Gun Rights, took another good positive step forward

[virginia mountainman]

House Panel Adopts Amendment Allowing Guns in Public Housing

“Seniors and other individuals have the right to protect themselves,” said Joe Baca of California, one of 13 Democrats who voted for the amendment. “Those guns would be registered, and those individuals have a right, in public housing or any other place, to protect themselves.”

And of course, we have Ex-Rethug Caroline "ban things that go up" McCarthy

Carolyn McCarthy , D-N.Y., a longtime gun control advocate, said opponents of the Price amendment would try to remove the language from the bill at a later point in the legislative process, without subjecting the issue to a recorded vote.

“What we’re trying to do will not involve votes,” McCarthy said.

I wonder, WHY she doesn't want a vote on this??? She afraid of something???

http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?parm1=5&docID=news-000003161861

Our steady march of civil rights victories continue...

[vincna]

1. Wasn't she just whining about gun control going nowhere?

Maybe it's finally sunk in that she and her ilk are in the minority on gun control and would lose if a vote were taken.

[Old and In the Way]

2. If you mean by civil rights victory that we must all live in fear of each other

while the NRA and the gun companies made windfall profits, yeah, I guess that's real progress. But this will be a great social experiment. Lets arm everyone in public housing and lets see if violent deaths go down.

[X_Digger]

3. I foresee a spate of drug dealer deaths..

.. then a steady decline.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

4. Who proposed arming everyone in public housing?

[davepc]

5. Drug gangs often take over public housing units to base their operations out of

Sometimes holding the residents for all intents and purposes hostage. I have no idea if this will help (I suspect it wont, as the gangs have no problem using violence and intimidation to get their way), but they sure aren't following any "no guns in public housing" rules either.

Here's a book on that touches on the subject: The Hidden War: Crime and the Tragedy of Public Housing in Chicago -- By Susan J. Popkin

http://www.amazon.com/Hidden-War-Tragedy-Housing-Chicago/dp/081352833X

[Old and In the Way]

18. Well, we could legalize drugs and take away the key profit motive that

fuels gun violence, but that probably wouldn't help the NRA and gun manufacturers sell guns, would it?

[davepc]

19. I doubt you'll find many supporters of the War on Drugs here.

[TiredOldMan]

6. Criminals Always Have Guns

The criminals always have guns. This law just allows the law abiding to have the same right. Are you for giving the criminals an edge?

[sharesunited]

7. For criminals to have guns, someone has to manufacture, import, distribute and sell them.

Guns do not appear in society as naturally occurring fruit.

[TiredOldMan]

8. It's not difficult.

People were manufacturing guns hundreds of years ago and modern ones 150 years ago. The criminals will always find a way. I just prefer to allow people to protect themselves if they choose to do so. Almost every city that has extremely strict gun laws has a higher crime rate and a higher murder rate.

I like ALL of the Constitution. Not just the parts someone sees fit to ALLOW me to have.

[Katya Mullethov]

40. Dig it ...homemade open bolt subguns

homemade open bolt subguns , pistols , and even crew served junkyard creations .

http://englishrussia.com/?p=965

And just for the hell of it , something terribly old ,and terribly interesting

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNXkUA0KFNY

[Statistical]

9. There are 100 million or so street guns. What is your plan to get rid of them

Police remove about 200,000 per year via arrests and investigations.

So even if all lawful guns were instantly destroyed tomorrow and not gun was ever produced again the criminals have about a 500 year supply of weapons to use in crime.

So other than wait 500 years what is your method to get rid of street guns?

Gun grabbers like you focus on lawful guns because those are the ONLY guns you can control. It is the false safety of control that drives you.

Drugs are illegal yet they have high value in smuggling due to the premium paid for them in illegal countries.

4,000 TONS of illegal drugs enter the country every year with thousands more produced domestically. Why? Since they are illegal they have high value.

Street guns aren't currently worth a lot due to high supply but eventually they would be so don't you think people might smuggle in a few (as in thousands) guns WHEN THEY ARE ALREADY BREAKING THE LAW smuggling in tons of drugs?

The truth is like most antis you have no clue how to solve these problems and are simply scared wanted to cling to any sort of control no matter how irrational.

There is not a single form of gun control you don't support, no matter how dubious the value.

[sharesunited]

11. All guns start out as "lawful." Stop making / importing new guns and ammo. Cap the well.

As with the smuggling of any contraband you impede as you can. Yes, guns and ammo should be as scarce and expensive as the most prohibited contraband.

[Statistical]

12. Drugs are scarce and expensive? LOL

You do live in a fantasy world.

SO back to reality I gave you a gun grabbers perfect scenario:

ALL LEGAL GUNS GUN OVERNIGHT
ALL FORMS OF GUN PRODUCTION HALTED
ALL IMPORTS OF GUNS MADE ILLEGAL.

Now you have 100 million or so street guns.

Is Phase II wait 500 years for them to "run out".

[sharesunited]

13. Attrition reduces their prevalence over time (however long it takes)

and their increasing value slows down their circulation.

[Statistical]

14. "However long it takes"

Glad you are willing to disarm the law abiding for 500 or so years while attrition reduces the prevelence of the illegal gun.

However most people aren't and I am sure as hell not willing to surrender my arms for "the common good" under an idiotic plan like that.

Drgus can't be reused. They are single use commodities. A single firearm can be used in hundreds of crimes. Combine that with the uneven distribution of violent crime that means even if you hypothetically eliminated all lawful guns but magically cut the illegal gun supply in half you wouldn't meaningfully reduce gun crime.

The same country that can't keep thousands of tons of drugs from entering its borders illegally or prevent the domestic production of thousands more tons will somehow not only reduce the illegal gun supply but at the same time prevent illegal domestic production or illegal importation.

If you believe that then it explain a lot about your 9 year old mentality about guns.

[slackmaster]

25. Increasing value over time would have another consequence that you refuse to acknowledge

Only wealthy people would be able to afford them.

[Euromutt]

21. "All guns start out as 'lawful'"? Depends on the local gun laws, doesn't it?

The fact that a firearm legally rolls off an assembly line in Shandong province, China, Izhevsk, Russia, or Kragujevac, Serbia, and is perfectly legal there, and can be readily exported without any questions asked except "we are getting paid in hard currency for this shipment, right?" doesn't mean that same firearm can't readily be shipped somewhere where its importation and sale is highly illegal.

I know I've posted the link to this Guardian article (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/aug/30/ukcrime1) before, but let's see again how "scarce and expensive" illicit firearms are in the United Kingdom:

* A Glock costs around £2,000-2,500;
* an unused 9mm semi-automatic handgun of a lesser-known brand costs around £1,500;
* a Baikal MP-79 tear gas pistol (http://www.baikalinc.ru/en/company/64.html), converted to fire live rounds (not hard since the pistol is essentially a Makarov pistol converted to fire CS gas cartridges in the first place) costs £1,000-1,500, including a suppressor that screws onto the threaded replacement barrel;
* a German-made blank-firing revolver, converted to fire live rounds cost £700-800 in 2006;
* a sawed-off double-barreled shotgun costs £150.

Buying a gun that's already been fired in the commission of a crime will get you a lower price.

While that may seem expensive when you do the currency conversion, bear in mind the pound has long been overvalued (i.e. it costs more to buy than its purchasing power merits). These are prices even the most petty British drug dealer can afford. They could also be prices American drug gang members could afford.

[paulsby]

33. "scarce and expensive"

lol. cocaine comes from (generally) south america.

it has been banned for DECADES.

it is cheaper NOW than it was when i was in college 20+ yrs ago

despite the fact it has to travel long distances and through numerous jurisdictions where it is banned

going rate in seattle is $80/gm.

in college, over 20 yrs ago, it was $100/gm

and it would take me about 30 minutes from leaving my house to hook up with some cocaine. just need to make sure i leave my uniform at home.

the war on drugs has been a MISERABLE failure. that you could analogize thusly shows you are ignorant of the current states of "scarce and expensive' drugs lol

[Treo]

36. Guns and Drugs

All You need to make meth is a kitchen All you need to make a gun is a machine shop. There are 50 machine shops in my town alone
How were you planning to stop people from making guns?

[tortoise1956]

45. Gotta ask...

Are you on drugs? (Particularly appropriate, considering the recent reference to the War on Drugs) The Human animal has been arming himself since the dawn of time. Some times they did it for protection against predators, but most of the time it was to fend off other people - for various reasons.

Face it, Humans are not intrinsically kind and courteous. As a matter of fact, without society and its rules to keep us in line, we tend to be pretty damn unkind towards all outsiders. there is also the tendency towards wanting to accumulate power in order to be the big cheese, no matter what it takes. Because of these innate tendencies, there has always been a need to carry, or have access to, or enable a designated group to be armed with weapons of some kind.

Now if you really think that guns are not a naturally occurring phenomonen, I would say you are even more out of touch with life than even I had thought was possible.

[Tim01]

10. So you plan is to arm only the criminals? nt

[proteus_lives]

15. He refuses to see the conseqences of his ideas.

:eyes:

[virginia mountainman]

16. Actually. The "Great Social Experiment"

Was Gun Control....And It failed miserably.

[Old and In the Way]

17. Great!

Let's make sure everyone gets a gun and lets see if gun related deaths go down. Very simple thing to analyze. Relax all the gun laws and see if they reduce the number of violent deaths. Either you folks are right about how guns will reduce crime and deaths...or your "dead" wrong (excuse the pun). I tend to believe that more guns = more gun deaths, but I could be wrong. Lets arm every law abiding citizen and find out!

Sorry, I'm not infatuated with gun ownership...but when I see it framed as a "civil rights" issue....I wonder how that squares with the civil rights of a majority of victims that no longer have any.

[virginia mountainman]

20. No one is saying "Arm everyone"

Who said that??

Actually, with the recent, "since 1994" easing of gun control laws, gun deaths, and gun crime, has been steadily dropping, WHILE liberalizing gun rights. In states that have started issuing "shall issue" CCW permits, the crime rates have gone DOWN.

These are facts...It is not a social experiment.

[pipoman]

22. Riiight

legalizing abortion MADE every woman get an abortion, legalizing or decriminalizing drugs would make sure everyone does drugs.

Gun deaths have decreased over the last 20 or so years to 40 year lows according to the FBI and the CDC. Since guns are not made of meat, they don't rot or spoil, in fact they outlive their owners, there are necessarily more guns every single year since their inception. So your 'belief' that "more guns = more gun deaths" has already been proven inaccurate.

[X_Digger]

23. As guns have gone up, crime has gone down..

I wouldn't say it's a causal relationship, but the inverse is definitely not true (more guns = more crime). The crime level right now is back down to levels not seen since the 60's.

[samsingh]

43. no way - #of guns going up means increasing deaths.

[X_Digger]

44. So some think..

Check this out..
http://www.wallsofthecity.net/2009/07/graphics_matter.html

[Euromutt]

49. Ah, you're a graduate of the College of It Stands To Reason

See my sig line to get the reference.

See, the problem is that your assertion makes sense if you subscribe to the notion--perpetuated in the public health literature and by such institutions as the Violence Policy Center--that the bulk of firearms homicides are committed by people who "would be considered law-abiding citizens prior to their pulling the trigger." Criminological evidence indicates, however, that up to 90% of homicides are committed by people with an extensive prior criminal record or arrest history. Now, I will happily concede that an arrest record is, by itself, not proof of a tendency towards criminal behavior (one might simply be an ethnic minority in a city with a racist police force) but when you've got a long arrest record culminating in a homicide conviction, the notion that you're a career criminal becomes a lot more plausible.

The fact is that the driving force behind homicide statistics consists overwhelmingly of the propensity towards violence on the part of people who habitually engage in criminal activity. These are people who aren't hampered by legal restrictions on private firearms ownership any more than they are by legal restrictions against the organized criminal activities by which they make their living. By way of comparison, look at the rifle grenade attack on "the Bunker," a special high-security courthouse in Amsterdam, on the eve of the trial of Willem Holleeder (the most plausible hypothesis is that the attack was commissioned by associates of Holleeder to warn him not to rat on them in exchange for a reduced sentence), or the "Great Nordic Biker War" of 1994-1997 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Nordic_Biker_War) which saw recurrent use of firearms, car bombs and even anti-tank weapons.

Very simply put, when violent criminals want to acquire and use guns, they will acquire and use them, no matter the local law. Private citizens who do not routinely engage in private activity do not, as a rule, use any firearms they might acquire for unlawful purposes. As an anecdote, I myself have gone from owning no guns two years ago to owning nine today, but I have yet to threaten, let alone shoot, anyone with them, despite two bouts of clinical depression and some vehement arguments with my wife during that time.

[samsingh]

53. access to firearms for a deranged citizen makes that citizen more lethal

[Statistical]

59. access to firearms for a deranged attackers victims makes that attacker less lethal

[samsingh]

60. huh?

[Statistical]

63. A firearm in self defense can end a violent attack thus making the attacker LESS lethal.

Your belief that guns = bad is misguided and not based on the facts.

As gun supply rose the rate of homicides & violent crime went DOWN
As number of states allowed concealed carry increased the crime rate went DOWN

Firearms are used defensively everyday, they are also misused everyday.

However any law that relies on compliance with the law (registration, licensing, limits, bans, etc) simply reduces the pool of guns used defensively while doing NOTHING about the pool of guns used in violent crime.

2% of the population commits 50% of the violent crime in this country.
It is a virtual impossibility that you could reduce the gun supply so much (99.99% reduction) such that you would have a meaningful reduction in access to firearms by this 2% sub-population.

There is NO evidence that gun cause crime. None. Now you may continue to "believe" even in the absence of evidence but that is called faith and it generally is not a good idea to base pubic policy on faith.

[samsingh]

71. that is true.

guns used for self-defense are good

but guns also get used for attacks on innocent people. Also, i believe that certain laws, like those being used by people going to healthcare forums and openly displaying their guns are a mockery to what guns are supposed to be.

the nra's view appears to be 'no controls' and 'all guns are fine'. Do we need assault rifles for self defense? do we need people to put a gun on their hip holster and parade around?

[Statistical]

76. Would you be surpsied to learn that...

The NRA lobbied FOR:
* prohibiting felons from having weapons
* strengthening penalties for criminal possession of weapons
* instant background check system
* including mentally ill into the NICS (background check system)
* enforcing existing laws (Project EXILE reduced gun crime in Richmond, VA 40% simply be enforcing federal laws)

There were no assault-rifles at any protests.
Assault-rifles are substantially restricted and have been since 1968 (another thing I am guessing you were unaware of).
Sales of new assault-rifles (and other automatic weapons) to civilians has been illegal since 1986.

The weapon on the back of the protester was a semi-automatic rifle (1 trigger pull = 1 round). It is no more dangerous than a traditional "looking" rifle with wooden stock and shape. It simply looks scary.

Does putting a spoiler on a 1986 Honda Civic make it go faster? Would banning spoilers (look fast) reduce speeding? If the weapons were hidden (conceal carry) would they be less dangerous? Or would it simply look less scary?

Did the gun protesters exercise very poor judgment? However what they did was not against the law. In a country based on rule of law we don't arrest people for "non-crimes". If the people of AZ feel it should be illegal they will pass laws making it illegal.

[PavePusher]

70. Well, I heard it From Some Bloke At The Pub...

May the Small Gods bless you, Terry!

[Will E Orwontee]

37. more guns = more gun deaths . . . pfffffftttt . . .

I tend to believe that more guns = more gun deaths, but I could be wrong.

Not could be wrong . . . are wrong.

In 1986, out of a population of 240,133,048 gun homicides amounted to 13,029 people.

In 2006, out of a population of 298,754,819 gun homicides amounted to 12,791 people.

20 years + 60,000,000 people + 80,000,000 guns = FEWER HOMICIDES?

[samsingh]

55. how did gun control fail miserably?

[Statistical]

62. In the "bloody wild west" the homicide and violent crime rate was lower ...

than most European cities. Dodge City for example had an annualized homicide rate of 1.0 per 100K residents which would put it close to Japan and lower than almost all countries in Europe today.

The first significant gun control laws were to disarm newly freed blacks. It had nothing to do with public safety but to ensure the mob had defenseless victims. Gun control has always been about control and little about guns.

Gun Control as an agenda began to fall apart in mid 90s and despite less gun control in the last 2 decades the homicide & violent crime rate has gone down.

More Guns + More Conceal Carry resulted in less homicides & less violent crime.

I am not saying that more guns = less crime but there is no evidence that more guns = more crime.

It may be that the crime rate is completely decoupled from the firearm rate and the millions of dollars spent on gun control has been a giant waste of money.

[slackmaster]

24. Living in fear or not is a personal CHOICE

Lets arm everyone in public housing and lets see if violent deaths go down.

Straw Man. Nobody is suggesting arming everyone.

[PavePusher]

29. You have nothing to fear from legal citizens.

Unless you plan to attack them.

Do you think law-abiding people living in public housing loose the Constitutional right to effective tools of self-defense? If so, are you planning to volunteer to help defend them?

[no limit]

30. So I guess you think poor people in public housing should be subject to different laws

than everyone else?

That seems fair. /sarcasm

[paulsby]

32. canard #4

so happy to see it.

the idea that by RECOGNIZING the right of people within a group to arm themselves, that we are ARMING "everyone" (note the language above) in that group.

ah, the illogic.

so, if it is legal for all women who live in public housing to have abortions, we are aborting EVERY public housing baby?

same illogic.

canard #4.

for the record, canard #4 is easily refuted. nobody is arming EvERYBODY in public housing. it's a lie on its face

[AtheistCrusader]

34. Yo, I'm allowed to possess and keep firearms.

Please arm me. I'm tired of buying my own guns and ammunition.

Whatever you think this bill will arm them with, I want one too.


Edit: Spelling. In the title no less. Ugh.

[samsingh]

54. the logic of those opposing gun control is all emotion and selection of a subset of facts

i don't understand the love affair with guns

i think guns enable people to kill and to kill more people in times of lunacy.

i think that the gun manufacturers and related industries that profit from guns have done a great marketing and sales job convincing people that their right to gun ownership is beyond question. They've framed the argument. People can't even smoke a legal joint, but they can go buy a lot of guns. I think there are limits on the size of knives people can buy.

Now we have idiots wearing a sidearm and going to public rallies that are heated in the first place.

I don't understand it. it all seems incredibly selfish to me.

[Statistical]

67. Actually it is proponents of gun control who rely on emotion.

It is all they have. The facts support scrapping most gun control as it is useless and expensive (money that could be better spent on investigating crime).

Take for post for example. Lots of "I thinks", "it seems", "love affair". No facts.

Lots of nice strawmen in there also:
"there are limits on the size of knives people can buy" and there are limits on the type and size of firearms you can buy.
"People can't even smoke a legal joint" Ok, so the war on drug is as useless and stupid as the war on guns.
"right to gun ownership is beyond question" please find a single link to a major organization or firearm manufacturer epousing there should be no limits on firearms.

When yoo make up false arguments it is easy to "defeat" them but it doesn't really mean anything.

[samsingh]

74. gun supporters use statistics selectively and try to mask their agruments in

however, the emotion is there. 'don't take my guns away because the constitution says i have the right to them.'

the emotion from those wanting more controls on guns comes from watching innocent people being killed by some nut who picks up a gun and starts shooting them.

i wonder if we'd get an emotional response if there was accountability from the companies making and selling the firearms. let them pay civil damages. i'm sure the arguments for gun proliferation will change.

[X_Digger]

77. Do you sue Honda..

.. because a drunk climbed into his civic and plowed into a bus full of nuns?

Do you sue Easton because some idiot picked up a baseball bat and brained a guy walking down the street?

Do you sue Takeda when a crazy picks up a knife and stabs a cop?

What 'accountability' would you apply to gun manufacturers / dealers, and would you apply it to other industries?

[samsingh]

82. the purpose of a car is to get people from point a to point b

the purpose of a gun is to fire and strike something that is damaged or destroyed. gun makers need to take responsibility of how their products are being used and in what situations. (similar to tobacco companies for example).

[X_Digger]

90. Works as designed..

.. the choice of _what_ or _who_ to point the gun at is not dependent on or the fault of the manufacturer.

If you can't apply the same logic to cars, knives, and baseball bats, it fails for guns. (More people are stabbed and clubbed to death than are shot by rifles, btw.)

[Statistical]

78. If a gun fails they can be sued for civil damages.

If a gun works as expected (pull trigger, round fired, person aimed at injured) why should they pay civil damages?
Should car companies pay civil damages when someone commits vehicular homicide? Far more people are killed by negligence with vehicles than firearms.

Modern weapons are incredibly safe. They don't fire when dropped, they don't fire when banged, they don't fire randomly. They don't even fire under mechanical stress (spring breaking, part failure). They are designed to be redundantly safe. They fire when you pull the trigger. Bodily injury from firearm is either the result of justified force, malice, or negligence on the part of the operator. In all instances the firearm works exactly as designed and advertised.

I disagree that the constitution is an emotional issue.
I am not making an emotional appeal. I don't really care how you feel about it.
Rights aren't subject to feelings. How anyone feels about it is irrelevant.

The Right to Keep and Bears arms preexists the Constitution. The Bill of Rights is simply a "Bill of Restrictions on the Government". It defines what the govt can NOT do, not what I CAN do.

The Bill of Rights begins with this simple statement:
...The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution expressed a desire in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

The govt has no legal authority to violate the restrictions placed upon it. The government exists because the founders created it and a condition for that creation was these restrictions. If the government violates the restrictions that were a condition for its creation then it loses legitimacy to rule.

Not only does the govt lack the legal authority to violate the second but they lack the moral authority as well. Any government who has no duty to protect its citizens can not also deprive those citizens of an effective means of self defense.

[samsingh]

81. i disagree with what you are saying

statements like "I don't really care how you feel about it" sound emotional to me.

but - we are on DU so we obviously have a lot of other ideals in common.
and - the point is moot - we can't even get meaningful healthcare reform passed in the country (every other industrialized country has a national health care plan) without huge issues, what chance is there for gun control measures that would make someone like me happy? little to none. so i've just had to come to terms with this.

[Statistical]

88. Well it isn't emotional.

Maybe a better way to phrase it is I am not interested in "feelings" when it comes to rights. Rights exist even if they are unpopular.

So no I don't care about how you "feel" about firearms. Now if you have facts or ideas you want to share that I do care about. If you have evidence, facts, or opinions on the scope of the 2nd, what restrictions pass "strict scrutiny", or what compromises you would consider acceptable that would also be interesting. Feelings on the other hand generally are not based in logic and basing public policy on feelings is a horribly bad idea.

When the Nazi have a parade in NYC it created a lot of "feelings" and that emotional thinking makes people want to lash out and ban such public displays. However when thinking emotionally they fail to consider eventually the Republicans will be in power again. How would they use such restrictions on public assembly & free speech.

I think we can agree that reducing firearm access to criminals, targeting violent offenders, and reducing homicide & violent crime rate are good things for this country. How we do that is a matter for debate. The evidence I have seen is that "feel good" laws that restrict law abiding gun owners do little to reduce crime. It is therefore the worst kind of infringement, a useless one.

[samsingh]

26. yes - do keep arming everyone - it is such a beautiful thing

[Statistical]

27. Nobody is arming anyone.... it is giving people the choice.

Do you feel poor people are less deserving of choice than you are?

Rights are based on income. Now that is a progressive concept.

[samsingh]

31. i think there are too many guns

[spin]

38. How many is too many? (n/t)

[samsingh]

42. what is out there today is too many

i heard somewhere that there are the equivalent of 5 guns for every citizen.

[Statistical]

46. Well you heard wrong. That would be around 1.5 billion guns in the US. Not even close. n/t

[samsingh]

56. i think the number is actually several guns per household, not person

[spin]

47. Some stats for you...

Firearms ownership

United States population...273,000,000





Firearms (handguns, rifles, and shotguns) owned by civilians...235,000,000



How much has this increased in the past 40 years?...tripled





What fraction of U.S. households owns firearms?...42%

What fraction of U.S. residents owns firearms?...28%


http://gunsafe.org/position%20statements/Guns%20and%20crime.htm

[samsingh]

51. that sounds like the equivalent of several guns per household

[spin]

65. Of course...

Shooters often own several weapons, each for different purpose.

A .22 cal rifle or handgun is excellent for plinking and/or target shooting. Ammo (when available) is inexpensive, recoil is low.

A handgun or a shotgun are common self defense weapons and can be found in a variety of sizes and calibers. Many people carry a compact handgun for legal concealed carry and have a larger weapon for home defense.

Hunters will normally have a rifle or shotgun and some have several.

Collectors, of course, will have a collection.

A golfer has a bag full of clubs, each for a different task. Shooters are similar.

[samsingh]

75. how can we compare golf clubs to guns?

[spin]

85. Both are used for sporting purposes and both can be weapons...

I remember my mother once used a golf club to deter an impending fight between my father and a man experiencing road rage. She walked up behind the aggressive man with the club and a determined look. The other guy was a LOT bigger than my dad and while my dad was a good street fighter, she felt he might be at a disadvantage. The situation ended peacefully.

My dad often laughed at the incident.

Both my mother and my father were excellent golfers.

[michreject]

69. I own 52

Who's not carrying their weight?

[Euromutt]

50. Try 9 guns for every 10 inhabitants

Mind you, that does include black powder weapons, such as those useful primarily for hunting or military re-enactments of the Revolutionary and Civil Wars, and collections of antique but functional firearms by collectors. I know a guy in Orange County, CA who literally owns hundreds of guns, most of them Second World War-era bolt-action service rifles, none of which have been used to shoot anyone since 1945.

And isn't it amazing that, in spite of the fact that there an estimated 270 million firearms in private ownership in the United States, there are maybe 750,000 violent crimes committed with firearms every year, and maybe 12,000 homicides? Fancy that: every year, something like 99.8% of privately owned firearms are not used to commit crimes.

If we had only 1 million firearms in private hands, rather than 270 million, but that 1 million were all in the hands of organized criminals, we wouldn't be any better off.

[samsingh]

52. i don't understand the desire for guns as collector items or anything else

the NRA has done a fabulous job setting the boundaries of the argument. It's all about gun rights - self-defence, survival, hunting, collecting.

many of our other rights are limited and trampled - can't smoke a joint legally, Janet Jackson's nipple exposure for a second caused an uproar. but someone picks up a gun and shoots up a public location and it's never the enablement of the gun at issue.

i don't get it, but i'm resigned to it. the only reason i'd get a gun is because everyone else has one. that's probably the reason why organizations like the nra promote the so-called 'it's in the Constitution' interpretation argument. it's more about money than anything else.

[Statistical]

58. Or maybe because it IS in the Constitution.

[samsingh]

61. the Constitution says nothing about the types of 'arms', conditions,

background checks, sanity of the individual, etc.

it seems that people interpret the words the way they want them to. i don't see any mention of 'assault rifle'. For that matter, isn't a sword an 'arm' as well? why are there limits on the size of knives and swords i can carry?

why can't i carry an assualt rifle into a hard rock concert?

[Statistical]

64. Well technically you can...

Concert = private property. If the property owner allows firearms you could bring an assault rifle. If they don't you can't because it is private property and the owner of the property can set the requirements for being on their property. Same rational as I have a right to keep firearms in my home but I don't have a right to bring them into yours (unless you allow it).

There ARE limits on the right to keep and bear arms. To pretend otherwise is a strawman.
Firearms are heavily regulated. There are about 20,000 laws that deal only with firearms.

There are background checks, limits on sale, prohibition by certain persons, safety requirements, laws related to safe storage and laws related to law ability from poorly stored firearm.

Have you seen anyone on DU (or even NRA) say there should be "no limits" on firearms?

However an arbitrary limit on a civil right (and yes the Right to Bear Arms is a civil right) in public housing is Unconstitutional. Rights can't be limited to only the wealthy.

By the same token would you consider a limit on free speech or voting just for those in public housing to be acceptable?

[samsingh]

72. you make good points - the law should be the same for everyone

[spin]

66. It's difficult to understand why grown men would chase golf balls...

in a field and swat at them with clubs. Yet, many people enjoy golf.

Many times I've introduced a person to shooting who was hesitant or even afraid to handle a weapon. All enjoyed the experience and most developed an interest in the sport and purchased several firearms of their own.

Weapons often fascinate collectors. If you know what you're doing, firearm collecting may be more profitable by far than investing in the stock market or real estate.

[Statistical]

68. "Weapons often fascinate collectors." you got that right

fascinate and FRUSTRATE. :)

I am trying to locate a Mosin Nagant but not just any crappy Russia made one a specific model used by Finnish Civil Patrol (kinda like a combination rural police & national guard).

Finding any Mosin Nagant is too easy. finding a specific M28 which still contains all M28 parts (many were canablized after the war, or hunters traded out barrels, replaced stocks, fixed broking triggers with more available non M28 parts) is a challenge.

The rifle has sentimental value to me because my Grandfather used one in the Winter War.

[samsingh]

73. why do the guns have to be operational?

why should a hobby be allowed to endanger the safety of others (e.g. the gun collectible gets stolen?)

[spin]

79. Why should cars be operational? ...

Some kid might steal your car and endanger the safety of others by driving it recklessly.

I could also argue that it would be very difficult for me to enjoy the hobby of target shooting if the firearm was not operational. (All my firearms are shooters, none have any collector value.) It would also be extremely difficult for a hunter to shoot a deer with a firearm that wasn't operational. Many people in the poor area of Florida where I live find hunting an inexpensive way to put food on the table.

Most of the serious gun collectors that I've known have a collection so valuable that they store it in a VERY expensive safe. One person I knew had his collection in what was almost a bank vault. The thief with the ability to steal such a collection would have little interest in using the weapons for common criminal activity. Would you rob a bank with a handgun worth perhaps $10,000?

[samsingh]

83. guns and cars are different

a car is intended for transportation. a gun is intended to be fired and to strike something to damage or destroy it.

i wouldn't rob a bank with any weapon.

[spin]

86. Yes, I have damaged a lot of paper targets in my life...

and a few tin cans, plastic milk jugs and a couple watermelons.

[samsingh]

91. i'm not bothered by those things. it's when people get caught on the other side that

i get concerned, frustrated, and distressed.

[spin]

92. When you consider the number of gun owners...

in this country, estimated at 80 million, very few gun owners misuse their weapons.

Tragically some do. Some use a firearm to commit suicide. There are a small number of accidents involving firearms, mostly by people who fail to practice simple firearm safety or are unfamiliar with the firearm they are handling. Unfortunately, some children are injured by firearms not properly stored by the owners.

Criminal gangs fighting turf wars are responsible for many injuries and killings. Since it's hard to accurately fire a weapon from a moving vehicle, they manage to kill or injure innocent bystanders. Sadly, some people decide to rob convenience stores to get a few dollars and all too often shoot the store owner. Some use firearms to carjack vehicles or to rob people on the streets. And you have domestic violence incidents, where a husband or wife decides to terminate a bad relationship.

Approximately 30,000 people are killed each year by firearms, over half of which are suicide. There are many methods of committing suicide some which endanger or inconvenience other people. Eliminating all firearms might not reduce the number of suicides dramatically.

An effort to target criminal gangs could significantly reduce the number of deaths and injuries caused by firearms. In my opinion, criminal gangs are terrorists and should be treated as such. I also am in favor of severe punishment for anyone caught carrying a firearm illegally. No plea bargaining. A stiff jail sentence. In other words make the illegal carry of a firearm a SERIOUS offense. The punishment should be severe enough to discourage this activity. If some thug is "disrespected" by some other individual, he may not be able to simply whip out his weapon and blow the "MF" away. He would have to return to his home to obtain his weapon and might reconsider his actions.

Strangely, this happened to my grandfather. He had a nasty encounter with a well known criminal and decided to get his hand gun from his house and return to the bar and shoot the SOB. His best friend talked him out of it. The criminal was far more experienced with firearms than my grandfather and was likely armed, so the situation ended well as my grandfather would have probably ended up dead. (The time frame was the early 1900's.)

I favor current gun control laws, and would like to see them improved. The NICS background check works well but needs to include more state records and include the medical history of people with severe and dangerous mental disorders. It also needs to be expanded to incorporate private sales of firearms between individuals. Also every effort should be used to discover and incarcerate those who are "straw purchasers" of firearms.

And I feel that anyone who purchases firearms for resale to criminals should be accountable for the crimes committed with the weapons they bought. If the weapon was used to murder an individual, the buyer should be considered an accessory to murder.

Draconian gun laws should be directed at those who misuse firearms, not at responsible citizens.

But firearms do serve a purpose. I have enjoyed shooting as a hobby for 40 years. Many local people hunt to put meat on their table. My daughter used a large caliber revolver to deter a man breaking into our home by forcing a sliding glass door open. As often happens, she only had to point the weapon at the man and he fled.

[samsingh]

57. i want the choice of not feeling that any moron can get or steal a gun easier

than getting a little weed.

[spin]

80. That's not unreasonable...

Responsible gun owners agree with you.

What suggestions do you have to accomplish this?

[samsingh]

84. being reasonable on background checks and who can own a gun

having guidelines on:
- storage
- ammunition and size of ammunition
- very strong penalties for anyone committing a crime with a gun
- limits on the strength and power of guns that are sold (to avoid massacres).
- no felon should be allowed to have a gun
- penalties for when guns are misused.

[spin]

87. Not bad...

I'm not sure exactly what you mean when you say having guidelines on:

ammunition and size of ammunition

or

Limits on the strength and power of guns that are sold (to avoid massacres).

otherwise, we are largely in agreement. I would not necessarily prohibit firearm ownership to someone convicted of a nonviolent felony. Individual circumstances would have to e considered.

I would also add that anyone caught illegally carrying a firearm should face severe punishment and significant jail time.

[Statistical]

89. All those things exist except for storage.

- storage
No national policy but some states have "safe storage" requirements

- ammunition and size of ammunition
Lots of regulation on ammunition. Armor piercing pistol ammo is illegal for civilians. Ammo larger than authorized caliber is an NFA item.

- very strong penalties for anyone committing a crime with a gun
How about 5 years for mere possession, 10 years for use in a violent felony. Those laws have been on the books for 30 years and almost never enforced. The NRA lobbied for a program "Project Exile" that cut gun crime by 40% in 2 years simply by enforcing these laws. No new laws, no new restrictions. Enforce existing laws and 40% drop in gun crime.

- limits on the strength and power of guns that are sold (to avoid massacres).
Already exists. Automatic weapons, explosive weapons, destructive devices are strictly regulated. Ammo must be below a certain caliber or have sporting purpose (example shotgun shells) to be legal for civilians.

- no felon should be allowed to have a gun
Has been that way since 1968.
The NRA lobbied for the instant background check system to allow instant verification of legal status of person buying firearm.

- penalties for when guns are misused.
There are strict penalties for unlawful use of lethal force, brandishing, discharge of firearm, unsafe storage (in some states), knowingly giving/selling a firearm to a felon or other prohibited person.

[AtheistCrusader]

35. HEY WHERE'S MY FREE GUN

If they're going to 'arm' people in the cities, I want free guns too. WTF..

[samsingh]

41. free guns for everyone

[Treo]

48. I'll arm myself if you supply the ammo nt

[Xela]

28. Bravo...

This is good news. Thanks for sharing.

Xela

[spin]

39. K&R (n/t)