Guns in America

[Rococo]

[ QUOTE ]
I remember Paul Phillips wrote what I thought was a very good blog entry on this subject a while back, one that, honestly, changed my mind a little.

(digs up link)

ah, here we go: http://extempore.livejournal.com/180946.html

[/ QUOTE ]

One other point on the Paul Phillips blog entry. He points to Hitler as evidence that tyrants always disarm the populace before imposing their will. The facts concerning Hitler and gun control are not as undisputed as he makes them out to be. As the attached article points out, numerous pro-gun groups dispute the Hitler/gun control argument. The author of the article is a University of Chicago law school professor, not just some internet hack.

Bernard Harcourt article

[Rococo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Funs facts:

From 2001-2005 in the US:

An average of 42,000 people die in auto-accidents.
An average of 20,000 people die from the common flu.
An average of 17,000 people die from gun-related suicide.
An average of 11,000 people die from gun-related homicide.

When examining violent crime in the US from 2001-2005:

98% of violent crimes committed are non-fatal.

Of those, less than 10% are gun-related.

[/ QUOTE ]

Another fun fact from the DoJ website -- "The FBI's Crime in the United States estimated that 66% of the 16,137 murders in 2004 were committed with firearms."

If your numbers are correct, this is pretty startling. Less than ten percent of violent crime involves a gun, yet two-thirds of murders involve a gun. I think that this seriously undermines the argument that would-be murderers would simply use a knife, baseball bat, etc. if guns were unavailable.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it doesn't.



[/ QUOTE ]

The fact that total homicides track gun related homicides doesn't prove much. That was inevitable given that such a high percentage of homicides are committed with a gun. Secondly, the decrease in homicides in the last 15 years has a lot to do with improved emergency medical care (i.e. less people die). Violent crime as a whole has not decreased at nearly the same clip.

[renodoc]

Or, try this page for info on gun control and genocide.

[JackCase]

[ QUOTE ]
I didnt read most of this thread so I might be repeating what someone else said.

Hand guns SUCK. They are absolutely pointless. People use the excuse that "they need them for protection". Protection from what, other people with guns? That is [censored]. I dont think they'd need these guns if nobody had guns. I cant really think of one good use for a hand gun. Maybe recreationally, for markmanship competitions but thats about it.

I dont get how the Gov't can be so controlling over far less harmless things such as marijuana and internet gambling yet basically allow anybody and their brother to own multiple hand guns. Christ, in almost every other civilized country in the world the police dont even carry guns.

I am perfectly fine with the right to own rifles and shotguns as they can be used in a purposeful manner. But handguns... are you [censored] me? what a joke.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your post is pure opinion without any attempt to be objective or to present any facts or data to support your position.

There are in fact numerous reasons that a handgun is superior to a rifle or shotgun for self-defense. The primary reason is for the safety of the homeowner, his family, and his neighbors. A handgun is easier to keep away from children while remaining accessible in times of emergency. A handgun is much easier to control, particularly in a very tense situation and in the close quarters of a home. It is easier to learn safe and effective operation of a handgun than a long gun. The bullet from a handgun is much less likely to injure innocent people. (A shot gun blast can spread out and strike several targets. A rifle shot can penetrate the target and hit someone in the background. A rifle shot can penetrate apartment walls.)

Your emotional opposition to handguns shows a total lack of familiarity with handguns and a total lack of knowledge of the characteristics and uses of firearms.

[ QUOTE ]
Christ, in almost every other civilized country in the world the police dont even carry guns.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you have any facts to support this assertion?

[NicksDad1970]

"I am just curious. Do people on this forum really believe that there is absolutely zero correlation between the number of guns in this country and the amount of gun violence? I find that hard to believe. I of course agree that other factors play a huge role as well.

Second, this isn't really a thumbs up or thumbs down question. A very small percentage of people have a problem with a farmer in Kansas hunting deer with a legally purchased rifle. Likewise, a very small percentage of people think that the Second Amendment should be interpreted so as to prevent the state or federal government from restricting the purchase of anti-aircraft weaponry. The right answer obviously is somewhere in between."

I think the amount of guns do have something to do with the amount of crime. But I also believe the ease at which someone can attain a permit to legally carry a gun has something to do with the fact that violent crimes have gone down in the majority of those states.

Isn't the main problem with guns obtained legally the fact that some get stolen and used by those who can't legally obtain them? Well I guess another one is one person legally obtains it and gives it to the person who can't legally purchase it.

The age old arguments is and always will be (IMO) is if all guns were taken away the only people to have them wouldbe the crooks.

[NicksDad1970]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Those guns come from somewhere, and are purchased legally before they cross over to the illegal resale market. I have to believe that the gun show loophole is the portal for a huge percentage of these guns.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no such thing as a "gun show loophole".

At the risk of repeating myself, let me repeat myself.

There is no such thing as a "gun show loophole".

A gun show is a sales event put on by a reputable production company. They sell table space to gun dealers, and charge admission to the public. Every gun show I have ever heard of requires that vendors are federally licensed gun dealers who rigorously conform to and comply with all state and federal laws.

To purchase a gun at a gun show from a vendor, you must pass federal and state guidelines. The federal requirement is a real-time check of your ID against the federal criminal database. Some states require a locally issued purchase permit, either for all guns or just for hand guns. The feds waive their check if you have a state permit. There is no other way to purchase a gun from a vendor at a gun show.

Often private citizens take guns to a gun show to offer them for sale to the gun dealers. It sometimes happens that an individual attending the show sees another individual with a gun for sale, asks about it, and buys it on a person to person basis without a licensed dealer involved. This is a private sale, regardless if it takes place at a gun show, at a gun range, in a home, or under a bridge in the dark of night. Specific laws regarding private sales of firearms vary from state to state.

If you are selling a gun in a private sale, you had best be familiar with, and obey, your state laws regarding private sales. And those laws are generally quite different than the laws governing sales by licensed dealers. There are no loopholes for sales at gun shows. If you are a dealer at a gun show, you must obey the laws applicable to dealers. If you are a private citizen at a gun show, you must obey the laws applicable to a private citizen. No exception. No loopholes.

[ QUOTE ]
I have to believe that the gun show loophole is the portal for a huge percentage of these guns.




[/ QUOTE ]

Fie. I fart in your general direction. You haven't a clue as to what a "huge percentage" is, or how such sales could possibly occur at a gun show.

[/ QUOTE ]

I worked in gun shows for years and I most certainly can't tell you what the law IS I can tell you how it was told to me.

To legally sell a gun as a buisness you must have a FFL. However many people who sell guns at a gunshow do try to sell under a loophole of selling their "personal collection". Because you are allowed to sell your personal guns at gun shows w/o filling out any of the paperwork if either party had a FFL.

So the way it works is John buys various guns from various places, like at a gun show, then they put it on their table as a "personal gun collection sale". I've also heard of dealers with FFL's buying a gun and selling it as a consignment gun w/o putting it on their papers.

I think a way to clean it ALL up would be to have 2 people with the ATF work every gun show at the promoters expense and every person to person sale must go through the ATF.

I've personally sold used guns at new prices because they were part of my personal collection and the person buying didn't have to fill out paperwork. But I have alsways asked the buyer for a DL so I could verify who they were and if the cops every came looking for me I could pass that on.

P.S. - I don't know if I misunderstood you or not I do know that (in Tn) even if you have a CCP you still have to go through their "instacheck" with TBI.

P.P.S. - At every gun show I've been to there's someone checking all guns that enter the building to make sure they're unloaded. Well the guy that checked guns at this articualr show was an off duty police officer.

So I'm in the gun show and I hear "Oh Shiat, I've been shot!"

Turns out the off duty officer cleared the gun by pulling the trigger and shot some dude in the leg.

[ChicagoTroy]

It would make sense to pass gun control laws if they actually reduced gun crime. Even complete handgun bans have absolutely no positive impact.

I'd be in favor of it if it worked. As it stands, with the utter elimination of all firearms impossible, allowing law-abiding citizens to purchase and carry firearms seems to make more sense than the alternatives.

[Jamougha]

[ QUOTE ]
Or, try this page for info on gun control and genocide.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem I have with that page is that the premise doesn't seem to follow from the evidence they present. OK, so governments that commit democide (genocide is not quite accurate here) often have gun control. It doesn't follow from this that democide is impossible, or even less likely, in an armed state. That's especially true when most places have gun control anyway.

Iraq, as a counter-example, appears to have had plenty of guns in private hands pre invasion. It didn't prevent the state killing large numbers of its citizens or running a brutally repressive regime. Same in Afghanistan.


On the whole I find that the quality of debate surrounding gun control is pretty awful, on both sides. Will gun control increase or reduce murders, violent crimes? Everyone is convinced they know the answer but AFAICT there's really not enough data to say. Do guns prevent tyranny? Well they're not sufficient and they're not necessary. Do they help? Impossible to say with confidence.

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]


To legally sell a gun as a buisness you must have a FFL. However many people who sell guns at a gunshow do try to sell under a loophole of selling their "personal collection". Because you are allowed to sell your personal guns at gun shows w/o filling out any of the paperwork if either party had a FFL.

[/ QUOTE ]

That varies from state to state. The point remains that if you are selling a gun, you are bound by either the laws covering a licensed dealer or by the laws covering a private sales. A private sale is covered by the appropriate state laws, and those laws in any state are generally the same whether the sale actually occurs at a gun show or anywhere else.

The impression you would get from the media and the would-be gun controllers is that guys in turbans and robes are flocking into gun shows and buying up truck loads of assault rifles because of the "gun show loophole".

[ QUOTE ]
P.S. - I don't know if I misunderstood you or not I do know that (in Tn) even if you have a CCP you still have to go through their "instacheck" with TBI.

[/ QUOTE ]

I assume that TBI is the TN Bureau of Investigation. I was referring to the federal check. As far as I know, the feds waive their check any time the state requires a permit and/or a check. And it is likely that the TBI also checks the fed database when they run a check.

[NicksDad1970]

"I assume that TBI is the TN Bureau of Investigation. I was referring to the federal check. As far as I know, the feds waive their check any time the state requires a permit and/or a check. And it is likely that the TBI also checks the fed database when they run a check."

Yes the TBI is Tn Bureau of Inv and I was told that if the state law is more strict than the normal fed check then you go by the state deal. I do find it odd that you can have the CCP and still have to go through their instacheck. I personally think it's because they charge $10 for it.

I also agree with you that the haters put the bad spin on it. To a certain degree we all do it though. Yes I agree it's stupid and sucks.