Honestly!! ... Should people be allowed to own stuff like this?

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

Should civilians really be allowed to own stuff like this? My gawd! :scared:
(The large magazine sticking out of the black handgun is like the clip used in AZ)

[notadmblnd]

1. Personally, I don't have a need for any of it.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ruby the Liberal]

3. No.

If someone feels the need to carry such a weapon, they should join the military or a branch of law enforcement.

Seemingly, "well-regulated" always seems to be missed when talking about gun ownership and militias and the like.

No way our forefathers could have pictured their muskets morphed into auto and semi auto weapons such as this.

[derby378]

8. You should do some research into Lewis and Clark, then

They carried a semi-automatic rifle with a 20-round magazine into the wilderness during their journeys. It was a very unusual design, even for those times - a gas-operated rifle that didn't rely on gunpowder, but still propelled bullets with deadly force.

The Founding Fathers not only envisioned these weapons, but understood them to be the future of firearms technology, and had no problem with it.

[CTyankee]

32. "in the wilderness" exactly. Much of this country at the time was wilderness and

having a weapon made sense. The Founders were many things, but they were not able to predict the future modernization of America. They just weren't. Let's not pretend that they somehow "knew" that far into the future. They knew what was the reality to them and that was imminent danger from nature and from indigenous native Americans who were hostile because their land was being taken over by foreigners.

[YllwFvr]

123. but the guns they carried

werent for lions and tigers and bears. They were for people. They knew what they were doing. Also looking aside from "well regulated" for a moment, and give you a good quote into what they were thinking.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials." George Mason
By well regulated are you imagining our modern national (federalized) guard? I believe (and I would need to look again, its been years) that I remember reading part of the well regulated got into how many musket balls you were meant to carry, and how much powder. You know, things equivalent to what armies of the day had.

[CTyankee]

131. "They knew what they were doing." Exactly. They knew what THEY were doing.

But to look at them as all possessing the powers of Nostradamus defies reason. The idolization of guns has gotten so far that the 2nd amendment becomes an altar to worship at. Many leaps of faith must take place, suspending the faculty of reason. And that is what I believe we are seeing in this country.

When I travel in Europe I am struck by the fact that there are constitutional democracies that function despite they're not having our lovestruck relationship with guns. It is very telling that they don't have the level of violence in their societies that comes near to the magnitude of violence here. And yet they are able to protect constitutional rights and preserve democratic institutions. So clearly, increased accessibility to guns is NOT the solution to establishing civil order. Even the Swiss, peaceful as they are, are having second thoughts about gun ownership.

All this talk about musket balls and gun powder in the 18th century is fine for the classroom but to employ such talk in this debate is intellectually lazy if not downright silly. We seem to be a nation that clings to its guns the way fundamentalist religious groups cling to their Bibles.

[Statistical]

140. UK has higher violent crime rate than the US.

Police state, banning guns, and still has higher violent crime rate.

[CTyankee]

148. Doyou have a reliable stat on that?

[Atypical Liberal]

151. That may well be true.

It may well be true that other nations have systems of representative government over their people without having free ownership of arms.

The problem is is one can never assume that one's government is the pinnacle of human democratic achievement and will remain beholden to the interests of its people for all eternity.

Our founders no doubt hoped that our form of government would endure. But they wanted an armed people in case it did not. It is an insurance policy.

Other people of other nations may currently enjoy representative governments as they may. But what recourse will they have should that situation change?

[CTyankee]

153. Being vigilant about one's freedom does not necessarily mean being armed.

And it is a fantasy (however enjoyable that may be) that armed citizens in this country will be able to fight off the military of the USA. We have the strongest military machine in the world. The idea that the armed individual with his stash of firearms would last long in the face of aircraft and tanks is, to put it nicely, fanciful...

[Atypical Liberal]

154. That is true.

Being vigilant about one's freedom does not necessarily mean being armed.

This is true. However, through most of human history political change has been the consequence of violence. Not always, but most of the time.

It is always preferable to use non-violent means to achieve change. But one should be prepared for the worst case.

And it is a fantasy (however enjoyable that may be) that armed citizens in this country will be able to fight off the military of the USA. We have the strongest military machine in the world. The idea that the armed individual with his stash of firearms would last long in the face of aircraft and tanks is, to put it nicely, fanciful...

And yet there are numerous examples in modern history where a technologically superior force has lost to technologically inferior forces.

The United States vs. Vietnam. The Soviet Union vs. Afghanistan. The United States vs. Mogadishu. The United States vs. Iraq. The United States vs. Afghanistan.

The United States has been at war now for nearly a decade, with no discernible progress, costing us as much as $3 trillion dollars by some accounts, fighting a foe who doesn't have any tanks, ships, or aircraft.

Doesn't sound like a fantasy to me, enjoyable or otherwise.

[CTyankee]

157. Well, the analogy doesn't hold up very well if you are talking about our own

government turning and becoming tyrannical over its own people, which is what you seem to be arguing was the rationale of the founders (and I would agree). The examples you have given are about wars where we were invaders of other countries and their people fought off foreign domination and exploitation. Very different scenario.

[Statistical]

158. What makes you think the military will just go along.

The military takes an oath of loyalty to the Constitution, not Washington. If the government turns tyrannical their duty should be to defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign AND domestic.

Also governors control the station national guards (which have everything from main battle tanks to helicopter gunships to precision fighter jets). There is no guarantee that every state would support the federal government.

The US military might would be of little use in asymmetrical warfare in its own cities, against its own workers. The US military has a very long logistical trail and there would be no safe "rear area". Munitions and parts made by Americans could be sabotaged by Americans. Large numbers of soldiers would desert, simply go home to protect their families or open fire on officers. The term fragging originated in Vietnam when enlisted used fragmentation grenades against their own officers. Heavy weapons would result in mass non-combatant casualties and destruction of vital infrastructure turning more soldiers against the effort and rallying civilians against the government.

Lastly nobody (not even the founding fathers) believed access to arms guarantees success. They simply believed with no arms a revolution is impossible.

[CTyankee]

161. I am sure there would be some organized resistance in such a circumstance.

However, the proliferation of guns has created warfare of its own in our cities and more, not less, violence to our citizenry has ensued. When Americans can't protect their own people where is our freedom?

BTW,just wondering if your scenario is a video game of some sort, perhaps a genre of video games?

[Statistical]

164. Not that I am aware.

As far as violence in cities that has more to do with socio-ecomic conditions than guns.

Banning guns is like putting a bandaid on the rotting corpse of the American Dream.

Canada and the US have similar gun ownership rates.
However Canada has much lower violent crime.

Could it possible be:
* economic freedom (living wages, upward mobility, the "American Dream" is alive and well in Canada
* access to universal health care (to include mental health
* less of an emphasis on the war on drugs
* progressive taxation supporting progressive policies
* public social safety net (vs winner take all economics in the US)
* access to public education
* less wealth disparity
* smaller % of population trapped in a cycle of welfare, poverty, drugs and violence.

The UK banned guns and neither crime nor homicide rate dropped. Actually the ratio between the US and UK fell (we are getting closer to the UK). We haven't banned guns and violent crime and homicides are on a 30+ year decline. The issue is far to complex for simplistic solutions. I won't give up my rights for a failed belief that banning guns will make crime go down.

[CTyankee]

167. I am commenting on the undesireability of the proliferation of guns and not talking about banning.

Your side seems to throw up your hands when it comes to talking about solving the proliferation of guns, esp. into the hands of unstable people. There are mentally ill people in every country but they still don't have nearly the violence that our society has.

[Atypical Liberal]

171. What do you suggest?

Your side seems to throw up your hands when it comes to talking about solving the proliferation of guns, esp. into the hands of unstable people. There are mentally ill people in every country but they still don't have nearly the violence that our society has.


So what do you suggest? Loughner bought his firearm through an FFL, and thus passed the NICS background check, which should flag against anyone who has been adjudicated mentally incompetent or involuntarily committed to a mental institution.

Loughner had neither of these strikes against him, so he was not flagged.

What changes to mental qualification would you make to the NICS system?

[CTyankee]

179. good question, isn't it. No fair throwing up hands...what do you suggest?

[Atypical Liberal]

180. I asked you first.

I'm fairly content with the current background check system. You obviously aren't, which is why I asked what you suggest we do about it.

If you have been found to be mentally incompetent by a court of law, using due process, then I don't have a problem with your Constitutional right being revoked.

I believe if you have had a restraining order issued by a court of law, you also lose your right to keep and bear arms.

You could, I suppose, pass a law that would require doctors to pass judgments about their patients as to whether or not they are fit to bear arms. Do you want individuals outside of our government to have the ability to revoke your Constitutional rights based on their opinions? What recourse under law will you have to appeal?

What about people who never go to a doctor, like Loughner? People who are simply behavioral problems in school? Do we want school administrators to be able to have the ability to revoke Constitutional rights?

Do you see the problem here? It's very easy to say, "We don't want crazy people to have guns." But how do you define "crazy"? Who gets to make that determination?

Personally, I think there should be greater access to health care, including mental health care, so that first of all sick people can get before a professional who can assess and identify their condition. Hopefully just that will catch some people who really do need to be involuntarily committed.

But beyond that, you are on risky ground. We have already gone down the road where people were routinely committed to mental institutions by their families for convenience. People have been committed because the family could not afford to take care of them, or because they felt their child was too promiscuous, or rebellious, or whatever. Consequently it is very hard today to involuntarily commit people to mental institutions, and that is probably a good thing.

Today we have a process - due process - to declare people as mentally incompetent or to commit them to an institution. Beyond that, I don't see any easy answers.

Further, because such deranged shootings are so rare, I'm not sure that answers are needed.

[CTyankee]

183. well, you have advanced arguments that are yours, not mine.

I don't see, tho, how I am on risky grounds when I ask questions about this problem. It may very well be that I am questioning the whole rationale of the 2nd amendment as interpreted currently. To me, the 2nd amendment has the people on one side arguing a constructed rationale of the founders intent that has won favor in the CURRENT Supreme Court. You have previously listed how the Court has addressed the challenges to this 2nd amendment constructed argument of your side. That's fine, but it is your side's construct that, for the time being, has won the day. We'll see. The Court has reversed itself on occasion, as you well know. And arguments are fashioned to to cater to different members of the court, as we both well know.

Nothing new, nothing changes, deranged shootings go on. You are not sure that answers are needed. I would be hesitant to tell that murdered kid's parents that that is the best we can come up with...

[X_Digger]

187. You should listen to Christina Green's father ('that murdered kid's parent')

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x355418

[Atypical Liberal]

191. "risky ground"

well, you have advanced arguments that are yours, not mine.

True, but I'm not looking for additional restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms, either.

I don't see, tho, how I am on risky grounds when I ask questions about this problem.

I'm not saying you are on risky grounds for asking questions. I'm saying you are on risky ground when you move beyond revoking Constitutional rights after Due Process in a Court of Law, which is where we are today. When you move to instead rely on some arbitrary opinion from a doctor, for example.

If we are looking for some higher standard of mental health, how does it get arbitrated? I'm not just throwing my hands up here - I honestly don't know what vehicle we can use for flagging people as crazy beyond what we currently do. What I do know, though, is we don't want a system outside the Due Process of Law that can strip people of their Constitutional rights. Like, for example, the idiotic "No Fly List" that exists today. That is the last thing I want to see.

It may very well be that I am questioning the whole rationale of the 2nd amendment as interpreted currently. To me, the 2nd amendment has the people on one side arguing a constructed rationale of the founders intent that has won favor in the CURRENT Supreme Court. You have previously listed how the Court has addressed the challenges to this 2nd amendment constructed argument of your side. That's fine, but it is your side's construct that, for the time being, has won the day. We'll see. The Court has reversed itself on occasion, as you well know. And arguments are fashioned to to cater to different members of the court, as we both well know.

I have no problem with any of this.

Nothing new, nothing changes, deranged shootings go on. You are not sure that answers are needed. I would be hesitant to tell that murdered kid's parents that that is the best we can come up with...

But that is exactly what the murdered child's father did say. He said that we live in a free society and this sort of even happening is the price we pay for it.

[CTyankee]

194. Well, that is an unacceptable argument, IMO. We MUST find a way to live in a free society without

the fear of being slaughtered. That ain't free in anybody's lexicon.

Where do we get these strange ideas?

[Atypical Liberal]

196. Where we get those ideas.

Well, that is an unacceptable argument, IMO. We MUST find a way to live in a free society without the fear of being slaughtered. That ain't free in anybody's lexicon.

Where do we get these strange ideas?

Those ideas are, literally, ancient. In Saxon England the mark of a free man was his ability to carry a weapon. And it's easy to see why. A man with a weapon has the ability to project power. He can defy those who would do harm to him, or try to use him unjustly. Also, most people have an innate understanding that all creatures have the right to defend themselves from harm, and man, being an intelligent creature, has used tools to this end back before recorded history.

We have never lived in a society without fear of being slaughtered. I submit to you that desire is an innate part of the human condition. Learning to check our personal desires over the desires of others is, in fact, one of the facets of growing to an adult. But throughout recorded history there have always been those who would not or could not check their desires, and they would do anything to sate them, including doing harm to others. Whether for food, shelter, land, sex, wealth, or power, there have always been those among us who would do harm, even kill, to satisfy their desires. Maybe some day man will evolve to conquer his desires, or perhaps technology will evolve so that every desire can be satisfied without resorting to harming someone else. But that day is not today, and it is not going to be any day for the foreseeable future.

Because of this, we must always guard against those kinds of people. Some people envision a society where the responsibility for their safety is entrusted to others, such as the police. But there are numerous problems with that approach. Firstly, at least in our society, the law has upheld that the police are not responsible for the safety of the public at large. They are only responsible for the safety of people directly in their custody. Further, the police cannot be everywhere even if we wanted them to be, which we don't, at least those of us who don't want to live in a police state do not. In fact, the police are almost never present during the commission of crimes - they almost always show up after the fact to collect evidence, question witnesses, and otherwise try to ascertain the facts of the case to aid in the apprehension and prosecution of the criminal.

So ultimately it is up to us as individuals to be able to defend ourselves. Now some people have made a choice never to harm others, even in the face of violence against them or their family. That is a fine choice for those who wish to make it for themselves. But I believe it would be morally wrong to force that choice on others. And for those who choose to defend themselves and their families, I believe they should be able to avail themselves to tools suitable to the task. It is folly to suggest, as some have, that people should only be able to defend themselves with their own bodies. This will always put the weak at the mercy of the strong, a concept which I find abhorrent. Why, when tools are available otherwise, should I submit to facing people who would do me harm on equal terms? The fact is, man has never done so when he could help it for all of recorded history and beyond. There is no reason to start now; Surely the people who would do us harm will not oblige us by likewise giving up tools to aid their nefarious work.

The best we can do, then, is to prohibit those people who we have good reason to believe will abuse such tools from owning such tools. We know that most firearm homicides are committed by people with extensive criminal histories. Thus it makes sense to bar people who have committed certain crimes from owning firearms. Likewise we do not want people who are mentally ill possessing firearms. We have mechanisms in place to check the background of people who buy firearms from Federally licensed dealers.

Unfortunately, private sales do not require background checks. Consequently, anyone who wants a firearm can easily get on a web site like gunbroker.com, or gunsamerica.com, or just open the local Penny Saver classifieds and arrange to buy a firearm from a private person for cash on the barrel, with no questions or paperwork. This negates much of the effectiveness of the NICS background check system.

What I have proposed is an FOID system similar to what Illinois has. In Illinois, in order to own a firearm you must first obtain an FOID (Firearm Owner ID). If you choose to sell a firearm to a private individual, you must keep a record of the transaction, including the FOID of the person you sold it to, and you must keep that record for some period of time. If you are found not to have done so, it is a misdemeanor. People are incentivized not to sell to people without a valid FOID because it is likely that if they do not have an FOID they will be using the firearm for nefarious purposes, and that it will eventually fall into the hands of the police, where it will subsequently be tracked from valid owner to valid owner until they arrive at the last legitimate owner of the firearm, where criminal penalties will be levied.

The problem with the Illinois FOID system is that it is an opt-in system. That is, only people who own, or who are very likely to own firearms will bother to go obtain an FOID. This creates a de facto registry of all firearm owners, which is unacceptable. If ownership of firearms is a deterrent to tyranny, it is seriously undermined by giving the government a list of people who are able to resist such tyranny.

The way I propose to deal with that problem is make the FOID an opt-out system. Whenever someone applies for a drivers' license, or a state-issued ID, they will automatically be run through the NICS system, unless they choose to opt out, which no doubt some people will. But because the government cannot be certain that just because you have an FOID that you are actually a firearm owner, all real firearm owners have plausible deniability should the government ever come calling to confiscate firearms. If a person passes their NICS background check, their state-issued ID or driver's license could be marked with a marking that indicates that they are illegible to own firearms. Some people have expressed privacy concerns about this, saying that if you don't possess the FOID mark you could be discriminated against as people might assume that you are disqualified to own a firearm for some reason (i.e., that you are an ex-convict or mentally unstable). If this was a serious concern, it would be simple to encrypt and code the FOID status on the ID. Then, when it came time to conduct a private firearm transaction, you would have to go to wherever devices were kept that could decode the ID. This could be done with devices kept at post offices, or police stations, or perhaps you could just take a picture of the ID with your cell phone and upload it to a government web site.

In this way we could be fairly certain that everyone who legally owns a firearm has gone through a background check, and it would make selling to ineligible people a risky affair because the firearm could be traced back to them.

It would not be a perfect system. For example, people could claim, honestly or otherwise, to have lost their records of private sales, either through misplacement or natural disaster.

But I think it would go a long way to making sure that everyone who legally owns a firearm has undergone a background check.

Unfortunately, I don't think that for the effort it would require it will pay back many dividends. We already know that most firearm owners are law-abiding. Out of the 40-80 million firearm owners in this country, only some 30,000 annually are involved in firearm-related crime. That is well below one percent. And it's quite likely, given the number of firearms already in circulation, that that one percent could still procure firearms if they were motivated to do so, if by theft if nothing else. And given that much crime is driven through the drug trade, which is a multi-national, multi-billion dollar industry, it seems unlikely that such an industry will let a little thing like background checks slow down their acquisition, or even plain manufacture, of firearms.

Given that today less than a tenth of one percent (.075%) of firearm owners are involved in firearm-related homicides, I don't see how you can get that number much lower. The biggest predictor of criminal activity with a firearm is past criminal behavior. We can make it harder for criminals to obtain firearms, but since they are already criminals with little regard for the law, it seems unlikely that additional laws will deter them.

[CTyankee]

200. Yes, cave people did fear for their safety. We can all agree on that.

And we all DO fear for our safety at some level. We can agree on that.

What we don't agree on is how we deal with it. You and I have differing views on that. I think we have a much more complicated set of conditions in which we operate in our daily lives than the founders did. And I don't believe your underlying assumption that the 2nd amendment in its pure form is the remedy today. Sorry, I just don't. It just doesn't work the way you see it. for whatever reason, it doesn't.

[AtheistCrusader]

225. I don't fear getting slaughtered. Why do you?

[CTyankee]

232. I think we have seen the evidence...

[Atypical Liberal]

166. It really has not.

However, the proliferation of guns has created warfare of its own in our cities and more, not less, violence to our citizenry has ensued. When Americans can't protect their own people where is our freedom?

In fact, the warfare in our cities is not a product of gun proliferation. It is directly a result of drug prohibition. The manufacture and distribution of drugs is a multi-national, multi-billion dollar industry. Being illegal, this industry is forced to operate outside the law, and it is forced to resolve business disputes outside the law. Firearms are merely the most expedient tool for that job.

Most firearm homicides are committed by people with extensive prior criminal histories, including, on average, four felonies.

http://www.cardozolawreview.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=138:kates201086&catid=20:firearmsinc&Itemid=20

There really isn't a gun problem in America - there is a criminal problem in America. We need to focus on keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals, because they are the ones causing the problems. Most firearm owners are not part of the problem.

[CTyankee]

168. Saturday's incident and many others like it are not a result of the drug war.

Plenty of people are killed by people who were not criminals until they killed.Jaren Loughner was one of them.

I think we need to examine this type of assasination and murder of innocent people in light of its threat to our democratic institutions, as well. People bringing guns to public political events is not a good thing and has a history of not turning out well...

[Atypical Liberal]

169. Saturdays' incident is extremely rare, too.

Saturday's incident and many others like it are not a result of the drug war.

But Saturday's incident is extremely rare, also.

Plenty of people are killed by people who were not criminals until they killed.Jaren Loughner was one of them.

But most people who kill with firearms are criminals. I don't have the data, but I'd be willing to bet that a large portion of the people who are killed with firearms were also involved in criminal activity.

I think we need to examine this type of assasination and murder of innocent people in light of its threat to our democratic institutions, as well. People bringing guns to public political events is not a good thing and has a history of not turning out well...

Do you think there are any laws you could have passed that would have prevented Loughner from bringing his firearm to that political event?

[CTyankee]

172. At this point, no, not unless you have metal detectors in the places where these events occur.

And you temporarily confiscate the guns, returning them to people when the event is over. And you have armed police standing guard.

That's a sad commentary right there...but at this point, I don't see much of an alternative. What a world, what a society we are in...

[Atypical Liberal]

163. I think it holds up even more so.

Well, the analogy doesn't hold up very well if you are talking about our own government turning and becoming tyrannical over its own people, which is what you seem to be arguing was the rationale of the founders (and I would agree). The examples you have given are about wars where we were invaders of other countries and their people fought off foreign domination and exploitation. Very different scenario.

But I think violent rebellion would be even more effective.

Right now America engages in wars with little negative economic consequences at home. Life goes on. Most people don't even know there is a war going on. As was written on a dry-erase board at a base overseas, "The United States Marines are at war. America is at the mall."

Consequently, America's tax base is unhindered by its war effort, allowing it to continue to fund it.

But a violent rebellion would plunge our country into economic chaos, directly hitting the government's bottom line. Remember the DC Snipers? Just two guys shooting out of the trunk of a car plunged an entire region into economic chaos - people feared to go out and even buy gasoline.

Moreover, Americans are largely apathetic to our current wars because it doesn't affect them directly. This allows our government to proceed fairly unhindered by the home front. If it started turning on its own people that would no longer be the case.

[CTyankee]

170. In that case there would be instability if not anarchy.

I cannot be as sanguine as you are about that scenario. We could organize I guess in little republics, similar to what Italian city communes were in the 14th and 15th centuries and start a process like that all over again...but we know how that turned out...however, my concern would be for the absolute anarchy that would immediately ensue, with unpredictable outcomes which is hard to imagine.

[Atypical Liberal]

173. Absolutely.

In that case there would be instability if not anarchy.
I cannot be as sanguine as you are about that scenario. We could organize I guess in little republics, similar to what Italian city communes were in the 14th and 15th centuries and start a process like that all over again...but we know how that turned out...however, my concern would be for the absolute anarchy that would immediately ensue, with unpredictable outcomes which is hard to imagine.

I agree with you 100% - chaos would ensue.

But if you are suffering under oppression, which is worse, to continue to suffer under oppression or to overthrow your oppressors in the hope of building something new and better out of it, risking failure?

There is no doubt that rebellion is fraught with risk. I'm sure our founders wrestled with that fear also.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

203. I don;t think the citizenry would have to fight US soldiers

because US soldiers love the citizenry too much to turn on them.

And I honestly believe it's because many of the soldiers cherish concepts such as a well-armed populace free to resist tyranny. My contact with soldiers is limited to when I was first dating the man who became my husband when he was finishing his time in the army. Being with his friends they would many times talk politics and the 2nd Amendment was one they had a deep, abiding respect for.

That fantasy/altar/lovestruck relationship may be the very thing that keeps the underlying presumed nightmare from ever coming to fruition.

[CTyankee]

236. I know it is your belief that gun reverence is the reason but I can think of many other

reasons: a "deep, abiding respect for" civil order, for the democratic system, for the right for peaceful assembly of people for the redress of grievances.

[SteveM]

252. ........Vietnam, Algeria, Cuba, Iraq, Afghanistan.... Among others. Fancy that. nt

[CTyankee]

257. Ah yes, they've been mentioned before.

Should I discuss them seriatim with you or would you prefer a more global view?

I am prepared. This is a common talking point I have heard SO MANY times before...

[SteveM]

251. Actually, guns were used for the most part to take game for food. nt

[Atypical Liberal]

150. Wilderness was not their primary concern.

You are operating under the assumption that the founders wanted an armed citizenry because of the dangers of the wilderness. This simply is not true, and reading contemporary documents easily shows it.

Our entire system of government was created as a series of checks and balances. This was done to prevent a concentration of power in any one branch of government. They did this out of a fear of tyranny, which they had just defeated. This decentralization of power extended even to the way the military was to be set up. The central government was not intended to have a standing army - instead the States would each have their own.

Thus the second amendment was not about personal protection against bears and Native Americans in the woods. It was about keeping the central government from having a powerful military force with which it could impose a tyranny upon the States.

[CTyankee]

155. We are at a far, far place from that reality in the 18th century.

It is true the founders didn't like standing armies. And they were historically acting accordingly for their time. Context is everything here. in the 18th century people needed guns for protection in the wilderness and also because guns had a practical, day to day use that people understood. That situation is vastly different today and it has evolved over time. In our own Civil War, the differences the Southern states (who objected to having "tyranny" imposed on them) had with the federal government was settled by two armies, not by rear guard actions of individuals, however romanticized and pleasing that notion is in our American psyche.

The push west was accomplished by a federal military of the time in the 19th century. An aggressive U.S.A. military "won" the West which makes me wonder about that bumper sticker "The West wasn't won with a registered gun."

Today we have the mightiest military the world has ever seen and it is central and national. We need to strongly defend civilian control of the military. But we have also to protect the abililty of citizens "peaceably" to assemble for the redress of grievances. We have now experienced another blow to our democratic system. When citizens are afraid to go to political events lest they or their family be threatened by crazy people with guns, then we've lost a lot more freedom than to our armed services. We have more to fear, in terms of saving our society, from the proliferation of guns, as we have seen and continue to see over and over again.

[Statistical]

159. If a majority of Americans believed what you believe then the 2nd would be repealed.

It hasn't and likely never will.

There is an individual right to keep and bear arms. Sorry if that is inconvenient.

[CTyankee]

162. Oh it's not inconvenient to me. Perhaps to the people who just got killed or wounded, but not me.

But your point is something I think is true that many people in this country believe it and it won't be changed. And we will continue to slaughter each other with these weapons and waste our talent and energy (and human lives) in pursuit of this belief. But other countries with constitutional democracies do not and their citizens have freeedom, plus the safety of their lives, due to some restriction of the proliferation of guns. Is this odd to you? What do you make of it?

[Statistical]

165. No there is no evidence that banning guns lowers crime.

The UK has a higher crime rate than the US. They banned guns and neither violent crime nor homicides decreases.

Yes the US has a homicide rate higher than Europe BUT (here is the important part) we had a higher homicide rate BEFORE most European nations banned/restricted guns. In other words even WITH guns Europeans had a lower homicide rate.

Our non-gun homicide rate is 3x that of Japan. Even with high availability of firearms we kill people WIHTOUT firearms at a higher rate than most first world nations.

The issue is far more complex than "BAN GUNZ". I can see the appeal for a simplistic "solution" but it doesn't exist.

[CTyankee]

174. Firstly, I am not talking about "banning." I'm talking about public safety issues.

Secondly, you have actually made my point with your reference to European countries and Japan. It is precisely because those nations did NOT adopt our 2nd amendment to their constitutions, IMO, that they do not have this problem. And yes, I think the 2nd amendment has become, evolved into, a major problem, for whatever merit the founders saw in it back in the day and given their historical reality.

Of course, you do realize that we restrict rights all the time, perfectly legally. We restrict 1st amendment rights with our "time, place and manner" restrictions. And yet we hold free speech very dear, indeed. I don't think such sensible restrictions have damaged the cause of free speech...

[Statistical]

175. Unproven claim.

Europe had much higher gun ownership rates at one time and still had lower homicide rate than the US. If guns were the cause of homicide one would expect to see Europe with similar homcide rates. When they banned guns there was no decline in homicide rates. Once again if guns were the cause one would expect homicide rate to drop with the ban. Europe always had a lower homicide rate and continues to have homicide rate both in periods where guns were available and in periods where they were banned.

You are stating an umproven assumption. It isn't fact because you claim it is.

Of course, you do realize that we restrict rights all the time, perfectly legally. We restrict 1st amendment rights with our "time, place and manner" restrictions. And yet we hold free speech very dear, indeed. I don't think such sensible restrictions have damaged the cause of free speech...

Of course we do however it requires due process. The government lacks the authority to restrict something just because it feels like it, or because people want to. That due process is called Strict Scrutiny.

There are existing restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms. Significant restrictions. I am just saying any further restrictions need to be Constitutional. Just wanting something isn't sufficient.

--------------------
First, it must be justified by a compelling governmental interest. While the Courts have never brightly defined how to determine if an interest is compelling, the concept generally refers to something necessary or crucial, as opposed to something merely preferred. Examples include national security, preserving the lives of multiple individuals, and not violating explicit constitutional protections.

Second, the law or policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest. If the government action encompasses too much (overbroad) or fails to address essential aspects of the compelling interest (under-inclusive), then the rule is not considered narrowly tailored.

Finally, the law or policy must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest. More accurately, there cannot be a less restrictive way to effectively achieve the compelling government interest, but the test will not fail just because there is another method that is equally the least restrictive. Some legal scholars consider this 'least restrictive means' requirement part of being narrowly tailored, though the Court generally evaluates it as a separate prong.

-----------------------

I don't know where you get this idea that I believe the RKBA is unlimited or should be unlimited. The burden of proof is on the government though. Any potential restriction (infringement) needs to meet the criteria for strict scrutiny.

[CTyankee]

177. Well, if European countries have lower rates of homicide than we do

regardless of whether they have stricter gun laws or not then what you are saying is that they probably have no great fear that they need guns to protect their freedom. Yet that is what has been cited on numerous occasions by gun control opponents: individual ownership of guns protects freedom. Why wouldn't that be as true for them as for us?

[Atypical Liberal]

176. But the same rationale still holds.

We are at a far, far place from that reality in the 18th century.

It is true the founders didn't like standing armies. And they were historically acting accordingly for their time. Context is everything here. in the 18th century people needed guns for protection in the wilderness and also because guns had a practical, day to day use that people understood. That situation is vastly different today and it has evolved over time. In our own Civil War, the differences the Southern states (who objected to having "tyranny" imposed on them) had with the federal government was settled by two armies, not by rear guard actions of individuals, however romanticized and pleasing that notion is in our American psyche.

The push west was accomplished by a federal military of the time in the 19th century. An aggressive U.S.A. military "won" the West which makes me wonder about that bumper sticker "The West wasn't won with a registered gun."

To me, there is nothing fundamentally different about the human condition, and, consequently, the fears of our founding fathers today than there were 200 years ago. Just as all our other fundamental rights are just as relevant today as they were before. There is a reason why these things are seen as fundamental, pre-existing rights - because they have always been essential liberties and will always be. All living beings have the right to defend themselves, they always have, and they always will.

Yes, the Civil War was decided by two armies. But it very nearly did not end that way. The South was prepared for, and President Davis was pushing for, guerrilla warfare. It is in no small part thanks to General Robert E. Lee that things did not turn out that way. He was one of the most ardent supporters of the soldiers of the South going forward to be good citizens again in the United States.

But this is neither here nor there. The bottom line is our founders specifically enumerated the right of the people to keep and bear arms so that those people would have recourse in the face of oppression. I have heard no good reason for why this logic is no longer valid. You have claimed that it would be harder to do, but not that the rational for the need has changed.

Today we have the mightiest military the world has ever seen and it is central and national. We need to strongly defend civilian control of the military.

We also need to preserve access to the tools so that we have recourse should that control be lost.

But we have also to protect the abililty of citizens "peaceably" to assemble for the redress of grievances. We have now experienced another blow to our democratic system. When citizens are afraid to go to political events lest they or their family be threatened by crazy people with guns, then we've lost a lot more freedom than to our armed services. We have more to fear, in terms of saving our society, from the proliferation of guns, as we have seen and continue to see over and over again.

One solution to this is simply to allow armed people to attend political events, making an attack on one foolhardy and unlikely to succeed. You don't see many people launching assaults on police stations or gun shows, for example. Trying to make such events, especially ones held out in the public venue, "gun free zones", only insures that people willing to obey the law won't be armed.

[CTyankee]

182. Um, wasn't the AZ event open to armed people?

We saw how that turned out...

I'm sure the founders would have ideas about "fundamental, pre-existing rights" that we would find noxious today, one of them being slavery. Let us not forget that the Constitution had to evolve with occasion of the Civil War and the resulting amendments to the Constitution. Which raises the question: since the founders obviously agreed that the Constitution COULD be amended, I think they might have had some thoughts about their previously conceived ideas being somewhat challenged...

[Atypical Liberal]

184. Thankfully, it was.

Um, wasn't the AZ event open to armed people? We saw how that turned out...

And in fact, one of the people who helped subdue the shooter was a CCW-carrying armed individual. He said he was prepared to shoot if necessary, but since the shooter had been subdued it was not. But if the shooter's gun had not jammed, he may well have been the deciding factor in stopping further carnage.

I'm sure the founders would have ideas about "fundamental, pre-existing rights" that we would find noxious today, one of them being slavery. Let us not forget that the Constitution had to evolve with occasion of the Civil War and the resulting amendments to the Constitution. Which raises the question: since the founders obviously agreed that the Constitution COULD be amended, I think they might have had some thoughts about their previously conceived ideas being somewhat challenged...

They absolutely provided for Constitutional amendment, and it has been amended many times. The second amendment was, in fact, an ammendment!

[CTyankee]

185. Well, hello! The shooter had already been subdued! Hooray!

And I didn't read that the shooter's gun had jammed. I read that a woman prevented him from reloading...

And amending the Constitution can be amended! Prohibition comes to mind. Hello, again!

[Atypical Liberal]

192. 31 shots fired.

What I have heard so far is that the shooter fired 31 shots. Since the factory magazines available for the Glock 19 are in 10, 17, 19, and 33 rounds, I was assuming that he had a 33 round magazine and that it jammed towards the end of ammunition, as extended magazines are prone to do.

I could be wrong about that.

The shooter had been subdued, but if he had not been, an armed citizen was ready to act to prevent more carnage. It's a shame in this case that he was inside the store at the time of the shooting and not able to act quicker, but that's the way it happened.

And amending the Constitution can be amended! Prohibition comes to mind. Hello, again!

Yes, I realize this; I was agreeing with you that the second amendment certainly can be amended at any time, since, after all, it itself was an amendment. :)

All it takes is votes. There won't be sufficient votes to do this for the foreseeable future.

EDIT to add:

It would appear that he had an after-marked, 30 round magazine, and that he had an additional round in the chamber, making up the 30 rounds:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41021843

The malfunction happened when he attempted to load the second magazine, which had a defective spring in it. This is why he was unable to reload and probably why people were able to subdue him.

[CTyankee]

195. "no votes." Of course. That is what I expected as this debate has degenerated further.

We don't seem to care about public safety. It is not in our interest to protect our children. It's all to worship at the altar of the 2nd amendment. Eventually, it will stop. But not now. And not for a time being. We will have, god willing, a new supreme court who will decide more wisely.

I see another world because I travel widely. I see democracies where this doesn't happen. And I am here to tell you that people in those democracies care very much about their precious children. I really don't think we do! This is an outrage, but I am in a minority. There must be a change in the way we think about rights for this to become better. And mental health services must also be increased. There's a lot we can do on the government side. But first, we have to stop deluding ourselves with 2nd amendment "remedies." We will suffer and die as a democracy if we do not.

[Atypical Liberal]

198. Well we will just have to agree to disagree.

The fundamental problem here is that you and I disagree on whether or not people should have access to the tools to defend themselves from harm, or whether they should depend on others to do it for them.

Right now, the trend for the last 20 years has been in the direction of more liberal firearm laws, and if anything that tide is swelling, not waning. We've gone from only a few states allowing concealed carry to now most states allowing it. It is now settled law by the Supreme Court that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual, not collective right, irrespective of membership in any organization like a militia. And that right has been incorporated under the 14th amendment under the Due Process Clause, meaning the States cannot choose to abrogate it.

Presumably, all of this has happened as the legislature has responded to the collective will of the people over the last few decades. It is possible that the will of the people will change, and it is even possible that the legislature will reverse itself to honor that will. But barring some major catastrophe or political collapse, it's not likely to happen in our lifetimes.

[CTyankee]

199. I don't care what the "trend" is. The trend has been wrong in the past and has been corrected.

You are watching the collapse all right, the collapse of our society as it comes apart because the collective will of the people has seen the utter defeat of its underlying principle: the preservation of freedom for the American people. As we feel less safe to be on a public street, much less to be in a public forum, as we grow more and more politically unmotivated because we think "nothing will change" we will get to a point where caring is simply not important. Why care if we get shot and killed doing so? And why care if those who love us can't do anything about it? I've been there and I've felt that. It is not a good place to be.

I will leave you with this thought.

[hack89]

201. You have never been safer

violent crimes are at historic lows - you have to go back to 50 years to find murder rates as low as they are now. Do you understand? Despite all the hyperbole about an epidemic of violence, America has experienced an unprecedented decline in violent crimes over the past 30 years and they continue to fall.

[CTyankee]

204. I'd like to see some backup information about this "decline" in violence.

Sociological studies, for instance. That would be informative. Can you tell me the source of you information? I'm happy to research if you can tell me where you got it; if not a link, at least the place to look where you found it. You must have some foundation for your statement...

[hack89]

205. The data comes from the DOJ and the FBI.

Here is a look at the last 20 years. Note that for nearly every category of crime, not only has the crime rate fallen but the actual number of crimes has fallen - even as our population has grown.

http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/table_01.html

[dmallind]

206. not the one questioned but I can help here

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/ucr

Go nuts. Personally I see a fairly obvious downward trend over last couple of decades but have at it.

To help those who do not want to do their own digging this shows the most comprehensive look IMO

http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/table_01.html

For the even lazier, it shows violent crime/100k in 1990 at 729, in 2000 at 506 and 2009 (last full yerar available) at 429

I would call that conclusive.

Oh and homicides were 9.4 5.5 and 5.0 respectively so not fudging the deadly numbers in a bigger vat either.

[CTyankee]

210. Thanks! I was wondering if any of this has been the subject of a sociological study.

Asking what are the factors involved in the decrease in crime. I know one such theory was that there was a real drop some 18-20 years after Roe v. Wade and the theory was that fewer unwanted children were being born, pointing to the idea that unwanted children grow up to be adults with serious emotional problems that could lead to crime.

It may also be due to better, smarter policing in our communities. I do know that crime decreased in our city during the Clinton administration and increased again during Bush's. That would point more to an economic based reason for the decrease.

[dmallind]

215. Doubtless due to many factors.

older people commit fewer crimes so as the boomers aged out of criminal activity that helped

sensitive or not, legal abortion probably helped

the coke/heroin turf wars of the 80s and early 90s settled down/moved to Mexico

But add up every reason you can think of and it's still undeniable that gun ownership also increased dramatically, as did CCW availability, in the same period, so it is at least inescapable that gun/carry proliferation has not INcreased crime as many control advocates assume and promulgate as a matter of faith.

[CTyankee]

220. Wouldn't we really be interested in seeing the data of # of assaults/murder using

guns as opposed to other weapons? Did the number in that category go down, go up, or stay relatively the same?

[X_Digger]

221. That's also available at the FBI.. usually table 20 or so under homicides..

Another great resource is the BJS- http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/

[CTyankee]

222. but not just homicides. Wouldn't it be relevant to include robberies, muggings,

home invasions, rapes, and other assaults (both homicides and non homicides) by weapon used? If the number in that category goes down you have a bit stronger case. If it stays the same when other crime is going down then your case would be a bit less strong. If it goes up, however, when other crimes are decreasing then well...you have a problem with your thesis (which I am guessing is that more gun ownership = less crime).

[X_Digger]

224. That's why I added the link to the BJS..

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/guncrime.cfm



In 2006, about 68% of all murders, 42% of all robberies, and 22% of all aggravated assaults that were reported to the police were committed with a firearm.

[CTyankee]

231. What was the cause of the spike for 1995?

I'm trying to think...that's a big spike...what was it?

It had to be something dramatic...

[X_Digger]

233. Actually, 1993-1994 was the peak of violent crime,

Depending on which kind of crime you look at (homicide, aggravated assault, rape, arson, motor vehicle theft, property crime, robbery..) they all either peak in either '93 or '94. The slope of the line pre-93/94 had actually started to taper off.

Better question would be what caused the precipitous rise from 89-91.

[CTyankee]

235. What do you think it was in both cases?

[X_Digger]

238. If you read 'Freakanomics', they suggest Roe v Wade for the latter

Criminologists tend to lay the blame on the rise in violent crime on the crack cocaine epidemic, coupled with social scientists who point to the degradation of the nuclear family structure (providing an opportunity for alternate support structures such as gangs to take prominence.)

[CTyankee]

239. The chart shows the bar spiking in 1995, falling and then rising again in 2006.

It doesn't show where the bar went from 2006 onward...

[X_Digger]

240. Let me draw you some lines..

Each tick mark represents one year..

The peak on this particular graphic was 1993, though the rate of increase had started to slow in 1991.



If you want to see from 2006 on, you can synthesize them from the FBI's UCR- apparently the BJS hasn't updated this graphic- it continued to drop in 2007- http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/tables/guncrimetab.cfm


2006...388,897..129.9...11,566..3.9...188,804..63.1...188,527..63.0
2007...385,178..127.7...11,512..3.8...190,514..63.2...183,153..60.7

Bolded items are the 2007 rates for Total firearm crime, firearm murders, robberies w/ firearms, and aggravated assaults w/ firearms.

2008's data onward can be found when you combine this table- http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/data/table_07.html with this table http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/offenses/expanded_information/data/robberytable_03.html

Feel free to roll your own graphic, but it's been trending down since 2006.

[CTyankee]

242. OK, the link does not break down offenses by type of weapon used.

Does it appear in the second one you cite?

[X_Digger]

243. Yes, the second one does..

http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/offenses/expanded_information/data/robberytable_03.html

It's just for robbery, but if you go up one level, you can see the same percentage for other classifications of crimes.

[CTyankee]

244. It's hard to see this without a side by side comparison...

so you are saying that as all crime went down, crime committed with firearms was one of the areas that also went down?

[X_Digger]

245. That's correct.. both in raw numbers (with slight variability year to year) and ..

the rate of firearm use in robberies | homicides | aggravated assaults | etc.

ie, in 2006 there were 129.9 per 100,000 robberies committed with a firearm of any kind and in 2007 there were 127.7 per 100,000. At the same time, the actual numbers went down as well- 2006: 388,897, 2007: 385,178.

[CTyankee]

246. So it is consistent with the trend going down overall...

Not sure how that proves much of anything except that overall crime is down from a certain point back in the mid 90s.

[X_Digger]

247. You're the one who asked..

I'd like to see some backup information about this "decline" in violence.

in post 204.

Question asked, and answered.

eta: I'm assuming by your "quotes" around decline that you had some doubt. I hope your doubt has been assuaged.

[CTyankee]

248. Yes, and since I posted that both other posters and I recalled a number of

factors that could have been involved, e.g., Roe v. Wade, reduction in crack epidemic, and probably other factors, such as better policing. However, now I have been reminded of them.

The point is that you have picked a place in time when due to a number of factors violent crime, which was at that one point high, then dropped in every category. Thanks for the reminder because I remember reading that section of Freakonomics. I thought it was interesting, as someone who has spent a good portion of my life engaged in the pro-choice movement.

[X_Digger]

249. And that decline in violent crime coupled with..

.. slight increases in the percentage of households who own guns, and major increases in the number of guns, the roll out of 'shall issue' concealed carry in 40+ states-- all should finally put the nail in the coffin of the overly simplistic 'more guns = more crime' schtick that we hear from pundits and congresscritters.

[CTyankee]

256. Well, we shall see. I await further numbers, as should you, as a precaution.

[X_Digger]

258. 17 years isn't enough data?

I'm not trying to prove a correlation (I'm not saying that 'more guns = less crime'), I'm just demonstrating that the converse is demonstrably false.

Statistical correlation is a necessary condition for establishing a causal relationship, statistically valid non-correlation is enough to disprove causation.

[CTyankee]

259. This is why I would like to see some interpretation beyond what we have already

discussed. I'm not a sociologist, so I would have to rely on some analysis by several to get a better picture. I like to learn about these things. I enjoy analysis and interpretation...it gives me greater perspective. I suspect there is a bigger picture here, but I can't be sure until I wade thru some critical thinking on this by people who interpret such data as a living. Fair enough?

[X_Digger]

264. Go to the primary sources, yourself (DOJ/FBI/CDC data).. find studies...

.. and ignore the conclusion / results / summary until you read the data and methodology yourself.

You don't have to be a social scientist to look at data or apply critical thinking skills toward methodology. Some would have you think it's rocket science- it's not.

Very often, a study's conclusion doesn't match the data, or there are more caveats and exceptions than a block of swiss cheese has holes. Also keep an eye out for huge gaps in the matching of case to control. (google 'case-control study')

When you start seeing the same five or six names on all the studies that purport to show a link between gun ownership and death / risk / suicide / armageddon / plagues / etc, you'll see why some of us like to go back to the data, sometimes.

And if they have any shred of intellectual honesty, quite often buried in the text is a little nugget like this..

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/329/15/1084

"Third, it is possible that reverse causation accounted for some of the association we observed between gun ownership and homicide... Finally, we cannot exclude the possibility that the association we observed is due to a third, unidentified factor."

So one hypothesis worth exploring (to me, at least) is whether or not those in higher crime areas purchase guns as a response, rather than Kellerman's absurd reversal that guns cause more gun crime.

Regarding the 'methodology not matching the conclusion' in the above quoted 'study'..

A question was posed as a letter to NEJM to the author from a college level stats class..

Finally, the authors also state, "One or more guns were reportedly kept in 45.4 percent of the homes of the case subjects." This implies that no guns were kept in 54.6 percent of the homes of the case subjects. In how many of the homicides was the victim killed with a gun that was kept in the house rather than a gun that was brought to the house by the perpetrator?

('case' subjects were those where someone was killed)

Kellerman never answered.

So in essence, Kellerman claimed that a gun kept in your own home would make you 2.7 times more likely to be killed by a gun- even by one not kept in your home. Why? Because Kellerman also failed to account for previous criminal activity of household members, households with domestic violence, alcoholism, and substance abuse. The conclusion, were one to be honest, is that living with a criminal, a domestic abuser, a drug dealer, an alcoholic-- is more likely to lead to being the victim of gun crime.

[CTyankee]

265. Are you saying that there are no sociological studies in which peer review

has been done? Isn't that the job of peer review, to expose whatever flaws there are in the critical analysis? Or are you suggesting something more sinister about the academic "leaning" in the field of sociology?

[X_Digger]

266. You'd think so, but look up confirmation bias..

Kellerman's article (I can't continue to call it a study) was published in the New England Journal of Medicine- without depositing his data as part of his peer review.

A 'study', based on data- that he refused to furnish. (Five years later, he released a subset of the data, none of which contained the salient bits that people had been questioning.)

And the NEJM published it anyway. I cast no aspersions on sociological study as a whole- I haven't read enough studies to make an informed opinion. I occasionally can identify what I consider to be a serious flaw in some studies, but I have no basis to believe that the practice is widespread.

Another good measure of the potential validity of a study is the ability of other researchers to duplicate it and come up with similar results. To date, only Kellerman has tried to repeat his "studies", in concert with a small handful of researchers. Those results are so widely varying as to call into question previous "studies'" methodology.

[CTyankee]

267. You seem to say that the NEJM is negligent in its duty to fairly present material

under their banner. That suggests a bias toward Mr. Kellerman that has overcome their standards of peer scrutiny. I confess that I have no idea who this researcher is, nor have I read his work. Is there no one else in the field who can be trusted to deliver a study that would pass muster in your opinion? Do you know of a conflicting study?

[X_Digger]

268. I think it fair to say that the NEJM had a fairly evident bias against guns in the 90's

If you start looking for studies on guns in public health, there are a few names that will pop up, especially Kellerman. Time and again, you'll see Kellerman, David Hemenway, Debra Azrael, and Garen Wintemute.

They're epidemiologists, and they treat a social problem, or a crime problem- like a disease. As though guns distribute themselves evenly in a volume the way a gas would, or they treat them like germs left on a doorknob.

That's not to say that some on the other side of the divide don't engage in 'creative conclusions' as well, most notable being John Lott. I consider him just as unreliable as Kellerman.

Probably the closest I'd come to endorsing anyone is criminologist Gary Kleck- but I give him the same scrutiny as the rest. (As all critical thinkers should!)

[CTyankee]

269. Well, epidemiologists are in schools of Public Health...we have one here at Yale.

I took a grad course in the origin of the American Republic, 1790-1840 and did a paper on "The Alcoholic Republic." It delved into the raging alcoholism in the early part of the 19th century in the U.S.A., which was much worse per capita then than it is now, or at least that was what the study suggested. So behavioral pathology is one area that does impact the fields of the social scientists to a great extent in these schools of "epidemiology." I think it is a mistake to think of that term strictly as narrowly medical.

[X_Digger]

270. If it were studied as a behavioral issue, that would make sense..

And that's why I gave a nod to criminologists.

Disease can have a behavioral element (such as studying the early spread of aids among gay males), but it's not credible to treat a gun as a pathogen or a poison. It reduces the 'study' to the level of tooth fairy science-

You could measure how much money the Tooth Fairy leaves under the pillow, whether she leaves more cash for the first or last tooth, whether the payoff is greater if you leave the tooth in a plastic baggie versus wrapped in Kleenex. You can get all kinds of good data that is reproducible and statistically significant. Yes, you have learned something. But you haven’t learned what you think you’ve learned, because you haven’t bothered to establish whether the Tooth Fairy really exists.

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=44

Tip of the hat to Euromutt for the link.

[CTyankee]

271. Honestly, you do your side NO favor by showing the Tooth Fairy thing! It suggests

that there is no REAL science on the other side of the debate and you hava already conceded thepoint that there ARE valid studies out there...so stop it...

So let us prceed to the study of gun violence in the venue of behavioral science...what studies do you recommend?

[X_Digger]

272. Perhaps you missed my point..

Treating a social / criminological problem strictly as a biological problem looks like science, but it doesn't hold up when the premise for the framework of ascertaining the answers is unsuited to the task at hand.

As to what criminological studies I'd recommend?

Kleck and DeLone, Victim resistance and offender weapon effects in robbery, Journal of Quantitative Criminology, vol 9, issue 1, 1993
Kleck and Patterson,The impact of gun control and gun ownership levels on violence rates, Journal of Quantitative Criminology, vol 9, issue 3, 1993
Kleck and Gertz, Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, vol 1, 1995
Tark, Resisting Crime: The Effects of Victim Action on the Outcomes of Crimes, Criminology, Vol 42, Issue 4, 2004
Hoskin, Anthony, Armed Americans: The impact of firearm availability on national homicide rates, Justice Quarterly vol 18(3), 2001

Generally, Kleck's book is a good resource, if for nothing more than the footnotes, which is a pretty comprehensive round-up of both sides of the issue..

http://www.amazon.com/Point-Blank-Violence-America-Institutions/dp/0202304191

I loaned my copy out some time ago, so I cribbed some of these studies from Kleck's bio page at wikipedia.

If you want something a bit more readable, less science-y, I recommend-

http://www.amazon.com/Great-American-Gun-Debate-Firearms/dp/0936488395/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1295145104&sr=1-1

[CTyankee]

273. again, I am not a sociologist but I don't think these studies are treated strictly as a

biological problem and I'm not even sure of what you mean when you say that. So your basic premise is something I have an issue with. However, it seems to be your overarching belief about the sociology of this problem. I took two courses in sociology as an undergrad and I cannot recall any "biological" basis for studying contemporary social problems. But as long as you take that view as your starting point then ANY statement coming from the sociologist is viewed as suspect in your eyes and therefore dismissable, right out of the gate. That's an easy way out and seemingly one that has been well developed by 2nd Amendment proponents. I see what is going on here...

[X_Digger]

274. Not at all, you made my point for me..

Much of the public health research on guns (on one side) has been done as epidemiology (biological) rather than a sociological / criminological one.

If a sociologist studied suicide strictly from an epidemiological standpoint, I'd call it just as invalid (unless they were proposing and exploring a strictly biological cause such as a prion infection.)

[CTyankee]

275. I'll be happy to take a look and try to understand what you mean here.

Again, my own experience in a college course explicitly titled "Contemporary Social Problems" did NOT describe the problems in a biological, epidemiological fashion. Most of the social problems in that course were centered on urban issues, poverty and the like (gun ownership was not part of the course). There was, IIRC, a historical timeline as we were basically studying the development and consequences of
urbanization...also I made an A in that course so I presume I was paying sufficient attention to my studies and I never missed a class...hmmm. Come to find out that it was "biological" after all, how could I have missed it...

[X_Digger]

277. Don't put words in my mouth, thanks.

Nowhere did I claim that it was indicative of all sociological studies- you'll notice I specified that this seems to be a particular trait of a subset of the epidemiologists who study the issue of guns:

Much of the public health research on guns (on one side) has been done as epidemiology (biological) rather than a sociological / criminological one.

If a sociologist studied suicide strictly from an epidemiological standpoint, I'd call it just as invalid (unless they were proposing and exploring a strictly biological cause such as a prion infection.)

If it were studied as a behavioral issue, that would make sense..

And that's why I gave a nod to criminologists.

Treating a social / criminological problem strictly as a biological problem looks like science, but it doesn't hold up when the premise for the framework of ascertaining the answers is unsuited to the task at hand.

[CTyankee]

278. You did not cite where those quotes were from...

Please do so.

I've gone online to look at general sociological gun studies and NOT ONE had a biological basis for its thesis...not one...why don't you give me ONE of them because I certainly can't find it by my searches. Nor did my own empirical evidence (my course (s) in sociology) yield any such evidence.

Where are they?

[X_Digger]

279. Those quotes were mine, from the previous posts..

I thought you were following the conversation, sorry.

NOT ONE had a biological basis for its thesis

Let's take Kellerman's 1993 study-

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/329/15/1084

As I noted in post #264 above, Kellerman counts a gun death in a household where a gun is kept as an absolute- taking no notice of, nor accounting for- whether the person killed was killed by the gun kept in the house, or one brought in by someone else.

He took no notice of previous criminal record, didn't correlate his control subjects for things like domestic abuse, alcoholism, or substance use / abuse / dealing. These would be sociological factors to control for. Behaviors that tend to have an impact on the hypothesis being studied.

It's as though he's saying that guns attract guns, like a cation and an anion being attracted to each other in a solution.

It's never stated as such (a biological perspective) but it's telling by what he includes and what he leaves out.

In short, he doesn't look at it from a behavioral perspective.

If you were asking the question he was, (paraphrasing), "Does having a gun in a home make it safer or less safe?", would you not want to explore sociological factors that affect that question? If you were trying to pick a group of control subjects to compare to ones who were killed with a gun, would you not want their behavioral situations to match closely, so that you can study the differences?

[CTyankee]

280. I have not read the Kellerman piece that you constantly refer to...

I will read it myself and also about the controversy that you suggest exists over the professionalism of the NEJM...

[dmallind]

234. Down, significantly - it's in the UCR link. nt

[cleanhippie]

208. Now that the data has been provided, do you agree that voilent crime is at its lowest and declining?

[CTyankee]

211. See my earlier answer. I am looking for an explanation from social scientists

who make this sort of data the basis for scientific studies. I'm very glad to hear this, but not for the reason I think you want to hear. I really can't explain it since I am not a social scientist. I am all for reading some thoughtful, well resarched studies of the data. I'm sure it's there somewhere...

[cleanhippie]

212. Then we are in agreement! Horray!

Now if we can just get the rest of the people who are willfully ignoring that data....

[CTyankee]

213. I haven't had a chance to look at all the data. Are assaults/murders

broken down by type of weapon used or just in general (all types of weapons)?

[cleanhippie]

218. It is broken down in several ways. Its actually quite good data.

[SteveM]

253. You speak of "the collapse of our society." In that vein...

doesn't the issue of "extended magazines" seem like deck chair arrangements on the Titanic? Don't you think that more important issues include:

(1) The lack of a political party with sufficient policy "rigor" to counter the GOP;
(2) The lack of a president who will take issue with the tenor of right-wing "debate;"
(3) The persistent false equivalency presented by MSM and the Democratic Party that "both sides" are guilty of incivility;
(4) The increasing long-term power and competency of the Far Right in a climate with no real opposition;
(5) The increasing evidence that there really isn't a "Left" left;
(6) The collapse of the defective "Big 3" networks, the dailies, etc., with no real new institutions to legitimize issues;
(7) and the use of multi-national institutions, treaties, etc. to substitute for the admittedly faulty "sovereign state model?"

I think these is FAR MORE IMPORTANT issues than magazine sizes.

[AtheistCrusader]

207. Where do you think Lewis kept that rifle when he wasn't in the wilderness?

At home, of course.

[CTyankee]

214. Of course. Guns were useful items, providing food. I have no idea where his home was, do you?

Was he in an isolated area or in a town?

[AtheistCrusader]

216. He lived in many places. I would assume he had it with him in St. Louis.

But I don't see that this has anything to do with the issue.

[CTyankee]

219. Well, I might not be understanding the point you had about him keeping his gun at home.

I was just wondering how far and remote he was from a town and how much he had to use it for hunting.

I had an interesting course in grad school about that era, entitled "Virtue, Self Interest and the Origins of the American Republic." It dealt with the political economy (as it was called then) and social history from 1790 to 1840. Fascinating course. There is a gold mine out there of studies in the lives of people then. One study, in particular, called "The Alcoholic Republic" dealt with the huge problem of alcoholism and how (surprisingly)people sobered up and why. Other studies dealt with the drop in fertility rates among white women in the early days of the Republic and another with the day to day household items people had and used. I loved that course...

[AtheistCrusader]

223. I would argue he didn't own it for hunting.

Lewis was first and foremost, a soldier.

An interesting side thought, a soldier today would be unlikely to be allowed to maintain his own personal weapons in combat, of a different type than his unit is issued.

[CTyankee]

276. A soldier, in an army? would he then have a gun "issued" to him?

AS in "government issue"? In that case he would no longer be much of a militia as a member of a "standing army."

Isn't the "standing army" what the founders so hated?

[DrDan]

33. do you think they envisioned the massacre from Saturday - to include a U.S. Congresswoman?

[Major Hogwash]

44. Lewis and Clark, the two deadliest machine gun toting dudes to ever go West.

"They carried a semi-automatic weapon with them into the wilderness"

In 1803.
Sure, sure they did.

[MilesColtrane]

55. Behold, the Girandoni Air Rifle!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_Air_Rifle

(Psst. There's a difference between a "machine gun" and a "semi-automatic".)

[Major Hogwash]

114. And they traded grenades for horses too!

Seriously, the Indians wanted them thar grenades.

Hahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!

[X_Digger]

116. Please elucidate..

"It fired a .51 caliber ball at a velocity similar to that of a modern .45 ACP and it had a tubular, gravity-fed magazine with a capacity of 20 balls."

Perhaps you can explain what about this gun you think doesn't qualify as semi-automatic?

[Major Hogwash]

122. Please hallucinate . .

And consider yourself important!

LoL

[cleanhippie]

124. At least your screen name matches your comment.

major hogwash indeed.

[Crystal Clarity]

139. Do you EVER have a nice thing to say about others?

:shrug:

[cleanhippie]

145. All the time.

And, uh, I was attacking his comment, not the poster himself.
Do try and differentiate, it helps avoid confusion.

[Crystal Clarity]

146. Attacking his screen name means you are attacking him

I see no substance of thought beyond that. I've no dog in this particular fight.

But I've seen your posts enough to know your MO. It's almost all pretty much the same, no matter the issue.

Sad.

[cleanhippie]

147. SO you accuse me of a personal attack by personally attacking me? WTF?

:wtf:

[X_Digger]

130. So you concede that Lewis & Clark carried a semi-automatic rifle?

One year before ratification of the second amendment, they carried a rifle capable of 20 shots via detachable magazine, at velocities similar to a 45acp?

[Major Hogwash]

186. No, because they didn't. Not even in your wildest dreams.

So there.

[X_Digger]

189. Do you contend that they didn't in fact carry a Girandoni? n/t

[cleanhippie]

209. Hey, look! Facts won out again!

Well done.

[Katya Mullethov]

229. With till he finds out that they had an ND with it

your ath ith toatht !

Seriously , the provenance of that particular artifact is a fascinating tale . What a thing it would be to behold , and do a mag dump .

[MilesColtrane]

120. Ummm....OK

:yoiks:

[Atypical Liberal]

152. Maybe they did!

The technology was quite ancient even by the American Revolution. Grenades date to at least the Roman Empire.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Hand_grenade

[Major Hogwash]

190. That was a joke, sir. Lewis and Clark almost starved to death in Idaho. The natives here saved them.

Since I live in Idaho, let me tell ya a lil' something without offending y'all.
Allow me to blow a little upon my horn.

In my 50 years of learning how Idaho was explored during the first decade of the 19th Century, I have never ever read in even 1 article, nor in 1 book, or ever heard attending any lecture, or ever heard from anyone - who had any credible knowledge at all of that historic exploration - ever suggest that Lewis and Clark carried a semi-automatic rifle of any kind with them on their expedition.

I'm sure that if it were true, then I would have heard about it long before now.

Way up towards Canada, in Northern Idaho lies the famous mountain pass that Lewis and Clark took on their journey, as it cuts through the Bitterroot mountains that help form the Western part of the Rocky Mountains, Lewis and Clark entered what is now known as Idaho.
The expedition was extremely dangerous, and it proved to be too much for Lewis and Clark. If not for the generosity of the Native Americans that lived there in Northern Idaho, Lewis and Clark would have starved to death during the winter at this point in their expedition.

Sacajawea, the young wife of the guide that Lewis and Clark hired to help them make it to the Pacific Ocean, was the reason that Lewis and Clark survived.
They aren't even sure how to pronounce her name, one pronounciation being, sort of spelled phonetically as "sack A ja wee-ah" and another pronounciation that I learned of 40 years ago is phonetically spelled sort of as "SAH kaw ga wah".

The Lewis and Clark expedition celebrated it's bicentennial in 2003. So, the Idaho Statesman newspaper has a web site with a series of articles they published on Lewis and Clark's famous expedition, with many facts about Lewis and Clark, their guide and his wife, Sacajawea, and other specific details concerning the facts of the history of that expedition.

However, grenades and semi-automatic rifles are not part of their legacy.
Sorry.
Hopefully I didn't offend anyone or entice anyone to go out and shoot at anything.
Plant a tree, make a friend.

[X_Digger]

193. If you're such a scholar.. whip out your Journals of Lewis and Clark..

And read the entry for 19th August, 1804..

"We showed them many curiosities, and the air gun, which they were much astonished at."

Or 10th of October, 1804..

"After the council was over, we shot the air gun, which astonished them much."

Or 29th October, 1804..

"After the council was over, we shot the air gun, which appeared to astonish the natives much."

Or August 3rd, 1804..

"After Captain Lewis's shooting the air gun a few shots (which astonished those natives)..."

Yeah, we get it.. natives astonished at magnetism, telescopes, and air rifles.. sheesh.

[Major Hogwash]

202. Hahahahaha.

"And they were astonished by the grenades. The pin of each to be pulled at the count of 3. Not 1 or 4, but 3."

Seriously.

[friendly_iconoclast]

217. Obviously, The NRA used a time machine to go back and edit those journals.

The Idaho Statesman's website didn't mention the Girandoni, and if you take the word of the participants over that of the media

200 years later- well, there's obviously something wrong with you....


(do I really need the sarcasm tag?)

[SteveM]

255. HA! nt

[SteveM]

254. Nah! That's why some use "assault weapons:" you can fit ANY weapon in...

that category, and call for its control!

[X_Digger]

68. Psst, hate to burst your grr with facts..

Ahh, nvm, I see someone already corrected your lack of knowledge.

[Katya Mullethov]

230. Sorry

But they tried .

[Spoonman]

17. Our fore fathers understood clearly what "well regulated" meant.

You do not.

Please feel free to research the term "well-regulated" for the period and you will find it to mean the property of something being in proper working order, and not "regulated" in the sense you try to imply.

While your at it, you might even discover what a militia is.

Hint: It's not the National Guard!

[PavePusher]

79. "Seemingly, "right of the people" and "shall not be infringed" always seems to be missed...

when talking about gun ownership and restrictions and the like."


There, fixed it for you.

[RSillsbee]

119. Seems like I've heard that line of reasoning before

Oh, yeah here it is

‘‘Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA - ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't serve the State.’’

— Heinrich Himmler


Just sayin'

[SteveM]

250. Corrections to your post...

"If someone feels the need to carry such a weapon, they should join the military or a branch of law enforcement."

The Second Amendment recognizes the RKBA, and does not require joining the "military or a branch of law enforcement." It should be noted that a magazine (of any size) is not a weapon.

"Seemingly, 'well-regulated' always seems to be missed when talking about gun ownership and militias and the like." It seems that you have not followed the threads in the Gun Forum, or you would have learned that this topic has been turned inside and out. Please be specific about "militias and the like." The law differentiates between "the military," "law enforcement," and "militias." You may find it interesting that the big majority of Constitutional scholars agree that the Second Amendment is not contingent on membership in the militia, but in fact recognizes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Even Laurence Tribe, the scholar who made the "militia clause" popular from the late 1960s up, has changed his mind (1999) and now agrees with most scholars.

The "musket morphed" analogy would be like saying: "No way our forefathers could have pictured their morphed into radios, T.V.s, the Internet, and computers such as this." You should note that "arms" was used, not "muskets." Again, this has been dealt with time and time again in this forum; the only person "missing" this discussion are gun-controllers, who will not concede copious evidence that the RKBA is NOT contingent on militia membership.

[TheCowsCameHome]

4. When nature cheats ya.......

[sadbear]

6. That's the only reason I can think of

[slackmaster]

5. Only if they really want it, can afford it, and can pass all the federal background checks

Did I mention only if they really want it?

[uppityperson]

11. There you go again, addressing reality.

[Kingofalldems]

7. I want my guns!!

[Spoonman]

9. Yes, civilians should be able to own them.

Not only is that my opinion, but it is the opinion of SCOTUS as well.

You are capable of understanding that those weapons laying there are doing nothing on there own?

They only function (good or bad) when a PERSON picks them up.

[sadbear]

10. The opinion of the SCOTUS?

Really? Not much credibility there, IMHO.

[Spoonman]

20. We pine for *your* "expert" opinion ...... n/t

[sadbear]

23. I'm sure you do

Two words: Citizens United. You see, even the SCOTUS can get things terribly wrong.

[Spoonman]

39. Citizens United?

Trying to say something, but lacking the courage?

You see, even the SCOTUS can get things terribly wrong

Please enlighten us as to your credentials of constitutional law, history, and interpretation.

I have a couple of years of law school under my belt, and I have done years of research on this very subject.

I would be happy to engage you in a bit of civil discourse on this subject, but when your ass is hanging in the wind, leave the Citizens United comments at home.

[sadbear]

40. You think they got that one right?

[Spoonman]

48. Yes I do

They were very correct in their interpretation of the framers intent, and reasons for the 2nd amendments inclusion in the BOR.

The 2nd amendment was discussed, reviewed, debated, and re-written more than any other amendment.

They're assertions that some limitations and restrictions were warranted were well within reason too.

[sadbear]

53. Do you think they got Citizens United right?

[Spoonman]

66. To me that one is a toss up.

I see both sides.

Corporations are owned by stockholders (people) and they should have the right to support a candidate.

Is it open to abuse, yes, and therefore they should not be allowed to sway elections via massive financial backing.

[friendly_iconoclast]

103. The ACLU does. Do you think they got Kelo v. City of New London right?

I invite all to read and discuss:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=335098#335614

[sadbear]

112. Yeah, they probably got that right.

But it makes no difference. Most liberals think that the court is capable of mistakes. It doesn't matter what they get right and what they get wrong. It only matters that they do get things wrong. Maybe I'm wrong to think this is a liberal blog (certainly there are conservative Democrats, especially in this forum), so I will only say that to now cite a SCOTUS decision to support anything on a liberal blog is not very convincing. (But if I'm wrong to assume that this is a liberal blog, I withdraw my criticism.)

[Pancho Sanza]

73. Did they get Lawrence vs. Texas terribly wrong too?

:eyes:

[PavePusher]

81. Kelo.

Ahem. They do indeed, don't they....

[friendly_iconoclast]

102. The prohibitionists are unwilling to discuss Kelo v. City of New London.

Because to do so, and read the dissents (and who wrote) them absolutely ruins the genetic fallacy they like to use

when discussing SC decisions they don't like.

[Hangingon]

14. +1

[onenote]

31. you could say the same thing about rocket launchers, poisons, and any number of lethal

items that are highly regulated and/or barred from private ownership. They only function, good or bad, when a person picks them up.

There may be arguments for allowing private ownership of handguns, but the argument that guns don't kill people, people do, is one of the lamest.

[Spoonman]

54. What inanimate object causes more deaths per year

in our country than any other?

Answer: The automobile (and just how "highly regulated" are they?)

the argument that guns don't kill people, people do, is one of the lamest.

You only declare it "lame" because you can't argue against it.

[sadbear]

58. Would you argue intent?

I'm sure you don't care, but would you agree that the percentage of intentional automobile deaths is very close to zero and the percentage of intentional gun deaths is very close to 100?

[PavePusher]

82. So, it's O.K. to have things kill due to inattention and irresponsibility....

but not O.K. when people make a concious decision to do so.

Interesting distinction, to be sure, but I don't think it helps your case.

[sadbear]

110. Because you say so?

Please explain. I never said anything is 'OK' as you suggest. I'm just making a distinction between the two. Intent is important and the intent of guns is to kill. It is not for automobiles. So again, why do you think it doesn't help my case?

[Marengo]

133. Intent is irrelevant

From a public health perspective. Either something is lethal or it isn't and on a global scale the automobile is shockingly lethal.

[onenote]

62. automobiles are at least as highly regulated as are guns if not moreso

Cars with certain features demed to render them more dangerous (to either the user or others) are not permitted. In virtually all jurisdictions, one cannot operate an automobile without a license and you can't get a license without passing a test or tests. And to operate certain types of vehicles (trucks, motorcycles, etc) you may need to pass a specialized test and obtain a specialized license. Ownership of an automobile is frequently subject to an annual tax. And there are dozens and dozens of pages of regulations devoted to specifying what features an automobile must have and/or is prohibited from having,most adopted for the purpose of protecting users or third persons.

In any event, the argument I was responding to was that the types of weapons and accessories that the OP described don't do anything themselves, and that somehow that is an argument against regulating their ownership. But you haven't responded to my point that no lethal item does anything by itself -- they all require human interaction. But private ownership of a wide variety of lethal items is prohibited.

[kelly1mm]

69. Actually, in almost all jurisdictions you can own and operate vehicles

without any license, registration or tax at all. You just cannot do so on public roads. Want a truck to haul firewood from the back 40? No license, registration or taxes required. Would you support similar non restrictions on firearms as well (meaning no restrictions if the firearms were kept on private property?)

Although I know you were responding to a comment, there is also a fundamental differences in vehicles v. firearms in that you have no constitutional right to own a vehicle.

[beevul]

92. No, they really aren't.

"Cars with certain features demed to render them more dangerous (to either the user or others) are not permitted."

Name one car I can NOT own by law. Make/model will do. Beyond that, your forgetting the words "In public". If I want to build an engine that runs on nitro-methane and makes 3000 horsepower and put it in a vehicle and drive it on my own property without seatbelts or airbags on bald tires with a cracked winshield and no doors on it, and no license registration or insurance, theres no law against it. Thats the way it is in most places.

"In virtually all jurisdictions, one cannot operate an automobile without a license and you can't get a license without passing a test or tests."

You forgot the words "In public". None of that is required by law on private property.

"And to operate certain types of vehicles (trucks, motorcycles, etc) you may need to pass a specialized test and obtain a specialized license."

Again, you left off the words "in public".

"Ownership of an automobile is frequently subject to an annual tax."

No, it really isn't. Regiustration, is the tax you speak of, and is not REQUIRED by law to simply OWN a vehicle.

"And there are dozens and dozens of pages of regulations devoted to specifying what features an automobile must have and/or is prohibited from having,most adopted for the purpose of protecting users or third persons."

Once again, the words "in public" apply.

"But private ownership of a wide variety of lethal items is prohibited."

Such as?

[walldude]

36. Can you explain the need for a 30 round clip?

I'm all for gun ownership. However I don't think my neighbor needs a .50 cal mounted in his backyard. So I see "limits". Any responsible gun owner should see them too. I mean we can't have people carrying around nukes can we?

So explain the "need" or usefulness of a 30 round clip by anyone except in wartime.

Hunting? If you need 30 rounds to make the kill you suck and shouldn't be holding a gun.

Self Defense? Are you expecting to be attacked by a football team?

Agreed the only function is when a person picks it up. But a lot of crazy people are picking them up. So where is your line? Where do you think the limits should be? Is a 10 round clip enough for you?

[oldhippie]

51. Same as the need for anyone to own a Corvette .....

.... or just about any sports car you can think of.

And don't tell me cars aren't designed to kill people. They kill far more people every year than 33 round Glock magazines. Magazines, like cars, are objects. It's the people controlling them that are the killers.

[walldude]

56. So you are tequating the need to fire more rounds to owning

a sports car?

I'm sorry I was asking a serious question and expecting a serious answer. Not some made up strawman crap about sports cars.


Fact is if you are such a pathetic shot that you need a 30 round clip to hunt or to defend yourself, then you shouldn't be allowed to own a gun.

[oldhippie]

59. What is "need?"

All anyone really "needs" is air, water, food, shelter, etc. Your question was rationally answerable.

[Spoonman]

60. The speed limit no greater than 75 mph

anywhere in the country.

There is no need to own a Corvette, or ANY vehicle for that matter that will exceed that mark.

It's a very valid and serious point. You just don't like it, because it rings true.

[Spoonman]

57. I'll answer that with a question

How fast should we allow car manufacturers make cars run?

No one needs a nuke, try to keep it within the realm of "normal" thought.

[slampoet]

71. Silencers have been illegal since 1938. The SCOTUS doesn't agree with you.

[X_Digger]

72. They're not illegal.. highly regulated. n/t

[beevul]

97. No, they really haven't.

And the year is 1934, if your referring to the NFA.

[jayfish]

12. Why would anyone put a suppressor on a single shot .22?

Seems a bit odd. :shrug:


ON EDIT: To answer the OPs question; yes.

[Spoonman]

27. That's a Ruger Mk3 (w/ 10rd clip) n/t

[ProgressiveProfessor]

49. Looks like a Mrk II Bull Barrel to me

My personal favorite plinking pistol

[deaniac21]

76. and it's a magazine, not a clip

clip


magazine

[Euromutt]

178. It's a 22/45 Mk. III

I have one myself, sans can since the state of Washington prohibits their use.

[Dappleganger]

28. Yeah, that's pretty funny!

It would awfully strange on my Buckmark .22 I use for a ton of target practice on paper plates.

[PavePusher]

228. Suppressors are safety devices. They protect your hearing.

Even a .22 pistol will damage hearing over time.

[Ryano42]

13. The M1911-A1

with a no more than 8 round magazine, yes. The rest hell no!

And to buy the .45 you must have a spotless record, as much as a outstanding parking ticket then no sale until cleared up.

1 week waiting period minimum.

After the sale mandatory small arms safety training with written exam and license.

At a MINIMUM. We treat car ownership and driver training with greater respect than firearm ownership!!! WTF!

(BTW, Fox News if you are reading this...I own several firearms)

[ProgressiveProfessor]

45. So you oppose handugns with double stack magazine?

Such as the Browning HiPower and the Beretta 92F?

Being old school, I prefer the 45, though that one is more tricked out that I would normally use.

[Ryano42]

63. I think high-caps have a place...

mostly in combat.

I like my M1911 for it's ruggedness and ease of cleaning plus it has a very good safety(s) which I think is lacking on the Glock.

Plus..if you are practiced enough I think changing mags is easy enough to do. Smaller capacity is something I don't mind. My Garand holds 8.

In that tragic worst case scenario in Tucson maybe he would have got off 14 rounds instead of 30...who knows?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

67. If what has been released is correct, his high capacity mag failed, jamming the weapon

Anyone with some practice and training can reload the standard magazine for the any handgun fast enough that there is no real advantage to the jumbo novelty magazine.

As a practical matter, the standard magazines for standard center fire rifles and pistols work best. That is notionally 30 and a something less than 20 respectively. To go beyond that seems silly, but there is no law against silly in many areas. It makes the weapon less effective in most cases.

I see no reason to limit .22 rimfire magazines.

[beevul]

96. Personally, I find them heavy.

"Anyone with some practice and training can reload the standard magazine for the any handgun fast enough that there is no real advantage to the jumbo novelty magazine."

Personally I find the high cap novelty mags to be heavy. At least in .40 S&W.


But I'll be damned if i'll sit quiet while brady and thier ilk establish a foothold. "Were just limiting it to X with this bill, its REASONABLE"...then the next year "its just a two round difference from current regulation"...and so on.


Never again.

[X_Digger]

70. Ahh, it's the "My guns aren't bad, it's all yours that are evil" syndrome.

Now I understand.

[PavePusher]

83. Would you like to apply the 14th Amendment to that...

for all your other Civil Rights as well?

[YllwFvr]

126. "We treat car ownership and driver training with greater respect than firearm ownership"

I have the right to own a gun, but not a car. It really boils down to that.

Most of those restrictions you stated are... well... restrictions, or infringements on my right that "shall not be infringed". Im sure you havent read that part before have you?

Besides, 1911s tend to be a bit pricey, and the ammo too. Then you add in the cost of training and exams, license fees, and you come up with "poor people need not apply" which kind of negates the whole right thing doesnt it? Saturday Night specials are a great thing.

[bossy22]

149. car ownership?

there are almost no regulations to owning a car. Driving it on a public road is another thing. Same with a gun, having it in your house in most states just requires a background check but to carry it in public requires a permit usually with some sort of training involved.

[Atypical Liberal]

197. On car ownership.

You'll note that if you use a car on private property, you need neither a license, nor registration, nor insurance. In fact, no paperwork is required at all.

Firearms are much the same way for most of the country. If you want to use a firearm on private property, no paperwork is required. Only if you want to carry it in public is paperwork required.

[joe_sixpack]

15. Another yes here.

Law abiding citizens should be able to own firearms.

[kctim]

16. Yes, they should

What's scary are the people so willing to give up their liberty for a false sense of security.
Fear has that affect on some.

[sadbear]

18. Giving up liberty?

Not being able to shoot 3 rounds a second silently from an extended magazine is giving up your liberty?

[cherokeeprogressive]

34. Yup.

[sadbear]

38. Geez....

Then I've never had liberty my entire life. And I will never have it either, I suppose. Bummer.

[cherokeeprogressive]

64. You have liberty in that no one can force you to buy that which you so abhor. n/t

[Pancho Sanza]

74. That is the exact same argument the teabaggers make about health care.

hmmm

[cherokeeprogressive]

75. Not getting your point...

[Pancho Sanza]

99. Actually, neither am I, now. Apparently I lost track of who said what in the thread

and replied inappropriately, sorry!

[X_Digger]

87. Supressors don't make a firearm silent- that's a hollywood trope.

The 22 might be very quiet, but it's the only one.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

94. The Glock is pretty quiet with the right ammo... but the .45 is still quite a thumper.

The .22lr is stupid quiet shot wet.

[TheWraith]

109. That's a strawman.

Sound suppressors are tightly regulate.

Automatic weapons are tightly regulated.

But nobody's talking about restrictions on them, they're talking about banning almost every pistol made in the last hundred years.

[YllwFvr]

127. only 3 a second?

maybe thats why my ammo stocks are always running low...
I may have to go easy on the trigger

[ixion]

19. Yes, they should.

in short.

[hlthe2b]

21. well, they certainly aren't needed for hunting anything but man...

and not one or two, as might be necessary for self-defense, but dozens. So, I think buried within that statement, you'll find your answer.

[PavePusher]

84. No-one's ever had to defend themselves against dozens?

You haven't been paying attention...

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

91. I've never had to hunt any person nor had the desire to...

And I enjoy shooting them recreationally very much.
The firearms in the OP are mine. ;)

[JI7]

22. i think a lot of people who buy it do so because it makes them feel Tough , "manly" etc

[ProgressiveProfessor]

65. Most of the ones I see getting into it are doing it for self defense

The most ardent 2nd Amendment progressives I know were mugged or bashed. They are still progressive, but they are well armed.

[xchrom]

24. simply put -- no. nt

[Richard Steele]

25. Yes. nm

[Dappleganger]

26. Yes, why not?

I see things like that at the range all the time. Our range doesn't allow silencers, however.

[PavePusher]

85. Why not?

Suppressors are a safety device.

[Dappleganger]

100. Not if proper ear wear is worn.

Which is a requirement at our range.

[X_Digger]

101. I end up wearing plugs AND muffs at my indoor range.

I wish I could get a supressor, and then only have to use one of the two.

[PavePusher]

106. I'm in military aviation maintenance.

I use double hearing protection for everything (including using shop-vacs and power tools and lawn-mowers at home), and would still use it with a supressor. They don't work like in the movies, you still need at least ear-plugs for anything over sub-sonic .22 cal.

[Dappleganger]

108. We use double as well...

my husband is in manufacturing so he is a bit more knowledgeable on prevention than I am. Inner-ear plus outer ear (with noise control) is what we've been using. Not so comfy at times, but it's better than losing your hearing over time.

[PavePusher]

111. Exactly. n/t

[DrDan]

29. no

[EstimatedProphet]

30. Some yes, some no

For example, silencers are illegal, as are semi-automatic weapons converted to automatic weapons.

[TheMightyFavog]

35. Technically, you can have silencers...

There's just a complex and costly legal procedure. IIRC, it's the same procedure that one must go through to be able to legally possess any automatic weapons made before 1986.

[timo]

90. not at all

200 bucks and a revocable living trust, which you can print of will maker software....send it off to the atf and wait for 40 to 140 days...my last to transfer stamps came in at just under 40 days. the government makes MILLIONS of dollars off this enterprise EVERY YEAR!!!!

[X_Digger]

88. Silencers are not illegal.. highly regulated, but legal. n/t

[upi402]

37. RPG's, rocket launchers. tanks

If the 2nd amendment nuts want to rise up, they'll need more than those pea shooters. That crap is for punks who can't fight on fair and legal grounds.

[PavePusher]

86. Soooo.... If I am 65 years old, maybe recently had a hip replacement surgury...

I should have to fist-fight 3 or 4 drunks because I look gay?

Just to be "fair and legal"?

[YllwFvr]

128. exactly

because no one without modern equipment can stick it to a modern military! I mean, look at the afghanis and the vietnamese! um.... nevermind those.
Get my point? Many of the guys holding the pea shooters here are ex military. Plus, how many would fire on americans? Some, but not all.

See it now?? No? Probably not given your past posts.

[Catherina]

41. No. Rec'd. Surprise! Still at 0. Disgusted. n/t

[Rebubula]

42. LOLZ at the fear

I know that guns can kill people WHEN AND ONLY WHEN other people shoot them.
I understand that many people do not like the IDEA of guns for purely pacifist and honorable ideals.
I recognize that incidents like the one in Arizona are getting the topic on the front burner again.


HOWEVER - one person's beliefs,ideals or fears should never impose themselves on someone else AS LONG AS the someone else is doing no harm. I own 13 guns (3 shotguns, 3 rifles and 7 handguns of various calibers\makes - 2 are antique and probably do not fire) and have never aimed them at anyone or carried out any crimes with them...JUST LIKE MILLIONS OF OTHER LEGAL GUN OWNERS!!!

All of the 'guns make up for a small penis' crap sort of pisses me off. I expect stupid blanket statements such as that at Freeper-style places - but I am always surprised when people (who are allegedly open minded and tolerant) here spout such reactionary and ignorant crap. You do not like something - fine. When you denigrate millions of people due to that dislike - not fine.

Now...in the sake of honesty - I am Scottish, so I do have a small penis. :evilgrin:

[Last_Stand]

47. Yeah, I don't get it...

People who are usually very intellectual can turn into emotional screamers when it comes to guns.

Is the penis thing supposed to hurt our feelings when we like something they don't like?

There's a lot of pain caused by murderers acting out on societal sicknesses and they often use guns...
I can understand the emotions caused, but I won't partake in it by demanding guns be banned.

[Little Star]

43. Yes.

[Celeborn Skywalker]

46. Don't care either way.

I don't think that large magazines or semi-automatics should necessarily be sold, but it's like #876 on the list of things that are important to me.

[damntexdem]

50. Honestly or dishonestly, absolutely not!

But pols in the U.S. have neither the will nor the courage to do anything about it. So the NRA gets to drive the U.S. further down its death spiral.

[YllwFvr]

129. the NRA... HA!

How many NRA members? 4 million. Thats a lot. But not when compared to the 40-80 million who own guns. Im anti NRA, and a huge gun supporter. Never gave them a dime, and I doubt I will
The will of america has been growing pro gun for quite a while now

[LanternWaste]

52. For many, happiness is indeed a warm gun.

For many, happiness is indeed a warm gun. And I suppose we all need happiness.

Bang. Bang. Shoot. Shoot.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

61. Yes

What you have displayed is expensive and "bad looking" but not notably different from less evil looking firearms

[Xela]

77. Yes

notxt

[roninjedi]

78. Yes

(noob post)

[RamboLiberal]

80. YES

[guitar man]

89. Yes

They're not all my cup of tea but I really like that .45

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

93. Thanks.

of all my guns that is probably the last one I'd ever choose to get rid of.

[guitar man]

95. I love the finish

And the grips are really cool. I have an all original 1911 (pre-a1) that was made in 1918 or 1919 according to the serial number. It's the best shooting .45 I've ever shot and like you, would be the last one I'd ever get rid of :)

[beevul]

98. Yes. N/t

[friendly_iconoclast]

104. Yes n/t

[X_Digger]

105. Yes. n/t

[Ter]

107. You bet your ass they should

And without any license. Awesome collection, who wouldn't want to have it?

[DissedByBush]

113. I want the silenced Ruger at the bottom

I could target practice in the back yard and not piss anybody off.

More ignorance surrounds silencers (actually, suppressors) than almost any other subject I know.

As far as the little gun, it's perfect for many women, easy to conceal in tight and/or skimpy clothing.

[Major Hogwash]

115. Did you notice that when you started this thread in the GD section at DU . . .

That you received better replies -- more rational replies -- made to it before it was drug into the Gun section?

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

118. More rational replies?

No... no I did not realize that.

In fact, those two pictures are pictures of some of MY collection. ;)
I guess that means I think we should be allowed to own these :)

[Major Hogwash]

121. Say yeth to meth!

That's about the same deal, eh?

[cleanhippie]

125. Considering your posts #44 and the follow ups, your hypocrisy is astounding.

What is rational about YOUR posts?

[CTyankee]

132. I notice how this thread has devolved into a LOT of talk literally about

"the nuts and bolts" of various firearms, the "marginalia" of the real debate. This thread very quickly became the sanctuary of this gun worshipping church, into the holy place where ritual and recitation of sacred words has a mesmerizing effect on the faithful. Rationality cannot find a seat in any pew here. If you are not kneeling in reverence and devotion to an ideology that sacrifices reason, you are the Despised One and must be cast out of the congregation.

When this thread dies, the congregation will go back into the real sanctuary for the practice of their ritual and GD will fine...

[Major Hogwash]

188. Amen, brother.

And those that worship at the altar of the gun, shall know that they have been smited upon with logic that will sustain them when their subscription to Guns & Ammo magazine runs out.

Let the exorcism begin.
"Bring me the Wholey Water!"

[Glassunion]

117. I have no problem with any of it.

[benEzra]

134. Everything in the second photo is as tightly controlled as bombs, howitzers, and grenades.

Possession of any one of those without Federal authorization is a 10-year Federal felony per violation. You have to have an extensive background check to possess one, file lots of paperwork with the BATFE, get your local chief law enforcement officer to sign off on your application, pay a $200 tax per item, notify the government if you wish to transport it out of state, and IIRC the BATFE gets to inspect your paperwork once a year if they so choose.

Tell me again how this is such a problem?

As to your first photo, you post a pic of the two most popular civilian handguns in America, suggest that "civilians" shouldn't be allowed to own them, and then you wonder where the "Dems'll-take-yer-gunz" perception comes from?

Sigh...

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

135. Ever poke an ant hill or bees nest for sheer enjoyment?

All the guns in bth photographs belong to me, lol.
I just felt like seeing some heads explode. :)

[Flyboy_451]

136. I know exactly what you mean...

I posted this pic in another thread...

This i a view inside of my gun vault that contains over 250 guns including many title II firearms. Everything from micro Uzi's to two 1919 belt fed .30s and one M2 .50 cal. All legal, all mine and all have a pristine record, free from any violent activities...

JW

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

142. The only approriate response to that picture:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pXfHLUlZf4

[benEzra]

137. Snort! LOL...

Note to self, next time look who's posting before replying. :hi:

[PavePusher]

262. Mission Accomplished. ;>) n/t

[Crystal Clarity]

138. Yes. But w/a caveat...

Are the extended clips and silencers really necessary? Seriously...

[Abq_Sarah]

227. I use extended magazines

For my carbines. The fact that they can also be used in a couple of pistols I own doesn't make them a bigger threat.

As for the suppressor, I don't have one but my husband does. Why would I need one? To shoot quietly.

[PavePusher]

261. Please submit your Question to the U.S. Department of Neccesity...

Bureau of Need, Determination Division.

Oh wait, there ain't no sich animal. Nor has that power been delegated to any govenment, as far as I can see.


P.S., Suppressors are safety devices. Would you lobby against mufflers on vehicles?

[jeepnstein]

141. Sure, why not?

As long as the owner behaves in a responsible manner I don't have any problem with it.

[kudzu22]

143. Absolutely

I don't see anything there that's unacceptable for ordinary citizens. I assume the Uzi-looking thing is actually semi-auto.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

144. It's a Mac-11 (submachinegun)

[Abq_Sarah]

226. Tricked out with

A MAX-11 Slowfire Upper Receiver.

Myself, I'm a proponent of single fire weapons.

[spin]

156. Yes.

[needledriver]

160. Yes. n/t

[WheelWalker]

181. Yes.

[Callisto32]

237. Arguments like this is why anti-gunners always lose.

Well, that and the fact that the facts don't support gun control.

[xultar]

241. The Silencers, no. That auto big ass thing in the 2nd one no, long clips no.

But the rest yes.

[PavePusher]

260. Why not suppressors?

They are a safety device. You'd do as well to argue against mufflers on vehicles.


P.S. That "big ass auto thing" in the second picture is almost certainly a semi-auto firearm. If it is a full-auto, it is almost certain that it was obtained at very high cost, plus an extensive and intrusive background check, and relinquishments of Fourth Amendment rights for the "privilige". How could anyone be against that?

[timo]

263. no silencers?

do you have any clue how much money the feds rake in on nfa Items such as silencers,short barrel rifles,short barrel shot guns,aow's and full auto firearms????

millions and millions and millions every year like clock work 200 bucks a pop per transfer stamp, they are not about to cut that gravy train off. new silencer sales alone, 4,000,000.00 plus in 2010, that does not include all the other transfer stamp $$$$$$$ !!!!

I own 4 nfa items myself, and am planning on several more as finances permit, and like it or not people that own these items dont go around committing heinous crimes because of the added penalty of possesion of a silencer in a crime of violence or drug trafficking i may be mistaken but its something like 30 years minimum. people who have alot of money tied up in nfa items are usually smart enough to NOT be criminals!!

[krispos42]

281. No, of course not

People should only be allowed to own guns that are painful to operate, unreliable, poorly-designed, and only hold a single round.


Oh, and they have to look absolutely hideous.

[Katya Mullethov]

282. There's so many pop guns

And ever so little time