ojjdp.ncjrs.gov.libcat.uafortsmith.edu/pubs/gun_violence/sect01.html Last year I had a 14 year old student who was shot to death with a gun because of an argument between a friend and another person.
I think this is how we got the "polite" gun thread in the first place. In deference to Neph let's keep this POLITE and argue in the PMs.
Sophocles I find your inference that I'm becoming personal off the mark. Where did I say anything personal about you? If you write something, then I should have the right to comment on it. I was discussing the points of what was being said, not attacking you personally. There's nothing personal unless I called you stupid or fat. Made up situations can be set to push the buttons from a given point of view. How about an incident concerning a defenseless old lady in her home: Her door was being broken down by a gang intent on taking the Christmas gifts she'd just purchased with her last pennies for her orphaned grandchildren. The brutal leader of the malicious gang that killed the children's parents was intent on torturing and killing the old lady and children for fun and so they couldn't ID the gang members. The little old lady was forced to take out the Mac-10 her dead husband had left her for self defense. Isn't that sad? I ask for real examples and not concocted ones. Your reference to a teenager shot during youth violence lends more credibility to the discussion for a need for gun control enforcement than hypotheticals and hyperbole. I wonder if the slain child would have been stabbed if the assailant couldn't have gotten a gun. Before guns it was a big thing to have a switchblade. My main question is where did the kid get a gun? There are gun laws and someone along the line slipped. I concede there's irresponsible gun owners and dealers and people illegally selling firearms. That means laws already in effect are being broken. Instead of more gun laws, why not enforce the ones in effect. If the kid with the gun stole it, then that means the police failed by not having arrested him. As I keep mentioning, there's more at play than needing more gun laws. I remember VA Tech and a few others where deranged people were allowed to have guns. It's not just the gun laws that failed though, it was those fighting for the rights of others by not letting it be known those people were mentally unstable and a threat to society. At VA Tech there was several instances that the psychopath could have been reported. I'm not saying he couldn't have gotten a firearm, but at least it would have been illegal for him to own one and he shouldn't have been allowed to remain a student. The college and medical profession dropped the ball on that one. The college knew he was a problem and he'd been diagnosed as being unstable. A gun dealer can't refuse a sale if the buyer isn't on the list of banned individuals. BTW, it's also illegal to carry a gun into most schools except for law enforcement. I remember another story that made the news. A police officer broke into a residence and killed his ex-girlfriend and others present at a pizza party. There's enough instances to prove not all the guys in blue are there to protect and serve. Who protects us from the police? A sack of fertilizer and some diesel fuel can make for a nasty situation in a crowd. We saw what a truck full could do in Oklahoma. They're monitoring fertilizer sales, but it's not been banned. So, psychopaths have more at hand than just guns. Run someone down with a car and you can say accident if no one sees it. You lost control if you have to drive on the grass to get the victim. Should we ban cars and fertilizer? And from the same article you quoted on firearms: http://0-www.ojjdp.ncjrs.gov.libcat.uafo...nce/sect01.html According to the report quoted, the gun problem has been getting better and not worse over the past 20 years (at least up til the time the report was made). Of course statistics change and can have an up and down surge from year to year. You could say gun violence is worse this year over last year, but the 2 years be the lowest in a decade. I also noticed the info in the article comes from 1996, over 11 years ago. Using the US in comparison to other industrialized nations needs to be done on a per capita basis. There's 50 states with most of them the size of a country and some with larger populations. By sheer numbers there's going to be a percentage discrepancy without taking population into account. How about using a figure derived from the number of legally owned guns and resulting deaths? I've never seen that figure used. On the forums we're simply giving our bias with whatever support we can muster. Some of us want to see responsible gun use and enforcement of gun laws. We have those who don't want guns to be legal and would like to see legislation banning ownership. We don't need to make up fictitious circumstances. VA Tech was a good reminder of what a deranged person can do with a gun. But that opens a can of worms that goes much farther than just gun control. Anti-gunners would rather use it as a focal point, but how about the ACLU (and it's supporting factions) distorting personal rights to privacy with mentally ill people posing a threat to society. Do we protect their rights to privacy so they can be allowed to continue to the point of mass murder? Could a student or teacher with a gun have stopped the VA Tech massacre. As many people often point out, the police usually react to crime scenes and don't usually prevent them. In memory of Neph, I'm keeping this discussion polite. I'm a bit nonplussed to be accused of doing otherwise.
Originally posted by Sophocles: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The hypothetical character wasn't about fear, it was about what could happen if a weapon should fall into the hands of a person with an unbalanced mind, which happens all too often. Remember Virginia Tech? Don't you think that a little gun control might help reduce such incidences. The United States is one of a few nations in the industrialized world that has no gun control laws. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From that statement I see a lack of knowledge about gun control or the laws of the land. I suggest research be done no matter which side of the discussion you want to take part in. The United States has some rather strict gun laws. http://www.nraila.org/GunLaws/Federal/Read.aspx?id=60 20 years for use of a firearm in a violent crime (not necessarily murder) and drug-trafficking is Federal law. Is life without parole strict enough? Notice it said nothing about killing anyone, just using certain weapons in a violent crime or drug-trafficking. That is from Federal Law and in addition to whatever the criminal charges bring Much of the problem has been with enforcement and the system having to deal with personal rights when it comes to people getting firearms that shouldn't. The mentally deranged that become a focal point for anti-gunners are a case in point. The people making the loudest noises are usually the ones fighting to protect the rights of the mentally deranged so they can go out and buy the guns to kill with. Here's a link to the Federal ATF site where you can read or download a copy of the Federal laws: http://www.atf.gov/pub/fire-explo_pub/2000_ref.htm
It's statements like the one above that take it to a personal level. It is condescending assumes knowledge about me that you aren't in possession of. The problem with those laws are that they are vague and leave to many loopholes open for purchasing a weapon. If I went out this weekend I can purchase a gun from any of several flea markets in the area with no checks of any kind. I can also go to someone's home and make a private purchase as well. http://www.nraleaders.com/state-of-affairs.html Check to see if you can purchase a gun easily in the state where you live. It is unfortunately all to easy which is one of the many reasons that I believe in greater gun control and restriction. http://www.vpc.org/studies/tupstudy.htm I've learned over time that everyone is right in their own minds, and that a debate such as this is unlikely to change the minds of those who are for or against greater gun control. I support your right to own and use guns. I don't know you personally so I can only hope that you do so responsibly. http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/issues/?page=home http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/20/AR2007042001980.html http://www.athealth.com/Consumer/issues/gunviolencestats.html A lot of tragedy has followed the proliferation of guns. Even those who want a gun for protection ultimately if the situation arises be defending themselves from someone else with a gun. Cheers!! HLG
I don't know why you want to try to keep saying I'm being personal. You put me in possession of the knowledge when you said, "The United States is one of a few nations in the industrialized world that has no gun control laws." When the United States has Federal and state gun control laws in effect and you say there are none, it's easy to say you're not fully knowledgable on the subject you're trying to debate. Often law breakers are tried in state courts and Federal laws don't come into play. When Federal sentencing mandates are followed, the sentences are often more severe than state sentencing. Any way it goes, there are laws in effect. Getting into a discussion on changing laws leads to politics and that's a forbidden subject at AD. Sadly in the US the issue of gun ownership is used as a political pawn instead of being dealt with according to law. As I mentioned before, we bring our bias to the discussion. That's a point you noted as well. I admit, I'm pro-gun. However, I've done the research and taken training to carry a firearm responsibly. Saying there are no laws prove you lacked knowledge of their existence. I'm only going by what you said. In your last post you refer to the laws and say they're vague with loopholes. You posted a short synopsis of the laws. If you want to quote the laws, use material from this link, you'll find it complete. http://www.atf.gov/pub/fire-explo_pub/2000_ref.htm Also, where are the loopholes? You should have pointed some out for us. Plus there's plenty of case precedent if a prosecutor needs it. The one thing we do agree on is the need for better enforcement and sentencing befitting the crimes. The problem is you have a bunch of the liberal judges who would like to see guns banned, but don't think the culprits should spend serious jail time. Just because you can go out and buy a gun today doesn't make it legal. Plus there are laws covering the purchase of firearms from individuals. As has been said, it comes down to responsibly following the laws and government agencies enforcing the laws. Since you keep saying I'm being personal, I'll consider our discussion closed. My advice, instead of googling for points, do the research. Talk to some real gun owners instead of looking for horror stories that play to the anti-gun movement. You'll find there are responsible gun owners like myself who want to see current gun laws enforced, but not have guns banned. It's your right not to own a gun, as it was your Father's right to own his. I just ask the same consderation when it comes to my rights.
Those "sources" are laughable not only because all are conducted or funded by the gun control lobby, but also because most of them have been thoroughly debunked. I could cite 10 times as many studies from the NRA, but, unlike gun control advocacy groups, nearly all independent research suggests that gun control, at best, does nothing, and at worst, sharply increases violent crime. Probably the most relevant study is the International Crime Victimization Survey. This is the 800# gorilla of international crime comparisons. Guess what? The industrialized nations with stricter gun control, with the sole exception of Japan, have both higher violent and overall crime rates. Guess which has the lowest? Switzerland, which mandates gun ownership. And not just piss-ant semiautomatics and handguns; Switzerland requires every household to have an operation fully-automatic battle rifle, and ammunition. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/02/23/ncrim123.xml It's worth noting that the ICVS isn't conducted by some pro-gun group in the U.S., by by Leiden University in Holland. Not exactly gun-friendly. Nor does it specifically examine the effects of gun laws. However, if you look at the rankings, the countries with stricter gun control laws lead the industrialized world in violent and total crime. Of particular note, England/Wales and Australia are the top two (and have frequently traded spots at #1 several times over the last few years), and have some of the most draconian gun control laws on the planet. It's also worth noting (although this was not specifically cited in the ICVS), that both nation's violent crime rates surged immediately after they passed their sweeping gun bans in 1996 and 1997, respectively. The supposed "43-times-more-likely" study you cited has been so thoroughly debunked that even most gun control groups have silently walked away from that one. It was not done in the 90's as you suggest, it was conducted in 1986 by a lead researcher by the name of Dr. Arthur Kellerman. But Kellerman refused to release his data and most of his methodology. In science and academia, that's tantamount to fraud; if one will not release the methods by which he or she obtains a result, then others cannot duplicate those data or methods to test their validity. In other words, there's no way to verify whether or not the results were completely made-up, or whether the researcher used valid methods. This is fundamental to the scientific method. Kellerman clearly did not: what little is known of his methodology is that he analyzed three counties in Washington State, specifically chosed because they have high alcohol and drug abuse rates. But he did not explain his methodology any further and, more important, never released the data from which he obtained his findings. That situation became so bad that, last time I checked, most gun control groups are now only claiming a "3-times-more likely" or even less, although even that is flawed. http://books.google.com/books?id=dd...ts=NNZLvRdiBV&sig=IGNc-L25zm4oVSKnACV6DTETmFg In reality, the opposite appears to be true: A gun is about 20 times more likely to save a life than to take one. Dr. Gary Kleck, a criminologist at Florida State Univ., studied reports of DGUs (defensive gun uses) by citizens in the mid-90's, and found there were about 2.5 million such defensive uses a year. Of those, about 400,000 are believed to involve a life-threatening situation (based on statements the attacker made, or prior histories e.g. abusive spouses with violent histories.) Kleck, Gary, Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control, Aldine Transcation, 1997 http://www.amazon.com/Targeting-Gun...=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1196403620&sr=1-5 The most fascinating thing about the Kleck study - and, by the way, he DID release his data and methodology, unlike most pro-gun-control researchers - is that several pro-gun-control researchers tried to debunk his study, and found far more annual Defensive Gun Uses. Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig found 3.1 million such uses as reported to a major gun-control lobbying group (their full study showed closer to 4.7 million, although they apparently retracted their formal study in favor of the lesser total; Kleck had, among other things, discounted multiple defensive gun uses by the same individual.) http://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/165476.txt It's also worth noting Kleck's own biases and leanings: He is a self-described liberal, "card-carrying member of the ACLU" (which has traditionally been hostile to the Second Amendment, though they are quite friendly towards murderers and child molesters). Simply put, Kleck is not exactly an NRA poster child. The dterrent effect of gun ownership has long been documented: In 1983, Tulane researchers James D. Wright and Peter Rossi (also self-proclaimed supporters of gun control, at least initially) found that convicted felons were FAR more likely to have been deterred from committing a crime because of the fear of a potential victim being armed with a gun, as opposed to fear of arrest, jail, etc.. (Side note, much of this reaearch went on between the late seventies and 1981.) Wright, James D., etal., "Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms (Social Institutions and Social Change)", Aldine DeGruyter, 1986 http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0202305430/independenceinstA/ They have done some follow-ups which affirm this, and Wright has published several of these updated studies. Then, of course, there are the John Lott studies, which you may have heard of, that show distinct drops in violence in those states with "shall issue" carry laws. Lott, John, More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun-Control Laws (2nd Ed.), University Of Chicago Press, 2000 http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Les...bs_sr_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1196403898&sr=1-2 Bottom line is, the overwhelming majority of scientific evidence suggests that more gun restrictions equals more violent crime, whether here or abroard. It's gotten to the point where even many pro-gun-control researchers are jumping ship. Moreover, the anecdotal evidence points to the fact that more gun controls inevitably lead to more violence: witness Washtington D.C., which enacted some of the most draconian gun control laws in the world in 1976 (not only were handguns prohibited, but even long-guns [rifles and shotguns] were required to be stored in a non-functional state. I'm not aware of any place where even long guns are essentially banned, even Japan). And what was the result? D.C. was historically the murder capital of the U.S. (and the industrialized world). Chicago, which also outlawed handguns (though not rifles and shotguns) in 1982, has been a close second. Indeed, most Dillon's Rule cities with their own gun restrictions tend to have sharply higher violence and murder rates than average. While I have been trying to adhere to the ideal that this is supposed to be a "polite" debate, and I don't want to attack anyone personally, it is beyond stupidity to suggest that the U.S. has "no" gun control laws. We have some of the strictest in the world. We have over 20,000. The real problem is that we DO have them at all. Another point to mention is the fact that, if guns genuinely made life more dangerous - if it were really that "guns were designed to kill", then cops should suffer by far the highest murder and suicide rates of any segment of society. They don't, however, despite a variety of societal problems being endemic in that profession. Moreover, it would be extremely difficult if not outright impossible to justify our government to send people out on our streets, using our taxpayer dollars, who are carrying "guns that were designed to kill". That would not stand the test of societal and ethical sensitivities, let alone the legal liability problems: There would be no defense if that were the case. Finally, it's worth mentioning, as others have, that police only respond to crime. They do not usually immediately prevent it. Practically-speaking, unless you have an armed police officer living in your household, there is no way to interdict crime, only respond to it. Unless you have a the equivalent of an armed police officer in your household: a citizen with a gun.
Was talking with a friend of mine tonight and he told me an interesting story about guns. He and his room mate a couple of years ago were living in a neighborhood with a few "crackheads" as neighbors. The "indigents" would always look at them like we can score some cash or merchandise from them and even heckle them at times. The guys decided to load there truck up with the guns they had in the house because they were going hunting anyway and thought that they would just load ALL there firearms up. (which no one knew about) They did so one at a time and about on the 6th or 8th trip to the truck the "crackheads" across the street were staring with eyes bulging. lol. Well anyway word got around that the 2 guys had many firearms/weapons stored somewhere in the house and NO ONE ever bothered them after that. It makes me want to look into owning a few firearms again just for that sake. lol. I'm on the page that the enforcers of the law should make the laws we have now work before they add more that protect no one but the honest citizen from protecting themselves from the very "criminals" that we need to keep the guns from. NOT very eloquent I know but I think you get the meaning of my post. ....gm
The message was clear and one I agree with. I'm surprised when word got around about all those guns that thieves didn't try to steal them. That's one of the problems of gun ownership, if you can't keep them with you all the time. When I used to have more nice guns than I do now, I bought a safe to slow thieves down and to keep the guns stored safely away from children or anyone else that shouldn't be handling them. This isn't a gun locker but one of those big heavy jobs. If they cut the hinges off, the door is still held in by large pins inside the steel walls. It wouldn't stop a real safe cracker, but they wouldn't waste their skills at my house anyway. The safe is worth more now than what I keep in it. LOL The safe is so heavy the seller loads them using a forklift. It took 3 big men to move the thing in place at my home. It broke a dolly rated at 1000 lbs. Unless a gang breaks in, I should be able to easily track a thief who carries my safe away. All I'll need to do is check the clinics to see who checked in with a hernia. Greensman Most people have kids in their home from time to time, even if they don't have children of their own. I recommend at least a gun locker to store firearms. A good gun safe is even better. It's too easy to forget those little locks on the gun and kids have a habit of finding keys, if you don't carry them at all times. Gun cases are more for exhibition than safe storage. Don't be lulled into thinking a gun is safely stored when in one of those.
As far as gun safety and kids go, I make sure that the bolts and or trigger groups are dissassembled and stored in a different area of my house, the gun locks are in place on the trigger housing. The ammo is stored away from the firearm components. My wakeup call came when a friend of mine from Arizona told me the story how his oldest son (Age 6 or so at the time) somehow managed to get ahold of his loaded service weapon and bring it down to shoot this huge bug in the backyard that was scaring the whooha out of his mom. It was stored on an overhead beam in his bedroom, well out of reach of his kids he assumed. Fortunately no one was injured, except my buddy learned how to get comfortable on the couch for a while.
blivet If it works for you, good. Children have a habit of finding everything in a house though. Remember the story about the "bug". The locks are about as safe as where you keep the keys. Can a child remove the locks with tools you have around the home, garage, or workshop? How about his little buddy's house where the dad has all those nice shop tools? Drill press anyone? I know it's extreme, but children are unpredictable. That's why there's all those accidental deaths.
I agree with you on the safe, the best place to keep them in, but for those of us without them, we have to be much more creative. Besides. my kids are not home alone nor would they be able to find the keys. My weapons are not really here for home defense, but if they were would need to rethink the method of protecting them from curious kids. Having all girls is a plus in this case, would be much different if they were boys.
Here's a good one for you. My dad made the mistake of not hiding his handgun once when I was a little boy. My two older sisters got their hands on it and were checking it out. Luckily they only shot a hole in the ceiling instead of a family member. Needless to say no more handguns were left where the kids could get them. Girls can get into as much as boys, they're just cuter and can get away with more. LOL For my CC automatic I've got a steel lockbox with a pushbutton combination system so I can access it quickly. For when the batteries run down there's a key, which I keep in the safe. The lock box can be bolted to a permanent fixture or uses a steel cable for attachment. It's a lot safer than a gun lock and allows faster access.
If you look on youtube it shows you how unsafe normal gun locks are, so it's a good thing you don't use them.
