Here's a shocker; more guns, less crime AGAIN

[Bill Mattocks]

I do not understand how gun control advocates can continue to believe that limiting the access of law-abiding citizens to guns is a bad thing. It is counter-intuitive, but more importantly, it's completely disproven; not once but over and over again.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/09/30/media-silence-is-deafening-about-important-gun-news/

Media Silence Is Deafening About Important Gun News
By John Lott
Published September 30, 2011
...
Newly released data for Chicago shows that, as in Washington, murder and gun crime rates didn't rise after the bans were eliminated -- they plummeted. They have fallen much more than the national crime rate.

Not surprisingly, the national media have been completely silent about this news.
...
But these aren’t isolated examples. Around the world, whenever guns are banned, murder rates rise.

Gun control advocates explained the huge increases in murder and violent crime rates Chicago and Washington by saying that those bans weren’t fair tests unless the entire country adopted a ban.

Yet, even island nations, such as Ireland and the U.K. -- with no neighbors to blame -- have seen increases in murder rates. The same horror stories about blood in the streets have surrounded the debate over concealed handguns.

 

[Empty Hands]

I would be careful quoting John Lott. He may have faked some of his data (claimed it was lost in a crash, but also can't name any students who worked on it) and admitted to sock-puppeting in support of his own work. Not the height of credibility.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I would be careful quoting John Lott. He may have faked some of his data (claimed it was lost in a crash, but also can't name any students who worked on it) and admitted to sock-puppeting in support of his own work. Not the height of credibility.

I'm OK with Lott. He's been in the cross-hairs (pun intended) of the anti-gun crowd for a long time, and they really haven't found much more than innuendo and rumor. And the self-aggrandizement, as you pointed out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lott#Controversy

But I'd be a lot more interested in seeing some numbers disputing Lott's conclusions. One would think that any anti-gun person with a problem with Lott would dig the number out themselves and publish a rebuttal. I will wait to see if this takes place. More important than what kind of person Lott is, is whether or not the conclusion is accurate.

Seriously; if one has a problem with the numbers, I'm really interested in that. If one has a problem with Lott, I'm less-interested unless one has a specific reason to believe that THESE numbers are wrong.

It's like saying you don't believe the weather forecast because you heard the weather forecaster doesn't like puppies.

 

[MA-Caver]

Gun control advocates explained the huge increases in murder and violent crime rates Chicago and Washington by saying that those bans weren’t fair tests unless the entire country adopted a ban.

A few days ago I saw someone on FB (or was it here?) posted a quote allegedly from Isoroku Yamamoto something to the effect of: “You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass.”
Which is very true. But either way the gun control advocates will continue to harp on how getting rid of guns will make the crime go down. Sigh.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

A few days ago I saw someone on FB (or was it here?) posted a quote allegedly from Isoroku Yamamoto something to the effect of: “You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass.”
Which is very true. But either way the gun control advocates will continue to harp on how getting rid of guns will make the crime go down. Sigh.

It seems it may be a misquote:

http://factcheck.org/2009/05/misquoting-yamamoto/

I support the right of anyone to not wish to own a gun. I even support their right (though not their goal) of not wanting anyone to own a gun. If they believe that fewer guns in the hands of private citizens are safer than more guns in the hands of citizens, I disagree.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

[h=3]The Myth that Gun Control is Good By Bob Hubbard[/h]

 

[Steve]

"Gun Control" means many things to many people.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2016349848_issaquah29m.html

Here was a guy who was clearly off his meds and unstable. He's in the police station with a gun in his possession, talking about communing with the devil and ready to do something big. He's in the police station with a gun in his waistband.

They talk him into surrendering his weapon and then they let him go. He has other registered weapons. But... nah... no big deal. He ignores the "mental health referral" (a photocopied list of local mental health agencies). And...

Ficker... abandoned his rental car in the middle of the city's main drag and walked along a wooded trail to the school. He fired at least one gunshot in the woods, but detectives have not confirmed reports that he fired at people, Strachan said.

Ficker, who was armed with two rifles and had 952 rounds of ammunition in his pockets when he was killed, lay prone in a drainage ditch behind the school as he fired 11 times at the Issaquah officers, who had taken cover more than 100 yards away, Strachan said. Four of the five officers, armed with AR-15 rifles, fired a total of 90 rounds, striking Ficker five times, he said.

That he legally owned these firearms is, to me, evidence that we need to at least look at our system.

I'm all for opening up responsible ownership of just about anything. But you don't sell guns to people who are crazy. And if crazy people already own guns, it just makes sense to me to take them away. Seems like common sense to me.

To sum up, I think that if you're law-abiding and sane and you want a fully automatic whatever to kill hay bails, targets or animals you intend to eat, go for it. Have fun. Knock yourself out. I think that if you're law-abiding and sane, and you want an assault rifle or a sawed off shotgun with which to defend your home, great.

But gun control, to me, is about control. It's about stopping what senseless deaths we can. In the article I linked to above, the guy was killed. Had we disarmed him, he probably would not be. Thank goodness, no one else was harmed.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

"Gun Control" means many things to many people.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2016349848_issaquah29m.html

Here was a guy who was clearly off his meds and unstable. He's in the police station with a gun in his possession, talking about communing with the devil and ready to do something big. He's in the police station with a gun in his waistband.

They talk him into surrendering his weapon and then they let him go. He has other registered weapons. But... nah... no big deal. He ignores the "mental health referral" (a photocopied list of local mental health agencies). And... That he legally owned these firearms is, to me, evidence that we need to at least look at our system.

I'm all for opening up responsible ownership of just about anything. But you don't sell guns to people who are crazy. And if crazy people already own guns, it just makes sense to me to take them away. Seems like common sense to me.

To sum up, I think that if you're law-abiding and sane and you want a fully automatic whatever to kill hay bails, targets or animals you intend to eat, go for it. Have fun. Knock yourself out. I think that if you're law-abiding and sane, and you want an assault rifle or a sawed off shotgun with which to defend your home, great.

But gun control, to me, is about control. It's about stopping what senseless deaths we can. In the article I linked to above, the guy was killed. Had we disarmed him, he probably would not be. Thank goodness, no one else was harmed.

I hear you. In the case of criminals, we do what we can with the FBI Instant Background checks. However, that only really works for felons and those convicted of misdemeanor crimes such as domestic violence and under restraining orders and such. The criminal databases don't really track other things which are already restrictions on the lawful ownership of guns; for example, drug use or mental health issues. When the buyer fills out the form, they swear under penalty of perjury that they don't have such issues; but background checks are unlike to discover such things, especially when they haven't been arrested or diagnosed with such issues.

With the issues you mentioned, you've got two problems. The first is undiagnosed mental illness, such as that which occurs after a person buys their guns legally and the second is that there is no national database of guns for the police to refer to.

It would appear from your link that:

"He'd done nothing against the law" and did not meet the state's criteria to be placed on a mental-health hold, Strachan said.

Mental health holds are tricky. As I'm sure you know, one way that oppressive regimes deal with people they don't like is to declare them insane and lock them up. As a result, we're not too keen on locking people up as crazy, even temporarily, unless they meet certain criteria. And just being nuts isn't enough. The police have to hear the person make a specific threat against their own lives or the lives of others. FYI, the assisted-suicide and 'right to die' people also object to mental health holds for those who are merely suicidal, so there's that also.

The second issue, the fact that there is no gun registry, is more problematic. As you probably know, most gun owners in the USA will resist to their dying breath a national gun registry. We simply do not believe that gun registries do not lead to eventual confiscation, and there is some proof that this is indeed the case. We (and I include myself in that number) frankly don't care if the government swears on a stack of bibles that they will never, never, never use a registry for confiscation purposes; we fully believe they are lying. And when the go back on their promise later, the response will be just like you hear from the Obama supporters now "So what? All politicians lie." Right; they all lie. So we will not agree to a gun registration list. Not now, not ever.

It comes down to a compromise between the safety of the public and the rights of individuals. We in the USA tend to set the bar fairly high with regard to mental health holds, and we don't go in for gun registries, period. That doesn't leave much room to have stopped this nutter before the tragedy, unfortunately.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Oh, and FYI...according to the US government, if you are a user of medical marijuana, you have to turn in any privately-owned firearms. You no longer have the Constitutional right to own them:

http://www.denverpost.com/news/marijuana/ci_19026921

ATF say medical-marijuana patients are prohibited from owning guns
By John Ingold
The Denver Post
Posted: 10/03/2011 01:00:00 AM MDT
Updated: 10/03/2011 06:41:48 AM MDT

Brian Vicente, one of the state's most prominent medical-marijuana proponents, calls it a "travesty."

Tony Fabian, one of the state's foremost gun-rights activists, says it's evidence of "hostility."

What has forged this quirky convergence of advocacy — tokers, meet shooters — is a September letter from the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives saying it is illegal for medical-marijuana patients to own firearms.

Everybody who buys a gun must fill out ATF Form 4473, which asks: "Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?"

Answer yes, and you don't get the gun. Falsely answer no, and you've just committed a crime.

 

[Steve]

I hear you. In the case of criminals, we do what we can with the FBI Instant Background checks. However, that only really works for felons and those convicted of misdemeanor crimes such as domestic violence and under restraining orders and such. The criminal databases don't really track other things which are already restrictions on the lawful ownership of guns; for example, drug use or mental health issues. When the buyer fills out the form, they swear under penalty of perjury that they don't have such issues; but background checks are unlike to discover such things, especially when they haven't been arrested or diagnosed with such issues.

With the issues you mentioned, you've got two problems. The first is undiagnosed mental illness, such as that which occurs after a person buys their guns legally and the second is that there is no national database of guns for the police to refer to.

It would appear from your link that:

Mental health holds are tricky. As I'm sure you know, one way that oppressive regimes deal with people they don't like is to declare them insane and lock them up. As a result, we're not too keen on locking people up as crazy, even temporarily, unless they meet certain criteria. And just being nuts isn't enough. The police have to hear the person make a specific threat against their own lives or the lives of others. FYI, the assisted-suicide and 'right to die' people also object to mental health holds for those who are merely suicidal, so there's that also.

The second issue, the fact that there is no gun registry, is more problematic. As you probably know, most gun owners in the USA will resist to their dying breath a national gun registry. We simply do not believe that gun registries do not lead to eventual confiscation, and there is some proof that this is indeed the case. We (and I include myself in that number) frankly don't care if the government swears on a stack of bibles that they will never, never, never use a registry for confiscation purposes; we fully believe they are lying. And when the go back on their promise later, the response will be just like you hear from the Obama supporters now "So what? All politicians lie." Right; they all lie. So we will not agree to a gun registration list. Not now, not ever.

It comes down to a compromise between the safety of the public and the rights of individuals. We in the USA tend to set the bar fairly high with regard to mental health holds, and we don't go in for gun registries, period. That doesn't leave much room to have stopped this nutter before the tragedy, unfortunately.

Bill, thank you for the post. I understand entirely what you're saying, and we simply disagree, I think. I'd like to see a national gun registry. I've said before, that I'd also like to see mandatory liability insurance for gun owners, as well. This is unrelated to gun crime. It's also not about restricting access to weapons for most people.

In fact, I'd like to see things open up more, as far as banned weapons goes.

But this is avoidable stuff. And the rules surrounding confiscation of weapons in cases where people are potentially off their rocker would be a matter of legislation. That we are reluctant to involuntarily commit people for observation is unrelated to whether we should confiscate a person's weapons if they brandish them in a police station and mention communing with the devil. In other words, the laws would be what we make them.

I don't know what the answer is, frankly, and there may be several reasonable, effective solutions. I do believe, though, that we have many avoidable gun related injuries and deaths in our country, the article I linked to being one.

 

[Steve]

Oh, and FYI...according to the US government, if you are a user of medical marijuana, you have to turn in any privately-owned firearms. You no longer have the Constitutional right to own them:

http://www.denverpost.com/news/marijuana/ci_19026921

LOL... yeah, but you can take Oxycontin without a hitch. Isn't our country great?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I'd like to see a national gun registry.

For me, no. That's a deal-breaker, there.

I've said before, that I'd also like to see mandatory liability insurance for gun owners, as well. This is unrelated to gun crime. It's also not about restricting access to weapons for most people.

I see that as potentially denying firearm ownership to the very group that needs it most - the poor who live in high-crime areas. First, they may not be able to afford this 'insurance' and second, in high-crime areas, one would presume such insurance would cost more (as does liability insurance on autos in areas where crime is high).

In fact, I'd like to see things open up more, as far as banned weapons goes.

I am against bans for most things, but now that the assault weapon ban is gone, I'm pretty much OK.

But this is avoidable stuff. And the rules surrounding confiscation of weapons in cases where people are potentially off their rocker would be a matter of legislation. That we are reluctant to involuntarily commit people for observation is unrelated to whether we should confiscate a person's weapons if they brandish them in a police station and mention communing with the devil. In other words, the laws would be what we make them.

I just see a potential downside. I don't trust such power in the hands of the executive branch, to come into my home and collect up my guns because some cop decides I 'brandished' in his presence. And if he wasn't, say, the best of people and didn't like the way I talked to him and decided to 'fix' me? No gulag for me, please. No automatic confiscation of weapons on the word of a cop on the street.

And sadly, a lot of people commune with the devil; and Jesus, and angels; and President George Washington. Some are crazy, some are religious (and I hope there's a difference) and some are just being funny. Drop a net on all of them, just to be sure?

It's not like I want dangerous armed nutters wandering around loose. I just fear the other side of the spectrum more. What happens when you go to the doctor for a physical and tell him that you sometimes have disturbing dreams involving guns and when you get home you find your house trashed by the police, your guns gone, and a nice straitjacket waiting for you because your doctor dropped a dime? And when you rant about Obama on a discussion forum and make some veiled, stupid, statement that doesn't threaten, but makes people feel uncomfortable with you? Yeah, I take it to the extreme; because such unfettered power can end up there. Sorry, I'm a Philip K. Dick kind of futurist at times.

I don't know what the answer is, frankly, and there may be several reasonable, effective solutions. I do believe, though, that we have many avoidable gun related injuries and deaths in our country, the article I linked to being one.

I hate to say it, but I don't know what should have been done in that case. The police followed the law. And even if they had dropped a net on him for being wacky without a license that night he wandered into the police station, they had no way of knowing he owned other guns, and even if they somehow had known, they would have had no authority to break into his house and take them.

I'm sorry, I don't want to live in your world. Even to be safer from nutcases with guns.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

LOL... yeah, but you can take Oxycontin without a hitch. Isn't our country great?

I'm torn between my desire to see the law evenly applied and citizens not being unfairly restricted from owning guns and my dislike of dope-smokers. "Medical marijuana," my dying buttocks. Here in Michigan, I can drive past the 'license factories' that have huge signs out front, they look like monster head shops and brag "DOCTOR ON SITE!" and "INSTANT ID CARD ISSUED!" In other words, stop in, tell the doctor you have pain, pay them, get your card, smoke some dope. Yeah. Medical. I was born at night, but not last night.

 

[Touch Of Death]

I'm torn between my desire to see the law evenly applied and citizens not being unfairly restricted from owning guns and my dislike of dope-smokers. "Medical marijuana," my dying buttocks. Here in Michigan, I can drive past the 'license factories' that have huge signs out front, they look like monster head shops and brag "DOCTOR ON SITE!" and "INSTANT ID CARD ISSUED!" In other words, stop in, tell the doctor you have pain, pay them, get your card, smoke some dope. Yeah. Medical. I was born at night, but not last night.

I get you have an issue with marijuana, but I used to call Bingo, and became very aware that a lot of the old ladies were selling each other pain meds like you wouldn't believe. The thing that bothers me is that nobody cares, in fact you probably got bored and stopped reading this by now. I just don't see marijuana as the problem; its the pain med thing. That is a problem, and you wanna bust a few pot heads. LOL
Sean

 

[Steve]

I'm sorry, I don't want to live in your world. Even to be safer from nutcases with guns.

Tell you what. We agree that legalizing pot is a good thing and I'll agree that.....

On second thought. I think we'll just have to accept that we'll never see eye to eye on these two issues.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Tell you what. We agree that legalizing pot is a good thing and I'll agree that.....

On second thought. I think we'll just have to accept that we'll never see eye to eye on these two issues.

NO! WE MUST :jediduel:

 

[Twin Fist]

it all begins with registration

you register, then they know where to find you to come and take them away from you.

"shall not be infringed"

it is pretty clear

 

[Sukerkin]

I, not being American, can only directly relate the experience of British gun owners on this matter of registration and licencing.

Pistol shooters abided by and self-policed a fairly rigorous regime of registration, licensing and storage for their weapons. This regime started 'soft' and gradually got more and more rigorous with each criminal act that was performed with a handgun. Can you hear the "until" hanging in the air there? I know you know what it is but I'll say it anyhow, until the government came along and more or less made it illegal outright for an honest member of the public to own and use a handgun.

They're going down the same road with regard to the swords that I use in my martial art.

BillM is right on the money with his objections because, as sure as night follows day, it will lead to confiscation of weapons out of the hands of private citizens. But not, as all of us are honest enough with ourselves to admit, out of the hands of criminals.

 

[Monroe]

We have plenty of guns in Canada, but in my experience they're mostly hunting rifles. You legally have to keep guns locked away and bullets stored separately. There are permits for concealed carry, but the police never actually give out the permits. You can get a permit to carry an unconcealed weapon if you live somewhere that has a bear or polar bear problem in the middle of nowhere. Polar bears are freaking vicious, doubt a shot gun is going to do you much good with dealing with that.

Looking at the average person driving a car around here, I don't want to see more of them owning anything beyond hunting rifles. The best way to put it I guess is I don't trust my neighbours to be responsible gun owners.

 

[Sukerkin]

Building that climate of trust and responsibility is a very important part of widespread weapon ownership, I do concur.

Over here in Blighty, when I was young, the situation with regard to gun ownership was somewhat like I imagine it is like in some of the less restrictive states in America. Nearly everyone I knew had a rifle or a shotgun (or hunting power air-rifles or crossbows) and we seemed to get by just fine without using them on each other. We were taught that they were not toys or extensions of our 'manhood', nor were they to be used to threaten people with or pointed at anything that you weren't about to shoot.

Where did that 'common sense' environment go? Did the people change as a result of all the violence on TV? I happen to think that the media does have a case to answer in some regards when it comes to misuse of firearms. It's also worth remembering that when I was growing up a lot of the fathers who were teaching us boys how to behave had either served in WWII or their fathers had i.e. they had first or second hand experience of the use of weapons against people and I think that that had a most salutary effect on the lessons they passed on.