What We Should All Be Able to Agree Upon

1. There is no national group in the US calling for or advocating a total gun ban. Yes, there are groups calling for better regulation of firearms and some that advocate certain types of firearms be prohibited or very tightly regulated. But pretending that all guns will be regulated out of existence ("when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns") is pure fantasy.

2. Firearms should be registered. There are only two arguments against gun registration. One is a fear the Government will one day come and take your weapons away if they know where they are. This is Red Dawn territory; if one is so afraid or paranoid of the US Government, they probably have bigger problems than their guns. The second argument is one intends to use their firearm unlawfully.

3. Individual firearm ownership doesn't prevent tyranny. Iraq proved that; during Saddam's four decades of tyranny, Iraqis could own virtually any kind of firearm--even automatic weapons. The belief that some out of shape gun owner with his AR-15 is going to strike fear into our military forces is preposterous.

4. Firearm owners should be required to take training; currently, there is no federal law mandating a firearm owner know how to operate, maintain or store his weapon.

5. Firearm owners should be insured. It's about accountability and responsibility. Firearm violence and accidents costs all of us; it's time the users took ownership of those costs.

6. The Government should fund longterm studies of gun violence. It's a public health issue and if we hope to mitigate this country's senseless gun violence costs, we have to get a handle on its causes.

7. Close the gunshow loophole. Tighten the laws on all gun transactions. Eliminate the Tiahrt amendment which allows those bad apple dealers to flourish.

We should be able to agree on this. More people die from poor or non existent health care. Agree to fix that ! More people die from car accidents. Make the national speed limit 40. Make all cars have multiple air bags. Remember "if it saves just one life " . Agree to fix that. Women and children get killed by the thousands in the Sudan, Darfur and the Congo. Lets agree to fix that. And remember one of those groups of monsters had bottles of propane that they were planning on igniting. But in the spirit of Christmas and Humanity lets agree to battle the Darfur, Congo and Sudan genocides.

Bernie Madoff could be responsible for a catastrophe. What if Momar Khadafi or someone like him had lost Ten Billion. I think it should be illegal for private citizens to be able to control that much money. That is where regulation should start. There has already been one suicide attributed to Bernie.

Gun violence costs us around $125B annually. That doesn't measure the costs in terms of lives and families that are destroyed.

Perhaps if we could knock down some of those costs, we'd have the money to spend on your deflections.

No deflecting here. I want action. Why can't we recognize all the problems. The easisest thing to do would be the 40 MPH speed limit. Lets do that and do a long term study on that. If we can't face that and understand that then what is the point.

I assume you mean criminal activities when you use "Gun violence" but if you mean something else, please explain.

(an activity he seems to limit rather severely), but I'm always happy to help. You might want to bring some of this to his attention.

http://www.allbusiness.com/finance-insurance/insurance-carriers-related-activities/523667-1.html

The cost of firearm deaths in the United States: reduced life expectancies and increased...
By Lemaire, Jean
Publication: Journal of Risk and Insurance
Date: Thursday, September 1 2005

... Using multiple decrement techniques, I show that firearm violence shortens the life of an average American by 104 days (151 days for white males, 362 days for black males). Among all fatal injuries, only motor vehicle accidents have a stronger effect. I estimate that the elimination of all firearm deaths in the United States would increase the male life expectancy more than the total eradication of all colon and prostate cancers. My results suggest that the insurance premium increases paid by Americans as a result of firearm violence are probably of the same order of magnitude as the total medical costs due to gunshots or the increased cost of administering the criminal justice system due to gun crime.

... The potential gain in life expectancy is considered one of the best measures of the impact of eradicating a disease or condition. It is preferable to using the number of years of potential life lost, which is heavily influenced by age structure and total population size and does not account for the effects of competing risks (Lai and Hardy, 1999). ...

... Many studies attempt to estimate the direct cost of firearm violence in terms of medical treatment (Cook et al., 1999; (3) Cook and Ludwig, 2000). Other costs are more difficult to quantify. They include the cost of public resources devoted to law enforcement, private investment by individuals in protection and avoidance, (4) lost productivity of victims, and changes in the quality of life: limits on freedoms to live or work in certain places, restrictions on residential and commercial location decisions, limitations in hours of operations of retail establishments, emotional costs to the forced adaptation to increased risk, and the cost of pain and fear. Cook and Ludwig (2000), using a willingness-to-pay methodology, estimate the aggregate cost of gun violence in the United States at about $100 billion annually, or about $360 for every American. Other costs yet to be evaluated include the loss of prestige of the United States in the international scene or the rejection of the United States as a model society to emulate.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=586647

The Social Costs of Gun Ownership

Philip J. Cook
Duke University - Terry Sanford Institute of Public Policy; Duke University - Department of Economics; National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER)

Jens Ludwig
Georgetown University - Public Policy Institute (GPPI); National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER); Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA)

September 2004

NBER Working Paper No. W10736

Abstract
... Given that more guns cause more homicides and have little effect on other types of crime, it appears that the marginal external social cost of private gun ownership is positive. The magnitude of this cost increases with the level of crime and violence in the community. While it is not possible to make separate estimates of the effects of different types of guns, it is relevant that handguns, which constitute about one-third of the guns in private hands, account for 80 percent of all homicides. At mean values, an increase of 10,000 handgun-owning households in a county is associated with 1 additional homicide per year. If these lives are valued at just $1 million, the average annual marginal social cost of household handgun ownership is $100. If we instead monetize the harm from gun violence using contingent-valuation estimates, our estimates imply that the average annual social cost per household is on the order of $600.

At one million dollars ( $1,000,000) an incident one hundred twenty five billion ($125,000,000,000) would cover one hundred twenty five thousand incidents.

You threw a blunt object and missed.

So much information, so much analysis, so much worthwhile stuff in the world to read and learn and think about ... and so many people living in caves and ever looking beyond the shadows to see it all.

And I would disagree.

..that prevents anyone from owning a firearm. Except, of course, if you're a criminal or otherwise unable to operate a weapon safely and lawfully.

:)

Remember -- in Canada, we have all that (including the funded studies) ... and universal single public payer healthcare.

;)

If you can't even ACCEPT the fact that there are group absolutely set on a complete ban there is NOTHING to agree on.

What about DC? There WAS a complete BAN on all handguns in DC for 30 years (while the murder rate spiked to 6x the national average). Not only that long arms had to be disassembled AND locked so for self defense purposes there was a 100% absolute and complete ban on firearms by citizens for 30 years. Until you accept that you are living in a fantasy world.

It took 5 years of court battles, a lawyer willing to work for nothing (he only got paid because he won and sued for payment as civil right violation) to defeat it. Even then it was 5-4. There were 36 briefs filed in support of DC gun ban (the Brady Campaign being one of them).

What about Chicago today? Almost exactly the same ban yet because it hasn't been challenged in court under incorporation they will stand fast. Likely we are looking at another 4-5 years before that is resolved.

The Brady Campaign (a "national group" BTW) led the fight in DC and is in support of the gun ban in Chicago.

Just some quotes to make break your illusion about point #1:
"Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe." - Rep Dianne Feinstein speaking before US Congress. I am no English major but I am pretty sure the words "banning guns" implies she supports "banning guns".

"My bill...establishes a 6-month grace period for the turning in of handguns." (Rep MAJOR OWENS Congressional Record 10 Nov 93).

"The second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is repealed." (U.S. House Joint Resolution 438 introduced 11 March 1992 by Congressman Owens, D-NY)

"There is no personal right to be armed for private purposes unrelated to the service in a well regulated militia." (Sarah Brady Chariman of Brady Campaign Against Violence Richmond Times-Dispatch, 6 June 97, pg. 6)

"If it was up to me, no one but law enforcement officers would own hand guns." (Chicago Mayor Richard Daley)

How about US vs Emerson (2000)


My own view on gun control is simple. I hate guns and I cannot imagine why anyone would want to own one. If I had my way, guns for sport would be registered, and all other guns, would be banned. (Deborah Prothrow-Stith, Coalition to Prevent Violence)

"The only reason for guns in civilian hands is for sporting purposes." (Sarah Brady, Jackson, Keeping the Battle Alive, Tampa Trib., Oct. 21, 1993)

An explanation on why most gun grabbers go for an incremental aproach. AK, then all scary rifles, then handguns, then all large caliber rifles, then all large mag rifles, then.....

(Pete Shields, founder of Handgun Control, Inc.)

So if you are unwilling to accept that there are some national groups and powerful national politicians who are willing to ban guns then there really is no point to go any further.

I mean, you didn't seriously think that bore even a passing resemblance to a rebuttal of the statement:

There is no national group in the US calling for or advocating a total gun ban.

... did you?

Nah. You weren't being serious.

Or trying so hard you're spinning ...

I believe at least 1 or 2 are unconstitutional.

David

Clearly none are unconstitutional because they are your opinions.

David

..explaining which you believe to be unconstitutional and why. You haven't done so. IOW, you are merely putting up a smokescreen.

My No. 1 isn't unconstitutional.

No. 2? No. Even Scalia in Heller stated registration was permissable.

No. 3. Nope.

No. 4? Again, Scalia says this is desirable.

No. 5. Nope.

No. 6? Nope.

No. . Nope.

Not much different than a poll tax. Especially since it would clearly disciminate against those living in high crime areas.

David

it should at least be noted that there are powerful people in the government who would ban firearms.

David

then, yeah sure, we've got complete agreement.

And you know that if the police force was at least quadrupled, then more people might find gun control easier to swallow. ANd you omit that gun violence and violence in general has declined in the last ten years. And do you know that there would be no horror movies if the victims had guns. And you discount the people who have saved themselves from harm because they had a gun. A car in the hands of a person that has had a drink is far more dangerous. But people, we are facing an economic depression of epic proportions and no one is trying to do anything about it. Obama is putting the environment as a priority, he needs to put the USA citizens as a priority.

As per your link. Americans were robbed and victimized by gun violence at greater rates last year than the year before, even though overall violent and property crime reached a "32-year low", the Justice Department said yesterday. Note thirty two year low.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/data/table_01a.html

For the lazy:

Change in Crime for 2 yr, 5 yr, 10yr period:

2yr (2007 vs 2006)
5yr (2007 vs 2003)
10yr (2007 vs 1998)

Violent Crime Rate
2yr: fell -1.4%
5yr: fell -1.9%
10yr: fell -17.7%

Murder & Manslaughter
2yr: fell -1.3%
5yr: fell -1.3%
10yr: fell -10.6%

Forcible Rape
2yr: fell -3.2%
5yr: fell -7.1%
10yr: fell -13.0%

Robbery
2yr: fell -1.2%
5yr: fell +3.6%
10yr: fell -10.8%

Aggravated Assault
2yr: fell -1.3%
5yr: fell -3.9%
10yr: fell -21.5%

Burglary
2yr: fell -0.9%
5yr: fell -2.5%
10yr: fell -16.3%

Crime rates are LOWER in every category in every timeframe (except Robbery 5yr period).

Crime is going down. The medium term trend is down, the long term trend is down.
There may be fluctuations from year to year but violent crime peaked in 1991.

The rates across the board are nowhere near the highs.
1991 (the peak)
Violent Crime 758 per 100,000
Murders 9.8 per 100,000

2007
Violent Crime 466 per 100,000
Murders 5.6 per 100,000

Strangely since 1991
more states allow conceal carry
more states allow open carry
more states have a "castle doctrine"
more states eliminated waiting periods
more states allow weapons to be carried (loaded) in vehicle
more states passed "stand your ground laws"
assault ban expired (violent crime & murder both lower than at any point during the ban)
magazine capacity limits have expired
overall gun supply has gone up (360 million vs 250 million)
guns per capita have gone up
There are more households with a gun
There are more individual gun owners

Despite all that long term crime is going down. It keeps going down.

Hmm.... maybe # guns and crime aren't as connected as the brady brainwash campaign led you to believe.

Like I have said before; Once some people are against something they are against it no matter what. But guns do have a direct relationship to crime.....or should I say Inverse relation to crime... The more guns we get the less crime we have

1. No national group is openly espousing any such ban, because doing so would be political suicide. Whether or not there is a long-term goal of implementing such a ban is a valid matter for debate, but the term is meaningless anyway because firearms could be regulated down to single-shot weapons, effectively eliminating private ownership and use of modern firearms without "banning all guns" as stated.

2. I don't think any normal firearms should be registered. Class III weapons should be registered, which they are today. This is no different than any other privacy concern (for example, medical information, wiretapping, etc.) I think gathering that information and maintaining a database of it is a violation of privacy. This is no different than my opposition to a nationwide mandatory DNA profiling database.

3. Individual firearm ownership does prevent tyranny, the US Revolutionary War proves it. The idea that a military consisting of 400,000 troops could even hold a candle to a civilian population of 57 million civilian riflemen is preposterous. The US army would have no chance, even if they were inclined to fight against their countrymen (which they are not, and likely never will be). Hell, there are 17 million FEMALE gun owners in the US; I doubt the US military could cope with a force of that size, even with high-tech force multipliers they have, assuming the gun-toting devotchkas were properly motivated.

4. I'm ambivalent on this one; everyone I know who owns a firearm has been trained extensively. In my culture all kids take extensive gun safety courses starting at age 12, both male and female, with few exceptions. I guess I wouldn't disagree with it, but it's somewhat pointless since the people committing gun crimes certainly don't need training. I don't know what this training policy would accomplish except for possibly the database profiling of all new shooters.

5. This is ridiculous, what would you be insured against? What would I be protecting myself from by buying the insurance? Are you saying I should be forced to buy insurance to financially compensate other people who I harm with my guns? Why would anyone who hurts people with guns buy insurance? If you're talking only about accidents, then you need to realize just how few accidents there are. Guns are much less deadly than swimming pools, and insurance is not required for private pools. No insurance company would bother with it unless enforced by statute; such a program would be a worthless financial boondoggle, not to mention yet another federal database with my name in it.

6. The government has been funding such studies for years, you just don't like their findings.

7. I would agree with targeting traffickers and/or bad apple dealers in some enhanced manner (like the coordinated tactics used against the Russian botnets and spammers, where notorious "bad apple" ISPs are brought offline). I would have to be persuaded that gunshows are bad to ban them; I doubt very many criminals acquire their weapons at gunshows - dealers are required to run background checks at gun shows already and private sellers are very few. Show me an example of why gunshows are bad and I would probably change my mind. Even if you "closed the gunshow loophole" the same people would still be able to sell the same guns to the same buyers, just not in the confines of the building where the gunshow is being held. Unless you're talking about banning all private transactions ... which is a different issue. I've never bought a gun at a gunshow, though.

1. Repeal of the 1986 ban of new full-auto firearms.

2. Elimination of state gun control laws ("Assault Weapons" bans, "high capacity" magazine bans, one gun a month restrictions, waiting periods, etc).

3. National reciprocation for civilian CCW holders.

4. An end to "may issue" licensing.

5. No retention of firearms transaction records (Form 4473).

6. Repeal Executive Orders on imported weapons and sales of surplus ammo to civilians.

7. Eliminate the "sporting purpose" clause from the 1968 GCA.

8.Etc.


In fairness... this 'agreement'/compromise/deal is rather foolish, and quite frankly... I have no current or future plans to "agree" or compromise upon anything that reeks of anything you suggest.

Just the opposite as a matter of fact... I will utilize whatever time, resource, effort and expense I can afford to prevent exactly what you're putting on the table.

Lets leave it up to the SCOTUS to decide what is "agreeable" or not.

Not that I expect to be totally happy with the outcome, but I suspect the verdict will be more acceptable than what you offer.

anybody here ever tries to say that no one opposes ALL firearms control, eh?

Now if only we could find somebody who proposes to ban all firearms, we'd have a set of bookends.

(Yeah, you seem to think it's okay to require a licence to carry firearms in public, although I can't imagine why. Well, I'm sure one of those gun-banners would think it's okay for the police to carry firearms.)

Where did I suggest that... eh?

You could try asking, but regardless of what my minimal standards would be, you still wouldn't be satisfied.

I did mention the licence to carry bit.

I guess I left out the part about bad guys and nutbars and children not being allowed to have guns?

as long as its...

1) For CCW only and not a requirement for purchase and possession...

2) Not subject to discretion or arbitrarily granted by the issuing authority...

3) Issued licenses are subject to the "full faith and credit" clause of the U.S. Constitution...

4) Infractions/violations of the license are treated as any other misdemeanor or minor offense.

5) No excessive fees are applied...

6) The information is not publicly available and prohibited from disclosure by any media...

See how simple that is?

stated that she wished to ban all firearms has been demonstrated to be a lie in this forum so many times that for anyone to try to spread it again would be simply unbelieviable.

You weren't doing that, were you?

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an out right ban,
picking up every one of them... "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in,
"I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."
--U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), CBS-TV's "60 Minutes," 2/5/95

"Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe."
--U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein Associated Press 11/18/93

So are the quotes wrong or am I misreading them?

David

So are the quotes wrong or am I misreading them?

I don't read minds.

I do know that the quotations do not support your implied assertion that Diane Feinestein wishes to ban all firearms.

If you cared about honesty in public discourse, you would have determined this for yourself by now.

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an out right ban,
picking up every one of them... "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in,
"I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."--U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), CBS-TV's "60 Minutes," 2/5/95


Maybe every one of them means something different in Canada, I don't think so though. You lecturing anyone about honesty in public discourse is the best joke I've heard in quite some time. That you can somehow interpret this statement to mean something other than what it clearly says does not say good things about your mental ability. Get some sleep and re-read it. I do like you waiting till you thought I wouldn't catch it though to post your response, I guess that's another example of your honesty.

David

But in the meantime:

Maybe every one of them means something different in Canada, I don't think so though.

Maybe "them" means something in the statement in question that is not what you are pretending it means.

I do think so.

In fact, I know so.

As does everyone who has a shred of intellectual honesty -- i.e. who investigates what s/he reads to determine its meaning before pretending it means something it does not mean.


That you can somehow interpret this statement to mean something other than what it clearly says does not say good things about your mental ability.

That you would persist in pretending that the statement means something it does not mean says something, although as usual I don't really know which of the two obvious options applies: can't, or won't?


Get some sleep and re-read it.

Get google, and learn.

"Mr. and Mrs. America" iverglas

It's really very easy to find the truth when you try. It can be harder admitting the truth, for some, of course.


I do like you waiting till you thought I wouldn't catch it though to post your response, I guess that's another example of your honesty.

What the fuck?

You posted on the morning of Christmas Eve, I spent the afternoon shopping and then didn't put finger to keyboard on Christmas Day, and replied to your post on Boxing Day afternoon when I wandered over to the office, and I'm DISHONEST? How just plain ugly.

8. Castle Doctrine in all 50 states.

9. Reinstate mandatory public school firearm education and safety training (along with comprehensive sex education and financial responsibility education)

10. Eliminate the 2005 barrel ban.

11. once every now and then, have a sales tax holiday on firearm purchases (as done in South Carolina).

12. More uniform CCW laws that allow carry anywhere except: private residences/business that plainly inform CCW carriers that its not welcome and sensitive government buildings; in which case they will be required to have uniformed and trained security to inspect EVERYONE entering for weapons. Carry in schools, banks (illegal in NC), and colleges allowed, except private ones that can make their own rules.

13. Privacy of your car supersedes any companies firearm policy. They can tell you no CCW guns at work, but you may keep it in your car, which is your property, and they may not discriminate against you for it.

14. Sealing of CCW records, some Virginia paper publised the name/address of every CCW licensee in the state . Imagine if someone published the name and address of every abortion clinic workser/doctor, there would be (rightly justified) uproar.

15. Uniform age of 18 for firearm ownership, 16 years old may own one single shot .22 rifle (think of it like driver's ed).

1) Sure there are, pleny of people/groups would love to see guns only possessed by the state. Just because anti-gun wackos don't tell YOU their true intentions doesn't mean they aren't there.
2) No thanks. Government just doesn't need to know the serial numbers of all my guns. The only reason they would need them is confiscation, or at the least to extract a hefty payment for the "service" of registering them.
3)Individual gun ownership by millions & millions of people can prevent a lot of bad shit. To think our military would attack its own people to begin with is also preposterous, and so is the notion that we may indeed have an evil dictator take over, but... Of course protection against the gov't is pretty far down on the list of why I own guns, but the option (and right) is always there none the less - at least it makes me feel better. And it just may be more likely gun ownership by civlians would help to protect liberty from outsiders, not the State.
4)Training is at least one we can discuss. Since gun accidents are pretty far down the list though, why would it be a major concern, one that the feds need to get more power and control to be involved in? Roll it into a federal fiearms card that covers us for all gun purchases instantly (w/o reg) and maybe we have something though.
5)I will send you a check for all the damages my guns have caused...you want the $0.00 made out to you, or cash? I agree it is time for those who cause havoc to be held responsible for damages though, no argument there, and not just re:guns.
6)There are plenty of studies of gun violence, so why our money needs to be spent on still more escapes me. For instance, the Clinton study said firearms were used at least 300,000 times for self-defense purposes. Other studies say the number of guns or stricter gun laws has no real impact on violent crime rates. Others give quite specific causes/data that have nothing to do with guns. So why waste even more taxpayer money on things we already know? Anyway, doing things that REALLY affect gun violence besides only addressing guns would be a good thing - someone has to have the balls to do them.
7) What loophole? You mean private sales? So give people access to the federal data base for pirvate sales - seems like a good idea.

wmsl

1. There is no national group in the US calling for or advocating a total gun ban. Yes, there are groups calling for better regulation of firearms and some that advocate certain types of firearms be prohibited or very tightly regulated. But pretending that all guns will be regulated out of existence ("when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns") is pure fantasy.

Even if we accept that there "is no national group in the US calling for or advocating a total gun ban", the fact of the matter is an assault weapon ban is called for in both the Democratic Party platform and on Obama's published agenda on www.change.gov under urban policy. Assault weapons are hardly ever used in crime, and are most like the weapons our founders had in mind for use by civilians to keep federal military power in check. If these weapons are under attack, let alone a total gun ban, it's already a terrible situation.

2. Firearms should be registered. There are only two arguments against gun registration. One is a fear the Government will one day come and take your weapons away if they know where they are. This is Red Dawn territory; if one is so afraid or paranoid of the US Government, they probably have bigger problems than their guns. The second argument is one intends to use their firearm unlawfully.

Anonymous firearm ownership is essential, otherwise the government will have a shopping list of who to arrest first should it ever decide to impose a tyranny over the people. This is not "Red Dawn territory", this is "Founding Father territory". A decentralized military system was specifically designed and intended to eliminate or at least counter federal military power. Anything that compromises this capability is suspect. I will never support registration and will never register my firearms.

3. Individual firearm ownership doesn't prevent tyranny. Iraq proved that; during Saddam's four decades of tyranny, Iraqis could own virtually any kind of firearm--even automatic weapons. The belief that some out of shape gun owner with his AR-15 is going to strike fear into our military forces is preposterous.

As I have said countless times before, firearms are simply a tool that can be used to overthrow tyranny. They do not provide any guarantee for successful use. Firearms are useless when apathy prevails. Historically we have seen examples of vastly inferior forces winning out over vastly superior forces. Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Mogadishu are all examples in modern history of insurgents winning out over vastly superior invading forces. Even recently with the terrorist actions in Mumbai, India we see what havoc can be created by just a few people armed with assault rifles and grenades. Ten terrorists killed 173 people and injured some 300 more. Imagine what 40-80 million firearm owners could do.

4. Firearm owners should be required to take training; currently, there is no federal law mandating a firearm owner know how to operate, maintain or store his weapon.

I wonder how many firearm owners don't train with their weapons? I'm sure some people do, but I can't imagine buying a firearm without taking it to the range and putting a few hundred rounds through it.

5. Firearm owners should be insured. It's about accountability and responsibility. Firearm violence and accidents costs all of us; it's time the users took ownership of those costs.

Interesting thought. I have homeowners' insurance, which I guess would cover any accidents with firearms on my property. I imagine such insurance would be pretty cheap, though, since hardly any firearm owners are involved in firearm crime or accidents every year - less than 2%.

6. The Government should fund longterm studies of gun violence. It's a public health issue and if we hope to mitigate this country's senseless gun violence costs, we have to get a handle on its causes.

I'm all for it, especially since such studies will probably substantiate what has already been hinted at so far: gun control doesn't lower crime rates and allowing people to be armed and even carry does not raise them. It will probably spotlight what most of already know: crime is far far more related to economics than guns.

7. Close the gunshow loophole. Tighten the laws on all gun transactions. Eliminate the Tiahrt amendment which allows those bad apple dealers to flourish.

I'm all for closing the "gunshow loophole", more properly called "private firearm transactions", so long as it preserves anonymous firearm ownership.

are you really that afraid of your own government?

If so, why?

then it's just as well that you don't have a "Who Owns What and Should We Let Them Keep It" list.

Registration would be far less controversial if new bans weren't a possibility, IMO.

What is it about "anonymous" that seems to be so important to you?

Anonymous firearm ownership is necessary because the primary purpose of civilian firearm ownership is to be able to shoot tyrants. It is thus logical that tyrants would move to eliminate civilian firearms before undertaking any other overtly tyrannical steps. Giving the government a list of firearm owners is dangerous because it gives the government a shopping list of people most able to resist them with force.

are you really that afraid of your own government?

If so, why?

I would say I am more distrustful than afraid. I think my feelings are similar to those of our founders. Steeped in hope for the best, while being prepared for the worst.

If firearms are registered, they can be confiscated.

If they are anonymously owned, it is more difficult for them to be confiscated.

Gun confiscation is not an imagined threat, it's real. It has already happened.

in 2005 Police and National guard troops were sent into private home to take away guns.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wfp7qBAgGM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1Qx0cTze0M

I'm all for closing the "gunshow loophole", more properly called "private firearm transactions", so long as it preserves anonymous firearm ownership.

We'll just have to disagree on this.

What does that make me? Unreasonable, immoral, insane, etc.?

I agree with you on some items, but not all.

1. There is no national group in the US calling for or advocating a total gun ban. Yes, there are groups calling for better regulation of firearms and some that advocate certain types of firearms be prohibited or very tightly regulated. But pretending that all guns will be regulated out of existence ("when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns") is pure fantasy.

I agree that there is no serious national group calling for a total ban (that I know of). The problem is that there so many groups advocating for banning or restricting so many guns that it sometimes seems like there are calls for virtual bans on all guns. Some people don't like like small inexpensive guns, some people don't like large pistols, some people don't like large bore rifles not currently regulated by NFA, some people don't like handguns, some people don't like semi-auto anythings, some people don't like barrel shrouds, some people don't like magazines with over 10 rounds, some people don't like pistol grips, etc. etc. etc. There have been attempts to curtail civilian gun ownership on many types of guns and, I think, it is reasonable for RKBA types to be worried about a collective agenda that might leave only a few hunting rifles and shotguns.


2. Firearms should be registered. There are only two arguments against gun registration. One is a fear the Government will one day come and take your weapons away if they know where they are. This is Red Dawn territory; if one is so afraid or paranoid of the US Government, they probably have bigger problems than their guns. The second argument is one intends to use their firearm unlawfully.

I see where you are coming from, but government confiscation is a basic concern. It is not one that I worry about often, but government confiscation could happen for a numbr of reasons. If there is a gun confiscation I'm sure it will be under the veil of public safety. See the unconstitutional gun confiscation of NOLA as an example. Even a well known Democratic Senator wished she could have asked Mr. and Mrs. America to turn in certain types of guns if she could get away with it. The desire to confiscate is strong with some. The futility of a gun confiscation effort because of a lack of registration may be the final line of defense to such a confiscation.


3. Individual firearm ownership doesn't prevent tyranny. Iraq proved that; during Saddam's four decades of tyranny, Iraqis could own virtually any kind of firearm--even automatic weapons. The belief that some out of shape gun owner with his AR-15 is going to strike fear into our military forces is preposterous.

You are correct that merely owning guns will not prevent tyranny. The will to fight must exist as well as the means. One civilian with an AR is not much of threat to our military forces, but on the other hand 10s of millions of cilivians with ARs are. There is strength in numbers.


4. Firearm owners should be required to take training; currently, there is no federal law mandating a firearm owner know how to operate, maintain or store his weapon.

I agree. Let's teach gun safety, maintenance, and usage in schools to all children.


5. Firearm owners should be insured. It's about accountability and responsibility. Firearm violence and accidents costs all of us; it's time the users took ownership of those costs.

People already have civil actions recourse to those who are negligent with their firearms. Requiring insurance as a condition for gun ownership would infringe too much on the poor.


6. The Government should fund longterm studies of gun violence. It's a public health issue and if we hope to mitigate this country's senseless gun violence costs, we have to get a handle on its causes.

Public health researchers already can submit grants for such studies and use public funds. We already know that better mental health treatment would help prevent many suicides and homocides, and ending the drug war would deescalate much gang type violence.


7. Close the gunshow loophole. Tighten the laws on all gun transactions. Eliminate the Tiahrt amendment which allows those bad apple dealers to flourish.

Can you explain to me how the federal government should be able to control the civilian transfer of guns to other civilians within state boundaries? The Commerce Clause doesn't seem to apply. States already have that power to regulate those sales and most states have not found it necessary to ban cilivian within state transfer of firearms without NICS at gunshows or anywhere else. Honestly, I wish they would open NICS to civilians so that we could start using it on our own. I would. Regarding the Tiahrt Amendment -- as I understand it local, state, and federal agencies can access the trace data for specific criminal investigations, but not for other purposes.

On point 6, you and I have some common ground. I'm heavily in favor of gathering and analyzing information.

Brady Inc/VPC supported the total ban in DC, has no qualms whatsoever if it were to cover the entire USA.




You were saying?

did an in depth study on Gun Control. I believe the gentleman's name was Kleck. He was a strong advocate of gun control and accepted a grant to study gun control and social violence. Some time during his study he turned... He became an advocate of gun ownership and relaxed gun laws.

He turned his study into the CDC and it was quashed. He, in turn sued the CDC on the FOI act and had the study released. If I remember it correctly, the study was also his doctoral disseretation which he could only use if released. The CDC was reluctant to release the study but did so. They had originally hoped it would spur another branch to study social violence.

When Julie Gerberdine advanced from Infectious Disease to director of the CDC, she eased the openly promoted the study and said that the CDC now stood behind it.

The CDC is hardly an NRA/Repug shill. They are simply "calling them as they see them".

Yeesh, if a government of mine was giving money to as biased and dishonest and non-credible a "researcher" as Kleck, someone as simply outrageously bizarrely non-sensical as Kleck, I'd be worried too.

Ah yes, here's the bit I was looking for earlier -- I actually had done the math myself in a post here a while ago, but here's someone else doing it:


http://timlambert.org/1996/01/dgu-00014/
(my emphases)

I think critical analysis of Kleck’s estimate is especially important for those who because of their biases (and we all have our biases) would like to accept it as true.

On the other hand, there is something odd about the assertion that guns are used defensively in over 700,000 burglaries and 400,000 robberies. It’s particularly interesting that the defenders perceived that someone “almost certainly would have died” without the gun use in 15.7% of the cases, or over 300,000 cases total. Surely that’s a remarkable number, one rather inconsistent with our presumably reliable homicide totals. (I realize, though, that it’s possible that people wildly mis-estimated this but were truthful about other, more objective, judgments.)

The estimate of 200,000 woundings of criminals in DGUs is also remarkable. It is 10-20 times higher than Kleck’s earlier estimates of this number derived from multiple independent data sources. It is double the NEISS derived estimate of the number of ALL gun shot wounds (criminal, defensive, accidental and attempted suicides) treated in hospitals.

Do read the rest, and more at that site, if you're a fan of statistical analyses. It's quite amusing.


When Julie Gerberdine advanced from Infectious Disease to director of the CDC, she eased the openly promoted the study and said that the CDC now stood behind it.

Bit of a bad C&P job? Anyhow, her name is Gerberding. Appointed by, er, George Bush, was she?


http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/stories/2008/11/23/cdc_Gerberding_obama.html

New administration could mean new CDC chief

By CRAIG SCHNEIDER

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Sunday, November 23, 2008

... During Gerberding’s six years at the CDC, critics lambasted her for sacrificing science for politics — for carrying the Bush agenda on global warming and other issues into the world of scientific research.

... Gerberding, an infectious disease expert, was appointed CDC director in 2002 under the Bush administration. She has led the CDC — the country’s premier public health lab — into the post-9/11 world.

But along the way, her reorganization of the center’s staff, her edited testimony before a congressional hearing and the removal of a few respected CDC leaders have created a firestorm of criticism.

... Gerberding’s perceived alignment with the Bush administration, however, could work against her remaining in the job, said Russ Toal, a distinguished fellow in health policy at Georgia State University.

The Bush administration “was an extremely political administration that reached down into the lower levels of government,” Toal said.

Gerberding was criticized last year after allegations emerged that she allowed the White House to censor her congressional testimony on climate change. A deleted section included, “Catastrophic weather events such as heat waves and hurricanes are expected to become more frequent, severe and costly.”

http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/news/stories/2008/03/28/cdc_0328.html?cxntlid=inform_sr

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 03/28/08

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has begun a process that could lead to the firing of an Atlanta scientist who tried to make public environmental dangers in the Great Lakes region and in trailers housing Hurricane Katrina's victims, congressional investigators said.

In a letter dated Thursday, lawmakers warned CDC Director Julie Gerberding to immediately stop all personnel actions against toxicologist Christopher De Rosa — and any other staff involved in a report about environmental health issues in Great Lakes states.

"Courageous individuals who are willing to go public with evidence of wrongdoing are critical to ferreting out waste, fraud and abuse in government agencies," U.S. Rep. John Dingell, chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, said in a statement.

She shoots, she scores! You people really, really can not come up with ONE genuinely progressive voice to cite for your cause. Gerberding, the present icon of all things worth emulating, is a Bush toadie. No more, no less.

I have tried and tried to find something somewhere in which Gerberding had something to say about firearms:

http://www.google.ca/search?num=30&hl=en&safe=off&q=%22Julie+Gerberding%22+firearms+-autism+-climate+-obesity+-vaccination+-flu+-wayne&btnG=Search&meta=

Other than some platitudes following the Virginia Tech incident - nada.

But hey, credit where credit was due. James Dobson didn't like her appointment.


Meanwhile, can you provide some details on that Gerberding-CDC-Kleck connection? I just can't find anything ...


The CDC is hardly an NRA/Repug shill. They are simply "calling them as they see them".

You really don't have a clue, do you? Either that, or you really think nobody else has.

1) Not true, lets start with DiFi and go from there.

2) Your Red Dawn scenario has been born out in many countries. Its not paranoia, its historical fact

3) Mixed here. It assumes the military will turn against civilians. Unlikely on a large scale. Possible on a micro basis. Think rogue cops.

4) If its a right, the state can not require training. Consider whether we should be trained how to vote or have a free press correctly.

5) Again there is this pesky rights thing.

6) Its not a public health issue.

7) The so called loophole does not exist in many states. What it should be called is the banning of private firearms transactions. What laws would you like tightened? The Tiahrt amendment does nothing about "bad dealers", which is a meaningless term. A bad dealer is already breaking existing laws and can be shutdown by the BATF. It does stop nuisance suits, which is a good thing.

1. There is no national group in the US calling for or advocating a total gun ban. Yes, there are groups calling for better regulation of firearms and some that advocate certain types of firearms be prohibited or very tightly regulated. But pretending that all guns will be regulated out of existence ("when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns") is pure fantasy.

The National Coalition to ban Handguns?

2. Firearms should be registered. There are only two arguments against gun registration. One is a fear the Government will one day come and take your weapons away if they know where they are. This is Red Dawn territory; if one is so afraid or paranoid of the US Government, they probably have bigger problems than their guns. The second argument is one intends to use their firearm unlawfully.

The Canadian gun registry is a failure, and when the UK and Australia decided to ban certain guns (all handguns and semi-auto anytihng in the UK, semi auto rifles in Australia) , their registries made a pretty damn convenient pickup list. It isn't paranoia if it actually happens! In the end, what point does a registry serve? I doubt if someone is bent on commiting a crime with a gun the fact that its in a registry will matter to them... and if it did, a file can fix that. It is very illegal to file off a serial number on a gun, but then again, criminals specialize in law breaking!

3. Individual firearm ownership doesn't prevent tyranny. Iraq proved that; during Saddam's four decades of tyranny, Iraqis could own virtually any kind of firearm--even automatic weapons. The belief that some out of shape gun owner with his AR-15 is going to strike fear into our military forces is preposterous.

Can you say, American Revolution, Vietnam, Iraq now? I seriously doubt they were allowed to own such guns, and as it is, most tyrannical governments ban guns as a matter of priority. Given that so many military members privately own guns, including said AR-15, they may not be so likely to participate in said tyrannical gov't.

4. Firearm owners should be required to take training; currently, there is no federal law mandating a firearm owner know how to operate, maintain or store his weapon.

Reinstate firearms safety familirization and training in public schools. School should teach our children how to be safe, be it with firearms, household chemicals, or sex ed.

5. Firearm owners should be insured. It's about accountability and responsibility. Firearm violence and accidents costs all of us; it's time the users took ownership of those costs.

Many have insurance on their collection, as they are valuable, not to mention if you use your gun in a reckless/criminal manner, you can be held liable in civil (as well as criminal) court. and to apply the slippery slope theory, would you advocate people who own alcohol and a car be insured? I bet drunk driving kills/cost a lot more than gun crime.

6. The Government should fund longterm studies of gun violence. It's a public health issue and if we hope to mitigate this country's senseless gun violence costs, we have to get a handle on its causes.

Don't they do that already? Someone should do a study on what areas of the country have high/low crime versus the area's gun law strictness (like, DC, no guns high crime, and all of, say, Vermont: unlicensed concealed carry and no crime).

7. Close the gunshow loophole. Tighten the laws on all gun transactions. Eliminate the Tiahrt amendment which allows those bad apple dealers to flourish.

What loophole? Private sales between citizens of a state are not even under jurisdiction of federal law. Its a states rights thing.

1. advocating a total gun ban

The National Coalition to ban Handguns?

When you have a point, do be sure to make it!


2. Firearms should be registered.

The Canadian gun registry is a failure

What, it failed to stop global warming??

what point does a registry serve?

Aww, you really do need help, don't you? Maybe someone will be generous and offer it. For the 79-thousandth time. But you'd just keep asking, wouldn't you?

I doubt if someone is bent on commiting a crime with a gun the fact that its in a registry will matter to them... and if it did, a file can fix that.

Eek, what did they do, catch it as it fell from the sky and then go register it?? These criminals of yours are pretty dumb, aren't they?


4. Firearm owners should be required to take training

Reinstate firearms safety familirization and training in public schools.

Yeah. Fuck those parents who don't want their children being "familiarized" with firearms. And never mind the books the schools can't afford to buy. As long as the kids are "familiarized" with firearms, US society will continue to be in the top ranks of research and development. Oh, wait.


5. Firearm owners should be insured.

would you advocate people who own alcohol and a car be insured?

I've heard tell that there are places in your country where motor vehicles can be registered without proof of insurance. It's one of those funny news-of-the-weird stories I've never known whether to believe.

Yes, yes, I know. People who don't remove their vehicles from their property don't need insurance. And they really, really do account for a very, very large proportion of vehicle owners. And of course most motor vehicle accidents/homicides happen in the home.


6. The Government should fund longterm studies of gun violence.

Don't they do that already?

Uh ... no.

Someone should do a study on what areas of the country have high/low crime versus the area's gun law strictness (like, DC, no guns high crime, and all of, say, Vermont: unlicensed concealed carry and no crime).

Miss something, did you?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=194879&mesg_id=194879

Not funded by your federal government, of course.


7. Close the gunshow loophole. Tighten the laws on all gun transactions.

What loophole? Private sales between citizens of a state are not even under jurisdiction of federal law. Its a states rights thing.

Hmm. If so, so? You must have thought that was relevant ...

Just use the laws we currently have???

of the several brazillion of you people who have mouthed this meme to date.

Which laws would that be?

And how should they be used so as to address the problems that 8kilo1 sought to address?

and the problems 8kilo1 was talking about are not problems and do not need to be addressed