I just read this in the April 21 issue of the Economist (Pg. 11):

---

quote:

"In the aftermath of the massacre at Virginia Tech... only two candidates said anything about guns, and that was to support the right to have them.

...disturbed people exist in every society. The difference, as everyone knows but no one in authority was saying this week, is that in America such individuals have easy access to weapons of terrible destructive power. Cho killed his victims with two guns, one of them a Glock 9mm semi-automatic pistol, a rapid-fire weapon that is available only to police in virtually every other country, but which can be legally bought over the counter in thousands of gun-shops in America.

Since the killing of John Kennedy in 1963, more Americans have died by American gunfire than perished on foreign battlefields in the whole of the 20th century. In 2005 more than 400 children were murdered with guns.

...instead of a debate about guns, America is now having a debate about campus security."

---

To see how well gun control has worked in jolly ole England, in Australia and in Canada, check out the following;

England
http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=2205

http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=2000/7/10/203335

Australia
http://www.jpands.org/hacienda/comm8.html

And here is a report from the Fraser Institute in Canada that covers England, Australia, Canada and Wales (The Fraser Institute is an independent Canadian economic and social research and educational organization);

http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/admin/books/files/FailedExperiment.pdf

We don't need any more gun regulation laws. What we need is tough law enforcement and tough judges that will enforce the laws we already have.

I would have no problem with a law that made any crime committed with a gun punishable by death.

Something I didn't know and read in the article from the second link I posted was that the guy that shot James Brady and tried to assassinate President Reagan was out on furlough.

I know it is a cliché', but it is true; When they outlaw guns, only the outlaws will have guns.

Sorry for the rant, but his is one of my very touchy subjects.

Everywhere there is fear, we appear to be also having some lockdown discussions.

I'm sure campus security is important. Wouldn't it have to be at or near the level of airport security to have any solid impact? Not sure I would want to attend that kind of school either...

Gun control, beyond making sure those systems we have today are actually effective, might lead us down a similar road, leaving the baddies with the guns. (they will simply always have them)

IMHO, we need the gun debate. In fact, I think we need it and also need to assume guns will continue to be pervasive by sheer numbers alone, then consider solutions from there.

I grew up with guns around. It was no big deal and NOBODY even thought about using them on others. That's where the debate needs to be. How did we lose that?

As kids we all went shooting, hunted, etc... It seemed there was a time and place for guns, and most of the time was non-gun time and the place was the cabinet or reloading room.

It also seemed like we had plenty to do, or our expectations of things to do were scaled back considerably from what they are now.

I often wonder if it isn't something to do with the media and high concentration population centers. If one is not careful, there is a big potential to experience this big disconnect over what life is and how life "should be" or "can be" as portrayed on TV.

The result being a frustration level over how lame, dull, etc... one's childhood life is and how much they are not getting. I know my own kids and I have struggled with this. Takes an ongoing effort to counter the expectations set nearly everywhere.

One other thing I've noted watching my kids grow up. There are various boundaries --sightlines as Stephen King would put it. These are circles of people and culture that largely ignore those outside of the circle. Gangs are like this. One is either in or out. Don't step into the circle and there are few worries. Of course, with gangs and guns to a degree, those within the circle are often expanding it, trying to rope others in.

IMHO, there are more of these portrayed in the media and just present today than we had before. Maybe we've allowed too many of these kinds of things to fester, for whatever reason, and now it's more difficult to just stay out and do one's own thing.

Anyway, it's essentially futile to call for serious gun control given the numbers of people who won't budge on this issue. Heck, even increasing liability is largely off the table and I think it shouldn't be. If one owns guns, they really should be accountable for how they are used. That sucks, but it comes with owning dangerous things.

Skybill, I just thought of a similar issue with decent parallels to gun control; namely, technology tools. Understanding of technical systems, combined with open computing tools, availability of compiliers, encryption means, methods and theory all threaten most of the systems we now rely on daily.

It's a similar thing in that a growing number of people frown on "hacking" and don't understand the difference between it and "cracking".

If we limit technical understanding then only the baddies and those employed under NDA will have the tools, leaving the rest of us unable to create and leverage the same for our own purposes.

I think the problem is the same, and I think the growing fear surrounding both matters is the same.

So where do we go? I'm just as opposed to locking up technical understanding as you are to guns. So, let's say there is common ground here and discuss options! That's the debate I think should happen.

There are four ways to regulate behavior and essentially address problems in society:

law - criminalize something and place it in the hands of trusted authorities

money - use dollars to influence behavior

social norms - make it not cool, or generally less accepted, or more accepted to do / not do things.

(This is where guns and hacking are impacted right now, big time, but in the wrong ways.)

Physical means and methods - Like if all guns weighed 200 pounds! Locks, doors, etc...

Unless I'm missing one, those are the tools we have handy to work on this stuff. I picked those up from an excellent book, "Code" by Lawerence Lessig. He's a constitutional law professor at Standford, who is exploring cyber rights, copyright, IP, general tech freedom issues. Didn't occur to me, until this thread, that the core elements appear to be in common with the gun issues.

Often people focus on the law because it's really easy. Everybody agrees on a law, it gets written, then we throw non-compliant people into the can right?

The trouble is that these tools are always in force all the time, meaning if they are out of balance, the good done by one tool could be undone by another not doing what it should.

Not to hijack Dan's thread, but I'm very interested in ideas that make the assumption that all but the most potent guns will continue to be generally present. (same for tech)

**Good afternoon Dan. Thanks, as always for running PDXRadio. Good to see you on!

Missing, guns aren't dangerous things per se.

It is how they are used (or abused as the case may be).

Used correctly and safely they are no more dangerous than say a lawn mower.

Used incorrectly and the results can be disastrous (as has been demonstrated many times by some very sick individuals).

Your statement As kids we all went shooting, hunted, etc... It seemed there was a time and place for guns, and most of the time was non-gun time and the place was the cabinet or reloading room. tells me that you were taught gun safety. That's great! Too many adults that own guns and have children don't teach their kids about gun safety.

I've owned guns longer than I've had kids, so there have always been guns in my house with the kids. From the time the kids could understand, they know that the guns were off limits unless I was there with them. I also taught them proper gun handling and safety when we were out shooting.

I very strongly feel that if more kids were taught gun safety, there would be a lot less accidental shootings. That being said, there are a lot of adults that need to be taught gun safety too!

Of course, people that are bent on doing harm and using guns for illegal purposes wouldn't benefit from safety training. Their issues are deeper rooted than that.

Actually Skybill, guns are dangerous things. They can be abused, but they are dangerous. To determine this, apply the drooling two year old test. Would you just let them play with it?

If the answer is no, then that is a dangerous item period. An unloaded gun is far less dangerous, but I was taught guns are always loaded and to act accordingly. I'm sure you were too. Why? Because they are dangerous. Dangerous things need additional care and understanding compared to non-dangerous things right?

If that one idea was firmly implanted in everyone, at an early age, then we might see the social issues somewhat diminished. That's where I think the focus should be. No matter what the law says, the guns will exist. Too many people and too many guns. No worries there.

Most people I know, that say the gun is not the problem, are really are afraid their guns might be restricted, or taken away, etc. This does not change the reality that a gun is dangerous, it just sidelines the discussion. It's more dangerous than a lawn mower. Both can do harm, both can be abused, etc... But the potential for abuse with a gun, which can kill at a distance unlike a lawn mower, is extremely high.

So is a bit of source code laying around too. Or electronics and explosives. Dangerous things, all of them.

I was taught about guns BECAUSE THEY ARE DANGEROUS. I did the same with my kids.

Having said that, I'm ok with dangerous things being in society, but that does demand we do some work does it not? And that's the discussion I thought might be worthy.

Cars are really dangerous too. We spend a lot of time setting expectations, social norms, laws and dollars making sure behavior is solid with cars. Those things are mandatory too. Why not guns?

Another thing to consider. If we continue to experience the decline in overall respect with guns, we will reach a point where knee jerk solutions are then tried. This always happens.

Facing it right now, full on, with the assumption that gun ownership is not in question, what's the downside, other than a greater level of acceptance over the danger inherent in guns themselves?

Great thread Dan! Bill and Missing, you both make good points. Training and safety are everything. I think that the way we grew up and the way kids grow up now is radically different.

We all try to give pop culture a free pass, and in the context of our childhood, it made sense. Children do not go out and play like we once did. They are now left alone in front of video screens almost all of the time.

As I recall, I was not encouraged by Cheap Trick to blow anybody away. However, much of popular music does that now. When John Lennon and Marvin Gaye were shot dead, it was not glamorized or romantic and the fans were not encouraged to purchase a weapon. Can the same be said for the deaths of Tupac and B.I.G.?

The Shining was not a movie for kids. It was not easy for a kid to see. Now, it is simple to be a child and see anything. Could a movie like Hostel sell tickets in the 1970s? I do not think so. Now we have kids watching it over and over obsessively on DVD.

My pals played pong for an hour, it gave us a headache and we went out to play catch. Now kids drink Dew, stay up for three days and do nothing but shoot people in a hyper realistic environment on television. Grand Theft Auto does not hide the skills it promotes, they are all spelled out in the title: "Train to be a criminal in your spare time."

The worst part is that our solution to problems with youth is to dope them up with a whole lot of "doctor approved" drugs. So, instead of having a nice cry when the hormones, homework and acne catches them off-guard, they react with all the passion of a potato. If missing a test means nothing, shooting classmates will mean nothing too.

If we want to live in a safer world, we have to stop making guns so enigmatic. Here kid, this is a gun, is not gun training. A fallen deer or elk, in all of it's majesty and tragedy, clearly shows the difference between life and death to a young mind. These days they don't stick around after they shoot a clerk, so that lesson is lost on the young ones too.

But when it comes to gun *control*, we are talking about laws. An laws are not created for those who will handle guns properly anyway, but for those that handle guns improperly. Sky, I would think that most gun laws are not targeted toward people like you, because your safe gun behavior does not need government intervention. It's the idiots out there that need the laws. Question is: do the idiots need more laws?

Are we talking about just laws?

Remember, control comes from:

law, money, physics, social norms.

So what if we spend money on creative physics, and social norms?

skybill sez: "Used correctly and safely they are no more dangerous than say a lawn mower."

Hmm . . . a three-year-old could shoot his playmate with a gun found hidden in dad's closet, while the same three-year-old would never be able to start a lawn mower, even if kept in his bedroom.

Along with the 2nd Amendment, John Lott's book "More Guns, Less Crime" is the definitive tome that explains why gun rights are so important:

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/493636.html

The police simply cannot be everywhere.

Herb

The boy's in "BLUE" from Portland's past had the right idea:
Don't Choke Em'.....Smoke Em'
If someone break's into your house and break's their leg or if you break it for them with a baseball bat....they can sue you and win!
However that same person if DEAD and with a broken leg would be hard pressed to sue you now wouldn't he?
Just make sure you smoke them inside of the house!

We have plenty of gun laws now, that aren't enforced.

Lets try enforcing all the gun laws, then see if we need any more.

"Lets try enforcing all the gun laws, then see if we need any more."

Let's go even further and see if there are gun laws we should eliminate.

Guys-Part of the problem is that a life sentence doesn't mean a life sentence anymore.

Putting a guy away for 5 or 7 years for killing someone is obscene. I'm all for mitigating circumstances, but bring back the death penalty for those duly convicted of the more heinous crimes.

That, along with more concealed carry permits among law-abiding citizens, will better deter crime.

Herb

I just can't go there on the death penalty. We can't undo that action and we hose up justice all the time. It's bad enough when somebody is locked up for a long time, but at least they can get out and find their life again. Kill them and they are just dead.

The carry permits are no biggie. We do need solid background checks though, and yearly reviews. People change, meaning they need to demonstrate they are still solid when carrying.

All of that is escalation and that's not always good. Besides, for one who plans to die doing something, no punishment is a deterrent is it?

To be fair, that's a different matter than your average gun crime for beer money or meth.

The solutions are more complex than just ramping up enforcement, or crafting new law. I'm very reluctant to deal with law, given we are not applying the other three means of regulation very well right now.

(money, physical, social norms)

I think it's also possible to get things under better control and not mess with the gun ownership rule. Despite my leanings expressed here, I'm actually a gun ownership advocate. Why? Like the founders, I really don't trust my government very much. (I've got solid reasons with this administration too.)

Guns and drugs are two matters where escalation have not demonstrated clear success without serious costs. For any solution mentioned here, there are pockets of success, but there are also a lot of failures.

This suggests to me we need a more holistic approach. That means serious public engagement of the issue with our elected representatives. I'm positive that conversation can happen without having to threaten the gun owners. In fact, I think it must; otherwise, we are not ever gonna get anywhere.

Same with the drugs and tech stuff.

On all three of these issues, we've got extremes tugging at the matter. Gun ownership, no guns -- no drugs period, some drugs permissible -- security through obscurity -- full open tech, etc....

It's gone on for long enough that I'm thinking about trades and balance more than absolutes on these things. So, we all get to keep our guns, but everybody who does, also participates in other programs aimed at shoring up social norms, and investing in physical things that help the problem. They do this with dollars, public service, etc...

We somehow need to get back to where guns can exist among us with the amount of respect they are due. We need better boundaries and awareness of the matter in general. Lots of anti-gun people are looking at something bad that happened, or don't understand the tech, or just fear...

Lots of gun owners do understand the tech, but don't give quarter to those that don't, they fear too. (loss of ownership rights, etc...)

Look at drugs. Same deal. The pro-drug crowd wants to legalize potentially dangerous substances, anti-drug people want it all to just go away, despite legal drugs being sold, etc...

The drugs are tied to the guns through crime too. Ever wonder if the minor league drugs saw greater acceptance if we would not see a drop in gun crime across the board? I do. More people smoking some pot means better junk food sales and that's about it right. Wonder if that would not differentiate the really bad drugs from the good ones with the bad stuff being totally not worth it.

If it's not worth it, then guns would not then be required to support really bad habits.

Think about it this way too. How many people have we got locked up for pot? Tons. The majority of them are just people who got caught, who might otherwise be no big deal right? If we are gonna ramp up on our enforcement, should we not then make sure said enforcement is actually going to serve the greater good?

Lighten up on some things that are not known to be a major issue, that then makes room for those that really do.

All of this ties together, giving people a clear boundary that works to give people room to be who they are, without having to enter that criminal circle where the gun issues currently are escalating. Maybe darwin can clean up for us in 40 years or so!

Escalation of the matter, while not addressing this core fear, will be useless. It always is.

I think it's time to make some trades, with the goal being overall safety and freedom where it makes sense. This can happen, but everybody is gonna have to yield something.

In my opinion, the biggest problem with the criminal system, is that appeals are based on if you got a "fair" trial or not, or was some legal techncality crossed.

You can not appeal based on innocence, The appeals courts should have forensic/investiogators that verify the evidence used, then there wouldn't be doubt as to someoe innocent was being put to death.

I am not a fan of the death penalty. I believe that a life spent in prison is far more deterrent than a few months or years of notoriety and fame, followed by the peace and solace of death. I do not believe in early releases in the case of violent offenders or sexual predators.

If we took the time and examined the psychology of these folks, we might be able to prevent the most dangerous kind of criminals from even developing. By tying together factors like strict religion, crippling poverty or isolation from society, one could approach our crime holistically and realistically.

A school class could be in touch with a murderer, and get a "Scared Straight" sort of speech by videophone. The same kids, over ten years later, could interact with the same fellow while they are in college. Over that time, they could observe the changes in their own lives and freedoms, and could contrast it with a person who can only change themselves, not their surroundings, because they took a life.

To further complicate things, I guess we need to define what a murder or attempted murder actually entails. Since it is the land of Perry Mason and the "gas chamber" plot-point, for the sake of argument, let's examine a few famous cases in Los Angeles over the past decade or so.

Black motorist is stopped for DUI. He is not cooperative, so he is beaten until he stops moving. He is almost killed. The entire episode is captured on video by a concerned citizen. Result? Cops let off the hook for attempted murder by racially biased jury.

Former football star murders ex-wife and ex-wife's friend. A group of eager racist policemen screw up an open and shut case by planting evidence. Result? Acquitted on criminal charges; held accountable on civil charges.

Former television star murders his wife. Using the wiliest lawyers in the known universe, he beats justice at every turn. Result? He is cleared of all charges.

Senile fellow drives out of control through an outdoor market. He kills and injures a lot of people. His age and race are taken into consideration and he is not even convicted of manslaughter. Result? A public slap on the hand that makes old folks everywhere feel entitled to risk our lives for their convenience.

This handful of cases prove this is an imperfect system, easily swayed by public opinion, and not interested in the letter of the law. It is not beyond repair, but justice is not being served much at all anymore. We want more than Judge Wappner, Judge Judy and the Dancing Itos, don't we?

I wonder what sort of "wall of sound" Phil will have during his upcoming proceedings. Any bets he gets off?

nwokie sez: "but bring back the death penalty for those duly convicted of the more heinous crimes"

I believe the tally is 162, the number of criminals freed from death row due to newer DNA results after the trial.

I do, however, support the death penalty to all supporters of the death penalty who are convicted of a crime and sentenced to death. No DNA matching allowed for pro-death penalty supporters before or after the trial. (You can't have it both ways folks!)

And not one of those DNA results proved the person innocent.

Then let's get out the firing squad and blast away!

So, you're in favor of GUILTY until proven innocent?

No, but I dont believe in setting guilty people free, just because evidence that hasnt been properly stored for 20 years, being reviewed by a team who is dedicated to stopping the death penalty says so.

How do you know if they're guilty if the evidence doesn't match?

Because a jury determined them guilty based on a group of evidence.

Herb said>>>>
Putting a guy away for 5 or 7 years for killing someone is obscene.

We agree again!!! Mandatory sentencing period! Make it a law that you get a MINIMUM of 25 years for 1st degree manslaughter. NO getting off for good behavior bullshit either!

I'm all for gun control when I'm the one shooting someone trying to do harm to me or my family. I have EXCELLENT gun control! Try me....

"Because a jury determined them guilty based on a group of evidence."

Group of evidence? All of them? Are you sure?

By the way, not all of them are let out of jail. Some are commuted to life sentences, others plan to work for a retrial.

Besides its eaiser for a jury to send someone away for a life sentence with flimsy evidence than a death sentence.

"Besides it's easier for a jury to send someone away for a life sentence with flimsy evidence than a death sentence."

Exactly Skeptical!

While they are there they can:

A) Have a defense team appeal when they find the evidence that proves they are innocent...

or

B) Rot and rot and rot for the horrific thing they did...

and either way, while not always fair in the short term, justice is served in the long run.

To return to topic, do we all agree that it ought to be at least as difficult to own and operate a gun as it is to own and operate a motorized vehicle? Do we hold gun owners to the standards of everyday drivers, or do we require a bit more like CDL holders, private pilots or airline captains?

Should every gun accident be investigated as thoroughly as a highway crash? Should a gun owner carry mandatory liability insurance? Should he be as responsible for crimes with his weapon as he would be if he loaned his car and it was involved in a moving violation, an injury, a death or a criminal act?

Should random field sobriety tests be performed on hunters? Would most average hunters blow below the limit for driving an automobile?

Do we check to insure that this person is physically and mentally able to handle the weapon yearly? Every decade? When someone is dead?

Is it smart to offer weapons freely to green card holders? Or non-native citizens? Or the legally blind? Or folks on prescription drugs?

How young is too young for a gun? Potty trained young? Driver's permit young? How old is too old for a gun? Steady cane old? Blind and demented old?

Do we encourage mass media to continue to produce shows like the good ol' A-Team where clips are emptied and everyone is fine? Are violent video games a good use of the rare and splendid days of youth?

I guess the problem with guns is that they raise more questions than they answer. I think there are solid reasons for gun ownership in general terms, but I believe that there are equally solid reasons for assuring responsible ownership in specific terms.

To return to topic, do we all agree that it ought to be at least as difficult to own and operate a gun as it is to own and operate a motorized vehicle? To purchase a gun (from a retail establishment) the purchaser must supply a plethora of personal information and there is a FBI background check run (for which the buyer is charged about $10-$15). If you can pass a written test and a driving test you get a license, even if you are a convicted felon. A felon cannot own a firearm, in fact if found with one there are severe penalties.

Do we hold gun owners to the standards of everyday drivers, or do we require a bit more like CDL holders, private pilots or airline captains? As mentioned above, the standards are already above obtaining a drivers license. Although training is not required as it is for a private pilot, CDL and airline captains. However the program for airline pilots to carry guns on aircraft they are piloting is an intense training course.

Should every gun accident be investigated as thoroughly as a highway crash? I would bet that they already are investigated at least as thoroughly if not more so.

Should a gun owner carry mandatory liability insurance? No

Should he be as responsible for crimes with his weapon as he would be if he loaned his car and it was involved in a moving violation or criminal act? If I leant you (generic term) my car and you were driving it and got a speeding ticket, there would be no repercussions back to me the car owner. If you committed a felony with the car (and I was not any part of it) other than probably having my car impounded, again there would be no repercussions to me. I'd probably be asked a lot of questions to assure I knew nothing about it

Should random field sobriety tests be performed on hunters? Would most average hunters blow below the limit for driving an automobile? I would have absolutely NO problem with this. Guns and alcohol DO NOT mix

Do we check to insure that this person is physically and mentally able to handle the weapon yearly? Every decade? When someone is dead? The physical part is fairly simple to deal with and is for the most part self dealing depending on the disability. The mental issue is harder. There was a piece on 60 Minutes last night dealing with this exact subject. One of the major issues is that the health care industry will not share mental health records with the FBI database. They actually had a guy from some mental health organization that said "Mentally Handicapped people should not be prohibited from owning guns because it infringed on their rights. Even the NRA disagrees with that.

Is it smart to offer weapons freely to green card holders? Or non-native citizens? Or the legally blind? Or folks on prescription drugs?
Right now in Washington, aliens (no, not the kind from outer space) cannot get a CWL. This is taken from the WA DOL site “Special alert for alien firearms license applicants
We are unable to issue alien firearms licenses at this time. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has told law enforcement agencies it is against federal law to use federal databases for background checks if the agencies share the results with a non-criminal justice agency such as the Department of Licensing. This means law enforcement agencies cannot perform the background checks required by state law for issuing an alien firearms license. Without these background checks, we cannot complete the application process or issue alien firearms licenses." While a blind person could probably buy a gun, I seriously doubt any would (my opinion, no facts to support)

How young is too young for a gun? Potty trained young? Driver's permit young? How old is too old for a gun? Steady cane old? Blind and demented old? You can't legally purchase a long gun if you are under 18 and a hand gun if you are under 21. Currently there is no upper age limit. Should there be an upper age limit to drive? Do we just take away someone's drivers license when they reach a certain age?

Do we encourage mass media to continue to produce shows like the A-Team where clips are emptied and everyone is fine? Are violent video games a good use of the rare and splendid days of youth? This is where parenting comes into play. As previously mentioned gun safety should be taught to children when they are old enough to understand. I think it should be taught in school in maybe 6th or 7th grade. It should be taught on some level to all kids even if there are no guns in their household. You never know when a child will come across a gun. If they know how to handle it safely, or better yet DON'T handle it and know to call an adult there would be a lot less firearm accidents

Handled properly guns are not dangerous. It is the person behind the gun that either makes it dangerous or not. A gun, on its own, has never caused any harm. The same goes for automobiles, motorcycles, bicycles, airplanes, boats etc. Even something like the old lawn darts, Jarts, when used properly they were a fun game. If someone was downrange, and they were thrown, it was dangerous as all get out!

I guess the problem with guns is that they raise more questions than they answer. I think there are solid reasons for gun ownership, but I believe that there are equally solid reasons for assuring responsible ownership in specific terms. The vast majority of law abiding gun owners are responsible. As with anything there are always a few bad apples that give the others a bad name. Criminals don’t care about the law and will always have illegal guns and access to them.

"The vast majority of law abiding gun owners are responsible. As with anything there are always a few bad apples that give the others a bad name."

Sort of like hydrogen bomb owners. When its a good time to kill, bomb's away. I get it now.

Seriously, what can a gun do that a rifle can't do (other than the surprise factor of "bang, you're dead!")?

"I guess the problem with guns is that they raise more questions than they answer."

I say the reverse is true: The problem with taking away our 2nd Amendment rights is that it raises more questions than it answers.

A woman should have every option available to equalize her situation with a rapist or murderer. Even a small calibre handgun gives her the edge to survive.

Gun-banners live in a fantasy world where they think the police can always prevent crime. Our fine police simply cannot be everywhere. We need to take back the streets, and we can by having more licensed concealed carry permit holders walking around.

Dirty Harry was right.

Herb

"Gun-banners live in a fantasy world where they think the police can always prevent crime."

That is just total crap, HerrB.

You don't see anyone trying to rob any doughnut stores now do ya! That is crime prevention right? Probably one of the safest occupations there is.....expect for getting your arm caught in the dough hooks!

Typical factless murky rebuttal, MrsMurk. Are you attending the Trixter school of debating?

Herb

I think if everybody is walking around packing, or if a significant fraction of us are, then the kinds of crime that will occur will just change.

Some crimes will diminish, but others will rise.

If there are people lacking the means to get through their lives, then we will have crime period. That does suggest a more aggressive policy aimed at helping those of lesser means out, does it not? A happier people means far less incentive to go shooting does it not? Just a coupla thoughts along those lines.

When our policy does not reflect the peoples natural leanings, they tend to act out. The more disconnect, the more acting out.

Let's have a thought exercise.

A quick rethink of the incident, factoring in guns being carried, means some shooting still happens. Maybe less people are killed, but people are still killed and the shooter is still likely dead. Maybe the shooter is good and takes out a couple of those with guns. Maybe he isn't and gets shot quick. Maybe he gets distracted, disarmed, with the hero accidentally shot... The ratio of different scenarios to known good scenarios that could play out here is not good, where preventing deaths is concerned.

If one is planning death, there are few, if any deterrents to their actions. It's also very difficult to guard against their success without making the rest of our lives miserable.

Did we get anywhere on the shooter with a more aggressive carry policy?

I'm not sure that's the case, which brings me back around to looking at the problem in a different way.

Assume people own guns, don't mess with that aspect of things, but for maybe plugging some obvious holes in the buying and selling of them legally. If owning a gun is an accepted thing, and those owners are known and accountable for their ownership, I don't see it as being a big deal. Sorry guys, but who has guns is important in that accoutability is also important.

(yeah I saw Red Dawn too)

This implies that we are gonna have to live with the occasional shooter going nuts. Think about it. Gun ownership means people are gonna be able to get guns. Non-gun ownership does not deny those bad people their guns, just the good ones right? So, the shooter is gonna be able to get a gun, unless they are just really stupid.

Where do we go from here to do the most good?

"Gun-banners live in a fantasy world where they think the police can always prevent crime"

Just answering YOUR "typical factless murky" opinion, Herr B. Kettle. Duh!

Gotta go, it's time for Baby Merk's "show & tell" on how to "lock & load".

Ponder this scenario:

Every student on a college campus is allowed to carry a concealed weapon and the security guards are also well armed.

One student goes crazy and starts shooting. Other student pull out their guns and start firing. In the confusion, most do not know who started firing first, so they start shooting anyone else who is shooting.

Security guards arrive first and start shooting at anyone who is shooting.

Police finally arrive and start shooting at everyone.

In the confusion, the original shooter gets away (most of the students were never trained how to shoot; they were just allowed to be armed), leaving behind

1,000 dead students, 35 dead security officers and two dead police officers.

To lighten up this thread:

This is a true. Recorded in the Police Log of Sarasota, Florida.)

An elderly lady did her shopping and, upon returning to her car, found four males in the act of leaving with her vehicle. She dropped her shopping bags and drew her handgun, proceeding to scream at the top of her lungs:

-I have a gun, and I know how to use it! Get out of the car!


The four men didn't wait for a second threat. They got out and ran like mad.

The lady, somewhat shaken, then proceeded to load her shopping bags into the car and got into the driver's seat. She was so shaken that she could not get her key into the ignition. She tried and tried, and then she realized why, .. it was for the same reason she had wondered why there was a football, a Frisbee and two 12 packs of beer in the front seat.

A few minutes later, she found her own car parked four or five spaces farther down.

She drove to the police station to report her mistake. The sergeant to whom she told the story couldn't stop laughing.

He pointed to the other end of the counter, where four pale men were reporting a car jacking by a mad elderly woman described as white, less than five feet tall, glasses, curly white hair, and carrying a large handgun.

No charges were filed.

Moral of the story?

If you're going to have a "Senior Moment", make it memorable...

Of course, if the four men had been armed, some kid would be missing his grandma now

Well I tried. Now back to my cave.

Great story, but......

http://www.snopes.com/crime/justice/grannies.asp


Assume people own guns, don't mess with that aspect of things, but for maybe plugging some obvious holes in the buying and selling of them legally. If owning a gun is an accepted thing, and those owners are known and accountable for their ownership, I don't see it as being a big deal. Sorry guys, but who has guns is important in that accoutability is also important.

Wrong! Registration is just the first step to confiscation. This has been proved over and over again.

I again cite Canada and their failed registration scheme. The police can come in your house without a warrant and search for and confiscate your guns.

Australia and England are other countries that have registrations. Google searches have tons of information on this.

Registration is a bad thing. If there was a database of gun owners and somehow it was made public, essentially what you have is a list of people for the criminals to go after.

The best thing that can be done is to strictly enforce the existing laws we have.

"The best thing that can be done is to strictly enforce the existing laws we have."

Bravo, Skybill, that is the most common sense thing I have seen on this site.

Sheesh Skybill. Talk about paranoid. I hear this refrain often, "Individual liberty is eroding". "Gotta suit up for survivalist camp". "They're coming to get us". Blah, blah, blah, blah...

In how many countries has big brother rushed in to confiscate all the guns? It just ain't gonna happen. Especially in this gun crazy big ol' U-S of A. Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition!

Registration is exactly what we need to keep loonies away from guns.

"Registration is a bad thing. If there was a database of gun owners and somehow it was made public, essentially what you have is a list of people for the criminals to go after."

Uhhh...I"m confused. I thought gun ownership was supposed to be a deterrent to crime ("you never know who might have one") Why would the criminals go *after* gun owners? They should want to stay away from them...right?

Well.....they iz not like the most smarterest people now iz they!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcE106AMOWA

If you've ever been to a gun swap and seen some of those trailer park losers . . , ahem, folks, buying guns and other sorts of arsenal, YOU, TOO, would want to arm yourselves to protect your families (from THEM!!!!).

Have a nice day and and take care not to shoot anybody but yourself and other gun owners!

PS: before you blast me, I support the right to bear arms -- as long as they're at least 18 inches long. Handguns are for crooks.

>>>"I support the right to bear arms"

And I support the right to arm bears.

"Registration is exactly what we need to keep loonies away from guns."

Erm, if the "loonies" want to get a hold of a gun and commit a crime, no registration law in the world is going to prevent them from getting it black-market. Look at violent crime statistics in the UK, they are in some areas higher than ours now and the Brits have VERY strict gun control laws. The idea of gun registration is noble, but once the government starts down that slippery slope, it gets icky, and innocent people lose because they cannot protect themselves from those with guns who are above the law.

"PS: before you blast me, I support the right to bear arms -- as long as they're at least 18 inches long. Handguns are for crooks."

I'd rather have a 9 mm at my bedside in case someone breaks into my house than my 12 gauge shotgun ... it's hard to conceal a hunting rifle, no?

I live in a state where concealed weapons were recently legalized. Now, you're seeing signs on the front door of businesses saying "no guns inside". I think we're returning to the wild west days.

Returning to the discussion at hand, we just aren't going to have gun control in any effective manner in this country. There are just too many guns in existence. Any form of registration is a joke. You can't control crazies or criminals with registration. Slow it down once in awhile, but it can't be controlled.

I'm don't like guns of any sort, long or short, but I also don't like government control, especially when it would only be window dressing to feed to the voters, not anything effective.

Edselehr, If there was a database and it was made public the criminals would know who does NOT have a gun, by process of elimination, and target (no pun intended!) those folks.

"Gun-banners live in a fantasy world where they think the police can always prevent crime."

That is just total crap, HerrB.

The police can't be everywhere all the time. That's why the crime rate is as high as it is. They do the best they can, and it is pretty good, but anytime we can help protect ourselves we are better off.

Dalehughes said" In how many countries has big brother rushed in to confiscate all the guns? It just ain't gonna happen. Especially in this gun crazy big ol' U-S of A. Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition!

Registration is exactly what we need to keep loonies away from guns.

Dale, do a Google search for "Gun Confiscation" you'll see that it happened right here in as you put it the big ol' U-S of A in New Orleans right after Katrina. Some of those LAW ABIDING citizens are still trying to get their guns back.

The UN is so anti private citizen gun ownership, it is not funny. (Just one more reason to send that money sucking pinko organization to some place other than the US, but that's fodder for a whole different thread).

As I mentioned above, the best thing that can be done is to enforce the gun laws that are already on the books.

Skeptical, I was at the last gun show/swap meet a couple of weeks ago at the Expo Center.

Unless you are a private citizen selling a gun there (I would guess that 80%+ of the tables there were dealers) a person purchasing a gun there, either a handgun or a long arm, you have to fill out the paperwork and have a background check done the same as if you walked into Sportsman’s Warehouse or any other retail establishment to purchase a gun.

Private gun sales don't have to go through the background check and paperwork whether it is at a gun show or in someone's home or out of the trunk of a car in a dark alley!

I too would rather have my handgun beside my bed than a shotgun. Although there is something to be said for the sound of racking a 12 Ga pump shotgun. I know if I was some place I shouldn't be and I heard that sound, I'm outa there!!

"...do a Google search for "Gun Confiscation" you'll see that it happened right here in as you put it the big ol' U-S of A in New Orleans right after Katrina."

What you won't find without asking is that two kinds of folks shot guns. They fired:

A) To get the attention of rescuers

B) At rescuers

The Air Force rescue units patched bullet holes in their helicopters, so if some firearms were confiscated, it was with just cause.

Yeah, and remember the GOP was the party that CONFISCATED your GUNS.

For all the hammering done to Democrats on this issue, I find it very interesting the GOP TAKING GUNS FROM LAW ABIDING CITIZENS GETS NO PLAY AT ALL.

All legal gun sales should be subject to checks period. I don't care if it's at a show, dealer to dealer, whatever. If a gun ownership is transferred, the full set of checks needs to happen. That's private, dealer, corporate, whatever. If you own a gun, and want to be on record as no longer owning it, the transfer of ownership needs to be done with the checks period.

Yes that means we will know a lot more about who has what guns, but that's just tough. The greater number of known gun owners we have, the greater number of total firearms that have serious incentive for their owners to be accountable for them. Owning a gun is a serious deal. Moving them around is a serious deal.

Aggragating them is extremely serious.

Failing in these checks undermines that serious nature and is an issue.

All part of really enforcing the laws we have right?

I'm not equating serious with bad. I don't care that some of us have a lot of guns, given they are solid citizens and patriots, that's a win win for all of us. More power to 'em.

But that comes with responsibility and that's what the checks and registrations are for. Without them, we are selling ourselves short.

Again, THE GOP TOOK THE GUNS.

Tell you what. I'll trade the more aggressive checks and registration for more aggressive law detailing what can and cannot be done to gun owners, up to and including confiscation.

Which I thought was wrong in Katrina. And the GOP DID IT.

re: 18 inch rule.

I rather know who is carrying guns legally and who are crooks. Anyone brandishing a gun in public would clearly be a crook and if eventually shot by the police and/or someone with an 18 incher, they wouldn't have much of a defense.

I know of the gun registration rule at gun show, buts its not a comfortable feeling looking at certain people who are considering buying them. I know its judging a book by its cover, but this time, I believe I'm fairly correct.

In the case of bear hunting, I think its okay to arm bears too.

Missing, I'm surprised. Your posts are usually very accurate and well researched. However, the last one missed the excellence mark.

It wasn't the GOP that ordered the gun confiscation, it was Mayor Ray Nagin. He is a Democrat.

Here is a quote from Reason Magazine; (I added the bold) In the nearly two weeks since Hurricane Katrina, the government of New Orleans has devolved from its traditional status as an elective kleptocracy into something far more dangerous: an anarcho-tyranny that refuses to protect the public from criminals while preventing people from protecting themselves. At the orders of New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin, the New Orleans Police, the National Guard, the Oklahoma National Guard, and U.S. Marshals have begun breaking into homes at gunpoint, confiscating their lawfully-owned firearms, and evicting the residents. "No one is allowed to be armed. We're going to take all the guns," says P. Edwin Compass III, the superintendent of police.

Here is a link with an interesting video; http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2007/03/356689.shtml

And it was a Republican who sponsored the ammendment to a domestic spending bill to ban gun confiscation during an emergency, although both parties pretty well supported it. It passed 84-16.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0714-06.htm

I'd like to know who the 16 that voted no are. I'd bet lunch at McDonalds that our two bimbettes from WA voted no.

Skybill, you're destroying Missings anti GOP rhetoric. I'm sorry to see him going off the deep end like this. No longer does it need to be factual, it just needs to be something negative he can say about Bush or the GOP. I'm sorry to see a mind get so messed up and a person get so lost.

Skybill: "Edselehr, If there was a database and it was made public the criminals would know who does NOT have a gun, by process of elimination, and target (no pun intended!) those folks."

Will the security systems, pit bulls, electric fences, etc. also be registered? A gun is not the only way to stop crime. And if you response is "the criminal will just shoot the pit bull" then your vision of the state of society is truly a bleak one. I don't believe that every criminal has murderous intent. They usually just want to steal and leave, undetected.

Hey, I'm not a fan of martial law. I like the idea that as a country we have the right to defend ourselves. I am happy that our region was civilized enough to take things in stride when St. Helens blew her top. I am also happy that thousands of troops and policemen did not put our cities and towns under lock down. Rifles were left over doors. People had disappeared in lahars, not white vans.

We must recognize the difference between the times. The GOP is not the same party it was in 1980. Our rumbling mountain was a domestic crisis for a Democrat, but it could have been a new and fairly elected populist Republican a year later, and by and large, they both would have passed with flying colors. Katrina response was slow as mollases, then hastily spun in the media and cashed in by the financial backers of an entrenched crony-filled soft-dictatorship.

Gun rights are a very important issue, and I support enforcement of existing laws, without a great deal more legislation. However, I do not believe for a moment that registration should differ one iota from an automobile. You must produce the bill of sale and the weapon. Guns are meant to kill, and they do. Cars are not meant to kill, but they do, and must be registered.

Well! I cannot find the link to the (bad) information I had. Searched the usual places, dead, dead, dead...

So,

http://www.reason.com/news/show/32966.html

IMHO this stands as a solid accounting of what happened. It was wrong, etc... but it was not the GOP. Fair is fair.

(The bastards have done plenty, no reason to add to what is already quite solid.)

Deane, I hold the GOP more or less directly responsible for our diminished civil liberties, global standing (squandered 9/11 good will), etc...

They were in complete control, their show, their responsibility. In a nut shell, they failed to govern in a solid way, nearly across the board.

Actions have consequenses, as do elections it seems.

I am only interested in solid advocacy toward this end. It's ugly enough to not require any significant efforts beyond that.

My error.

Nobody should have disarmed the Katrina victims, unless they were seen abusing their firearms period.

Het Little....Guns don't kill....people do! A gun is an inanimate object when posessed by the wrong person can itself be used to take a life or cause injury. I beleive in gun rights to those the law allows and also in registration of same and like you NO MORE gun laws....just enforce the ones on the books already!

Skybill: "I'd like to know who the 16 that voted no are."

Here you go: Daniel Akaka, Barbara Boxer, Hillary Clinton, Christopher Dodd, Dick Durbin, Dianne Feinstein, Tom Harkin, Daniel Inouye, Edward Kennedy, Frank Lautenberg, Carl Levin, Robert Menéndez, Barbara Mikulski, Jack Reed, Paul Sarbanes, Chuck Schumer.

Thanks Magic!

One important note for gun owners. The current leader in the Republican race seems to be a mayor from a city with permanently suspended second amendment gun ownership rights. He is used to having the biggest guns in town at his disposal. He does not support the Constitution that we cherish, and lip service or not, he will not support your right to bear arms. Count on it.

Forget the guns, I'm gettin' me one of these:

Taser (Only a guy would do this!)

A guy who purchased his lovely wife a pocket Taser for their anniversary submitted this:

Last weekend at Larry's Pistol & Pawn Shop I was looking for a little something extra for my wife Toni. What I came across was a 100,000-volt pocket/purse-sized taser. The effects of the taser were supposed to be short lived, with no long-term adverse affect on an assailant. The idea is to allow my wife -- who would never consider a gun --adequate time to retreat to safety. WAY TOO COOL!!

Long story short, I bought the device and brought it home. I loaded in two triple-a batteries and pushed the button. Nothing!
I was disappointed. But then I read (yes, 'read') that if I pushed the button AND pressed it against a metal surface at the same time; I'd get the blue arch of electricity darting back and forth between the prongs and I'd know it was working.
Awesome!!! (Actually, I have yet to explain to Toni what that burn spot is on the face of her microwave).

Okay, so I was home alone with this new toy, thinking to myself that it couldn't be all that bad with only two triple-a batteries, right?!!
There I sat in my recliner, my cat Gracie looking on intently (trusting little soul) while I was reading the directions and thinking that I really needed to try this thing out on a flesh and blood moving target. I must admit I thought about zapping Gracie (for a fraction of a second) and thought better of it. She is such a sweet cat.

But, if I was going to give this thing to my wife to protect herself against a mugger, I did want some assurance that it would work as advertised. Am I wrong?

So, there I sat in a pair of shorts and a tank top with my reading glasses perched delicately on the bridge of my nose, directions in one hand, and taser in another. The directions said that a one-second burst would shock and disorient your assailant; a two-second burst was supposed to cause muscle spasms and a major loss of bodily control; a three-second burst would purportedly make your assailant flop on the ground like a fish out of water. Any burst longer than three seconds would be wasting the batteries.

So, I'm sitting there alone, Gracie looking on with her head cocked to one side as to say, "don't do it," reasoning that a one-second burst from such a tiny little ole thing couldn't hurt all that bad.

I decided to give myself a one-second burst just for the heck of it.

I touched the prongs to my naked thigh, pushed the button, and HOLY MOTHER OF GOD, WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION @!@$$!%!@*!!! I'm pretty sure Jessie Ventura ran in through the side door, picked me up in the recliner, and body slammed us both on the carpet, over and over and over again. I vaguely recall waking up on my side in the fetal position, with tears in my eyes, body soaking wet, both nipples on fire, testicles nowhere to be found, with my left arm tucked under my body in the oddest position, and tingling in my legs.

You should know, if you ever feel compelled to "mug" yourself with a taser, that there is no such thing as a one-second burst when you zap yourself. You will not let go of that thing until it is dislodged from your hand by a violent thrashing about on the floor. SON-OF-A-... that hurt like hell!!! A minute or so later (I can't be sure, as time was a relative thing at that point), I collected what little wits I had left, sat up and surveyed the landscape.

My bent reading glasses were on the mantel of the fireplace. How did they up get there??? My triceps, right thigh and both nipples were still twitching. My face felt like it had been shot up with Novocain, and my bottom lip weighed 88 lbs. I'm still looking for my testicles!! I'm offering a significant reward for their safe return.


Still in shock,



Earl

LMAO.....The next little get together could be fun if Wayne show's up....AY Merkin!!!!

That's pretty funny!

What a dork! I guess one really has to know though. Does it really do any good?

At least he didn't nail the pet!