1) I infer from your argument that you believe cops and no one else should be allowed to possess firearms. If that's a hyperbolic inference, my bust, but you're not being terrifically specific.
2) What form ought this further "federal comprehensive gun contr…
1) I infer from your argument that you believe cops and no one else should be allowed to possess firearms. If that's a hyperbolic inference, my bust, but you're not being terrifically specific.
2) What form ought this further "federal comprehensive gun control" to take? Federal gun control laws have existed for nearly a century -- public firearms ownership in the USA has been incrementally restricted from the NFA of 1934 to the GCA of 1968 to the Crime Bill of 1994. It's not as if there are no laws. Everyone legally purchasing a firearm from a credentialed dealer has to undergo a NICS background check.
3) The number of privately possessed firearms in the USA is vaguely estimated by a variety of sources as upwards of 400 million. Nobody knows for sure. Suppose that Congress passes mandated registration. How many will comply with it?
That DC v. Heller Supreme Court decision is gonna be a beast to get around, too.
1) The U.S. should have as few guns as possible. If the U.S. gets the restrictive gun control laws enacted in Germany and England, it may then be feasible to disarm police, thereby plummeting homicide rates across the board.
2) The National Firearms Act of 1934 was wonderfully successful in reducing the rate by which fully automatic weapons were used in crimes, as shown by the fact that today fully automatic weapons account for just 0.3% of crime guns submitted for tracing by law enforcement agencies. The Gun Control Act of 1968 made modest improvements to national gun policy by restricting federal gun sales only to licensed dealers and barring dealers from selling to out-of-state buyers. However, there is still a pattern in the U.S. of guns in states with minimal regulation flowing to states with stringent restrictions on gun sales; this is evidenced by the fact that 90% of all crime guns in New York City come from out of state, disproportionately from Virginia, the Carolinas, Georgia and Florida.
Current federal regulation disqualifies people who have been convicted of a felony from owning a gun. This should be expanded to anyone who has been convicted of a violent misdemeanor. A study of adult murder defendants in Chicago found that only 43% of them had a felony conviction, and another study found that of criminals sentenced to prison for a firearm-related felony, most of them were not disqualified by any federal background check requirements.
Additionally, anyone convicted of several DUIs should be barred from owning a gun, as about half of all homicides are committed by someone under the influence of alcohol.
Another excellent potential federal regulation would be to empower every police department in the country to do what Indiana police are permitted to do by state law: Seize a weapon without a warrant from individuals they deem to be dangerous to themselves or others.
In re the NICS background check, the 2007 Virginia Tech shooter, who killed 33 people including himself, passed a NICS background check. So did Elliot Rodger, the perpetrator of the 2014 Isla Vista mass shooting. A way to improve NICS and keep firearms out of the hands of the mentally ill is to improve upon the federal ban on firearm possession by a mentally person who has been involuntarily hospitalized for mental illness and extend it to everyone who has been hospitalized for mental illness, both voluntarily and involuntarily.
3) I don't know how many will comply with registration. Another excellent regulation which could prevent guns from falling into the hands of people to whom they were not originally registered is to require all guns to have a fingerprint signature. Gun manufacturers are already using such signatures widely. A 2004 study showed that for inmates who used a gun in a crime that landed them in prison, 41% got the gun from a friend or family member, 32% got the gun from off the street, from a drug dealer or from a fence or black market dealer, and just 12% got the gun from a gun shop or pawn shop (presumably licensed).
As you can see, the federal government has hardly exhausted all its regulatory options.
Make it ten! Studies show you could have a thousand guns in your home and none of them would make you safer from an invader. But I wish you all the best in enjoying your delusional heterocosm!
Yeah! Why defend your children from rape and murder with lead when you can defend them with “studies”. I’m sure the savage perpetrator will stop to read it and realize the error of his ways.
Your complete lack of understanding of human nature is astounding and disturbing.
Now that's too far. Why on earth would I want to see you dead? I am a humanist. I respect and value your life irrespective of how much I disagree with you on gun control. Let's not get paranoid, friend. And no, humanist doesn't mean communist: I hate communists and their exploded economic model.
Well let's see. How about the fact that you are good with my wife and little girl being brutally raped and murdered because some academic, who is most likely a communist, says "on average" in the UK, not the US, less CRIMINALS would die if you take away MY God given US right to defend the life of my family and property.
Oh, you're so right! My reliance on studies and statistics to back up my beliefs is nothing compared to the reliability of your individual gut instinct. Good point!
800K defensive uses of guns would like to disagree with whatever bullshit studies you are reading.
In the 10 million gun sales from last year, 58% of new gun owners are Blacks, and 40% women. Why do you want to disarm minorities and women?
Do you have a wife/daughter/elderly/handicapped person in your household? Do you live close to the border around cartels or gangs? Why do you not care about saving their life?
A friend of mine who is a middle-aged woman living alone and a pretty leftish social-democrat type, in other words an 'ultra-liberal' in some people's language, recently acquired a fairly serious pistol (9mm) and also took a course in how to use it. She did this after two young men tried to break her door down. She is not sure what they were after, although a practice called 'smash and grab' is popular in her area. The police had been called, but it takes them awhile to show up; in this case, the young men were dissuaded by a neighbor who was curious as to what they were doing, and ran away. She asked me what I thought and I said, 'Don't bring out the gun unless you intend to use it. Shoot to kill immediately: center of mass first, head next if they're still standing. Assume your attacker is armed.' Personally I thought she should have gotten a shotgun, as it's too easy to miss with a mere pistol even when you have good training. You can't fool around with this stuff.
In regard to gun control in general, I would like to see it start with the top, that is, with the Federal government and its military, secret police, spooks, agents, and so forth. Why this is not an issue, I don't know. After we get that under control, we can work our way down to police with military weapons like machine guns, bazookas, and tanks. And then maybe get after those 400 million private, small-bore individual weapons. But let's take care of the big stuff first.
800K defensive uses of guns would like to disagree with you.
In the 10 million gun sales from last year, 58% of new gun owners are Blacks, and 40% women. Why do you want to disarm minorities and women?
Do you have a wife/daughter/elderly/handicapped person in your household? Do you live close to the border around cartels or gangs? Why do you not care about saving their life?
That's just, like, your opinion, man. I say the more the merrier. Guess we have to hash that one out by voting for representatives and court judgments and stuff. The legal process and our democracy.
"If the U.S. gets the restrictive gun control laws enacted in Germany and England"
[guffaws] That'll be the day. You seen the balance of power in Congress lately?
"This should be expanded to anyone who has been convicted of a violent misdemeanor."
"anyone convicted of several DUIs should be barred from owning a gun"
Your "shoulds" are doing some heavy lifting here. One could be forgiven for thinking that you are a person who believes yourself to have the authority to tell others what they "should" and "should not" do.
"another study found that of criminals sentenced to prison for a firearm-related felony, most of them were not disqualified by any federal background check requirements."
It's almost as if the increasingly restrictive federal background requirements... have been ineffective? So your argument is that they need to become *more* restrictive?
"Another excellent potential federal regulation would be to empower every police department in the country to... seize a weapon without a warrant"
You don't seem to be too big on the Bill of Rights. 2nd Amendment? 4th Amendment? Fuggedabaht'em.
"require all guns to have a fingerprint signature. Gun manufacturers are already using such signatures widely."
Please cite a source. Like, name one gun manufacturer who is doing this. (If it's some boutique manufacturer I've never heard of, I will gracefully concede the point.) The old "smart gun" canard has been around in one form or another since the 1990s. It has never proven practicable for both technological and financial reasons.
"As you can see, the federal government has hardly exhausted all its regulatory options."
Thank God. The question you have been dancing around here is one of implementation. The federal government can legislatively regulate out the wazoo. What measures should it take to effectively implement these putative regulations? I see few options beyond active violence against its own populace, and that's a case of the cure being worse than the disease.
I don't see any advanced countries engaging in greater violence against its civilian population than we have in the U.S. -- and no, I'm not referring to Cuba or China as advanced countries. I hate communism and all communists, so that lazy ad hominem ain't gonna work.
The fingerprint signature suggestion is taken from "The Gun Debate: What Everyone Needs To Know" (2014) by Philip J. Cook and Kristin A. Goss.
You're right: I don't give a fart in space about the Second Amendment. I want it completely watered down. I do think the government has the right to take measures to ensure public safety that I understand you find too nanny-state-ish. Evidence from around the world, especially from Australia and the bans it instituted after the grisly 1996 Port Arthur Massacre, shows these measures save lives, but admittedly they would infringe on the Bill of Rights. Bring it on, I say!
I'm sorry you thought I engaged in ad hominem. I thought I was being quite polite.
"The fingerprint signature suggestion is taken from "The Gun Debate: What Everyone Needs To Know" (2014) by Philip J. Cook and Kristin A. Goss."
That's not an answer to the question I asked. Your claim was "Gun manufacturers are *ALREADY* using such signatures *WIDELY* (emphases mine)." My response was "name one gun manufacturer who is doing this." If you are leaning on Cook & Goss's work here, and if it is a serious, scholarly one, they should have been able to provide examples of gun manufacturers *widely* employing fingerprint-signature technology. I note you used the word "suggestion."
"You're right: I don't give a fart in space about the Second Amendment. I want it completely watered down. I do think the government has the right to take measures to ensure public safety that I understand you find too nanny-state-ish. Evidence from around the world, especially from Australia and the bans it instituted after the grisly 1996 Port Arthur Massacre, shows these measures save lives, but admittedly they would infringe on the Bill of Rights. Bring it on, I say!"
Well, at least we each know who the other is dealing with. It seems there is far too much daylight between our respective positions for us to resolve anything by reasoned debate.
Final note: Brits and Australians aren't Americans. The US is a much larger country with far more firearms and a stronger tradition of not knuckling under to feudalistic control by a centralized hierarchy. The Canadians joke about their guns "falling off the boat" after mandatory registration was passed.
I hate guns. Absolutely hate them. Would be delighted if they banned them all tomorrow. But, the booger we hit up hard against is ok, so what are we going to do with all of the guns already out there? I've only heard crickets for an answer.
I am myself quite fond of guns. I am also quite fond of snakes. I understand that many people have visceral reactions against both and find them extremely unpleasant. I do not believe that this calls for empowering the federal government to eliminate guns and/or snakes by all measures available.
I hate weed and drugs. Absolutely hate them. But I sure as fuck don't want them banned. Just like war on drugs failed, war on guns is an even stupider idea.
"Until we get federal comprehensive gun control"
Well, that's a hell of a handwave.
1) I infer from your argument that you believe cops and no one else should be allowed to possess firearms. If that's a hyperbolic inference, my bust, but you're not being terrifically specific.
2) What form ought this further "federal comprehensive gun control" to take? Federal gun control laws have existed for nearly a century -- public firearms ownership in the USA has been incrementally restricted from the NFA of 1934 to the GCA of 1968 to the Crime Bill of 1994. It's not as if there are no laws. Everyone legally purchasing a firearm from a credentialed dealer has to undergo a NICS background check.
3) The number of privately possessed firearms in the USA is vaguely estimated by a variety of sources as upwards of 400 million. Nobody knows for sure. Suppose that Congress passes mandated registration. How many will comply with it?
That DC v. Heller Supreme Court decision is gonna be a beast to get around, too.
That's not happening now for sure. In fact gun sales are soaring, given our government's push toward a police state.
In the 10 million gun sales from last year, 58% of new gun owners are Blacks, and 40% women.
Interesting.
1) The U.S. should have as few guns as possible. If the U.S. gets the restrictive gun control laws enacted in Germany and England, it may then be feasible to disarm police, thereby plummeting homicide rates across the board.
2) The National Firearms Act of 1934 was wonderfully successful in reducing the rate by which fully automatic weapons were used in crimes, as shown by the fact that today fully automatic weapons account for just 0.3% of crime guns submitted for tracing by law enforcement agencies. The Gun Control Act of 1968 made modest improvements to national gun policy by restricting federal gun sales only to licensed dealers and barring dealers from selling to out-of-state buyers. However, there is still a pattern in the U.S. of guns in states with minimal regulation flowing to states with stringent restrictions on gun sales; this is evidenced by the fact that 90% of all crime guns in New York City come from out of state, disproportionately from Virginia, the Carolinas, Georgia and Florida.
Current federal regulation disqualifies people who have been convicted of a felony from owning a gun. This should be expanded to anyone who has been convicted of a violent misdemeanor. A study of adult murder defendants in Chicago found that only 43% of them had a felony conviction, and another study found that of criminals sentenced to prison for a firearm-related felony, most of them were not disqualified by any federal background check requirements.
Additionally, anyone convicted of several DUIs should be barred from owning a gun, as about half of all homicides are committed by someone under the influence of alcohol.
Another excellent potential federal regulation would be to empower every police department in the country to do what Indiana police are permitted to do by state law: Seize a weapon without a warrant from individuals they deem to be dangerous to themselves or others.
In re the NICS background check, the 2007 Virginia Tech shooter, who killed 33 people including himself, passed a NICS background check. So did Elliot Rodger, the perpetrator of the 2014 Isla Vista mass shooting. A way to improve NICS and keep firearms out of the hands of the mentally ill is to improve upon the federal ban on firearm possession by a mentally person who has been involuntarily hospitalized for mental illness and extend it to everyone who has been hospitalized for mental illness, both voluntarily and involuntarily.
3) I don't know how many will comply with registration. Another excellent regulation which could prevent guns from falling into the hands of people to whom they were not originally registered is to require all guns to have a fingerprint signature. Gun manufacturers are already using such signatures widely. A 2004 study showed that for inmates who used a gun in a crime that landed them in prison, 41% got the gun from a friend or family member, 32% got the gun from off the street, from a drug dealer or from a fence or black market dealer, and just 12% got the gun from a gun shop or pawn shop (presumably licensed).
As you can see, the federal government has hardly exhausted all its regulatory options.
I am going to buy another gun tomorrow just because of this comment.
That's soooo sensible. Good for you, friend!
Make that two guns now.
Make it ten! Studies show you could have a thousand guns in your home and none of them would make you safer from an invader. But I wish you all the best in enjoying your delusional heterocosm!
Yeah! Why defend your children from rape and murder with lead when you can defend them with “studies”. I’m sure the savage perpetrator will stop to read it and realize the error of his ways.
Your complete lack of understanding of human nature is astounding and disturbing.
I am extremely interested to hear about Ian Jameson's first-hand experience with repelling home invasions. Perhaps he knows kung fu.
People like this want us free law abiding citizens dead. I am convinced of it.
Oh, they don't want us dead. They just want us *in compliance.* It's an important distinction.
and when we don't comply? Then what?
It's like these people have never read a history book.
Now that's too far. Why on earth would I want to see you dead? I am a humanist. I respect and value your life irrespective of how much I disagree with you on gun control. Let's not get paranoid, friend. And no, humanist doesn't mean communist: I hate communists and their exploded economic model.
Well let's see. How about the fact that you are good with my wife and little girl being brutally raped and murdered because some academic, who is most likely a communist, says "on average" in the UK, not the US, less CRIMINALS would die if you take away MY God given US right to defend the life of my family and property.
How dare you sir! Nothing but jiu jitsu for me, thank you.
Knives, knife handles, snakes, and fast feet
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xssCyfRu3iM
well played, sir
Oh, you're so right! My reliance on studies and statistics to back up my beliefs is nothing compared to the reliability of your individual gut instinct. Good point!
800K defensive uses of guns would like to disagree with whatever bullshit studies you are reading.
In the 10 million gun sales from last year, 58% of new gun owners are Blacks, and 40% women. Why do you want to disarm minorities and women?
Do you have a wife/daughter/elderly/handicapped person in your household? Do you live close to the border around cartels or gangs? Why do you not care about saving their life?
A friend of mine who is a middle-aged woman living alone and a pretty leftish social-democrat type, in other words an 'ultra-liberal' in some people's language, recently acquired a fairly serious pistol (9mm) and also took a course in how to use it. She did this after two young men tried to break her door down. She is not sure what they were after, although a practice called 'smash and grab' is popular in her area. The police had been called, but it takes them awhile to show up; in this case, the young men were dissuaded by a neighbor who was curious as to what they were doing, and ran away. She asked me what I thought and I said, 'Don't bring out the gun unless you intend to use it. Shoot to kill immediately: center of mass first, head next if they're still standing. Assume your attacker is armed.' Personally I thought she should have gotten a shotgun, as it's too easy to miss with a mere pistol even when you have good training. You can't fool around with this stuff.
In regard to gun control in general, I would like to see it start with the top, that is, with the Federal government and its military, secret police, spooks, agents, and so forth. Why this is not an issue, I don't know. After we get that under control, we can work our way down to police with military weapons like machine guns, bazookas, and tanks. And then maybe get after those 400 million private, small-bore individual weapons. But let's take care of the big stuff first.
It's just your typical over-educated academic w/out common sense.
Say that to my 12ga. Police response time here is ~15m. I'm already dead without a gun.
The varmint .22s get more use, admittedly. My property is a raccoon death zone.
800K defensive uses of guns would like to disagree with you.
In the 10 million gun sales from last year, 58% of new gun owners are Blacks, and 40% women. Why do you want to disarm minorities and women?
Do you have a wife/daughter/elderly/handicapped person in your household? Do you live close to the border around cartels or gangs? Why do you not care about saving their life?
"The U.S. should have as few guns as possible."
That's just, like, your opinion, man. I say the more the merrier. Guess we have to hash that one out by voting for representatives and court judgments and stuff. The legal process and our democracy.
"If the U.S. gets the restrictive gun control laws enacted in Germany and England"
[guffaws] That'll be the day. You seen the balance of power in Congress lately?
"This should be expanded to anyone who has been convicted of a violent misdemeanor."
"anyone convicted of several DUIs should be barred from owning a gun"
Your "shoulds" are doing some heavy lifting here. One could be forgiven for thinking that you are a person who believes yourself to have the authority to tell others what they "should" and "should not" do.
"another study found that of criminals sentenced to prison for a firearm-related felony, most of them were not disqualified by any federal background check requirements."
It's almost as if the increasingly restrictive federal background requirements... have been ineffective? So your argument is that they need to become *more* restrictive?
"Another excellent potential federal regulation would be to empower every police department in the country to... seize a weapon without a warrant"
You don't seem to be too big on the Bill of Rights. 2nd Amendment? 4th Amendment? Fuggedabaht'em.
"require all guns to have a fingerprint signature. Gun manufacturers are already using such signatures widely."
Please cite a source. Like, name one gun manufacturer who is doing this. (If it's some boutique manufacturer I've never heard of, I will gracefully concede the point.) The old "smart gun" canard has been around in one form or another since the 1990s. It has never proven practicable for both technological and financial reasons.
"As you can see, the federal government has hardly exhausted all its regulatory options."
Thank God. The question you have been dancing around here is one of implementation. The federal government can legislatively regulate out the wazoo. What measures should it take to effectively implement these putative regulations? I see few options beyond active violence against its own populace, and that's a case of the cure being worse than the disease.
I don't see any advanced countries engaging in greater violence against its civilian population than we have in the U.S. -- and no, I'm not referring to Cuba or China as advanced countries. I hate communism and all communists, so that lazy ad hominem ain't gonna work.
The fingerprint signature suggestion is taken from "The Gun Debate: What Everyone Needs To Know" (2014) by Philip J. Cook and Kristin A. Goss.
You're right: I don't give a fart in space about the Second Amendment. I want it completely watered down. I do think the government has the right to take measures to ensure public safety that I understand you find too nanny-state-ish. Evidence from around the world, especially from Australia and the bans it instituted after the grisly 1996 Port Arthur Massacre, shows these measures save lives, but admittedly they would infringe on the Bill of Rights. Bring it on, I say!
I'm sorry you thought I engaged in ad hominem. I thought I was being quite polite.
"The fingerprint signature suggestion is taken from "The Gun Debate: What Everyone Needs To Know" (2014) by Philip J. Cook and Kristin A. Goss."
That's not an answer to the question I asked. Your claim was "Gun manufacturers are *ALREADY* using such signatures *WIDELY* (emphases mine)." My response was "name one gun manufacturer who is doing this." If you are leaning on Cook & Goss's work here, and if it is a serious, scholarly one, they should have been able to provide examples of gun manufacturers *widely* employing fingerprint-signature technology. I note you used the word "suggestion."
"You're right: I don't give a fart in space about the Second Amendment. I want it completely watered down. I do think the government has the right to take measures to ensure public safety that I understand you find too nanny-state-ish. Evidence from around the world, especially from Australia and the bans it instituted after the grisly 1996 Port Arthur Massacre, shows these measures save lives, but admittedly they would infringe on the Bill of Rights. Bring it on, I say!"
Well, at least we each know who the other is dealing with. It seems there is far too much daylight between our respective positions for us to resolve anything by reasoned debate.
Final note: Brits and Australians aren't Americans. The US is a much larger country with far more firearms and a stronger tradition of not knuckling under to feudalistic control by a centralized hierarchy. The Canadians joke about their guns "falling off the boat" after mandatory registration was passed.
Broad-sweep sordid details for any interested party here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Firearms_Registry
I hate guns. Absolutely hate them. Would be delighted if they banned them all tomorrow. But, the booger we hit up hard against is ok, so what are we going to do with all of the guns already out there? I've only heard crickets for an answer.
Thanks for a measured and thoughtful response.
False equivalence ahead:
I am myself quite fond of guns. I am also quite fond of snakes. I understand that many people have visceral reactions against both and find them extremely unpleasant. I do not believe that this calls for empowering the federal government to eliminate guns and/or snakes by all measures available.
I use similar logic for weed and drugs and why despite me hating them, want them all legalized.
I hate weed and drugs. Absolutely hate them. But I sure as fuck don't want them banned. Just like war on drugs failed, war on guns is an even stupider idea.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAA Good luck buddy.
In the 10 million gun sales from last year, 58% of new gun owners are Blacks, and 40% women. Why do you want to disarm minorities and women?