Innocents Betrayed -- The True Story of Gun Control

[Oldguy]

That's what the irrational gun haters are doing.

Have any of you figured out yet that criminals don't obey they law, thus everyone one of your ideas disarms ONLY law-abiding people?

Or do you really believe that criminals will obey the law if you pass just one more?

Most of us don't obey the speed limit laws either. Is that a good reason to just not have any or never change it?

So...you DON'T have a way to make criminals obey the law.

Do you have any problem with disarming only law-abiding citizens?

I do.

Of course you can't make criminals obey the law. That's not the law's intent. Crime prevention is an oxymoron and no law can prevent a determined criminal. But, you CAN punish them for breaking it.

Yes, I do have a problem with disarming law-abiding citizens. However, nobody but the very looney left is suggesting that and it's not gonna happen anyhow. Constitutionally since Heller, it CAN'T happen.

On the flip side, I don't have a problem with making it more difficult to purchase a firearm or, for that matter, registering the ones I have. Nor do I have a problem with prohibiting certain types of firearms. For instance, I don't want my nutty neighbor down the street owning a Ma Duece or an RPG. Do you?

If it means inconveniencing myself to make guns more difficult for criminals to obtain, and greatly increasing the punishment when they do, I'm not necessarily opposed to that for the greater good. It would depend upon the specific proposal, of course, but in general I have few objections.

What about you? Why, or why not?

 

[daveman]

Most of us don't obey the speed limit laws either. Is that a good reason to just not have any or never change it?

So...you DON'T have a way to make criminals obey the law.

Do you have any problem with disarming only law-abiding citizens?

I do.

Of course you can't make criminals obey the law. That's not the law's intent. Crime prevention is an oxymoron and no law can prevent a determined criminal. But, you CAN punish them for breaking it.

And you should. But when people blame society or video games or "gun culture", they're not interested in punishing the criminal. They're interested only in their agenda.

Yes, I do have a problem with disarming law-abiding citizens. However, nobody but the very looney left is suggesting that and it's not gonna happen anyhow. Constitutionally since Heller, it CAN'T happen.

Yeah, people didn't think the Constitution would allow the government to make you buy health insurance, either. How'd that turn out?

On the flip side, I don't have a problem with making it more difficult to purchase a firearm or, for that matter, registering the ones I have. Nor do I have a problem with prohibiting certain types of firearms. For instance, I don't want my nutty neighbor down the street owning a Ma Duece or an RPG. Do you?

How do you know your neighbor is nutty? Do you have a diagnosis from a professional, or do you just not like the political signs he put in his yard last fall?

My point is again, people are driven by agenda, not necessarily reality.

If it means inconveniencing myself to make guns more difficult for criminals to obtain, and greatly increasing the punishment when they do, I'm not necessarily opposed to that for the greater good. It would depend upon the specific proposal, of course, but in general I have few objections.

You said it yourself: Criminals don't obey the law and aren't deterred by the law. So you're only inconveniencing law-abiding citizens. The results aren't worth the effort -- you're just making it harder for good people to defend themselves against scum.

I have no problem with increasing punishments for crimes committed with weapons the perp isn't legally allowed to possess.

What about you? Why, or why not?

Any questions?

 

[Oldguy]

And you should. But when people blame society or video games or "gun culture", they're not interested in punishing the criminal. They're interested only in their agenda.

And, when the other side denies that the ready availability of firearms has SOMETHING to do with our violent crime rate, they too reveal their agenda, no?

Yeah, people didn't think the Constitution would allow the government to make you buy health insurance, either. How'd that turn out?

It turned out to be mostly Constitutional. In the case of guns, however, the individual right to keep and bear arms is a settled issue UNLESS the Court wishes to once again take it up. That's not impossible, of course, but it's unlikely.

Even so, I abide by the Constitution, even if I don't like it. I don't reserve for myself the right to interpret it any how I want nor to rebel against it when I'm unhappy about something.

How do you know your neighbor is nutty? Do you have a diagnosis from a professional, or do you just not like the political signs he put in his yard last fall?

I know him personally and I don't trust him.

By the way, why WOULD I define my neighbor by the political signs in his yard? Unlike a lot of people around here, I don't consider those on the other side of the aisle as my enemies.

My point is again, people are driven by agenda, not necessarily reality.

I don't have an agenda. What drives me?

You said it yourself: Criminals don't obey the law and aren't deterred by the law.

I didn't say criminals aren't deterred by the law. I said the law cannot prevent crime. That's not the same thing. In the case of speed limits, for instance, that sign can't keep you from speeding, but the threat of punishment can and does to some degree.

So you're only inconveniencing law-abiding citizens.

There are many laws which inconvenience the law-abiding citizen. In fact, I suppose they all do. It's the cost of living in a society ruled by law rather than passion.

The results aren't worth the effort

That's a value judgment on which we'll have to disagree.

you're just making it harder for good people to defend themselves against scum.

How many times does that actually happen? In 63 years, I've never yet had to shoot somebody in self defense. Have you?

Let me ask you this: If you see a crime in progress, even in your own yard, do you come out guns ablaze, or do you call the cops?

I have no problem with increasing punishments for crimes committed with weapons the perp isn't legally allowed to possess.

But, you do have a problem with expanding the list of weapons they cannot have, or expanding the list of those who cannot have one? In spite of the fact that it would make it easier to prosecute them and give them more chances to break the law?

 

[daveman]

And you should. But when people blame society or video games or "gun culture", they're not interested in punishing the criminal. They're interested only in their agenda.

And, when the other side denies that the ready availability of firearms has SOMETHING to do with our violent crime rate, they too reveal their agenda, no?

The availability of guns has nothing to do with the crime rate.

http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/6.1/gun_facts_6_1_screen.pdf

Myth: The availability of guns causes crime
Fact: Though the number of firearms owned by private citizens has been increasing steadily since 1970, the overall rate of homicides and suicides has not risen.169 As the chart shows, there is no correlation between the availability of firearms and the rates of homicide and suicide in America.
Fact: Internationally speaking “There’s no clear relationship between more guns and higher levels of violence.”170
Fact: “... a detailed study of the major surveys completed in the past 20 years or more provides no evidence of any relationship between the total number of legally held firearms in society and the rate of armed crime. Nor is there a relationship between the severity of controls imposed in various countries or the mass of bureaucracy involved with many control systems with the apparent ease of access to firearms by criminals and terrorists.”171
Handguns, Homicides and Suicides
Fact: Handgun ownership among groups normally associated with higher violent crime (young males, blacks, low income, inner city, etc.) is at or below national averages.172
Fact: The most significant correlation between the use of guns in the commission of crimes occur when parents (27.5% of inmates) abuse drugs or have friends engaged in illegal activities (32.5% with robberies and 24.3% for drug trafficking).173
Fact: Five out of six gun-possessing felons obtained handguns from the secondary market and by theft, and “[the] criminal handgun market is overwhelmingly dominated by informal transactions and theft as mechanisms of supply.”174
Fact: The majority of handguns in the possession of criminals are stolen, and not necessarily by the criminals in question.175 In fact, over 100,000 firearms are stolen in burglaries every year, and most of them likely enter the criminal market (i.e., sold or traded to criminals).176
Fact: In 1968, the U.K. passed laws that reduced the number of licensed firearm owners, and thus reduced firearm availability. U.K. homicide rates have steadily risen since then.177 Ironically, firearm use in crimes has doubled in the decade after the U.K. banned handguns.178
Fact: Most violent crime is caused by a small minority of repeat offenders. One California study found that 3.8% of a group of males born in 1956 were responsible for 55.5% of all serious felonies.179 75-80% of murder arrestees have prior arrests for a violent (including non-fatal) felony or burglary. On average they have about four felony arrests and one felony conviction. Homicide in England and Wales024681012141618 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1955 1960 1965 19701975 1980 1985 1990 1995 1997 1998 1999 2000Homicides per 1,000,000 Population1968Source: A Century of Change: Trends in UK Statistics since 1900 & International comparisons of criminal justice statistics 2000
Fact: Half of all murders are committed by people on “conditional release” (i.e., parole or probation).180 81% of all homicide defendants had an arrest record; 67% had a felony arrest record; 70% had a conviction record; and 54% had a felony conviction.181
Fact: Per capita firearm ownership rates have risen steadily since 1959 while crime rates have gone up and down depending on economics, drug trafficking innovations, and “get tough” legislation.182
Thoughts: Criminals are not motivated by guns. They are motivated by opportunity. Attempts to reduce public access to firearms provide criminals more points of opportunity. It is little wonder that high-crime cities also tend to be those with the most restrictive gun control laws – which criminals tend to ignore.​

Yeah, people didn't think the Constitution would allow the government to make you buy health insurance, either. How'd that turn out?

It turned out to be mostly Constitutional. In the case of guns, however, the individual right to keep and bear arms is a settled issue UNLESS the Court wishes to once again take it up. That's not impossible, of course, but it's unlikely.

The Court would have to be heavily stacked with liberals. If that happens, you might as well flush the Constitution down the toilet.

Even so, I abide by the Constitution, even if I don't like it. I don't reserve for myself the right to interpret it any how I want nor to rebel against it when I'm unhappy about something.

I know him personally and I don't trust him.

Okay. But that's not enough of a reason to deny him his rights, is it?

By the way, why WOULD I define my neighbor by the political signs in his yard? Unlike a lot of people around here, I don't consider those on the other side of the aisle as my enemies.




I don't have an agenda. What drives me?

I was speaking generally.

I didn't say criminals aren't deterred by the law. I said the law cannot prevent crime. That's not the same thing. In the case of speed limits, for instance, that sign can't keep you from speeding, but the threat of punishment can and does to some degree.

Not enough to put a dent in PDs' ticket revenue.

There are many laws which inconvenience the law-abiding citizen. In fact, I suppose they all do. It's the cost of living in a society ruled by law rather than passion.

Agreed. But laws aimed at reducing crime but don't actually do anything about it need to be scrapped, don't they?

That's a value judgment on which we'll have to disagree.

Okay.

you're just making it harder for good people to defend themselves against scum.

How many times does that actually happen? In 63 years, I've never yet had to shoot somebody in self defense. Have you?

Nope, never, praise God.

But some studies estimate there are as many as 2.5 million defensive gun uses each year. Some are just the intended victim showing his weapon and the perp backing off; some the intended victim shoots and kills his attacker.

That's 2.5 million people who weren't victimized by criminals. That's a good thing.

Let me ask you this: If you see a crime in progress, even in your own yard, do you come out guns ablaze, or do you call the cops?

It would depend on the crime, wouldn't it? If I felt my or my family's safety were at risk, yes, deadly force would be called for. If it was some kid TPing my yard, I prolly wouldn't even bother calling the cops. Yelling at him would be sufficient to get him to haul ass.

I have no problem with increasing punishments for crimes committed with weapons the perp isn't legally allowed to possess.

But, you do have a problem with expanding the list of weapons they cannot have, or expanding the list of those who cannot have one? In spite of the fact that it would make it easier to prosecute them and give them more chances to break the law?

It depends on the criteria, of course. Would I disallow felons convicted of violent crimes from ever owning a firearm (of any type) again? Yes. Would I disallow felons convicted of non-violent crimes from ever owning a firearm again? Probably not. An embezzler isn't a threat to me as long as he's not my employee.

As for expanding the list of disallowed weapons, not sure it makes much difference, really. A .22 caliber single-shot pistol can be just as deadly as an Uzi. So can a blade.

Good discussion. Thanks!

 

[FA_Q2]

Most of us don't obey the speed limit laws either. Is that a good reason to just not have any or never change it?

If the law is 100 percent ineffective at attaining the given goal then yes.

We see that speed limits are effective even if they are not followed all the time. We also see that gun control laws are NOT effective.

How do we see that speed limit laws are effective, even when not followed all the time? The number of wrecks or fatalities which DIDN'T happen?

You want to imply that speed limits work, even without 100% compliance, then would have us believe that's not true for gun laws. That doesn't wash. If you can presume a positive out come from speed laws, there's no reason not to presume the same thing with gun laws, is there?

Except that you don't get to 'presume' squat. Gun laws have been strengthened and scaled back in many different places over the years and we have received good data about it.

I posted the evidence in another thread and as it is long I am just going to link it as I have had to point to it in almost a dozen threads already. It's the seventh from the top:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...dead-should-we-now-discuss-gun-control-2.html

If fatalities in vehicles have been increasing when speed limits are put into place then I would have to also agree that speed limits are worthless. That is not the case as far as I know. Usually when there is a particularly dangerous section of road, more stringent speed limits are enacted with positive results. I am not going to hunt down the data for this as I think that most people already understand this to be true.
On the other hand, in dangerous areas, politicians have enacted more stringent gun control mesuers and received no real results. Because this is not widely understood as fact, I have posted evedence to back this up. If you believe this to be untrue and that gun laws are effective then you need to post some evidence that is contradictory the what I have already given and the reason that my cite is flawed and you're is correct.

You went wrong when you simply decided that I simply 'presumed' that gun laws are ineffective because the gun control advocates are presuming they are. The data is out there, you just have to have an open enough mind to accept it.

 

[Oldguy]

And you should. But when people blame society or video games or "gun culture", they're not interested in punishing the criminal. They're interested only in their agenda.

And, when the other side denies that the ready availability of firearms has SOMETHING to do with our violent crime rate, they too reveal their agenda, no?

The availability of guns has nothing to do with the crime rate.

http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/6.1/gun_facts_6_1_screen.pdf

Myth: The availability of guns causes crime
Fact: Though the number of firearms owned by private citizens has been increasing steadily since 1970, the overall rate of homicides and suicides has not risen.169 As the chart shows, there is no correlation between the availability of firearms and the rates of homicide and suicide in America.
Fact: Internationally speaking “There’s no clear relationship between more guns and higher levels of violence.”170
Fact: “... a detailed study of the major surveys completed in the past 20 years or more provides no evidence of any relationship between the total number of legally held firearms in society and the rate of armed crime. Nor is there a relationship between the severity of controls imposed in various countries or the mass of bureaucracy involved with many control systems with the apparent ease of access to firearms by criminals and terrorists.”171
Handguns, Homicides and Suicides
Fact: Handgun ownership among groups normally associated with higher violent crime (young males, blacks, low income, inner city, etc.) is at or below national averages.172
Fact: The most significant correlation between the use of guns in the commission of crimes occur when parents (27.5% of inmates) abuse drugs or have friends engaged in illegal activities (32.5% with robberies and 24.3% for drug trafficking).173
Fact: Five out of six gun-possessing felons obtained handguns from the secondary market and by theft, and “[the] criminal handgun market is overwhelmingly dominated by informal transactions and theft as mechanisms of supply.”174
Fact: The majority of handguns in the possession of criminals are stolen, and not necessarily by the criminals in question.175 In fact, over 100,000 firearms are stolen in burglaries every year, and most of them likely enter the criminal market (i.e., sold or traded to criminals).176
Fact: In 1968, the U.K. passed laws that reduced the number of licensed firearm owners, and thus reduced firearm availability. U.K. homicide rates have steadily risen since then.177 Ironically, firearm use in crimes has doubled in the decade after the U.K. banned handguns.178
Fact: Most violent crime is caused by a small minority of repeat offenders. One California study found that 3.8% of a group of males born in 1956 were responsible for 55.5% of all serious felonies.179 75-80% of murder arrestees have prior arrests for a violent (including non-fatal) felony or burglary. On average they have about four felony arrests and one felony conviction. Homicide in England and Wales024681012141618 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1955 1960 1965 19701975 1980 1985 1990 1995 1997 1998 1999 2000Homicides per 1,000,000 Population1968Source: A Century of Change: Trends in UK Statistics since 1900 & International comparisons of criminal justice statistics 2000
Fact: Half of all murders are committed by people on “conditional release” (i.e., parole or probation).180 81% of all homicide defendants had an arrest record; 67% had a felony arrest record; 70% had a conviction record; and 54% had a felony conviction.181
Fact: Per capita firearm ownership rates have risen steadily since 1959 while crime rates have gone up and down depending on economics, drug trafficking innovations, and “get tough” legislation.182
Thoughts: Criminals are not motivated by guns. They are motivated by opportunity. Attempts to reduce public access to firearms provide criminals more points of opportunity. It is little wonder that high-crime cities also tend to be those with the most restrictive gun control laws – which criminals tend to ignore.​

The Court would have to be heavily stacked with liberals. If that happens, you might as well flush the Constitution down the toilet.



Okay. But that's not enough of a reason to deny him his rights, is it?

I was speaking generally.

Not enough to put a dent in PDs' ticket revenue.

Agreed. But laws aimed at reducing crime but don't actually do anything about it need to be scrapped, don't they?

Okay.

Nope, never, praise God.

But some studies estimate there are as many as 2.5 million defensive gun uses each year. Some are just the intended victim showing his weapon and the perp backing off; some the intended victim shoots and kills his attacker.

That's 2.5 million people who weren't victimized by criminals. That's a good thing.

It would depend on the crime, wouldn't it? If I felt my or my family's safety were at risk, yes, deadly force would be called for. If it was some kid TPing my yard, I prolly wouldn't even bother calling the cops. Yelling at him would be sufficient to get him to haul ass.

I have no problem with increasing punishments for crimes committed with weapons the perp isn't legally allowed to possess.

But, you do have a problem with expanding the list of weapons they cannot have, or expanding the list of those who cannot have one? In spite of the fact that it would make it easier to prosecute them and give them more chances to break the law?

It depends on the criteria, of course. Would I disallow felons convicted of violent crimes from ever owning a firearm (of any type) again? Yes. Would I disallow felons convicted of non-violent crimes from ever owning a firearm again? Probably not. An embezzler isn't a threat to me as long as he's not my employee.

As for expanding the list of disallowed weapons, not sure it makes much difference, really. A .22 caliber single-shot pistol can be just as deadly as an Uzi. So can a blade.

Good discussion. Thanks!

I won't disagree with a lot of what you said there and it seems we're really not that far apart.

See what could be done if people would just TALK to each other instead of shouting and defending positions?

Too bad Washington can't do that.

 

[Oldguy]

If the law is 100 percent ineffective at attaining the given goal then yes.

We see that speed limits are effective even if they are not followed all the time. We also see that gun control laws are NOT effective.

How do we see that speed limit laws are effective, even when not followed all the time? The number of wrecks or fatalities which DIDN'T happen?

You want to imply that speed limits work, even without 100% compliance, then would have us believe that's not true for gun laws. That doesn't wash. If you can presume a positive out come from speed laws, there's no reason not to presume the same thing with gun laws, is there?

Except that you don't get to 'presume' squat. Gun laws have been strengthened and scaled back in many different places over the years and we have received good data about it.

I posted the evidence in another thread and as it is long I am just going to link it as I have had to point to it in almost a dozen threads already. It's the seventh from the top:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...dead-should-we-now-discuss-gun-control-2.html

If fatalities in vehicles have been increasing when speed limits are put into place then I would have to also agree that speed limits are worthless. That is not the case as far as I know. Usually when there is a particularly dangerous section of road, more stringent speed limits are enacted with positive results. I am not going to hunt down the data for this as I think that most people already understand this to be true.
On the other hand, in dangerous areas, politicians have enacted more stringent gun control mesuers and received no real results. Because this is not widely understood as fact, I have posted evedence to back this up. If you believe this to be untrue and that gun laws are effective then you need to post some evidence that is contradictory the what I have already given and the reason that my cite is flawed and you're is correct.

You went wrong when you simply decided that I simply 'presumed' that gun laws are ineffective because the gun control advocates are presuming they are. The data is out there, you just have to have an open enough mind to accept it.

Ok, then what IS the answer? Or, do we just accept things as they are and not even try to do something?

 

[CrazedScotsman]

Most of us don't obey the speed limit laws either. Is that a good reason to just not have any or never change it?

I for one obey traffic laws... I also obey gun laws.
I for one do not yet have my CHL, so my gun stays locked away at home.

Why? Because I follow the laws.

Outlaws don't...

Good for you. You'll make a fine little Nazi.

By the way....are you SURE you've NEVER broken a law? Ever?

Why are you resorting to name calling and over exaggeration?

 

[Darkwind]

For instance, colonial America had laws preventing the ownership of guns by slaves and Indians.

Yeah, that's relevant.

It was relevant to the slaves and Indians.

The purpose of mentioning that was to demonstrate just how far back gun control goes but, of course, that went right over your head.

What also appears to have gone over your head is the fact that they were kept slaves and and inferior because they had no access to defend themselves from their oppressors...

Its amazing what you guys fail to understand.

 

[KGB]

There is nothing in the Second Amendment that prevents a ban on assault rifles for those that cannot pass the same requirments as fully automatic weopons.

There is nothing in the Second Amendment that prevents a law that states that if you store your guns irresponsibly, and someone takes them, you own the crimes committed with them.

There is nothing in the Second Amendment stating that we cannot require extensive background checks, and a months waiting period for all gun purchases.

prohibition did not stop drinking. What makes you think gun control stops murder? the fact is, take away every weapon you want & people will still kill even if with their bare fists. This has been going on since the dawn of humanity.

 

[bayoubill]

For instance, colonial America had laws preventing the ownership of guns by slaves and Indians.

Yeah, that's relevant.

It was relevant to the slaves and Indians.

The purpose of mentioning that was to demonstrate just how far back gun control goes but, of course, that went right over your head.

and you're obviously too stupid to recognize that the purpose of the gun control laws you cite was to keep oppressed peoples powerless...

 

[FA_Q2]

Ok, then what IS the answer? Or, do we just accept things as they are and not even try to do something?

That is a good question and, tbh, I am not totally sure.

One thing we have ot do is accept that there will be instances like this and there is nothing we can do to stop 100 percent of them. Personally, I believe we could mitigate future events by simply not focusing on these events like we do. This has dominated the news for a week, demanded the attention of the entire country and changed the national dialogue. That kind of attention and fame I believe is one reason that crazy people do things like this. That cannot be legislated though, it has to be done through the maturity of the people and it is not really a 'solution' because it simply will not happen.


If you are looking for a legislative solution then I hate to admit it but there really is nothing that can be done. As I said before, you can't stop crazy. It just is not going to happen. I know it is tough to accept such an answer but it really is no different than wanting to eliminate accidental deaths from falling. You can install some railing and non slip surfaces but in the end, it's still going to happen. You can place reasonable arms restrictions as are already in place (there are no legal over the shoulder SAM weapons in circulation that I know of) but you are still going to have mass killings. I don't recall the attempt to ban bombs when McVeigh set off his bomb. There were no added controls to prevent it occurring again. We could not stop that crazy man and that is one example of how you can cause MORE destruction than a man wielding a gun.

On that note, I would be glad to hear some ideas that have merit but so far we have nothing. More gun control has been PROVEN to be ineffective. Putting guards in schools is not going to help. The crazy person would just hit another venue (busses, entrances during the school start ect.) and I am not sure you can identify people that are capable of this destruction. That would really be the best scenario, finding out who the truly crazy people are and getting them proper treatment. There is also a few threads that are attempting to focus on the drug aspect of this. There seems to be a track record of these individuals being on various drugs. I believe that deserves a strong look BUT I am also not a doctor and do not have the facts about that particular aspect of these cases so I could be incorrect. It sucks but the world is not perfect and demanding that laws be passed every time we are reminded of this is asinine at best and downright destructive at worst.

 

[daveman]

I won't disagree with a lot of what you said there and it seems we're really not that far apart.

See what could be done if people would just TALK to each other instead of shouting and defending positions?

Too bad Washington can't do that.

 

[daveman]

There is nothing in the Second Amendment that prevents a ban on assault rifles for those that cannot pass the same requirments as fully automatic weopons.

There is nothing in the Second Amendment that prevents a law that states that if you store your guns irresponsibly, and someone takes them, you own the crimes committed with them.

There is nothing in the Second Amendment stating that we cannot require extensive background checks, and a months waiting period for all gun purchases.

prohibition did not stop drinking. What makes you think gun control stops murder? the fact is, take away every weapon you want & people will still kill even if with their bare fists. This has been going on since the dawn of humanity.

Yes, but then Roxy can feel good about himself, and congratulate himself for saving humanity, not for actually DOING anything, but for posting on the internet.