Concealed Carry: WTF

[Emp]

A "perfectly normal guy" from White Oak http://www.wcpo.com/dpp/news/local_news/Man-indicted-for-stalking-Flying-Pig-official-carrying-concealed-gun-at-Sundays-marathonstalks the director of the Flying Pig Marathon, shows up at the start line to "fight terrorism" with a loaded semi pistol in his waistband. Hey, I've got a concealed carry permit, no problem. He is required to disclose this to police, but not to the rest of us.

Emotional state + concealed gun = recipe for disaster.

Will someone on the other side of the concealed carry issue explain to me the underlying policy reason for arming the citizenry? Why would we want to permit concealed carry at Belarmine or Cintas?

It seems to me just a legal cover for vigilante-ism.

[X Factor]

Will someone on the other side of the concealed carry issue explain to me the underlying policy reason for arming the citizenry?

Underlying policy reason for arming the citizenry? It's called the 2nd Amendment and it's a Constitutional right.

Alcohol contributes to more injuries and deaths than guns do yearly but we allow beer to be sold in the Cintas. I like beer.


Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth.

George Washington

On the other hand:


Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

John Adams

Our society is wrecked. People do not respect life. But, our freedoms are slowly being taken away from us and I for one, don't have a lot of faith in our government.

[principal]

Underlying policy reason for arming the citizenry? It's called the 2nd Amendment and it's a Constitutional right.

Alcohol contributes to more injuries and deaths than guns do yearly but we allow beer to be sold in the Cintas. I like beer.



On the other hand:



Our society is wrecked. People do not respect life. But, our freedoms are slowly being taken away from us and I for one, don't have a lot of faith in our government.

XFactor: Other than the fact that I don't like beer, I agree with your post fully. Anyone who does not understand the reason citizen's can, and should, be armed, have been lulled to sleep by the conditioning of television, movies, newspapers, politicians, etc. But as you implied, society has been driven mad and has lost its ability to be governed by the Constitution. To think that these things are accidental is to be unaware of human history prior to the establishment of the United States/the Constitution.

[paulxu]

Is that a gun in your pocket, or are you just glad to see me?

It's a bottle of beer...which is much more dangerous...and if you don't get in my black helicopter, I'm going to drink you to death.

[SixFig]

Comparing beer and guns is ridiculous.

The purpose of guns is to KILL. You can't enjoy killing responsibly. Beer in moderation doesn't hurt anyone.

[X Factor]

Comparing beer and guns is ridiculous.

The purpose of guns is to KILL. You can't enjoy killing responsibly. Beer in moderation doesn't hurt anyone.

And responsible gun owners don't hurt anyone.



In 2011, 9,878 people died in drunk driving crashes - one every 53 minutes*

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration FARS data, 2012.


Every day in America, another 27 people die as a result of drunk driving crashes.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration FARS data, 2012.



Almost every 90 seconds, a person is injured in a drunk driving crash.

Blincoe, Lawrence, et al. “The Economic Impact of Motor Vehicle Crashes 2000.” Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2002. NHTSA FARS data, 2011.

[94GRAD]

And responsible gun owners don't hurt anyone.

Responsible drinkers don't hurt anyone either.

-Every year in the U.S., an average of more than 100,000 people are shot, according to The Brady Campaign To Prevent Gun Violence.

-Every day in the U.S., an average of 289 people are shot. Eighty-six of them die: 30 are murdered, 53 kill themselves, two die accidentally, and one is shot in a police intervention, the Brady Campaign reports.

-Between 2000 and 2010, a total of 335,609 people died from guns -- more than the population of St. Louis, Mo. (318,069), Pittsburgh (307,484), Cincinnati, Ohio (296,223), Newark, N.J. (277,540), and Orlando, Fla. (243,195) (sources: CDF, U.S. Census; CDC)

-One person is killed by a firearm every 17 minutes, 87 people are killed during an average day, and 609 are killed every week. (source: CDC)

I believe in gun ownership but EVERY group has their idiots/bad apples.

[Xman95]

A "perfectly normal guy" from White Oak http://www.wcpo.com/dpp/news/local_news/Man-indicted-for-stalking-Flying-Pig-official-carrying-concealed-gun-at-Sundays-marathonstalks the director of the Flying Pig Marathon, shows up at the start line to "fight terrorism" with a loaded semi pistol in his waistband. Hey, I've got a concealed carry permit, no problem. He is required to disclose this to police, but not to the rest of us.

Emotional state + concealed gun = recipe for disaster.

Will someone on the other side of the concealed carry issue explain to me the underlying policy reason for arming the citizenry? Why would we want to permit concealed carry at Belarmine or Cintas?

It seems to me just a legal cover for vigilante-ism.

Yep, because before the Concealed/Carry laws were passed there were never any instances of someone packing heat and doing something stupid.

[X Factor]

Responsible drinkers don't hurt anyone either.

-Every year in the U.S., an average of more than 100,000 people are shot, according to The Brady Campaign To Prevent Gun Violence.

-Every day in the U.S., an average of 289 people are shot. Eighty-six of them die: 30 are murdered, 53 kill themselves, two die accidentally, and one is shot in a police intervention, the Brady Campaign reports.

-Between 2000 and 2010, a total of 335,609 people died from guns -- more than the population of St. Louis, Mo. (318,069), Pittsburgh (307,484), Cincinnati, Ohio (296,223), Newark, N.J. (277,540), and Orlando, Fla. (243,195) (sources: CDF, U.S. Census; CDC)

-One person is killed by a firearm every 17 minutes, 87 people are killed during an average day, and 609 are killed every week. (source: CDC)

I believe in gun ownership but EVERY group has their idiots/bad apples.

Exactly. Did you not read my first post and subsequent reply?

[Xman95]

In 2008, a little less than 2,000 people in the U.S. were murdered by cutting or stabbing. Could we have prevented that if we took the simple step of banning knives? I mean, they're easily purchased and it would seem every home has a number of them just sitting around. I think we need to push our politicians to pass a law that will remove knives from the public.

Here's what it comes down to: guns aren't bad, knives aren't bad, beer isn't bad, cars aren't bad. As 94 pointed out, every group has its idiots. Hell, this message board is proof of that! When something bad is done, why does a certain section of society feel the need to blame objects and not the morons doing the evil deeds?

Question: would you rather be stuck in a room with the pope and a gun, or someone like Jeffrey Dahmer and a rope?

[GoMuskies]

I prefer open carry myself.

[paulxu]

is the Pope a Catholic?

No...he's a Jesuit.

[coasterville95]

To me this was a case of somebody carrying just to prove he could. I mean had he not made himself suspicious by stalking the race official, no one would have ever known. An attention grabbing ploy shattering the illusion of event security theater. In the case of a marathon you can't realistically secure 26.2 miles of road course. For every area they had barrier fences up, there was probably five times more area protected by just a row of orange traffic cones. But the security precautions they took demonstrated they never expected a threat from within.

1198

Something similar happened at Kings Island the day they introduced metal detectors. Somebody purposely tried (and failed) to take a weapon through the metal detector, but did cause the park to go into lock down.

You know those decals at the front of many places that say "no weapons". That is supposed to be a businesses right to opt out of concealed carry on their private property. Now, because this happened there will probably need to be a whole new paragraph written into the Flying Pig race rules specifically banning weapons.

Some days I miss the times hen common sense meant not having to post a long list of very common sense rules just to protect the business from idiots.

[kenny powers]

While there is some disagreement to who wrote this, this is a pretty good argument.


Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat–it has no validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weightlifter. It simply wouldn’t work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation … and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

[boozehound]

In 2008, a little less than 2,000 people in the U.S. were murdered by cutting or stabbing. Could we have prevented that if we took the simple step of banning knives? I mean, they're easily purchased and it would seem every home has a number of them just sitting around. I think we need to push our politicians to pass a law that will remove knives from the public.

Here's what it comes down to: guns aren't bad, knives aren't bad, beer isn't bad, cars aren't bad. As 94 pointed out, every group has its idiots. Hell, this message board is proof of that! When something bad is done, why does a certain section of society feel the need to blame objects and not the morons doing the evil deeds?

Question: would you rather be stuck in a room with the pope and a gun, or someone like Jeffrey Dahmer and a rope?

We do draw limits on the right to bear arms, though. For example I can possess a semi-automatic gun, but not a hand grenade or mortar. I don't believe that the second amendment refers specifically to guns anywhere in it's text (although I could be wrong on that). The second amendment does talk about a 'well regulated militia'. What if those militias want tanks? Should that be allowed under the second amendment? After all, hand grenades and tanks don't kill people, people kill people. I want to exercise my second amendment right to have hand grenades. I also want to be able to buy and sell those hand grenades with no regulation or background checks of any kind.

Listen, I am pro CCW and pro second amendment. The place where I diverge from the NRA crowd is when they start to oppose regulation and background checks. The language of the second amendment specifically refers to regulation. 10 years ago Wayne LaPierre was for strict background checks for gun owners. Now he opposes it. Why? The NRA is simply in the pocket of the weapons manufacturers. I would have a lot more respect for them if they would think for themselves and act like reasonable human beings.

I also get frustrated when people act like the second amendment is a clearly worded mandate. It is 200 years old and was written when the most advanced military technology was a cannon or musket. We already apply limits to the second amendment after the fact all the time, as we should. People shouldn't be able to have hand grenades. Lets just be reasonable human beings about this.

[SixFig]

In 2008, a little less than 2,000 people in the U.S. were murdered by cutting or stabbing. Could we have prevented that if we took the simple step of banning knives? I mean, they're easily purchased and it would seem every home has a number of them just sitting around. I think we need to push our politicians to pass a law that will remove knives from the public.

Here's what it comes down to: guns aren't bad, knives aren't bad, beer isn't bad, cars aren't bad.

The purpose of guns is to kill. Knives aren't meant to kill. Beer isn't meant to kill.Cars aren't meant to kill. Killing is a mortal sin, and a gun is an instrument of death. The only reason to have a gun is to hurt someone. This is undeniable (minus the .000001 percent of people that need to hunt game for a living).

[X Factor]

The purpose of guns is to kill. Knives aren't meant to kill. Beer isn't meant to kill.Cars aren't meant to kill. Killing is a mortal sin, and a gun is an instrument of death. The only reason to have a gun is to hurt someone. This is undeniable (minus the .000001 percent of people that need to hunt game for a living).

Dumbest argument ever.

Does it matter that beer isn't "meant" to kill when it still contributes to more injuries and deaths than guns do? How about the countless numbers of people's lives that have been wrecked due to alcohol addiction, the number of wives and kids that have been beaten by a drunk father, the number of homes ruined due to beer?

I'm pro-beer. I love craft beer, but I also know firsthand the terrible effects of alcohol when not used in moderation the effects of alcoholism.

Answer me this: How many lives have guns saved? How many lives has beer saved?

[LA Muskie]

Answer me this: How many lives have guns saved? How many lives has beer saved?
I'd actually like YOU to answer that question. Gun advocates constantly tout self defense, but rarely have any evidence to support their claim.

So if we can just go ahead and make shit up as we go along, my hypothesis is that non-police and military guns currently kill far more people than they save, and that making assault weapons (in particular) illegal would save far more net lives than the status quo.

I will however grant you that guns have probably saved more lives than beer. Why that matters I haven't the slightest. But true it probably is.

[X Factor]

I'd actually like YOU to answer that question. Gun advocates constantly tout self defense, but rarely have any evidence to support their claim.

So if we can just go ahead and make shit up as we go along, my hypothesis is that non-police and military guns currently kill far more people than they save, and that making assault weapons (in particular) illegal would save far more net lives than the status quo.

Yep, because all of the criminals will just hand over their assault weapons once we make them illegal.

I don't care if defensive gun uses are rare, I want to be prepared if, God forbid, I ever have to use my firearm to protect my life, my wife's life, or my daughter's lives, and screw the government or anyone else who tries to take that right away.

[LA Muskie]

Yep, because all of the criminals will just hand over their assault weapons once we make them illegal.

I don't care if defensive gun uses are rare, I want to be prepared if, God forbid, I ever have to use my firearm to protect my life, my wife's life, or my daughter's lives, and screw the government or anyone else who tries to take that right away.

Again, if we can just say shit, I'll posit that the gun in your house is more likely to harm your family than help it.

[X Factor]

Again, if we can just say shit, I'll posit that the gun in your house is more likely to harm your family than help it.

Not in my house. Just stop talking out of your ass.

[LA Muskie]

Again, if we can just say shit, I'll posit that the gun in your house is more likely to harm your family than help it.

OK you tell yourself that. The only way your house is safe with a weapon in it is if it is locked in a safe unloaded, with the ammo separately locked in a different safe. And if that is the case, the odds that you could successfully use it to defend your family are squarely between slim and none.

I get the macho desire to feel that you could protect your family with that weapon. I do. I'm a husband and father and have thought the same thing. But it's just a feeling. It's not reality.

[X Factor]

OK you tell yourself that. The only way your house is safe with a weapon in it is if it is locked in a safe unloaded, with the ammo separately locked in a different safe. And if that is the case, the odds that you could successfully use it to defend your family are squarely between slim and none.

I get the macho desire to feel that you could protect your family with that weapon. I do. I'm a husband and father and have thought the same thing. But it's just a feeling. It's not reality.

Whatever make you feel better about yourself.

[XU-PA]

Starbucks in the Tyrone Place Mall in St Petersburg. Saturday 5/11. a woman is injured in an accidental shooting. details not being released by local PD

[BBC 08]

X Factor, why can gun control work in places like Australia and not here?

Also, everyone should watch these videos:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-april-18-2013/gun-control-whoop-de-doo
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-april-23-2013/gun-control---political-suicide
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-april-25-2013/australia---gun-control-s-aftermath

[boozehound]

X Factor, why can gun control work in places like Australia and not here?

Also, everyone should watch these videos:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-april-18-2013/gun-control-whoop-de-doo
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-april-23-2013/gun-control---political-suicide
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-april-25-2013/australia---gun-control-s-aftermath

Jon Stewart is a well-known liberal. Anything he says is wrong.



I am, of course, kidding. That will be the response many have, though. I saw those bits and was very interested. I particularly admired the conservative party taking action knowing that it would be political suicide and that none of them would be reelected. It seems to have worked quite well there, although I need to do some more research into the specifics. I definitely don't trust the Daily Show to simply report news with no slant or bias and complete background and supporting data (nor should I - they are a comedy show after all!).

[DC Muskie]

Anyone who does not understand the reason citizen's can, and should, be armed, have been lulled to sleep by the conditioning of television, movies, newspapers, politicians, etc.

I get the can part, but should? I should be armed?

I don't think anybody thinks I should be armed.

[Emp]

Guns in homes and 2nd Amendment rhetoric aside, I'd like to focus on concealed carry.

I cant imagine why anyone needs to carry a gun into a restaurant or bar. The premise that someone goes into a bar not to drink, but to carry a gun to feel safe, seems preposterous. I don't want to go into Danas knowing someone there has a gun. I dont want to go into Cintas knowing someone has a gun, or has the right to carry a gun and drink beer for that matter. I have yet to hear the policy reason for that, or the common sense reason: is it just because the 2nd Amendment says we have the right to bear arms?

[LA Muskie]

Guns in homes and 2nd Amendment rhetoric aside, I'd like to focus on concealed carry.

I cant imagine why anyone needs to carry a gun into a restaurant or bar. The premise that someone goes into a bar not to drink, but to carry a gun to feel safe, seems preposterous. I don't want to go into Danas knowing someone there has a gun. I dont want to go into Cintas knowing someone has a gun, or has the right to carry a gun and drink beer for that matter. I have yet to hear the policy reason for that, or the common sense reason: is it just because the 2nd Amendment says we have the right to bear arms?

They want to save us. They are our plain-clothed defenders. They are our real life, modern day super-heroes.

That...or...they will get drunk or pissed off or both and shoot the place up. Or maybe accidentally shoot themselves in the foot.

[DC Muskie]

Guns in homes and 2nd Amendment rhetoric aside, I'd like to focus on concealed carry.

I cant imagine why anyone needs to carry a gun into a restaurant or bar. The premise that someone goes into a bar not to drink, but to carry a gun to feel safe, seems preposterous. I don't want to go into Danas knowing someone there has a gun. I dont want to go into Cintas knowing someone has a gun, or has the right to carry a gun and drink beer for that matter. I have yet to hear the policy reason for that, or the common sense reason: is it just because the 2nd Amendment says we have the right to bear arms?

I think Juice and I had this discussion a few summers ago. I'm pretty sure I won.

I think the 2nd Amendment is a great thing. I would bet I have been in many bars, and I bet there have been times at the Cintas Center, when someone has brought a gun in. Despite this I have lived. Many people want to bring guns to bars just in case they have to walk back to their cars. Not everyone who goes to a bar gets shitfaced drunk.

[ammtd34]

It is illegal to carry a gun in a bar while consuming alcohol. So it's probably impossible to enforce. Then again, so was not allowing concealed carries in bars in the first place.

[blueblob06]

X Factor, why can gun control work in places like Australia and not here?

Also, everyone should watch these videos:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-april-18-2013/gun-control-whoop-de-doo
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-april-23-2013/gun-control---political-suicide
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-april-25-2013/australia---gun-control-s-aftermath
Public reps. Was gonna post these and you beat me to it.

[ChicagoX]

OK you tell yourself that. The only way your house is safe with a weapon in it is if it is locked in a safe unloaded, with the ammo separately locked in a different safe. And if that is the case, the odds that you could successfully use it to defend your family are squarely between slim and none.

I get the macho desire to feel that you could protect your family with that weapon. I do. I'm a husband and father and have thought the same thing. But it's just a feeling. It's not reality.

According to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, a gun in the home is 11 times more likely to be used in a completed or attempted suicide, seven times more likely to be used in a criminal assault or homicide and four times more likely to be involved in an unintentional shooting death or injury than to be used in a self-defense shooting.

I support the Second Amendment and think Americans should be able to responsibly own certain guns within reason, but LA Muskie is right on that the odds of a gun being used for self-defense are far lower than something awful happening with that exact same gun.

I'll never understand why assault rifles that can fire 50 rounds before reloading are considered acceptable. Since we can't own hand grenades or shoulder-mounted missile launchers, does that infringe on our right to bear arms? To me, assault rifles with high-capacity magazines fall under the same category.

Keep the magazines to under 10 rounds and you can still play GI Joe and pretend that you would be able to stand up to the US military if you deem it necessary. I'm sure all of these people stockpiling weapons since Obama was elected and the Newtown massacre would have no problem rising up against the most powerful military force in the history of the world once they deem their rights have been impugned upon. To me, that is one of the biggest jokes ever. Like it or not, the days of forming a well-regulated militia to rise up against the US government are over and have been for many decades.

[DC Muskie]

Like it or not, the days of forming a well-regulated militia to rise up against the US government are over and have been for many decades.

I think this is an interesting argument. We should time stamp the 2nd amendment. Since our military is the most powerful in the world, there is no way for citizens to be able to rise against potential tyranny because the outcome has already been decided.

Like I said, interesting argument.

I'm going to take a wild guess and assume that we have the 2nd amendment simply because we should never ever allow ourselves as citizens to become subjects to tyrannical rule.

No I'm no Teabagger for sure. I don't think the country is going to hell in a hand basket. I do feel however that the idea that citizens cannot own assault rifles simply because others deem them "unnecessary" to be precisely the reason why we SHOULD protect this freedom. Who knows what will happen decades from now.

Personally I hate guns. I will never, ever own one. I'm not sure why people like them at all frankly. But I really like the idea that if I want one, I can get one, and I can have one with a million rounds if God forbid, the reason ever arises. Don't tell me what you think assault weapons should be used for, if I want one, I should be able to get one. This is America and not Australia.

[ChicagoX]

I do feel however that the idea that citizens cannot own assault rifles simply because others deem them "unnecessary" to be precisely the reason why we SHOULD protect this freedom. Who knows what will happen decades from now.

For the record, it's not the assault rifles that I take issue with, rather it's the 30-50+ round magazines that turn those rifles into weapons of mass destruction. If you want to own an AR-15 with a scope and magazine that fires 5-10 rounds because you want to make your hunting outing or target practice easier than using a shotgun, then to each their own.

However, if the Tsarnaev brothers are accused of detonating a homemade pressure cooker and are then subsequently charged with using a weapon of mass destruction, how can a magazine that can kill dozens of people without reloading once not be considered the same? Doesn't common sense come into play here that says that maybe it's just inherently wrong for citizens to own such deadly weapons designed for military use?

[DC Muskie]

For the record, it's not the assault rifles that I take issue with, rather it's the 30-50+ round magazines that turn those rifles into weapons of mass destruction. If you want to own an AR-15 with a scope and magazine that fires 5-10 rounds because you want to make your hunting outing or target practice easier than using a shotgun, then to each their own. However, if the Tsarnaev brothers are accused of detonating a homemade pressure cooker and the government considers that to be a weapon of mass destruction, then how can a magazine that can kill dozens of people without reloading once not be considered the same? Doesn't common sense come into play here that says that maybe it's just inherently wrong for citizens to own such deadly weapons designed for military use?

I think there is a distinction through various laws between bombs and guns. If you turn your pop tart into a bomb and blow people up, that's a crime, however no one is going to go after pop tarts and start pulling them off the shelves, because damn it, pop tarts are good.

I'm sure the government would love to limit all of our enemies to 5-10 rounds in their guns. Why can't American citizens own weapons that carry 50 round magazines? Common sense says there are far more people who own these weapons and magazines then people who commit mass shootings. So why do you take away weapons from law abiding citizens because some kid was crazy? You and I won't own them. Why do we have to tell someone else who is just as good a citizen who would like to own them, they can't? I don't understand that.

[Kahns Krazy]

According to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, a gun in the home is 11 times more likely to be used in a completed or attempted suicide, seven times more likely to be used in a criminal assault or homicide and four times more likely to be involved in an unintentional shooting death or injury than to be used in a self-defense shooting.

I support the Second Amendment and think Americans should be able to responsibly own certain guns within reason, but LA Muskie is right on that the odds of a gun being used for self-defense are far lower than something awful happening with that exact same gun.


There is a huge logic problem here. It assumes that the suicide would not be attempted or completed without the gun in the house. It also assumes that every gun is brought into the home for the purpose of home defense.

Lots of people commit suicide in homes without guns. Nobody executes a self defense shooting in a home without a gun.

[boozehound]

Guns in homes and 2nd Amendment rhetoric aside, I'd like to focus on concealed carry.

I cant imagine why anyone needs to carry a gun into a restaurant or bar. The premise that someone goes into a bar not to drink, but to carry a gun to feel safe, seems preposterous. I don't want to go into Danas knowing someone there has a gun. I dont want to go into Cintas knowing someone has a gun, or has the right to carry a gun and drink beer for that matter. I have yet to hear the policy reason for that, or the common sense reason: is it just because the 2nd Amendment says we have the right to bear arms?

People who work in restaurants and/or bars would be one example of someone who would want to carry a gun into a restaurant or bar. I see no problem with CCW when used in concert with strict and thorough background checks and training.


I think this is an interesting argument. We should time stamp the 2nd amendment. Since our military is the most powerful in the world, there is no way for citizens to be able to rise against potential tyranny because the outcome has already been decided.

Like I said, interesting argument.

I'm going to take a wild guess and assume that we have the 2nd amendment simply because we should never ever allow ourselves as citizens to become subjects to tyrannical rule.

No I'm no Teabagger for sure. I don't think the country is going to hell in a hand basket. I do feel however that the idea that citizens cannot own assault rifles simply because others deem them "unnecessary" to be precisely the reason why we SHOULD protect this freedom. Who knows what will happen decades from now.

Personally I hate guns. I will never, ever own one. I'm not sure why people like them at all frankly. But I really like the idea that if I want one, I can get one, and I can have one with a million rounds if God forbid, the reason ever arises. Don't tell me what you think assault weapons should be used for, if I want one, I should be able to get one. This is America and not Australia.

I see your point, but a line has to be drawn somewhere, right? Can I get one of those sweet jeep-mounted machine guns they have in Africa? Hand Grenades? I'm all for personal freedoms, but I also understand that the need arises to limit personal freedom. For me, assault rifles with high capacity magazines fall on the other side of the line of what is reasonable to possess under the 2nd amendment. Plenty of my friends have assualt rifles. One of them has some kind of tactical shotgun with a 30 round drum magazine. I could definitely be convinced otherwise, but I feel like those types of weapons aren't really necessary.

[muskiefan82]

I think this is an interesting argument. We should time stamp the 2nd amendment. Since our military is the most powerful in the world, there is no way for citizens to be able to rise against potential tyranny because the outcome has already been decided.

Like I said, interesting argument.

I'm going to take a wild guess and assume that we have the 2nd amendment simply because we should never ever allow ourselves as citizens to become subjects to tyrannical rule.

No I'm no Teabagger for sure. I don't think the country is going to hell in a hand basket. I do feel however that the idea that citizens cannot own assault rifles simply because others deem them "unnecessary" to be precisely the reason why we SHOULD protect this freedom. Who knows what will happen decades from now.

Personally I hate guns. I will never, ever own one. I'm not sure why people like them at all frankly. But I really like the idea that if I want one, I can get one, and I can have one with a million rounds if God forbid, the reason ever arises. Don't tell me what you think assault weapons should be used for, if I want one, I should be able to get one. This is America and not Australia.

I agree because what if, one day, all the power went out and tanks and helicopters and cars didn't work and all we had to defend ourselves were guns and swords......wait.......I think I've heard this before.........

[DC Muskie]

I agree because what if, one day, all the power went out and tanks and helicopters and cars didn't work and all we had to defend ourselves were guns and swords......wait.......I think I've heard this before.........

On September 10, 2001 would you have guessed planes filled with passengers would have been used as missiles? Neither would I.

[SixFig]

On September 10, 2001 would you have guessed planes filled with passengers would have been used as missiles? Neither would I.

And since then we have taken steps to prevent it happening again. Why can't we do the same with guns?

To those who say the gun lobby is too powerful...50 years ago the tobacco lobby was considered invulnerable too. Change will happen.

[muskiefan82]

On September 10, 2001 would you have guessed planes filled with passengers would have been used as missiles? Neither would I.

Actually, I had because Tom Clancy used this as a method to destroy the Capitol Building in Debt of Honor back in the mid-90's.

[GoMuskies]

50 years ago the tobacco lobby was considered invulnerable too

And "big tobacco" ended up cutting a deal that guaranteed its continued profitable existence basically forever.

[ArizonaXUGrad]

And "big tobacco" ended up cutting a deal that guaranteed its continued profitable existence basically forever.

As long as people smoke, when enough education is out there and young kids stop smoking they will fade away.

Here in Phoenix we have a law that says you can carry a gun in a bar with two conditions, 1) if the bar has a sign disallowing it you cannot and 2) you cannot consume alcohol if you have a firearm. I exercise my right of choice by not spending my money at establishments that allow people to carry firearms inside.

Some quick googling performed, in 2000 there were just shy of 74k gun related deaths in the US. I could not find 2000 #s but in 2010 there were just over 75k alcohol related deaths. I would call that difference a statistical insignificant difference.

Like abortion I am anti-gun and have chosen not to own one myself, but I don't think it's fair to impose my beliefs on others. I, however, fully buy-in to the belief that extreme gun control would lead to much less violence and gun related deaths.

This is all ignoring the fact that owning and carrying a gun makes you around 5 times more likely to be shot and/or killed than if you didn't. If you don't believe just google the question.

[Kahns Krazy]

The purpose of guns is to kill.

There 10's of billions of rounds of ammo sold in this country every year. I think some people might disagree with your statement.

Many people shoot guns as a hobby or skill. Many hunt. Some spell out things or ring in the new year. The purpose of a gun is to launch a small projectile at a high speed with accuracy. The purpose of the gun owner may be different.

[Kahns Krazy]

This is all ignoring the fact that owning and carrying a gun makes you around 5 times more likely to be shot and/or killed than if you didn't. If you don't believe just google the question.


Your cause and effect are backwards. I have friends that are very responsible gun owners. Most likely, you would never know they are carrying. They are generally no more likely than I am to get shot.

When you get into the population of people that are likely to get shot, I would assume a pretty high percentage of them are also carrying. If you do some backwards math, you can get to your 5x number, but that does not make me 5x more likely to get shot if I decide to start carrying a gun responsibly.

[GoMuskies]

So you're saying that correlation does not necessarily imply causation? Interesting.

[kyxu]

Many people shoot guns as a hobby or skill. Many hunt. Some spell out things or ring in the new year.

Ha! Hilarious mental image. Thanks, Kahns

[ArizonaXUGrad]

So you're saying that correlation does not necessarily imply causation? Interesting.

I am not implying that but the statistics don't lie. It still doesn't change the fact that if you carry a weapon you dramatically increase your odds of being shot. Statistics don't seek to identify causation at all as there could and probably are other factors involved. The numbers merely state that your odds of being shot at "X" without a firearm and "5x" with one. I am going with X since I don't really feel any need to carry a gun nor do I spend any time or money in restaurants and bars that allow them.

What I find truly interesting about the law here is that it could potentially provide economic interest for a bar or restaurant to allow or disallow them based on it's targeted demographic regardless of the political beliefs of it's owners. Money will most likely trump all for business owners and if the popular choice shifts one way or the other you could either a lot of no firearm signs or establishments taking them down.

I am a Friday/Saturday social type of person and all of the places I frequent started sporting the no firearms signs. I know of of only 1 place near where I hang out that allows them and I just stopped going there. Our right to choose is pretty powerful, if you support by all means take your money (and guns) to un-signed bars. If you don't then hit up the signed establishments. If you don't care then drink where you want, just don't drink with your concealed gun.

I think our law is 3ish years old. I have seen one gun (at the aforementioned restaurant which I no longer patron) and that owner both incorrectly had it on his hip and not concealed and was consuming alcohol.

[DC Muskie]

Actually, I had because Tom Clancy used this as a method to destroy the Capitol Building in Debt of Honor back in the mid-90's.

Wait didn't you make a statement earlier that basically said there's no way power could be cut throughout the country and we are left to fight a disabled military with guns?

[DC Muskie]

And since then we have taken steps to prevent it happening again. Why can't we do the same with guns?

To those who say the gun lobby is too powerful...50 years ago the tobacco lobby was considered invulnerable too. Change will happen.

Are you saying before 9/11 the US was not interested in preventing hijacking on planes?

The gun lobby isn't the issue, it's the companies that make guns.

[muskiefan82]

No. I was basically reiterating the premise of the tv show Revolution.

[BBC 08]

Why can gun control work in a place like Australia but not America?

[DC Muskie]

Why can gun control work in a place like Australia but not America?

Because they allow double jeopardy perhaps?

[GoMuskies]

Why can gun control work in a place like Australia but not America?

Does Australia have a Second Amendment?

[Kahns Krazy]

I am not implying that but the statistics don't lie. It still doesn't change the fact that if you carry a weapon you dramatically increase your odds of being shot. Statistics don't seek to identify causation at all as there could and probably are other factors involved. The numbers merely state that your odds of being shot at "X" without a firearm and "5x" with one.

http://i2.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/000/554/facepalm.jpg

[SixFig]

Are you saying before 9/11 the US was not interested in preventing hijacking on planes?

The gun lobby isn't the issue, it's the companies that make guns.

Before 9/11 they didn't fully grasp what was needed to make planes safer. What will be the gun 9/11? How many kids need to die before people wise up? They shot a freakin senator (gabrielle giffords) and killed 6 others with a semi automatic with 33 rounds and still nothing changed. I'm sure the weapon was "concealed".

Gun lobby, gun companies they're both the same.

[DC Muskie]

Before 9/11 they didn't fully grasp what was needed to make planes safer. What will be the gun 9/11? How many kids need to die before people wise up? They shot a freakin senator (gabrielle giffords) and killed 6 others with a semi automatic with 33 rounds and still nothing changed. I'm sure the weapon was "concealed".

Gun lobby, gun companies they're both the same.

They didn't understand terrorism before 9/11? Oh okay.

The killers of Columbine violated the National Firearms Act and the Gun Control Act of 1968. They also killed 12 people and wounded 21 others while the Federal Assault Weapons Ban was in place.

Giffods was a Representative not a senator by the way.

[kenny powers]

The fact that people really think banning a weapon will stop crime is crazy.

Drugs are illegal yet they are still extremely easy to get. This is mostly because of the Mexican drug cartels. With a ban on weapons, wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that those would then become drug and gun cartels? If the criminal wants the gun the criminal will get the gun that is the bottom line.

Also, for the people saying that assault weapons should be banned, they already are. An assault weapon is a gun that can fire more than one round with a single trigger pull. In order to own one you must have a federal firearms license. On the subject of "high capacity" magazines, any gun can be fitted with one, not just assault style rifles.

One final point. The .223/5.56 NATO round that is used in an AR-15 was developed by the U.S. military to wound and not kill. The reasoning behind this is to wound enemies in order to divert resources to medical attention and away from the front line. The bottom line is that many much more popular handguns, such as a .40 caliber, are much more lethal than a scary looking AR-15.

[SixFig]

In response to Columbine our brave politicians did less instead of more. Virginia Tech, Aurora, Newton. Nothing.

Guns won't stop crime, for sure. But it will help get the instruments of death away. If you are worried about getting killed by a robber, where is that robber getting his gun from? A store, the internet. Easy. Too easy. Trying to buy from a (mysterious) cartel will be hard. I can grow drugs in my basement or backyard, but try making a gun at home. Good luck. Guarantee if we stopped making guns gun violence would dip. And if one life is saved, isn't that worth it

[SixFig]

BUT GUNS SAVE PEOPLE!

"The one-week survey by TIME found a similar ratio on a national basis: only 14 of the 464 gun deaths resulted from defensive firing. An alarming 216 were suicides, 22 were accidental, and many of the rest involved homicides among people who knew each other well rather than citizens gunned down by strangers."

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,152446,00.html#ixzz2TECIBY9a

[kenny powers]

In response to Columbine our brave politicians did less instead of more. Virginia Tech, Aurora, Newton. Nothing.

Guns won't stop crime, for sure. But it will help get the instruments of death away. If you are worried about getting killed by a robber, where is that robber getting his gun from? A store, the internet. Easy. Too easy. Trying to buy from a (mysterious) cartel will be hard. I can grow drugs in my basement or backyard, but try making a gun at home. Good luck. Guarantee if we stopped making guns gun violence would dip. And if one life is saved, isn't that worth it

Actually it is becoming very easy to make a gun at home. Recently someone posted the plans for printing a gun with a 3-D printer. While this one wasn't very sophisticated, it's just a matter of time before all it takes is just a couple clicks on the computer to make a very well made gun at home.

[BBC 08]

Yep and that design has already been pulled down from the site since it is fucked up that one can get/make a gun that easy.

[kenny powers]

Yep and that design has already been pulled down from the site since it is fucked up that one can get/make a gun that easy.

Right I understand that it was already pulled down, but there are many things that you can download on the internet that are illegal. The point is it is an uphill battle that can't be won. Banning a weapon won't stop anyone who wants that weapon from getting it.

[Juice]

As long as people smoke, when enough education is out there and young kids stop smoking they will fade away.

Here in Phoenix we have a law that says you can carry a gun in a bar with two conditions, 1) if the bar has a sign disallowing it you cannot and 2) you cannot consume alcohol if you have a firearm. I exercise my right of choice by not spending my money at establishments that allow people to carry firearms inside.

Some quick googling performed, in 2000 there were just shy of 74k gun related deaths in the US. I could not find 2000 #s but in 2010 there were just over 75k alcohol related deaths. I would call that difference a statistical insignificant difference.

Like abortion I am anti-gun and have chosen not to own one myself, but I don't think it's fair to impose my beliefs on others. I, however, fully buy-in to the belief that extreme gun control would lead to much less violence and gun related deaths.

This is all ignoring the fact that owning and carrying a gun makes you around 5 times more likely to be shot and/or killed than if you didn't. If you don't believe just google the question.

Like in Chicago which has some of the strictest gun control in the country but it's murder total keeps growing?

Oh, and gun violence is down in the US
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-gun-crimes-pew-report-20130507,0,3022693.story

[SixFig]

Like in Chicago which has some of the strictest gun control in the country but it's murder total keeps growing?

Oh, and gun violence is down in the US
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-gun-crimes-pew-report-20130507,0,3022693.story

From the same article:

"Compared with other parts of the country, the South had the highest rates of gun violence, including both murders and other violent gun crimes."

I bet the south has the highest proportion of gun owners too. Good job safeguarding your community fellas.

[Jumpy]

Yep and that design has already been pulled down from the site since it is fucked up that one can get/make a gun that easy.

The design was voluntarily pulled from the designer's site, at the request of the government, but don't believe for a minute that it has left the internet. Copies of the design are all over file sharing sites and, last I read, it was one of the most downloaded files on Pirate Bay.

It seems like this argument keeps popping up around this time of year. I'm on the fence on the whole issue, though in practice concealed carry seems to be ineffectual. I guess it gives people peace of mind, which is good, but you rarely hear of any Johnny Do-Gooder stopping a crime with his properly permitted, properly concealed piece. On the flip side, I don't think I've ever heard of someone using a concealed carry firearm to commit a crime.

Either way, IMO this argument is moot with the advent of the untraceable 3D printed guns. It will soon become very easy for anyone to make their own untraceable gun whenever they want, for whatever nefarious reasons they have. As we have seen with the above mentioned design making it to the internet, the plans are there, now the last hurdle is cheap and ubiquitous 3D printers, which isn't far off.

[boozehound]

Honest question for the NRA crowd:

What is the beef with universal background checks and a gun registry? That would seem to be a very reasonable compromise between the liberals who want to ban everything including BB guns and the guys who want the right to bear arms to include surface-to-air missiles.

You buy a gun and you are subjected to a criminal background check and the serial number for that weapon goes into the registry. People can still sell to private parties if they wish, but they would also have to get a background check and transfer of ownership just like a normal purchase. Theoretically that could help limit the amount of guns the fall into criminals hands since they would have to either steal them or buy them illegally. That's not to say that many criminals won't find illegal guns, but there doesn't seem to be much downside to that one. We all agree that people with (certain) criminal records shouldn't own firearms, right?

[XU-PA]

Starbucks in the Tyrone Place Mall in St Petersburg. Saturday 5/11. a woman is injured in an accidental shooting. details not being released by local PD

Updated info. gun owner, had concealed weapon, 25 cal, in in purse. says she "forgot" she had it. dropped her purse and the weapon fired hitting her friend.

[Jumpy]

In response to Columbine our brave politicians did less instead of more. Virginia Tech, Aurora, Newton. Nothing.

Guns won't stop crime, for sure. But it will help get the instruments of death away. If you are worried about getting killed by a robber, where is that robber getting his gun from? A store, the internet. Easy. Too easy. Trying to buy from a (mysterious) cartel will be hard. I can grow drugs in my basement or backyard, but try making a gun at home. Good luck. Guarantee if we stopped making guns gun violence would dip. And if one life is saved, isn't that worth it




I think this is an over-simplistic view. Too many guns saturate the market as it is today to simply stop making guns to curb violence. Guns are durable. If properly cared for, a gun can last a hundred years and more and still be in perfect working order. Besides that, you're making a dangerous assumption that guns and violence have a causal relationship, which they don't.

[boozehound]

I think this is an over-simplistic view. Too many guns saturate the market as it is today to simply stop making guns to curb violence. Guns are durable. If properly cared for, a gun can last a hundred years and more and still be in perfect working order. Besides that, you're making a dangerous assumption that guns and violence have a causal relationship, which they don't.

I agree that guns and violence don't have a causal relationship. I do think, however, that guns make it significantly easier to kill people in a moment of anger. If you want to kill someone and you don't have a gun available your options become your hands, a knife, or some type of bludgeoning. I would think it would be far easier to squeeze the trigger and shoot someone than it would be to beat them to death or stab them. I have to imagine that killing someone with your hand or a close quarters weapon like a knife is significantly different than shooting someone. I don't know that for sure though, and I hope to never find out.

[ChicagoX]

Honest question for the NRA crowd:

What is the beef with universal background checks and a gun registry? That would seem to be a very reasonable compromise between the liberals who want to ban everything including BB guns and the guys who want the right to bear arms to include surface-to-air missiles.

You buy a gun and you are subjected to a criminal background check and the serial number for that weapon goes into the registry. People can still sell to private parties if they wish, but they would also have to get a background check and transfer of ownership just like a normal purchase. Theoretically that could help limit the amount of guns the fall into criminals hands since they would have to either steal them or buy them illegally. That's not to say that many criminals won't find illegal guns, but there doesn't seem to be much downside to that one. We all agree that people with (certain) criminal records shouldn't own firearms, right?

Since about 86-91% of Americans support universal background checks, I think it's safe to say that many and probably most NRA members support this legislation, too. The problem is that Congress is terrified to act for fear of repudiation from the NRA hardliners and their constituents in the next election. NRA leadership really only cares about the gun manufacturers and hide behind the 2nd Amendment to support their extremist views on anything related to even a modicum of gun-control. The NRA spread very direct misinformation by fear mongering when they told people that a gun registry meant one day the government could come and take your guns, even though the legislation specifically stated that using the information in that manner would be illegal.

The fact that we no longer live in a democracy hurts its chances of passing, too. The Senate voted 54 aye and 46 nay and this somehow meant not only defeat, but that an official vote wouldn't even happen. We used to live in a country where a majority vote was used to make the decisions, but the massive abuse of the filibuster and fear of losing a seat in the Senate or House of Reps allows Congress to tell 9 out of every 10 Americans to fuck off.

Webster defines democracy as "government by the people; especially : rule of the majority." Over the course of the past decade, majority-rule became a thing of the past, thereby essentially ending the democracy that makes up everything that this country is supposed to be. So many people are so irrationally scared of losing their 2nd Amendment rights that they don't even see the core values that this country was founded on disappearing right before our eyes. Common sense and decency in government are a thing of the past. When it takes a 60% vote for anything to pass the Senate, I don't think that is what the founding fathers had in mind. The filibuster and extreme partisanship have been the death of democracy, and the background check debate is just one example of this.

[DC Muskie]

The fact that we no longer live in a democracy hurts its chances of passing, too. The Senate voted 54 aye and 46 nay and this somehow meant not only defeat, but that an official vote wouldn't even happen. We used to live in a country where a majority vote was used to make the decisions, but the massive abuse of the filibuster and fear of losing a seat in the Senate or House of Reps allows Congress to tell 9 out of every 10 Americans to fuck off.

Webster defines democracy as "government by the people; especially : rule of the majority." Over the course of the past decade, majority-rule became a thing of the past, thereby essentially ending the democracy that makes up everything that this country is supposed to be. So many people are so irrationally scared of losing their 2nd Amendment rights that they don't even see the core values that this country was founded on disappearing right before our eyes. Common sense and decency in government are a thing of the past. When it takes a 60% vote for anything to pass the Senate, I don't think that is what the founding fathers had in mind. The filibuster and extreme partisanship have been the death of democracy, and the background check debate is just one example of this.

I wish I could get the three minutes of my life reading and responding to this part back.

[boozehound]

Since about 86-91% of Americans support universal background checks, I think it's safe to say that many and probably most NRA members support this legislation, too. The problem is that Congress is terrified to act for fear of repudiation from the NRA hardliners and their constituents in the next election. NRA leadership really only cares about the gun manufacturers and hide behind the 2nd Amendment to support their extremist views on anything related to even a modicum of gun-control. The NRA spread very direct misinformation by fear mongering when they told people that a gun registry meant one day the government could come and take your guns, even though the legislation specifically stated that using the information in that manner would be illegal.


I have heard that the majority of Americans support universal background checks. I didn't realize it was that high of a percentage though. In my personal (small) sample of friends I know 4 people that have CCW permits. 3 of them support Universal background checks and a gun registry. The one that doesn't is a lifetime member of the NRA.

Assuming the 85%-90% number is valid and was obtained through proper sampling and surveying it is hard to imagine something with that kind of support not passing easily. Never underestimate the power of money in politics, I guess.

[GuyFawkes38]

Webster defines democracy as "government by the people; especially : rule of the majority." Over the course of the past decade, majority-rule became a thing of the past, thereby essentially ending the democracy that makes up everything that this country is supposed to be. So many people are so irrationally scared of losing their 2nd Amendment rights that they don't even see the core values that this country was founded on disappearing right before our eyes. Common sense and decency in government are a thing of the past. When it takes a 60% vote for anything to pass the Senate, I don't think that is what the founding fathers had in mind. The filibuster and extreme partisanship have been the death of democracy, and the background check debate is just one example of this.

Definitely read the Federalist Papers.

[Kahns Krazy]

I support the idea of not letting criminals buy guns. That doesn't mean that I would support any measure that would include background checks. Guns are legal, and owning a gun is not just legal, it is a protected right.

This week, we have seen the IRS admit abuse of power. Who will administer background checks? What will they do with all of that information? how will law abiding citizens be protected? What are the costs? Who pays for it?

I can be a supporter of an idea and vote against a proposed solution at the same time.

[DC Muskie]

I support the idea of not letting criminals buy guns. That doesn't mean that I would support any measure that would include background checks. Guns are legal, and owning a gun is not just legal, it is a protected right.

This week, we have seen the IRS admit abuse of power. Who will administer background checks? What will they do with all of that information? how will law abiding citizens be protected? What are the costs? Who pays for it?

I can be a supporter of an idea and vote against a proposed solution at the same time.

Just to add to this...I would love, absolutely love to prevent one child from being harmed by guns. But there is nothing I can do, nor as a country can do to prevent someone from walking into a school and shooting them at any given time. I can't prevent all accidents or tragedies. And I'm not sure why my rights should be limited because someone at some time does something completely awful.

The White House also just rounded up the work and PERSONAL phone numbers of reporters to find out where the possible leaks were in a terrorist plot that was stopped. Our government took personal numbers of reporters to find out who leaked information that was a good thing.

[muskiefan82]

Just to add to this...I would love, absolutely love to prevent one child from being harmed by guns. But there is nothing I can do, nor as a country can do to prevent someone from walking into a school and shooting them at any given time. I can't prevent all accidents or tragedies. And I'm not sure why my rights should be limited because someone at some time does something completely awful.

The White House also just rounded up the work and PERSONAL phone numbers of reporters to find out where the possible leaks were in a terrorist plot that was stopped. Our government took personal numbers of reporters to find out who leaked information that was a good thing.

I work now for the government and was a member of the military for an additional ten years and I can say this - NEVER underestimate the power of the U.S. Government and understand that you are being watched and tracked both deliberately and secondarily. If you have ever watched Person of Interest you should know that it is closer to the truth than you realize.

[DC Muskie]

I work now for the government and was a member of the military for an additional ten years and I can say this - NEVER underestimate the power of the U.S. Government and understand that you are being watched and tracked both deliberately and secondarily. If you have ever watched Person of Interest you should know that it is closer to the truth than you realize.

I watch Person of Interest all the time! Freaks me out. Good show.

[blobfan]

I work now for the government and was a member of the military for an additional ten years and I can say this - NEVER underestimate the power of the U.S. Government and understand that you are being watched and tracked both deliberately and secondarily. If you have ever watched Person of Interest you should know that it is closer to the truth than you realize.

Meh. They may powerful but they aren't coordinated enough to do much damage. Government inertia, red tape, and lack of inter-agency cooperation prevents most of the evils they could do. Until that changes, I'm more afraid of what corporate America does to muck up our lives with the info they are data mining from us all.

As for firearm regulation, I think we need to focus on closing loopholes, particularly gun show and private sale loopholes, and allow the ATF to properly study the issue so we can create sane laws instead of pulling them out of our a$$es. Get that done, let things percolate for a while, then see if that's enough to prevent the majority of the crazies.

In my dreams, we come up with a system something like this:
Everyone is allowed to have a basic shotgun without registration or background check. Yeah, people can still manage to shoot themselves and basic stupidity always happens, but I think this answers the basic fear that if all firearms are registered, they can eventually be tracked and taken away when the libs figure out how to repeal the 2nd amendment (big roll of the eyes but I've seen that argument made on the right). That covers home security and subsistence hunting. All other firearms should have increasing levels of fees background checks, required training and regular relicensing, depending on how dangerous the weapon. Special consideration goes to hunters, active duty military, police and similar. To me that's a sane approach. And, yeah, if you are willing to go through psych testing and sufficient training, I'm ok with you owning a tank, so long as you follow local regulations on where you drive and fire it.

[bobbiemcgee]

I'm ok with you owning a tank, so long as you follow local regulations on where you drive and fire it.

Would driving it to the UC game be acceptable? I'm down.

[muskiefan82]

Meh. They may powerful but they aren't coordinated enough to do much damage. Government inertia, red tape, and lack of inter-agency cooperation prevents most of the evils they could do. Until that changes, I'm more afraid of what corporate America does to muck up our lives with the info they are data mining from us all.


The problem does not rest with the visible government - agencies that are seen and known. The FBI, Homeland Security, and CIA are visible and have boundaries that they have to navigate through. There are other agencies and groups within the government that do not have these restrictions placed upon them because of the "national defense" tag that they carry. It won't make much difference to most of us because we aren't involved in business that is relevant to the United States as a whole, but if you decided to run for President or traveled to Syria for holiday, you would find out that they really do know what you did last summer and the one before that and so on.

[kenny powers]

Universal background checks are useless without a national registry. I don't have a problem with making a business do a background check on all gun sales. Without a national registry what good does requiring background checks for private parties do? If the government doesn't know who has the gun to begin with how are they going to know if they sold it and did a background check?

A national registry is a bad idea for multiple reasons. The first is the previously mentioned issue about the possibility the government could decided to take guns away. It sounds crazy but anything is possible. Another example of why not happened in New York recently. A paper published the names of all registered gun owners in a couple counties. Not only did this make gun owners a target, but it also now creates a way for criminals to know who is not armed. Finally, it would be absolutely impossible to have every gun in the U.S. registered. Any gun made before 1968 was not required to have a serial number. How do you register a gun without a serial number?

[boozehound]

Universal background checks are useless without a national registry. I don't have a problem with making a business do a background check on all gun sales. Without a national registry what good does requiring background checks for private parties do? If the government doesn't know who has the gun to begin with how are they going to know if they sold it and did a background check?


A national registry is a bad idea for multiple reasons. The first is the previously mentioned issue about the possibility the government could decided to take guns away. It sounds crazy but anything is possible.

You are right. It does sound crazy. Tin foil helmet crazy. "The U.S. government is responsible for 911" crazy. If the government is going door to door taking people guns then we are already way past f*cked. If one of your 3 chief problems with a gun registry is that we are going to end up in some Orwellian state where the government is taking people's guns away, then it doesn't sound like much of a problem. Throwing out doomsday scenarios and saying 'anything is possible' gives you a lot of leeway, and I doubt you would let the anti-gun crowd get away with something like that.

EDIT: The above sounds really dickish on my part as I re-read this several hours later. I'm just trying to make a point about the likelihood of the government coming to you house to take your guns, not attack you or your intellect, Kenny Powers. Please take this in the spirit in which it was intended (which was to make a point with a hint of 'smartass joke' mixed in).


Another example of why not happened in New York recently. A paper published the names of all registered gun owners in a couple counties. Not only did this make gun owners a target, but it also now creates a way for criminals to know who is not armed.

This is a more reasonable concern, but still doesn't invalidate the entire concept of a registry. I don't know the details of that incident, but the names of registered gun owners would have to be protected. It would be a crime to publish their names, just like medical records.


Finally, it would be absolutely impossible to have every gun in the U.S. registered. Any gun made before 1968 was not required to have a serial number. How do you register a gun without a serial number

This is a valid point, but is easily worked around. If you have a gun made prior to 1968 you still have to register it. If there is no serial number it goes on file with a description of the weapon and a notation that serial number is not required. You can't really track the weapon without a s/n, but what are you going to do?

[Kahns Krazy]

This is a more reasonable concern, but still doesn't invalidate the entire concept of a registry. I don't know the details of that incident, but the names of registered gun owners would have to be protected. It would be a crime to publish their names, just like medical records.
?

And this would be why I would vote against it. The regulations in the medical field are a significant driver of what makes medical care in the United States more expensive than anywhere else. They have a material impact on the projected budget defecits of nearly every level of government, large private enterprise and the ability of poor people to get healthcare. Using the heathcare system as an example of how to regulate an industry is strike one, two and three in my book.

[Smails]

I have no issue with background checks for gun purchases, but I'm not sure what purpose a national registry serves. What right does the government have to know who owns a firearm? And how would a national registry limit gun violence?

[Juice]

I have no issue with background checks for gun purchases, but I'm not sure what purpose a national registry serves. What right does the government have to know who owns a firearm? And how would a national registry limit gun violence?

It wouldn't. Most gun violence involves unregistered guns anyways.

Common criminal, "Oh shit, the gun isn't registered. I probably shouldn't use it in this aggravated robbery I am about to commit. Damn, now my plan is thwarted. Damn you Obama!"

[LadyMuskie]

I have no issue with background checks for gun purchases, but I'm not sure what purpose a national registry serves. What right does the government have to know who owns a firearm? And how would a national registry limit gun violence?


It wouldn't. Most gun violence involves unregistered guns anyways.

Common criminal, "Oh shit, the gun isn't registered. I probably shouldn't use it in this aggravated robbery I am about to commit. Damn, now my plan is thwarted. Damn you Obama!"

Absolutely!

A national gun registry serves only one purpose: to know who has guns. That's it. People are so afraid to admit that not everything and everyone can be controlled that we need to have a gun registry.

A gun registry and stricter background checks would not have prevented Sandy Hook. It would not have prevented the Colorado movie theater shooting.

I'm all for legislating away criminal activity, if it works. Otherwise, we're just making laws for the sake of making laws. It is already illegal to kill someone. Killing them with a gun is against the law. Killing many people with a gun is already against the law. I want real, substantive laws that will actually accomplish something. The guns that were used in these tragedies were purchased legally by people who mentally were/are unstable. Crying for more gun control is easy. Taking a hard look at mental health in this country and what, if any, contributing factors from video games, movies, tv, etc. have played a part.

I don't own a gun. I know many people who do. I don't feel threatened enough in my every day life to carry a gun with me everywhere I go. I've spent time in New York, London, Paris, Rome, Chicago, and elsewhere by myself as a young woman and never felt so afraid that I felt I needed to carry a gun to protect myself. That said, if there are people who feel that way, and they can responsibly own and operate a gun, then that is their right to do so.

Criminals and the criminally insane don't care what the laws are. They didn't when the country was young and they don't now. We need to stop treating only the symptoms, and look at the causes.

[boozehound]

I have no issue with background checks for gun purchases, but I'm not sure what purpose a national registry serves. What right does the government have to know who owns a firearm? And how would a national registry limit gun violence?

What right does the government have to assign me a number at birth for tracking purposes, or to keep a record of where I live and what kind of car I drive?

I think about a gun registry like a vehicle registry. If I buy a car I file paperwork and the VIN gets recorded with my name. If I sell the car, either to a dealer or a private party, I file paperwork transferring ownership. If my car is found abandoned somewhere they will call me up asking where the car is. I can't just say "I don't know, I sold it to some guy". If your gun is used in the commission of a crime then it gives the police somewhere to start investigating.


And this would be why I would vote against it. The regulations in the medical field are a significant driver of what makes medical care in the United States more expensive than anywhere else. They have a material impact on the projected budget defecits of nearly every level of government, large private enterprise and the ability of poor people to get healthcare. Using the heathcare system as an example of how to regulate an industry is strike one, two and three in my book.

My medical industry example was simply regarding privacy laws. Any information about gun owners would be protected and not publishable. I didn't mean we should use the medical industry as a model for how to regulate. The actual execution would be much more like a motor vehicle registry.


It wouldn't. Most gun violence involves unregistered guns anyways.

Common criminal, "Oh shit, the gun isn't registered. I probably shouldn't use it in this aggravated robbery I am about to commit. Damn, now my plan is thwarted. Damn you Obama!"

Exactly. The whole point of background checks coupled with a registry would be to severly limit the access to unregistered guns by preventing people from buying guns at gun shows and through private party sales with no background check.

I guess another option would be to outlaw private sales altogether and have mandatory background checks. Then you wouldn't even need a registry. My main thing is the background checks. I think you should have to get a background check to purchase a gun. That is almost the only limit I would like to see placed on gun ownership. CCW is fine. I don't see the need for assault rifles but if people want them, fine. I'll live with that. If you are a felon, drug addict, spousal abuser, etc. then you shouldn't be able to legally buy a gun in my opinion and we should enact means to limit that activity. That doesn't mean that some people won't obtain guns illegally, but it would have to help.

[blobfan]

A national registry would be critical for gathering data that can be checked against crime statistics so we can pass effective laws to deal with the criminal element. The ability to correlate demographic data as well as type and number of guns own could help track straw-purchasers funneling arms to criminals and may even prevent relatives of the mentally ill from owning an arsenal. As for the registry being used to take our guns away, the story I hear repeated is from Britain. But they were only to do that because they don't have our constitution with the 2nd amendment. It ain't gettin' repealed, folks.

As for guns prior to 1968 without serial numbers, is that really an issue? Anyone with enough respect for a firearm to keep it in working condition for decades is probably not going to go gang-banging or rob the 7-11 or sell it to someone that will. It might be used in a suicide but I think gun restrictions should focus on restricting criminal behavior first then worry about the other issues when statistics are in.

[blobfan]

Would driving it to the UC game be acceptable? I'm down.

A tank? I guess you'd have to petition the city.

Suddenly, a new revenue stream springs to mind...

[Smails]

A national registry would be critical for gathering data that can be checked against crime statistics so we can pass effective laws to deal with the criminal element. The ability to correlate demographic data as well as type and number of guns own could help track straw-purchasers funneling arms to criminals and may even prevent relatives of the mentally ill from owning an arsenal. .

You can't be serious about that. I have a batshit crazy cousin who visits my house several times a year...should I not be allowed to own my firearms?

[boozehound]

You can't be serious about that. I have a batshit crazy cousin who visits my house several times a year...should I not be allowed to own my firearms?

I agree with smails on this one. Excluding relatives of the mentally ill is going way too far, as would be excluding relatives of felons.

[kenny powers]

You are right. It does sound crazy. Tin foil helmet crazy. "The U.S. government is responsible for 911" crazy. If the government is going door to door taking people guns then we are already way past f*cked. If one of your 3 chief problems with a gun registry is that we are going to end up in some Orwellian state where the government is taking people's guns away, then it doesn't sound like much of a problem. Throwing out doomsday scenarios and saying 'anything is possible' gives you a lot of leeway, and I doubt you would let the anti-gun crowd get away with something like that.

EDIT: The above sounds really dickish on my part as I re-read this several hours later. I'm just trying to make a point about the likelihood of the government coming to you house to take your guns, not attack you or your intellect, Kenny Powers. Please take this in the spirit in which it was intended (which was to make a point with a hint of 'smartass joke' mixed in).


I get that point. I am not in the camp that is worried about the government taking guns away. I don't see it ever happening, I just threw that out there because it is one of the common arguments. For me the real problem with a registry is that while it sounds nice in theory, it would be practically impossible to implement due to the number of firearms already out there. Also it would most likely be extremely costly to set up, and we don't exactly have extra money to spend.

[kenny powers]

As for guns prior to 1968 without serial numbers, is that really an issue? Anyone with enough respect for a firearm to keep it in working condition for decades is probably not going to go gang-banging or rob the 7-11 or sell it to someone that will. It might be used in a suicide but I think gun restrictions should focus on restricting criminal behavior first then worry about the other issues when statistics are in.

I agree with you that most of the people who have these older guns are responsible gun owners. But if a criminal really wants a gun it's actually very easy to find older guns for sale that are still in working condition. Also, especially with older guns, there's not much to them and they are very easy to get back into working condition. Usually it's just some surface rust that needs to be cleaned off.

I am in the camp that the best way to combat gun violence is to tackle the reasons behind it, such as mental issues. I think more focus on figuring out why someone does it and working on keeping guns out of the hands of those people is the way to go. The bottom line is you are never going to stop crime, guns or no guns. To fight crime you have to address the root of the problem not the instruments used.

[GuyFawkes38]

I noticed it earlier in this thread. Ross Douthat in this nytimes article also compares guns and alcohol:
http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/26/on-gun-control-and-prohibition/

I, for one, think that guns and alcohol are generally bad things and we'd all be better off if we didn't drink at all or very rarely and there weren't any guns. But forcing this through legal prohibition is wrong and hopeless. Persuasion is the better method.

[PM Thor]

Baby steps. Just pass the freaking background checks, close the gun show loophole and then deal with the NRA and their batshit crazy president later. (This guy called the Civil War the War of Northern Aggression for Chrissakes)

[Xman95]

The purpose of guns is to kill. Knives aren't meant to kill. Beer isn't meant to kill.Cars aren't meant to kill. Killing is a mortal sin, and a gun is an instrument of death. The only reason to have a gun is to hurt someone. This is undeniable (minus the .000001 percent of people that need to hunt game for a living).

So you think that when knives were first invented it was for high society folks to politely cut their food before eating it? Or maybe so they could use them for something else other than killing? I have feeling when knives were first designed it was so their creators could hunt and KILL with them.

By the way, guns can be used to kill. But they are also used for target practice, some people view them as collector's items, etc. In fact, my wife has gone to the shooting range several times. She has yet to shoot anyone. And, when she worked as a probation officer, they weren't trained to use their guns to go out and kill people. They were trained to use them as a means of defense.

Now, can death be the result of a person using a gun? Absolutely. But that doesn't mean guns are bad.

[Xman95]

By the way, how did we let EMP's liberal BS allow us to have 10 pages on this freakin' thread already? His point was idiotic from the start, yet we continue to post about it. And, yes, I realize I'm one of the morons doing so.

[KC4X]

...I, for one, think that guns and alcohol are generally bad things and we'd all be better off if we didn't drink at all or very rarely and there weren't any guns. But forcing this through legal prohibition is wrong and hopeless. Persuasion is the better method.

WHAT?! Everyone is just letting this statement go???!!!

In all seriousness, I do agree to a point; however, I've heard of more than 1 person over 100 years old who has imbibed on a regular basis. I'm going with the opinion that alcohol keeps stress down when imbibed in moderation. :)

[SixFig]

So you think that when knives were first invented it was for high society folks to politely cut their food before eating it? Or maybe so they could use them for something else other than killing? I have feeling when knives were first designed it was so their creators could hunt and KILL with them.

By the way, guns can be used to kill. But they are also used for target practice, some people view them as collector's items, etc. In fact, my wife has gone to the shooting range several times. She has yet to shoot anyone. And, when she worked as a probation officer, they weren't trained to use their guns to go out and kill people. They were trained to use them as a means of defense.

Now, can death be the result of a person using a gun? Absolutely. But that doesn't mean guns are bad.

Knives weren't invented to kill PEOPLE. They now serve a practical purpose in the household (eating). How many people use guns for a practical purpose (hunt food)? .00001 percent? People don't carry around telegraphs or use leeches to heal the sick, do they?

If you want to feel like a man and shoot a gun go to the range. Don't need it in your house or especially out in public.

You all know society evolves right? Society's needs have evolved since 1787. You no longer need a musket to hunt or to protect your frontier town. But by all means continue to imagine yourself like some Davy Crockett. Stats speak for themselves, you are more likely to hurt yourself or others than save something. But let's continue letting anyone buy guns, with many rounds and automatic capability without checking their name or record or restricting age. Can crime be stopped? No. But it can be lowered. Gun related deaths in the US are 8 times higher than in similar countries. Its time to wonder why

[GoMuskies]

But let's continue letting anyone buy guns, with many rounds and automatic capability without checking their name or record or restricting age.

It's settled then.

[Smails]

Is there anything more laughable than someone telling you to 'evolve' and then using that as a means to justify their position? "So you believe in the Constitution and the 2nd ammendment?...you need to evolve" What a lazy, broad-brushed position to have. As if society's evolution is somehow defined by your ideaology. Perhaps we are evolving into a society where private gun ownership is more necessary than ever...no that could never be the case. Who knows? I sure don't, but then again I'm not arrogant enough to think that my opinion on certain subjects represents the proper evolution of society. In the meantime I am going to exercise the rights that are afforded to me.

This whole notion that all gun ownership is some macho dick thing is also lazy as hell. Tell that to my wife, who is potentially the most girly girl I know but knows how to use a firearm and would absolutely be able to protect herself and our children in the event that some assbag tries to break into our home when I was not there (I travel a lot for work). My money would be on her, not the bad guys.

I'd be more open to listening to someone's stance if they didn't think they were speaking on behalf of what they deem to be civilized society and those holding contrary thoughts were troglodytic. And more importantly, please don't lecture me on what I do and don't NEED in my own home...you aren't an authority on the isse and never will be.

Now if you'll excuse me I need to get my coonskin hat and get to a meeting.

[DC Muskie]

I don't have to own a gun to protect myself or my house. But that doesn't mean I don't have the right to own one.

[SixFig]

Could we compromise and allow gun ownership with rubber bullets? If you are being invaded a couple shots with a rubber bullet is enough to allow you to escape. Right?

[blobfan]

You can't be serious about that. I have a batshit crazy cousin who visits my house several times a year...should I not be allowed to own my firearms?
I am serious about having different rules of gun ownership for people in different circumstances such as living with the mentally ill. I concede it isn't fair to a person to say: your husband is bi-polar so you can't own 30 firearms. But it's less unfair than giving a mentally ill person access to an arsenol. And this is purely hypothetical on my part. What I'm trying to say is that proper data collection, including a national registry, may show us ways to correlate gun violence and deaths with other variables so we can monitor that more closely. And by monitor I mean requiring stricter licensing requirements.


Could we compromise and allow gun ownership with rubber bullets? If you are being invaded a couple shots with a rubber bullet is enough to allow you to escape. Right?
That's why I think the smart idea is to compromise on the registry issue by allowing people to have shotguns without a license. I'm not suggesting you can kill someone with a shotgun but you don't hear about it as often as hand guns or assault rifles. And if buckshot is easy and cheap but we monitor/restrict other ammunition, you decrease the likelihood someone would be killed. My research suggests that for the casual owner primarily interested in self defense, a shotgun loaded with buckshot is the best option. You don't have to worry about not aiming properly during a panic situation and if you mistake your daughter's boyfriend for a burglar, you are less likely to kill him but you will stop him from climbing in her window ever again.

[Xman95]

Knives weren't invented to kill PEOPLE. They now serve a practical purpose in the household (eating). How many people use guns for a practical purpose (hunt food)? .00001 percent? People don't carry around telegraphs or use leeches to heal the sick, do they?

If you want to feel like a man and shoot a gun go to the range. Don't need it in your house or especially out in public.

You all know society evolves right? Society's needs have evolved since 1787. You no longer need a musket to hunt or to protect your frontier town. But by all means continue to imagine yourself like some Davy Crockett. Stats speak for themselves, you are more likely to hurt yourself or others than save something. But let's continue letting anyone buy guns, with many rounds and automatic capability without checking their name or record or restricting age. Can crime be stopped? No. But it can be lowered. Gun related deaths in the US are 8 times higher than in similar countries. Its time to wonder why

How many of those guns were obtained legally? I'm guessing the majority of the deaths involve guns obtained illegally. And, guess what, those people are going to get them no matter what.

Of course, let us consider this: assume guns are banned and nobody owns a gun, legally or illegally. Do you know what will happen? Criminals or people looking to harm, intimidate, kill, etc. will turn to other weapons. They'll start using knives more, maybe baseball bats, pipes...hell, maybe Chinese stars. If people are going to do stuff like that, they'll find a way with or without guns.



Its time to wonder why

I actually blame Mick Cronin.

[Xman95]

I don't have to own a gun to protect myself or my house. But that doesn't mean I don't have the right to own one.

You probably also have a wallet that says, "Bad Mother Fucker," on it. But us mere mortals might need assistance from weapons. :biggrin:

[boozehound]

How many of those guns were obtained legally? I'm guessing the majority of the deaths involve guns obtained illegally. And, guess what, those people are going to get them no matter what.

Of course, let us consider this: assume guns are banned and nobody owns a gun, legally or illegally. Do you know what will happen? Criminals or people looking to harm, intimidate, kill, etc. will turn to other weapons. They'll start using knives more, maybe baseball bats, pipes...hell, maybe Chinese stars. If people are going to do stuff like that, they'll find a way with or without guns.




I actually blame Mick Cronin.

I hear this argument a lot. It makes sense if you take it at face value, but I don't buy it. The thing is that killing someone with a gun is much easier than killing someone with a baseball bat, pipe, knife, or Chinese throwing star. Would you rather have to fight someone with a gun, or someone with (pretty much) any other weapon? I would rather fight the guy with the knife or the throwing stars vs. the guy with the gun. I can also run from a guy with a bat of knife a lot easier than a guy with a gun. I would imagine that killing someone in a drive-by shooting is a lot easier than killing them in a drive-by ninja star attack, or even crossbow attack. Violent crime may not decrease if you ban guns, but I'll bet the murder rate would.

England has very few firearms and their murder per capita rate is about 1/3 that of the United States. They also have less poverty and are a significantly different country so it isn't fair to say that the reason for the lower homicide rate is due to fewer guns, but it is an interesting data point.

We have rights here, so we aren't just banning guns, but I have a hard time imagining that the murder rate wouldn't drop if we banned guns.

[DC Muskie]

You probably also have a wallet that says, "Bad Mother Fucker," on it. But us mere mortals might need assistance from weapons. :biggrin:

I have secret ninja skills.

[muskiefan82]

The problem does not rest with the visible government - agencies that are seen and known. The FBI, Homeland Security, and CIA are visible and have boundaries that they have to navigate through. There are other agencies and groups within the government that do not have these restrictions placed upon them because of the "national defense" tag that they carry. It won't make much difference to most of us because we aren't involved in business that is relevant to the United States as a whole, but if you decided to run for President or traveled to Syria for holiday, you would find out that they really do know what you did last summer and the one before that and so on.

I feel the past 2-3 days have verified my position about our government and their intimate knowledge of all of us.

[Kahns Krazy]

I feel the past 2-3 days have verified my position about our government and their intimate knowledge of all of us.

huh?

[bobbiemcgee]

I have feeling when knives were first designed it was so their creators could hunt and KILL with them.
Now, can death be the result of a person using a gun? Absolutely. But that doesn't mean guns are bad.

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

[muskiefan82]

I feel the past 2-3 days have verified my position about our government and their intimate knowledge of all of us.


huh?

Kahns,

have you not been paying attention to the news and all of the personal data gathering and tracking that the government has been doing in the name of national security?