The term “assault rifle” is a misleading term. It is being applied to rifles owned by law abiding civilians simply because they “look” similar to those used by the military.
Military functioning machine guns are already illegal to own (without significant permits, etc.). Socialist democrats know this, which is why they focus on the gun’s appearance instead of how it functions. If you put a “pistol grip” on your daddy’s rifle, they deem it an “assault rifle” and will try to get it banned. It is simply an excuse to take away your gun.
Fear is a great motivator. Using a fear of self-inflicted violence, leaders disarm their subjects. To evoke the maximum fear possible, Obama posed with defenseless children. In every recent poll, gun control rated almost last as an issue of concern to Americans.
By going after a fundamental American right, however, Obama is shifting the public’s attention from more important issues, like the raging debt crisis, out of control spending, and rising unemployment.
The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was not to protect “hunting” rights. It was to protect the average American’s ability to fight an oppressive government or an invading army. So, the next time you see Ms. Feinstein, President Obama, or any other member of our socialist government posing in front of a wall of weapons, remember, they are just trying to scare you. Again, fear is a great motivator.
When coupled with ignorance and apathy, fear can be devastating.
Taun Willis
Gilbert
Rich posted at 12:45 pm on Thu, Jan 31, 2013.
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." H. L. Mencken
Assault rifles are the current hobgoblin, meant to keep us from focusing on such things as the fact the economy shrunk last quarter (so much for 'recovery'), 16 trillion in debt, the price of gas, long term unemployment, food stamp recipients, and mortgage delinquencies have all nearly doubled, while the value of the average single family home has dropped.
Rifles, as a whole account for a little less than 4% of gun violence. It is a silly, rather inconsequential topic for discussion especially when there is so much to be handled. But, apparently we go for imaginary hobgoblins rather than reality.
sockratties posted at 1:19 pm on Thu, Jan 31, 2013.
You're right. I'm scared. I'm afraid more little kids are going to die because of the easy availability of guns and the money that is behind a willingness to sacrifice lives for a few dollars more. The simplicity of the letter explains the blindness of those who are willing to endure daily carnage so they can flaunt symbols of cultural popularity. It has no relationship to the 2nd amendment which is being exploited. It's all about "my Bushmaster AR-15 is badder than your AR-15." It's like having a car that can exceed 150 mph when the speed limit is 65 mph. Where ya' gonna use it? It's about bragging rights, not constitutional rights. Call it a hunting rifle, an assault rifle or a military weapon... What difference does it make?
sockratties posted at 1:19 pm on Thu, Jan 31, 2013.
The author chooses to label those who may disagree with him or her as socialists who are apathetic and ignorant because they are instilling fear by labeling? Most ingenouous. It's the "my way or no way" attitude that got us to the point where students, professionals, politicians, first responders and everyday drivers have to worry about being shot while just going about their daily business. If trying to find a solution is not an acceptable response, we are in a quagmire of hurt.
Mike McClellan posted at 1:30 pm on Thu, Jan 31, 2013.
Ironic that the letter write decries "scare tactics" when the entire letter is one giant scare tactic.
"They're coming for our guns!" is the letter's thesis: "Using a fear of self-inflicted violence, leaders disarm their subjects. To evoke the maximum fear possible, Obama posed with defenseless children."
Mike McClellan posted at 1:30 pm on Thu, Jan 31, 2013.
No one' proposed to "disarm their subjects." Even Diane Feinstein's proposal grandfathers in all existing weapons and ammunition, hardly "disarming" anyone.
Rich -- the "all gun laws are unconstitutional" constitutional expert -- suggests H.L. Mencken's appropriate here.
More like Richard Hoftsader and his "Paranoid Style in American History."
sockratties posted at 1:31 pm on Thu, Jan 31, 2013.
Rich... I agree that the "assualt rifle" and the large clip have become the poster child for the anti-gun lobby. That's too bad just as the NRA's argument that the solution is to arm schools with guards and trained faculty. Both arguments trivialize the firearms issue which is obviously growing.
Having an natiional system that tracks guns and holds the registered owner responsible (much like autos) might help with guns in the hands of criminals and gang-bangers. Right now the government is not allowed to have a data base so once a gun leaves the original owner, either by sale, gift or theft, no one is responsible for it. Imagine the chaos we would have with motor vehicles if owners were not registered and there was no way of deciding who was reponsible when one was used inappropriately or in a crime.
While the politicians are posturing instead of solving the national problems you mention they should also put gun registration (not control) on the table.
truth posted at 2:27 pm on Thu, Jan 31, 2013.
The ranks of the "working poor" are growing even as the recovering echonomy creates more jobs. Nearly a third of working famlies earn less than twice the poverty threshold-that comes to $45,622 for a family of four-and have to struggle to pay for basic needs.
The Washington Post
Almost 75 million young people are unemployed globally, and the U.N. expects another 1/2 million next year. More than the third without jobs today have been without work for more than 6 months, leading many discouraged youths to leave the labor market altogether. The Globe and Mail (Canada)
Almost a third of the nation's workers can't take sick days when they fall ill. While 80% of full-time employees get paid sick days, only 25% of part timers do. CNNMoney.com
As long as corporations can benefit from .50 to $1.50 slave labor these problems will continue.
Accuracy posted at 4:01 pm on Thu, Jan 31, 2013.
sockratties posted....” I agree that the "assualt rifle" and the large clip have become the poster child for the anti-gun lobby.”
While the anti-gun Liberals are exploiting the Dec.14 Sandy Hook massacre for political gain. Totally ignoring the fact that the kind of weapon used at Sandy Hook was pistols that only shoot in a semi-automatic fashion – each time only one round fired when the gunman pulled the trigger.
The military version of the "assualt rifle" weapon has the capability of shooting more than one round with a trigger pull.
Mike McClellan posted at 4:23 pm on Thu, Jan 31, 2013.
Accuracy, I hadn't heard that the only weapon the Sandy Hook shooter used was a pistol.
Where did you get that information?
Conservative commentator Erick Erickson wrote that the shooter DID use the Bushmaster.
Here's what he wrote:
"The fact is, Adam Lanza used a handgun to take his own life, but he relied on the Bushmaster AR-15 to kill most of the victims. He did use that gun. You don’t have to believe me. Believe Connecticut State Police Lt. Paul Vance:
'The primary weapon used in the attack was a “Bushmaster AR-15 assault-type weapon,” said Connecticut State Police Lt. Paul Vance.'"
Here's the link -- http://www.redstate.com/2012/12/27/setting-the-record-straight-adam-lanza-did-use-the-bushmaster-ar-15/
As Erickson points out, he did use the pistol to kill himself.
Dale Whiting posted at 5:35 pm on Thu, Jan 31, 2013.
What is an assault weapon? Do not allow others to confuse the issue. An assault weapon is a rifle designed to be used when assaulting a defensive position and in any other situation where deemed by the military who first developed them to fight in the modern age of soldiers who typically have poor marksmanship skills, especially when under fire. Where the M1 Garand could fire a .306 caliber bullet hundreds of yards accurately, even without scope, the M16 was designed to fire a much smaller bullet in rapid fire with a large magazine, comparatively inaccurately when conditions do not permit expert marksmanship.
The AR15, the M16 and their progeny are assault weapons. No sensible citizen needs any of this sort of weapon to protect themselves in a domestic environment. All legitimate users are in the "well regulated militia" we now call the Armed Forces and Reserve Forces and their assault weapons are locked up tight in safe and secure arms rooms.
I am amazed that one of our commenters claims to use an assault weapon to hunt javelina. That is truly unsportsmanlike. Shame on him.
We can bar all assault weapons, all extended round magazines and not infringe on anyone's second amendment right or common law right to weapons for self defense, for hunting, for target practice, etc. Doing so does not harm any legitimate right. All it does is make it harder for people of questionable motives to kill others en mass. For in our civilian society, an assault weapon truly is a weapon of mass destruction.
Rich posted at 6:23 pm on Thu, Jan 31, 2013.
Most assault weapons are tricked out twenty-twos and if you ban them all that will happen is that the nuts will use higher caliber hand guns and achieve a better body count. This is a nonsensical question, and borders on the ridiculous. Basically it's just a stupid thing to do on any level and the unintended consequences of doing it will be worse than not doing it. It seizes on a tragic incident with an emotional overload to distract everyone from the fact that Obama's economic policy crashed and burned in the last quarter and things aren't getting any better. It's a non-question, a non-issue and what happens with it largely irrelevant. But while we're diddling ourselves over it, we don't have a chance to make anything better, the idiots we elected are working without our oversight. Stop dealing with the imaginary hobgoblins and start dealing in reality.
Rich posted at 7:53 pm on Thu, Jan 31, 2013.
And Dale,
I hunt Javelina every year, and chances of downing one with an assault rifle are slim to none. They are inaccurate at twenty yards, takes a lot of skill and some luck, which is why people use them. With a better rifle they are easy. I use a bow myself. Bagged mine this year. Currently sitting in six gallons on Ernest and Julio's best. For a guy who says he knows guns, you say the most ridiculous things. Ban large clips and assault rifles, when your problem is handguns? Why force people into your problem? At least try to ban handguns, instead of this brain dead strategy that is worse than doing nothing at all.
Mike McClellan posted at 8:08 pm on Thu, Jan 31, 2013.
Ah, the Constitutional expert weighs in again. All gun laws are unconstitutional, says Rich.
Still waiting for you to challenge the unconstitutional laws like no guns in bars that ban them, no guns on the plane.
Those, Judge, are gun laws. Just like the gun laws that Justice Scalia noted were in effect when the Constitution was established. As he points out, the early U.S. had plenty of gun laws that no one challenged, like the one that many towns and cities had, outlawing the "threatening display" of a weapon in public.
As to the assault rifles, you better tell the MCSO that they're wasting our money again . . . Arpaio just bought his deputies 400 semi-automatic "to make sure my deputies aren't out-armed." This after two of his deputies shot (one killed) by assailants using similar weapons.
Rich posted at 8:59 pm on Thu, Jan 31, 2013.
Mike,
The law is NO LAWS. You allowed them to make laws, so we are ruled by criminals. Had the second amendment been observed on airplanes, we'd have two really big buildings still standing in Southern Manhattan, Had they not been negated on school campuses a lot of children wold be alive to have a life. That is the chance your founders gave you. Hey bad things happen. But when you over react and do stupid things, don't expect a great result. And you have no clue as to what an 'assault weapon " is, if you did you'd see how you are being conned and how stupid you're being..
sockratties posted at 12:36 am on Fri, Feb 1, 2013.
The arguments tend to miss the point. Some say the issue is banning guns. Some prefer to claim that a gun is less dangerous when inappropriately called an assault rifle. Others are more interested in the pedantic essence of killing a pig with an arrow.
sockratties posted at 12:36 am on Fri, Feb 1, 2013.
When someone can break out of the mental melee enough to recognize that we have saturated the streets with untraceable machines that shoot bullets into people's bodies and that the carnage needs to stop (in spite of the squabbles over what correct is terminology or who can find the biggest holes in the other's logic) there may be answers from both sides and the middle. All the other arguments is just theater
Mike McClellan posted at 7:21 am on Fri, Feb 1, 2013.
A. You make the assumption that someone would've had a gun on the plane, that the someone would've been able to get the gun out prior to being attacked by the hijackers, and would've either been able to shoot the hijackers or keep them from carrying out their horror. John Wayne lives again, in the fertile imagination of Judge Rich.
B. Meanwhile, here in Phoenix, a John Wayne DID appear at the office shooting a couple of days ago. When the shooting erupted, a few people went into an office and locked the door. One of them was your John Wayne . . . who pulled out a gun to protect himself.
The Duke didn't go after the gunman, an unarmed maintenance worker did. Which led to the police being able to ID the guy better.
Mike McClellan posted at 7:21 am on Fri, Feb 1, 2013.
C. Columbine, in fact, had an armed deputy and security guard on campus when the shooters came. They exchanged fire with one of the shooters and then the two killers did their carnage.
D. Your interpretation of the Second Amendment is shared by you, Judge Rick, and some survivalists holed up in who knows where. Even the NRA agrees to some gun laws -- yikes! They aid and abet the "criminals" making the laws and the jurists like Scalia who believe the Second Amendment is not absolute.
Rich posted at 9:57 am on Fri, Feb 1, 2013.
What does it say? It says NO LAW. That's absolute. So when you have a law, it is the result of criminal activity, no other conclusion is possible. But then we have been governed by criminals for a very long time. "A good politician is quite as unthinkable as an honest burglar." - H. L. Mencken
sockratties posted at 10:38 am on Fri, Feb 1, 2013.
Rich… I think you’re confusing the first amendment “no law” part with the second amendment “shall not be infringed” text.
“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” If restrictions or controls don’t “infringe” then it is not criminal to place them. That’s why we can limit access to hand grenades, rocket launchers and cannons for individual people yet allow them when in the venue of a state’s National Guard (a well regulated militia).
Poorman posted at 11:57 am on Fri, Feb 1, 2013.
Well,well,i have been wondering how long it would be before one of the wizards or so called experts would figure out that assault weapon was a missused term. Probably should call them the bad black rifles or something of the like. that wouldn't go over to well with the media types though.Off the subject a little,but i didn't it mentioned by our media what type of weaponwas used by our latest,shooter here in good ole Phx. Must not have been a big bad assault rifle,not very exciting. probably just an old everyday gun of some type. Have a good day all.
Rich posted at 2:11 pm on Fri, Feb 1, 2013.
"...shall not be infringed..." since a law obviously infringes that's NO LAW, it's just broader, in that a law that does not directly ban would also be included as it infringes. The National Guard isn't a militia, it is a reserve army that cannot be used internally as can a militia. The biggest problem here is that the government has failed to regulate the militia, so as this thread and numerous others have shown rather clearly ignorance about guns runs rampant which wouldn't be the case if the militia were well regulated.
valleynative posted at 2:32 pm on Fri, Feb 1, 2013.
sockratties has posted so many myths and misconceptions that it's difficult to know where to begin.
If you want to save children from being shot, you don't go after rifles. Children are almost never shot with rifles. They're most often shot with handguns that weren't properly secured. That's what you want to change.
The fact that there are so many untraceable guns in circulations (including tens of thousands more in the past month since Obama suggested bans) means that no laws can prevent criminals from obtaining guns. Requiring background checks isn't going to stop a criminal from selling a gun to another criminal. The best hope is to increase the use of gun safes to keep guns from being stolen.
Arizona's militia is not the National Guard. It's you and me, assuming you're a citizen of Arizona between the ages of 18 and 45 (pending legislation will remove the upper limit). Read Article 16 of the Arizona Constitution.
valleynative posted at 2:58 pm on Fri, Feb 1, 2013.
Mike, if more than half of what you know about guns and people who carry them comes from TV dramas and movies, you really shouldn't try to comment in public. You continually embarrass yourself.
When I carry concealed, it's not because I think I'm John Wayne. That's a misconception you've picked up from entertainment media. I don't carry so I can stop mass shootings or bank robberies. I carry so that I can protect myself and people I care about. If this person, on the scene, judged that the best course of action to protect lives was to gather people behind a locked door and guard that door, then who the heck are you to criticize him? I'm sure that if he had shot at the shooter, you'd be outraged that he put more lives at risk with stray shots.
valleynative posted at 5:57 pm on Fri, Feb 1, 2013.
At this point, Congress has little hope of passing any sort of ban. Too many people see it as an inappropriate response to a single event. When the government begins to take away rights in response to isolated events, that government is not serving the people. And yes, shootings involving "assault rifles" are rare, isolated events.
Instead, Congress hopes to pass "universal background checks", because how can anybody be against background checks? Unfortunately, that's not what the law is really about. There simply isn't enough useful data about mental patients (and people who should be mental patients, but are not) to make background checks any help against maniacs.
It's about universally requiring the approval and tracking of all firearms purchases made by honest citizens from honest citizens. It's not clear to me how that's supposed to be much help in preventing maniacs from shooting people, particularly since most such shootings involve weapons the person has owned for several years.
Criminals, of course, are exempt because they'll just continue to steal weapons or buy them from other criminals.
Mike McClellan posted at 6:47 pm on Fri, Feb 1, 2013.
I"M the one perpetrating the John Wayne fantasy? Please.
To quote Wayne LaPierre:
"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun."
And there's the good guy with the gun in Phoenix two days ago . . . and he hides.
But we do agree, valleynative, about the difficulty in stopping loons from mass murders. While some of the recent ones have been on some mental health radars (and should've been flagged, if we had a better system), the guy in Aurora and the Columbine shooters wouldn't have shown up anywhere.
But criminals, valleynative, don't have to steal weapons or buy them from other criminals. They can go to a gun show and buy from a private dealer. Perfectly legally. As can terrorists.
Ateam1 posted at 9:08 pm on Fri, Feb 1, 2013.
Rich: Have you heard of a "RUGER" Mini 14,.223 Caliber semi-automatic rifle with 30 round clip? It Works just fine for me. It's good for varmits,etc,etc,etc. Had it for years and i think it stove piped a round once in 5000 rounds! Very dependable! I also have many other old military rifles that do the trick,but the semi-autos are my favorites! Not a Glitch! The problem is going to be the supply of Ammo. This is another way of controlling guns, but like all things, the people will figure it out.
Rich posted at 7:36 am on Sat, Feb 2, 2013.
Ateam 1, I know what it is basically and it could be an interesting point. It has several variations some of which are 'assault' rifles and some aren't, though they are all basically the same thing, just minor changes in the stock, appearance, and a target version that won't chamber the military round. Shows up the ignorance of the anti-gun group a bit. I don't have guns or keep them, but I did take the time to learn more than TV and the movies. Learned to shoot in the service. Maybe owning a gun shouldn't be mandatory, as it is in Switzerland, but certainly a solid, basic education in them is needed. Without it we get McClellan and the myths of TV and movie writers making our laws.
valleynative posted at 9:24 am on Sat, Feb 2, 2013.
Mike, you're letting your preconceptions cloud your interpretation of facts.
LaPierre's statement doesn't speak to "John Waynism". Saying that the only thing that will stop an armed criminal is somebody else with a gun is NOT saying that those of us who carry do so in order to stop bad guys OR that we have some responsibility to stop the bad guys. Confronting the shooter is only appropriate if it seems to be the best way to save lives, and that's often not the case, as in this instance. Sometimes letting them get away is actually better than trying to stop them. It's the sort of decision they teach you about in training classes.
valleynative posted at 9:25 am on Sat, Feb 2, 2013.
(I had to split this post to get around the moronic spam filter)
Mike:
Now, please try to give the following some thought. It's an important concept in most gun control discussions:
As of today, as you say, criminals can get guns from a private dealer at a gun show, or from a private dealer who offers it in the newspaper, or he can steal one, or he can get one from another criminal. He can even go through a licensed dealer if he hasn't been caught yet, and entered into the NCIC database.
Eliminating two of those sources is like trying to keep burglars out of your house by closing the front and back doors, but leaving the windows open. It might deter a few of the most casual offenders, but that's all.
Before you say that any benefit at all is worth it, I'd like to hear you explain what you perceive to be the costs of implementing "universal background checks", since I know that you have enough common sense to weigh the costs against the benefits of any proposed legislation.
Mike McClellan posted at 10:03 am on Sat, Feb 2, 2013.
On the other hand, valleynative, YOUR option is akin to leaving all the windows and doors open. And then hoping that you with your gun is at the right entrance.
Good luck.
We have many laws that don't deter criminals, so why have laws?
valleynative posted at 10:31 am on Sat, Feb 2, 2013.
Mike, What does it matter if I leave my doors open if the windows beside the door are open anyway? Think about the cost of closing those doors relative to the good it will do. Any legislator who doesn't perform that sort of cost/benefit analysis should be voted out of office.
We have laws primarily to guide the honest citizens and as a mechanism to take the criminals off the streets AFTER the fact. Laws that can't be enforce are particularly foolish. If I sell you a stolen gun and the police recover it after you've used it in a crime and decide to try to trace it back to the seller, they have to start at the manufacturer and ask them to check their records to see who they sold it to. Then they have to try to find that dealer or person and ask them to check their records, and so on. If it's passed through several owners, chances are that they'll hit a dead end, but they might eventually get to the person who may or may not have reported it stolen. Who do they punish for failing to do the background check on you?
valleynative posted at 10:43 am on Sat, Feb 2, 2013.
When I refer to the doors being "closed", I intentionally didn't say "locked", because background checks are more analogous to a closed door than one that's locked.
If you stand near a busy gun counter long enough, you'll eventually hear somebody either on the phone or in person, asking another person which gun it is that they want them to buy. That sort of "straw purchase" is illegal, of course, but it can't be reliably detected by background checks. If the seller realizes what's going on, he may refuse the sale, but the straw buyer will just go down the road and be more careful the next time.
Beyond that, there's the fact that most people who have no business owning a gun are simply not in the database, because nobody has been willing to step up and report them as being dangerous lunatics.
valleynative posted at 11:08 am on Sat, Feb 2, 2013.
At about this point in a discussion, I'm usually either asked what changes I would propose (as if pointing out that we're about to crash into a tree makes it my responsibility to take the wheel), or, more often, somebody puts words in my mouth by saying that I don't think we need to do anything.
Offering a tax incentive for the purchase of firearms safety training and for the purchase of gun safes would go a long way toward preventing accidental deaths and toward keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, without infringing upon anybody's rights or punishing honest citizens.
Considering the huge number of new gun purchases that talk of bans has triggered, without a corresponding flood of gun safe purchases or bookings of training classes, I think this would be the responsible thing to do.
sockratties posted at 12:11 pm on Sat, Feb 2, 2013.
Valley... in addition to the suggestions you made, which should find few objections, how about handling gun ownership much like vehicle ownership along with your proof of safe keeping, trigger guards, and a license showing that you have passed a user’s test. Each firearm should have a title and registration. For example a police department would own a firearm but it could be issued to a cop. The registration stays with the gun and responsibility for its safe and appropriate use belongs to the cop. Since any program and your tax incentives cost money there would have to be a couple of bucks added to the cost of registration for each firearm and a onetime user license fee to pay for it.
Private title and registration would be the same. Guns discovered to be unregistered are confiscated and destroyed. Guns used in a crime or found during routine legal searches and traffic stops would be checked for ownership. If the gun belongs to nobody it is confiscated. If the gun was stolen it is returned to its rightful owner who is fined for not reporting the theft. Guns offered for sale must be sold with clear title, registration and transfer of ownership responsibility. (Same as with cars.) Over time a majority of untraceable firearms would be minimized and possession of an unregistered firearm would become a liability. This is not "banning" or licensing or controlling legal firearms. It is banning and control of illegal firearms. This would not infringe on the right to bear arms, as it puts no restraints on legal possession and use. This idea may need some tweaking, but it’s a start.
valleynative posted at 1:03 pm on Sat, Feb 2, 2013.
I had never had trouble with the spam filter before today. I'm going to try posting portions of my message to see what triggers this poorly configured software:
There was a time when some states required people to pass a simple test before they were allowed to exercise their right to vote. That was ruled unconstitutional. The same principle protects the right to bear arms.
valleynative posted at 1:03 pm on Sat, Feb 2, 2013.
The best we can do legally is to provide incentives to people to take gun safety classes, or to tack the requirement onto something else that isn't protected by the Constitution, such as requiring a firearms safety class in order to graduate from high school or in order to receive a driver license.
valleynative posted at 1:05 pm on Sat, Feb 2, 2013.
As much as I'd like to see that every gun owner has undergone training, it cannot be a requirement. Requiring that the government approve every gun owner and every gun transaction is far too clearly infringing upon the right to keep and bear arms, by placing the ability to exercise that right at the whim of the bureaucrats who design the test or decide which sales transactions to approve. That's not "due-process".
valleynative posted at 1:24 pm on Sat, Feb 2, 2013.
The system just allowed me to read the last few lines of your most recent post, sockratties, and I have to ask how you can say that requiring all firearms to be registered is not registering all legal firearms? You need to think your idea through more. It puts all legal firearms under government control, but absolutely cannot do anything about those that are not registered. The government doesn't even know where they are.
Mike McClellan posted at 3:32 pm on Sat, Feb 2, 2013.
Interesting, valley, in your reasoning. On the one hand, new laws won't do any good because no one will follow them but criminals.
But you believe in tax breaks for gun safes, as if people will be responsible enough to buy them.
Rich posted at 6:49 pm on Sat, Feb 2, 2013.
New laws won't only fail, but have consequences that will be worse than not passing any. Why? Follow this I'll use your stats. Americans own more guns than anyone else in the world. Yes? That's what you said here a whole lot of you. The government addresses this, even though,by law, it is a crime for government to do so (in the minds of the people who own more guns than anyone else in the world, according to you.) What will happen?
The people who own the most guns in the world will trade them privately because the government, according to them, has broken the law regarding them and is not to be trusted in this area. Once that happens, as it did with alcohol during Prohibition, you simply create crime that the public supports, spend tons of money doing something you can't do, and kill people.
The government needs to recognize that every man between 18 and 45 is a militia member, needs to be conversant with guns,needs to understand them and their limitations, and not fall for the John Wayne myth that Mike does. I don't own a gun, I had to learn them to be an effective officer in your armed forces. There are a lot of people like that and the law won't be accepted, except by those who don't know guns. And they can have all of Mike McClellan's naivete on a platter, and they better pray they never are faced with the situation that proves them wrong, because they won't have to prayer if they have to meet it.
valleynative posted at 10:10 pm on Sat, Feb 2, 2013.
Mike, I'm beginning to question why anybody listens to you.
New laws won't work because criminals WON'T follow them. Only the behavior of law-abiding citizens is significantly modified by laws. That's sort of the definition of "law-abiding". I'm not sure why I have to explain that.
Not everybody will take advantage of the tax breaks, but many will. Unlike the case of criminals who aren't stopped by laws, any number of citizens who do take advantage of the tax breaks will decrease the likelihood of accidents and thefts.
sockratties posted at 9:31 am on Sun, Feb 3, 2013.
valley and rich... you both oppose gun laws although your reasons why are different. Unfortunately IMHO it is the unbending opposition to gun control that will lead to banning and/or strick gun control. I will hate to see that because I don't want to give up or have use of or access to my handgun affected. I would have no problem if it were registered in a national data base. In fact I believe that would improve my chances of getting it back if it were ever lost or stolen.
sockratties posted at 9:41 am on Sun, Feb 3, 2013.
valley... when I lived in the midwest you could carry a shot-gun and rifle in the gun rack in your pickup truck, except if it was pheasant season you needed to have a bird hunting license on your person or the shotgun could be confinscated. If it was deer season you had to have a deer hunting license or the rifle could be confinscated. Still, you had a right to bear arms, you just had to follow the law of the land which related to game preservation. Before we decide there is no way solve problems we need to find ways that work. I actually have more faith in law abiding people's ability to succeed than in that of criminals.
sockratties posted at 9:58 am on Sun, Feb 3, 2013.
rich... the prohibition analogy only works to the extent that making anything illegal creates a black market and funds criminal enterprises. assuming that the problem of daily slaughter by gunfire is recognized, there must be a better way of solving it than throwing up our hands and saying people won't follow reasonable laws that make it more difficult for those who would do us harm to obtain and use a firearm. A policy of savoir-faire will not change the trend and the trend is toward more violence. Eventually, if measures aren't taken before it's too late, guns will be banned and we will all have to deal with the consequences of over-reaction.
valleynative posted at 9:59 am on Sun, Feb 3, 2013.
sockratties, If you're allowed to bear arms *provided* you have a special permission slip from the government, then you only have a partial right to bear arms. Another way of saying that is that your right to bear arms has been "infringed".
Some people look to the government to solve their problems, others look to themselves. Rather than register my guns so they can be returned if lost or stolen, I choose to keep them in safes or on my person, rather than leaving them lying around.
sockratties posted at 10:55 am on Sun, Feb 3, 2013.
valley... so you say just give up and let the slaughter continue?
valleynative posted at 11:31 am on Sun, Feb 3, 2013.
sockratties, I anticipated that question and answered it on Saturday at 11:08am. Read that post for what I think we should do.
However, I'll also point out that gun violence has been declining steadily and significantly for the past few decades, and, although this falls into the category of things I really shouldn't have to explain, implementing a policy that hurts honest citizens without having any significant impact on crime is worse than doing nothing at all.
sockratties posted at 12:53 pm on Sun, Feb 3, 2013.
valley... I read your 11:08 post and responded to it in the 12:11 post. Incentives only effect future purchases and as a tax break, none for anyone who uses the standard deduction. It's really doing nothing. I served on a jury a couple of years back where the accused were involved in a robbery. There were two guns found in their car when they were caught a few miles from the crime scene. Although two were convicted of the crime the driver was not. The guns were untraceable but since the guilty were not the owners of the car the guns were not confinscated. They are still out there, waiting to be used. A gun safe tax incentive is not going to get these guns off of the street. A registration law would.
Rich posted at 1:23 pm on Sun, Feb 3, 2013.
sockratties
Either you have stats I don't or you are falling for the Steffens/Riis muckraking the media is currently running. Lincoln Steffens and Jacob Riis tried to scoop each other and reported every crime they could find in NYC. This became a 'crime wave' when, in fact, the crime rate had declined. Theodore Roosevelt, then NYC Police Commissioner ended it by going to the reporters and having them go back to reporting other things along with the crime. Gun violence has been in decline and it is currently. An emotional incident triggered a wave of reporting on gun violence, which apparently you have interpreted as "the trend is toward more violence". When actually the trend is to less, unless the media's over-saturation of it activates some crazies, which is possible.
Rich posted at 1:24 pm on Sun, Feb 3, 2013.
As I said elsewhere, it's an imaginary hobgoblin, being used, in this case, to obscure the fact that the economy went backwards in the last quarter of 2012, the recession isn't recovering, but getting worse, and the government really needs you to be focused on something else.
valleynative posted at 1:36 pm on Sun, Feb 3, 2013.
sockratties, consider this. Pablo, who has no criminal record, buys two handguns, registering according to your proposed law, and immediately "loans" them to his cousins to use in crime. If those cousins are caught holding the guns, Pablo claims they were stolen. Once they're no longer needed as evidence, Pablo gets them back. If the guns are simply found in the car, as in the case you describe, Pablo gets them back immediately, after a stern talking to about leaving them lying around in cars. In the meantime, honest citizens see prices increase to cover the additional paper shuffling and we slip further down the slope towards total gun bans.
Mike McClellan posted at 2:55 pm on Sun, Feb 3, 2013.
valleynative, ever notice that we don't have much in the way of gun research vis a vis how safe gun ownership makes us?
The New York Times today has an interesting editorial on that -- http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/03/opinion/sunday/dangerous-gun-myths.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&_r=0
In the limited research available, here's what a study of gun violence in three cities showed:
"For every instance in which a gun in the home was shot in self-defense, there were seven criminal assaults or homicides, four accidental shootings, and 11 attempted or successful suicides."
Now, Justice Rich will say that's just another cherry-picking of stats.
Yep. Guilty as charged.
And why are there only limited studies like the one I reference above or the others in the Times' editorial?
Because the NRA wants it that way.
Republican Congressmen backed and passed a bill that prevents the Center for Disease Control from doing any research on gun safety/violence.
No funding is allowed for any research by them. In fact, the NRA takes credit for deep-sixing the research.
So why hasn't the NRA funded its own research in how safe owning a gun makes us? If its thesis is true, you'd think they'd be eager to prove it.
Yet they haven't. Wonder why.
valleynative posted at 3:48 pm on Sun, Feb 3, 2013.
Mike, here's a challenge for you. Open your mind and think.
Why do they only count cases in which a gun was shot in a home? What about the homeowner who just points the gun at the burglar? What about the carjacker shot outside the home? What about the fact that burglars admit to preferring homes where they are sure the homeowner is not armed? Doesn't that tell us that having guns in the home prevents crime, even if the homeowner never has to touch it?
That's the sort of blatantly biased study that the NRA opposes, because people who have made up their minds that guns are bad will see them as support without stopping to consider how worthless the study really is.
Google for the longitudinal study performed in New Mexico before and after gun restrictions were relaxed. The study concludes that violent crime against innocent victims decreased as it became more likely that citizens were armed.
What did not decrease (or increase) was criminal-on-criminal shootings or crimes of passion.
Mike McClellan posted at 6:39 pm on Sun, Feb 3, 2013.
I googled but couldn't find it, valley. Could you give me a site for it?
But I did find this site -- http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/interactive/2011/sep/27/gun-crime-map-statistics
And it shows that New Mexico has more per capita gun murders than the average fro the U.S. and gun assaults than the U.S. average. It also has a higher average of murders by gun than the U.S. average.
So what is the study you mention? I'd like to read it.
valleynative posted at 7:21 pm on Sun, Feb 3, 2013.
I'll look for it in the morning, but in the meantime I have to ask if you really don't know that both California and Illinois have higher per-capita murder rates than New Mexico?
Also, the site you provided doesn't show a rate of murders by gun, but rather, of all the murders that do occur in the state, the percentage of them that involved guns.
Mike McClellan posted at 9:20 pm on Sun, Feb 3, 2013.
No, it also shows murder rate by gun per capita:
The national average was 2.75 per 100,000. New Mexico's was 3.53. The robberies involving a gun were 50.24 per 100,000; the nation's was 39.25. And per capita, the murder rate involving guns was lower in both Illinois (2.93) and California (3.25).
valleynative posted at 7:22 am on Mon, Feb 4, 2013.
Sorry, I had meant to type that it doesn't show a "higher" rate of murder by gun, but I was mistaken about that, as well. I was looking only at the map-level detail. Clicking on the state does show that NM is above the average. But again, its rate is much lower than California, Illinois or New York, all of which have very restrictive gun laws, so I'm not sure what point you were trying to make.