# Firearms - The US Discussion Thread



## KevinB (14 Dec 2015)

NCIS (National Criminal Instant-Check System)
  It is a Federally mandated law in the US that anyone buying a firearm from a licensed dealer must "pass" as well fill out the 4473 paperwork, before the store may transfer the gun to them.
https://www.atf.gov/file/61446/download
 The 4473 records the NCIS check approval.

 It is effectively cash and carry, as long as your not a criminal.
  Some states have waiting time frames for certain firearms, and usually a Concealed Permit Holder (what VA calls the CCW permit in the state) is exempt from the waiting laws.

The Government does not retain information of the firearm, the dealer does.  The Government can get the information if they subpoena the FFL records however.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (14 Dec 2015)

KevinB said:
			
		

> NCIS (National Criminal Instant-Check System)
> It is a Federally mandated law in the US that anyone buying a firearm from a licensed dealer must "pass" as well fill out the 4473 paperwork, before the store may transfer the gun to them.
> https://www.atf.gov/file/61446/download
> The 4473 records the NCIS check approval.
> ...



Ah, it's the "criminal" side of the deal, no background or interviews for mental health that is the issue. 

So criminals can't buy guns legally but crazy people can?


----------



## SeaKingTacco (15 Dec 2015)

Define "crazy".

I am not being sarcastic. Can you show me a national "crazy people" registry?


----------



## The Bread Guy (15 Dec 2015)

KevinB said:
			
		

> NCIS (National Criminal Instant-Check System)
> It is a Federally mandated law in the US that anyone buying a firearm from a licensed dealer must "pass" as well fill out the 4473 paperwork, before the store may transfer the gun to them.
> https://www.atf.gov/file/61446/download
> The 4473 records the NCIS check approval.
> ...


You _*know*_ how the U.S. rules work - is this correct (highlights mine), or are we missing a big part of the REST of the story?


> Alaska Congressman Don Young doesn’t think much of the proposal to bar people on the no-fly list from buying guns.
> 
> “Those that are talking about – what they’re doing is against the Constitution,” he said on the House floor Thursday. “And I will fight until my dying breath to make sure that we have the ability to retain the Second Amendment.”
> 
> ...


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (15 Dec 2015)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Can you show me a national "crazy people" registry?



Isn't it called the Voters List ?   ;D


----------



## Lumber (15 Dec 2015)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I believe the "rule of thumb" for what to do with tyrannical regimes has been established:
> 
> " ... _That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness_."



I don't disagree with this at all. But does banning certain or all weapons make a government a "tyrannical" regime? Was the US government considered "tyrannical" when it outlawed alcohol in 1920? 

Lets say the government, for example, banned all guns that didn't have a wooden stock because plastic stocks/hand guards look more "assault like" (their words, not mine). Then lets say as a result, a bunch of gun owners burry their guns in the back yard in protest. I'd roll my eyes, but I'd say "whatever, that is a really stupid law that makes no sense. If you want to keep your gun THAT bad, go ahead and burry it in the dirt." But to advocate using those guns against the government for banning those same guns? I guess me and the hardcore gun supporters have a different idea of what a tyrannical regime is. 



			
				Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Isn't it called the Voters List ?   ;D



No no, just the list of registered Republican party members.  :subbies:


----------



## KevinB (15 Dec 2015)

*caveat I do not have personal experience with the No-Fly list, my LE job has no interaction with that.

I understand a problem with the no-fly list, in this respect is that folks are put on it for suspicions, and until your denied boarding, you cannot find out who is on, as there is no judicial process.
 I would also like to see the no-fly list process turned into a legitimate judicial process, like a criminal proceeding, however we do not have a constitutionally enshrined right to fly on an airline. With gun buying, we (in the USA) have a protected right in the second amendment, and until they are charged or convicted of a crime, that right may not be infringed.
 For further interest.
NCIS will delay if a hit occurs (similar name, etc. until sorted), and this data is available to Law Enforcement (NICS applications).
  Make, Model etc. is not without due process (subpoena, or seizure in a warrant) as that is on the 4473, however it is not a hard item to get as the NCIS does log the store/FFL who submitted the check for the individual purchase (or purchase attempt), and if there are NICS hits for a suspect, very few judges will deny a warrant for the records of what was acquired.
 LE can pull up recent NCIS [personally seen a 90 day one] checks, to me personally irrelevant, as I expect all suspects are armed, but can be used to persuade a reluctant judge to approve a no knock, or your chain to approve certain entry methods.


----------



## Jarnhamar (15 Dec 2015)

> “Right now people on the no-fly list can walk into a store and buy a gun. That’s insane,” Obama said. “If you’re too dangerous to board a plane, you’re too dangerous by definition to buy a gun.”



Shit like this is why people bury guns.


----------



## KevinB (15 Dec 2015)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> crap like this is why people bury guns.



It's actually why many of my friends in the USSS have ulcers..


----------



## Halifax Tar (15 Dec 2015)

Im confused, do you guys think people on the no fly list should be able to buy guns ?


----------



## c_canuk (15 Dec 2015)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Im confused, do you guys think people on the no fly list should be able to buy guns ?



Because it's well known the no fly list is full of people within 6 degrees of separation of suspicious people just in case, doesn't accurately target individuals, so anyone with the same name is impacted, there is no way to be taken off of it if a mistake happens, and is just really an unconstitutional limit to freedom with now due process that gets a pass because you could walk, swim, boat instead.

Applying that mess to a constitutional right is a non-starter really. 

What is so cringe worthy is the prez is well aware of that and doesn't care. If he's willing to be that sloppy about removing the rights of his people for one thing, how willing is he to take others if he sees need to satisfy his ideology?


----------



## Jarnhamar (15 Dec 2015)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Im confused, do you guys think people on the no fly list should be able to buy guns ?



Given the ambiguity of what can land someone on that list yes.


----------



## Lumber (15 Dec 2015)

c_canuk said:
			
		

> What is so cringe worthy is the prez is well aware of that and doesn't care. If he's willing to be that sloppy about removing the rights of his people for one thing, how willing is he to take others if he sees need to satisfy his ideology?



I think he wouldn't be so sloppy. To many, they believe the right "to bear arms" is incorrectly interpreted from the constitution to mean that you have the right to own a gun. Futher, while many of you may disagree, I beliebe that some rights are more intrinsic than others. You can put anything you want into a consitution and make it a "right", but that's not always make those things intrinsically "right". The right to bear arms, for example. I believe that as human beings, we should have freedom of association, freedom of opionion (unfortunate as it is sometimes..), freedom of though, belief and opionion, and the right to life, liberty and security, etc. These things _I believe_ are intrinsic, and I believe most people would agree. The _right to own a gun_? Is that really intrinsic? Can we really infer from the human condition that owning a gun is something _everyone _ should really be entitled to? I don't think so. Ergo, taking away the right to own a gun is a lot easier to stomach morally and to act upon than to take "others if he sees need to satisfy his ideology."


----------



## The Bread Guy (15 Dec 2015)

KevinB said:
			
		

> *caveat I do not have personal experience with the No-Fly list, my LE job has no interaction with that.
> 
> I understand a problem with the no-fly list, in this respect is that folks are put on it for suspicions, and until your denied boarding, you cannot find out who is on, as there is no judicial process.
> I would also like to see the no-fly list process turned into a legitimate judicial process, like a criminal proceeding, however we do not have a constitutionally enshrined right to fly on an airline. With gun buying, we (in the USA) have a protected right in the second amendment, and until they are charged or convicted of a crime, that right may not be infringed.
> ...


Thanks for that - much appreciated.


			
				KevinB said:
			
		

> It's actually why many of my friends in the USSS have ulcers..


I can only imagine ...


----------



## Jed (15 Dec 2015)

Lumber said:
			
		

> I think he wouldn't be so sloppy. To many, they beliebe the right "to bear arms" is incorrectly interpreted from the constitution to mean that you have the right to own a gun. Futher, while many of you may disagree, I beliebe that some rights are more intrinsic than others. You can put anything you want into a consitution and make it a "right", but that's not always make those things intrinsically "right". The right to bear arms, for example. I believe that as human beings, we should have freedom of association, freedom of opionion (unfortunate as it is sometimes..), freedom of though, belief and opionion, and the right to life, liberty and security, etc. These things _I believe_ are intrinsic, and I believe most people would agree. The _right to own a gun_? Is that really intrinsic? Can we really infer from the human condition that owning a gun is something _everyone _ should really be entitled to? I don't think so. Ergo, taking away the right to own a gun is a lot easier to stomach morally and to act upon than to take "others if he sees need to satisfy his ideology."



In the US I believe the 2nd ammendment gives people that right. Any word twisting is just being obtuse or a barracks room lawyer.


----------



## Jarnhamar (15 Dec 2015)

Lumber said:
			
		

> To many, they beliebe the right "to bear arms" is incorrectly interpreted from the constitution to mean that you have the right to own a gun.


Has the states officially ruled that to bear arms is incorrectly interpreted as the right to own a gun?


----------



## c_canuk (15 Dec 2015)

Lumber said:
			
		

> I think he wouldn't be so sloppy. To many, they beliebe the right "to bear arms" is incorrectly interpreted from the constitution to mean that you have the right to own a gun. Futher, while many of you may disagree, I beliebe that some rights are more intrinsic than others. You can put anything you want into a consitution and make it a "right", but that's not always make those things intrinsically "right". The right to bear arms, for example. I believe that as human beings, we should have freedom of association, freedom of opionion (unfortunate as it is sometimes..), freedom of though, belief and opionion, and the right to life, liberty and security, etc.



I'm not sure I follow. He IS that sloppy, he said he thinks if you're on the no fly list, you shouldn't be allowed to buy a gun. There is no wiggle room there for you to say "I don't think he'd be that sloppy" 

If you read the second ammendment with the same framework that is applied to all the other ammendments, and you read the background framing comments on why the second ammendment was made, you are completely wrong. The intent was to prevent the state from controlling a monopoly on the tools of violence, therefore no law shall infringe the right to own firearms.



> These things _I believe_ are intrinsic, and I believe most people would agree. The _right to own a gun_? Is that really intrinsic? Can we really infer from the human condition that owning a gun is something _everyone _ should really be entitled to? I don't think so. Ergo, taking away the right to own a gun is a lot easier to stomach morally and to act upon than to take "others if he sees need to satisfy his ideology."



Intrinsic rights are only those you can keep. Laws don't give you rights, they either defend existing rights and give you more tools to defend your rights, or they take them away. Governments never stop making laws. Never. Once a set of rights is enshrined, they start making laws to diminish those laws.

Once normalization of removing gun rights is set to the low bar of someone was on a list with no due process, it becomes much more easy to justify taking all gun owner's rights away. Then his next limit to freedom will be compared to how guns were taken away and done in a similar fashion. 

Maybe next time it will be something that you like, like the right to own a vehicle that goes over 30 km/h, the justification here would be that vehicles kill more people that guns on orders of magnitude. This is not so far fetched as we already have govenments willfully establishing speedlimits that have been proven to kill more than higher engineered limits.

Or how about the right to travel across provincial/state lines, for example NB is getting stroppy about the revenue it looses to alcohol sales in Quebec and is looking for solutions to it's declining population due to people fleeing to find other work. 

How about the right to not have your savings account drained whn the government has a shortfall? What intrinsic right do you have to keep what you save? The surpluses in CPP and EI have already been tapped. Your responsibility as a citizen is to keep the economy flowing, so if you save too much money, perhaps it should be taxed from you to help someone else. What intrinsic right do you have to stagnate the economy?

How about the freedom to choose your own career, afterall if your career choice fails, the government has to help you up don't they? why shouldn't they be able to tell you what job you will do from now on? What intrinsic right to you have to choose your employment?

The freedom to purchase snacks? Healthcare costs from improper eating habits cost billions, so for your own good, no one can have any. What intrinsic right do you have to fritos?


----------



## Loachman (15 Dec 2015)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Has the states officially ruled that to bear arms is incorrectly interpreted as the right to own a gun?



I'd prepared a response to Lumber's earlier post, but c_canuk beat be to posting and there is no need to repeat what he said.

"Bearing arms" means to carry them. "Keeping arms" means to own them. The Second Amendment affirms the right to do both.

See c_canuk's second paragraph. Those who wrote that amendment stated, quite clearly, in other writings exactly what they meant by it. Some people, however, refuse to comprehend or accept those writings.

The US Supreme Court's Heller decision (Mr Heller challenged the constitutionality of some of Washington DC's ridiculous firearms restrictions) affirmed this a few years ago.

There is no Right to Life, in real terms, unless one can freely exercise that right. Doing so requires the means to successfully defend oneself, ie effective weaponry.


----------



## KevinB (15 Dec 2015)

Lumber said:
			
		

> I think he wouldn't be so sloppy. To many, they beliebe the right "to bear arms" is incorrectly interpreted from the constitution to mean that you have the right to own a gun. Futher, while many of you may disagree, I beliebe that some rights are more intrinsic than others. You can put anything you want into a consitution and make it a "right", but that's not always make those things intrinsically "right". The right to bear arms, for example. I believe that as human beings, we should have freedom of association, freedom of opionion (unfortunate as it is sometimes..), freedom of though, belief and opionion, and the right to life, liberty and security, etc. These things _I believe_ are intrinsic, and I believe most people would agree. The _right to own a gun_? Is that really intrinsic? Can we really infer from the human condition that owning a gun is something _everyone _ should really be entitled to? I don't think so. Ergo, taking away the right to own a gun is a lot easier to stomach morally and to act upon than to take "others if he sees need to satisfy his ideology."



While others have very eloquently dissected and dismantled your post (and not just the spelling), I would like to point out that down here in the US of A, the 2nd Amendment has been affirmed by the USSC that it is an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT, not a collective, and thus can only be removed by due process.
 There is NOT a shred of Due Process in the No-Fly list creation - it's a Star Chamber, and I refuse to believe than anyone in a democratic society thinks that those are a good idea.
Do I think there should be a No-Fly list, absolutely, however I disagree with the way the current one is implemented.


----------



## cupper (15 Dec 2015)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Define "crazy".
> 
> I am not being sarcastic. Can you show me a national "crazy people" registry?



The Republican Presidential Candidates?


----------



## a_majoor (15 Dec 2015)

Outside of all the other deconstructions of Lumber's post, the right to bear arms is the _practical_ expression of "Life, liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness".

Property rights and the unfettered use of property are the other practical expression of individual liberty, so, yes, they are indeed intrinsic rights. Rights you cannot express or use in a practical manner are not rights at all.....


----------



## cupper (15 Dec 2015)

From what I have seen in my years down here, the issue isn't whether one has the right to own a fire arm, that is settled law. As Kevin pointed out SCOTUS has reaffirmed that all individuals have the right to own firearms. 

The issue is what limits can government put on that right. This is what has both sides turning themselves inside out trying to justify their view points.

With respect to the No-Fly list, I agree with Kevin that there is no due process and no reasonable means to appeal or have your name removed from that list. One issue with the list is that there is no easy means to distinguish between persons who have the same name as individuals who have been placed on the list. Passengers have been delayed or denied boarding simply because another John or Jane Q Citizen did something that was considered a threat to airline safety or national security. 

Also, there is a unique situation for Canadian airline passengers traveling on flights that pass through US airspace but do not land in the US. The US frequently reviews Canadian airline passenger lists for flights passing through US airspace. And passengers can be denied boarding if they are deemed a threat, even though they have no intention of entering the US.


----------



## Jarnhamar (15 Dec 2015)

You have a right/s until the government decides you don't.

Generally in the west we don't have governments making such brash decisions as to revoke rights but the whole 'greater good' stick can be pretty wide.


----------



## Lumber (16 Dec 2015)

OBAMA]
“Right now people on the no-fly list can walk into a store and buy a gun. That’s insane said:
			
		

> One issue with the list is that there is no easy means to distinguish between persons who have the same name as individuals who have been placed on the list. Passengers have been delayed or denied boarding simply because another John or Jane Q Citizen did something that was considered a threat to airline safety or national security.



I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume that the spirit of what Obama was saying was that people who are actually on the no-fly list shouldn't be allowed to buy guns. This isn't a comment on whether the no-fly list as it stands is accurate or just. 



			
				Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Has the states officially ruled that to bear arms is incorrectly interpreted as the right to own a gun?



Ugh.. that's not what I was saying! Despite any official legal ruling, I was merely using the fact that there are many people who still don't believe that the 2nd Amendment guarantees the right to own a gun to show that gun ownership is not universally seen as an intrinsic right. To further my point, in both McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) and District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the SCOTUS decisions were 5-4 decisions. So, even in the SCOTUS there was significant disagreement.


----------



## Lumber (16 Dec 2015)

c_canuk said:
			
		

> Once normalization of removing gun rights is set to the low bar of someone was on a list with no due process, it becomes much more easy to justify taking all gun owner's rights away. Then his next limit to freedom will be compared to how guns were taken away and done in a similar fashion.



I concede. To take away the legal right to own a gun based on the being on the no-fly list does seem sloppy. From what I've read, it is far to easy to be place on the no-fly list. Perhaps the Terrorist Watch-List instead? However, I think you are being overly paranoid. You say the "next limit to freedom" as if Obama has a grocery list of rights he wants to take away from Americans. What other rights are you worried about him taking away? Is it just the precedent you are worried about? 



			
				c_canuk said:
			
		

> Maybe next time it will be something that you like...



I won't go and dissect everyone of your examples, but I will address your central argument.

Your main argument (as I read it, correct me if I'm off the mark): Obama wants to ban those on the no-fly list from owning guns. Banning people from owning guns based on a poorly implemented security measures is unjust. Ergo, how would I like it if I was banned from doing things I like, such as owning a fast car or travel across state/provincial lines, based on a poorly implemented security measure?

My counterargument: Banning people from owning guns (or banning anything else) based on a poorly implemented security measure _is_ *un*just (as I conceded above). However, banning someone from owning a gun (or some other ban, such as travel) based on a _well thought-out _ _and implemented _ security measure is *just*. If they could come up with a solid, makes-sense criteria of reasons to put someone on a no-fly list, or no-travel list, or no-fritos list, then power to them! How do you think Bill C-51 came to be? 

Additional comments: I feel like you, and many others here, too easily connect one decision with potential future decisions. I feel, and I don't mean to be insulting, that you assume these decisions set dangerous precedents. It's like you have a very strong distrust for the system and the government. I do not believe that decisions in one matter so easily translate into other matters. Even if Obama just went ahead and banned anyone on the no-fly list (as it stands) from owning guns, I do not believe that would translate into other rights being taken away, such the rights of regular gun owners, cars going over 30km/h or my non-intrinsic right to eat fritos.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (16 Dec 2015)

I would guess that the reason that some (many?) of us are wary of bad precedents and future decisions is that many of us have been the actual victim of a not so veiled attempt to remove the freedom of gun ownership in Canada (you will all note that I did not say "right". In Canada, we enjoy no such right).

I am deeply suspicious of any politician or party (of any persuasion) that calls for the limiting of freedoms- especially in the name of some emotional greater good. That is usually about when the herd mentality gets it wrong, and good people get trampled in the ensuing stampede.


----------



## Lumber (16 Dec 2015)

Loachman said:
			
		

> There is no Right to Life, in real terms, unless one can freely exercise that right. Doing so requires the means to successfully defend oneself, ie effective weaponry.



First part, agree. Second part, disagree. Weapons are not the only way ensure the right to life. In fact, the whole idea of using deadly weapons to ensure life just feels contradictory to me. It would be far more effective for governments to work toward creating a society that, as a whole, is more conducive to the preservation of life. I don't want to live in a place where the only reason I feel safe is the gun I have at my waist. 

*I do not know the formula.* All I know is that I feel perfectly safe walking around large cities and Canada, and we have no legal right to carry weapons, concealed or open. I also know that I've felt perfectly safe walking around Savannah, Charleston, Seattle (to name a few); cities where open and concealed carrying of weapons is allowed. 

If I feel safe in both places, and one doesn't allow wide spread carrying of guns, then is it really the guns that are keeping me safe?


----------



## Colin Parkinson (16 Dec 2015)

Also a as i recall it's an offense to attempt to purchase a gun when barred to do so due to a a criminal record, yet after such a person is denied a purchase, no legal action is taken against them for clearly breaking the law once again. Basically they can't enforce the existing laws properly, so the answer is more laws without any more resources.

I am so going to enjoy this "drone operator registry" they just created, will be quite the gravy train for someone.


----------



## Kilo_302 (16 Dec 2015)

Lumber said:
			
		

> First part, agree. Second part, disagree. Weapons are not the only way ensure the right to life. In fact, the whole idea of using deadly weapons to ensure lift just feels contradictory to me. It would be far more effective for governments to work toward creating a society that, as a whole, is more conduscive to the preservation of life. I don't want to live in a place where the only reason I feel safe is the gun I have at my waiste.
> 
> *I do not know the formula.* All I know is that I feel perfectly safe walking around large cities and Canada, and we have no legal right to carry weapons, concealed or open. I also know that I've felt perfectly safe walking around Savannah, Charleston, Seattle (to name a few); cities where open and concealed carrying of weapons is allowed.
> 
> If I feel safe in both places, and one doesn't allow wide spread carrying of guns, then is it really the guns that are keeping me safe?



The question should be, in which place are you actually safer? And the answer is, the society with less firearms (Switzerland is a unique case, as nearly all gun owners have military training, and little access to ammunition). Study after study bears this out. In the end it's a question of the importance we place on individual freedom versus public safety. A classic, "your right to swing your fist ends at my face" question. The Americans have emphasized personal liberty over public safety.

This makes sense, as American society traditionally is more suspicious of government and regulation (outside of the national security apparatus) than other Western nations.  But let's not forget the market aspect to this. Gun makers are very active lobbyists, and recent figures show that after every highly publicized mass shooting gun sales spike because Americans believe that more guns might lead to a safer society. Why do they believe this? A lot of it has to do with the innate emphasis on personal liberty I mentioned above, but a lot of is also tied to the misleading information coming from the gun lobby as well as a lack of American data on the subject. This last point is also largely due to effective lobbying by gun manufacturers and the NRA.

The CDC for example has been trying to study the problem of gun deaths as a public health issue, but it's efforts have been repeatedly blocked by Congress. This is a direct result of NRA lobbying, and the NRA as we know is largely a mouthpiece for gun manufacturers. In fact in 1996, Congress went so far as to cut funding to the CDC by the exact amount it had spent on gun related research. This is as clear as a message can be. If a truly honest and open debate were to take place, we would need reliable data to frame it. This is exceedingly difficult in a country like the United States, where freedom of speech laws now protect corporate/lobby group donations to politicians, and those politicians actively block any attempt by a public health institution like the CDC to do what it does best, form policy based on independent research.


----------



## Journeyman (16 Dec 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> If a truly honest and open debate were to take place, we would need reliable data to frame it.


And yet _some_ people here continue to "debate" as though they, and only they, have all the facts and anyone holding a contradictory view is an idiot.


I'm not arguing either side of this; I just have an innate preference for *informed* opinion.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (16 Dec 2015)

> Quote from: OBAMA
> “Right now people on the no-fly list can walk into a store and buy a gun. That’s insane,” Obama said. “If you’re too dangerous to board a plane, you’re too dangerous by definition to buy a gun.”




Probably too dangerous to be on the street also.

Obama went way off message with that quote. He's admitting, contrary to his normal stance, that it's the person, not the gun, that's responsible for their actions.  Face palm for POTUS.


----------



## KevinB (16 Dec 2015)

Gun Death research is a red herring. 
  It is a waste of the CDC - as that is not it's mandate, and that is why Congress cut it, as Center for Disease Control, is not the Statistics Bureau.

One can draw opposite opinions from looking at the gun issue and I'm not that ignorant to ignore my enemies  .  However when you look at the criminal use of firearms, the focus should be on solving the issues of causation for lowering the incidents.  For most gun violence in the USA, it is crime related - and major cities (most with strict gun laws) suffer the worse.
   Now is that a Gun Problem, a Crime Problem, an Urban Problem, , or is it honestly a multifaceted Societal Problem...

   Perhaps a better look at societal issues and placing more value on human life would help from the start, as well as giving more people jobs that are rewarding and don't require criminal activities to get "ahead".
Removing guns is never the answer, as folks who want to do evil will still get guns, or someone weapon. For a while up here in NoVA, the 
  The vast majority of mass shootings/attacks occur in "safe areas" where guns are either forbidden or highly restricted.
Why, well because predators want to reduce their risks.

Far many more people die from vehicle, alcohol and drugs than guns.   Maybe it's just not guns...


----------



## Kilo_302 (16 Dec 2015)

KevinB said:
			
		

> Gun Death research is a red herring.
> It is a waste of the CDC - as that is not it's mandate, and that is why Congress cut it, as Center for Disease Control, is not the Statistics Bureau.
> 
> One can draw opposite opinions from looking at the gun issue and I'm not that ignorant to ignore my enemies  .  However when you look at the criminal use of firearms, the focus should be on solving the issues of causation for lowering the incidents.  For most gun violence in the USA, it is crime related - and major cities (most with strict gun laws) suffer the worse.
> ...



And the CDC is able and does conduct research on deaths related to vehicles, alcohol and drugs. Pretty much anything that can be considered a public health issue. Guns stand out as one area that the CDC is unable to touch. 

Removing guns isn't the sole answer no, but it would have an immediate and direct effect on fatalities and injuries related to murder, suicide and NDs.


----------



## George Wallace (16 Dec 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Removing guns isn't the sole answer no, but it would have an immediate and direct effect on fatalities and injuries related to murder, suicide and NDs.



No it wouldn't.  Someone intent on murder or suicide will find a means, and not necessarily with a firearm.


----------



## Loachman (16 Dec 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> The question should be, in which place are you actually safer? And the answer is, the society with less firearms (Switzerland is a unique case, as nearly all gun owners have military training, and little access to ammunition).



This is false.

Just sticking with one country, where crime stats are at least mostly uniform (British and Japanese homicide rates are artificially low, for example, for various reasons), that can be seen.

Homicide rates vary from State to State within the US. They also vary between other US jurisdictions as well. Homicide rates are lower in those States that impose the least restrictions on firearms ownership and carry. Several States that border Canada have lower homicide rates than their neighbouring Canadian Provinces. Major cities, which tend to impose draconian restrictions and are rife with drug gangs, have dramatically higher rates. And one is far more likely to be robbed, assaulted, or raped in Jolly Old England (my Country of Origin) than in the Wild West US.



			
				Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Study after study bears this out.



Again, false.

Just one simple observation disproves this notion: whereas the number of privately-owned firearms in the US has skyrocketted in recent years, thanks to the best firearms salesman that America has ever known (Barack Hussein Obama), homicide and other violent crime rates have plummetted over the last three decades.

Your claim has also been picked apart in excruciating detail - county-by-county (and there are more than 3000 of them in the US) by John Lott in "More Guns Less Crime".



			
				Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> The Americans have emphasized personal liberty over public safety.



Personal liberty and matching responsibility are the best guarantors of public safety. The freedom to own and carry firearms has been the major influence that has driven down violent crime rates in all categories. Criminals simply do not like to be shot, and they fear armed private citizens more than they fear police, as police are more easily identifiable.



			
				Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Gun makers are very active lobbyists



Gun makers are fulfilling a demand by ordinary citizens. Many, in fact - and ammunition manufacturers especially - are having a hard time meeting that demand. And that's all without the expensive advertising that automobile manufacturers, for example, have to buy.



			
				Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> recent figures show that after every highly publicized mass shooting gun sales spike because Americans believe that more guns might lead to a safer society.



And recent figures prove that they are correct.



			
				Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> a lot of is also tied to the misleading information coming from the gun lobby as well as a lack of American data on the subject.



There is no "misleading information" coming from the "gun lobby", or lack of credible data. The only misleading information is being pushed by the gun-grabbers. Misleading information and appeals to base emotion is all that they have.

And who is this "gun lobby"? Millions of ordinary citizens, simply exercising their rights, including their electoral rights.



			
				Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> This last point is also largely due to effective lobbying by gun manufacturers and the NRA.



Who is the NRA?

Over four million private citizens - the biggest single voting block in the US. No other issue has been able to generate that level of support, consistently, over any length of time.

Do you have some objection to ordinary people indicating their wishes to their politicians?



			
				Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> The CDC for example has been trying to study the problem of gun deaths as a public health issue



Which is not within its lanes, anymore than the study of epidemics falls within the purview of criminologists.



			
				Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> but it's efforts have been repeatedly blocked by Congress.



And rightfully so. Organizations dedicated to the study of disease should study disease. Until guns can replicate themselves and attack people independent of human control, there remains a huge difference between firearms and bacteria or viruses.



			
				Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> This is a direct result of NRA lobbying, and the NRA as we know is largely a mouthpiece for gun manufacturers.



No, "we" do not "know" that. Many misguided and ignorant people may believe that, but they are wrong. The NRA is the "mouthpiece" of over four million private citizens, and, although it is the largest, it is far from the only firearms organization active in resisting idiotic, poorly-aimed, and dishonest legislation.



			
				Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> In fact in 1996, Congress went so far as to cut funding to the CDC by the exact amount it had spent on gun related research.



Which was exactly perfect.



			
				Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> If a truly honest and open debate were to take place, we would need reliable data to frame it.



There is plenty of that around, but your side consistently fails to either comprehend or accept it.



			
				Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> public health institution like the CDC to do what it does best, form policy based on independent research.



Neither lawful nor unlawful firearms use is a public health matter.


----------



## KevinB (16 Dec 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> And the CDC is able and does conduct research on deaths related to vehicles, alcohol and drugs. Pretty much anything that can be considered a public health issue. Guns stand out as one area that the CDC is unable to touch.


 It should have ZERO to do with vehicles, however drugs and alcohol, which are now considered diseases, I guess I can understand.
The issue is certain Doctors who feel it is their business to meddle in other issues want to be able to speak from their presupposed position of superiority, MD's should stay in their lane, the same way I am sure folks would be appalled if I started giving out health advice...



> Removing guns isn't the sole answer no, but it would have an immediate and direct effect on fatalities and injuries related to murder, suicide and NDs.


 And knives, cars, baseball bats and hammers wouldn't be used?

England and Australia who imposed draconian gun laws have had MASSIVE upswings in their armed assaults - why, because some people will resort to whatever they can.


----------



## c_canuk (16 Dec 2015)

Lumber said:
			
		

> I think you are being overly paranoid. You say the "next limit to freedom" as if Obama has a grocery list of rights he wants to take away from Americans. What other rights are you worried about him taking away? Is it just the precedent you are worried about?



Whatever law he comes up with next, by definition will limit freedom. You have to understand that basic fact.

Right now for example a freedom that has been taken away from me is that I cannot purchase or sell cigarillos and flavoured tobacco products in ON. 

Just out of nowhere it became illegal. 

They've put out of business shops that catered to people such as myself who enjoyed a pipe or a cigarillo in the field to keep the bugs away, or just something to do for a moment with our hands while we drink a cup of coffee.

Yes I know in the grand scheme of things it's not a very important issue. However, I've lost that right. Why? Because apparently, and I'm not making this up, these are the products of choice for children who are taking up smoking.

Seriously, anyone been by a high school and seen the kids there smoking anything but bargain butt cigarettes? but keep in mind, cigarettes are still legal. 

Apparently if I have my dwelling unhooked from the power grid and run my own solution, I still have to pay the service, delivery, maintenance and debt retirement fees because the gov said so. My last bill was for 36 dollars of power with 110 dollars of fees.

Ontario has the lowest speed limits in Canada, it's been proven in multiple studies that more people die in accidents every year because of it, yet limits are not raised in accordance to engineering reports. Why not?

Do you understand now why some of us are opposed to sloppy legislation based on emotion rather than fact? Based on manufactured "facts" that aren't?



> Your main argument (as I read it, correct me if I'm off the mark): Obama wants to ban those on the no-fly list from owning guns. Banning people from owning guns based on a poorly implemented security measures is unjust. Ergo, how would I like it if I was banned from doing things I like, such as owning a fast car or travel across state/provincial lines, based on a poorly implemented security measure?


My main argument is that he's decided he doesn't like guns, and wants to get rid of them anyway he can regardless of the facts and consequences of his methods. How would you like it if someone picked something arbitrarily that you liked or relied on to be targeted the same way, with no rationality using the same tools and zealotry.
Make no mistake, once we’re all gone, they will come for you. But there will be no one left to speak up for you.


> My counterargument: Banning people from owning guns (or banning anything else) based on a poorly implemented security measure _is_ *un*just (as I conceded above). However, banning someone from owning a gun (or some other ban, such as travel) based on a _well thought-out _ _and implemented _ security measure is *just*. If they could come up with a solid, makes-sense criteria of reasons to put someone on a no-fly list, or no-travel list, or no-fritos list, then power to them! How do you think Bill C-51 came to be?



You mean how it's done already?




> Additional comments: I feel like you, and many others here, too easily connect one decision with potential future decisions. I feel, and I don't mean to be insulting, that you assume these decisions set dangerous precedents. It's like you have a very strong distrust for the system and the government. I do not believe that decisions in one matter so easily translate into other matters. Even if Obama just went ahead and banned anyone on the no-fly list (as it stands) from owning guns, I do not believe that would translate into other rights being taken away, such the rights of regular gun owners, cars going over 30km/h or my non-intrinsic right to eat fritos.



I think you have your head in the sand, quite frankly. 

Once guns are banned, do you think he'll just stop making laws and taking rights away, or.... do you suppose the alarmists that live among us who constantly cry "won't someone think of the children!" and "If we save only one life!!!!" won't pick some other right or freedom to take away from us in some ill thought out non-plan to fix a non-existent problem or target merely the symptom of a greater problem that won’t be addressed. 
You know those people with no facts or data who constantly use lies to paint us as "irresponsible" jerks who apparently don't want to save lives or protect the children because we don't support their half bakery that impacts us but not them in grossly unfair ways?


----------



## Colin Parkinson (17 Dec 2015)

Could fit in either thread
 https://mises.org/blog/few-gun-laws-new-hampshire-safer-canada?fb_action_ids=10154464010193957&fb_action_types=og.likes


----------



## stealthylizard (17 Dec 2015)

Yep, that Obama wants to go around and grab everyone's guns which is proved by all the gun control legislation that has been passed under his administration, which by my last count is ZERO.  Gun rights have actually increased under the infamous gun hater.

This could be because nothing would ever make it through the current congress and senate.  Or maybe, while he personally does care much for firearms, despite pictures of him clay shooting earlier in his administration, he realizes those feelings shouldn't guide legislation.  He hasn't even signed any executive orders concerning guns, like everyone keeps fearing he will.

Note:  I realize that the president doesn't introduce legislation, but it wouldn't be hard for him to get someone else to do it for him.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (17 Dec 2015)

Oh he would if he could. But they know that it would get shot down before coming into law and would alienate the gun owning democrats and the growing female gun owner demographic. They are also afraid of court challenges that would enshrine the rights further.


----------



## Loachman (17 Dec 2015)

stealthylizard said:
			
		

> Yep, that Obama wants to go around and grab everyone's guns which is proved by all the gun control legislation that has been passed under his administration, which by my last count is ZERO.



No. What the latter proves is the number of Americans who own firearms and express their wishes to their politicians and the effectiveness of the various firearms associations to which they belong.


----------



## McG (17 Dec 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Removing guns isn't the sole answer no, but it would have an immediate and direct effect on fatalities and injuries related to murder, suicide and NDs.





			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> No it wouldn't.  Someone intent on murder or suicide will find a means, and not necessarily with a firearm.


I have seen this element of this debate a few times here, but it is never referenced.  I understand opposing sides sides of the theoretical model:

People intent on committing crimes of violence will find other means if guns are not available, or/but/and
the significant stand-off and over-match of fire arms emboldens people to attempt violence they might not had they needed to close with to use knife and muscle.
I don't know what is more significant. Does anyone have relevant raw data (not yet filtered through somebody's opinion) on this? The National Post recently carried an article suggesting statistics from Australia support the idea that violence does drop and criminals do not all turn to other weapons when firearms access is restricted.  Is it true?  



> *‘We are not like America’: Australia has had no mass killings since gun control laws tightened 20 years ago*
> Austin Ramzy, Patrick Boehler, Michelle Innis
> The National Post
> 05 Dec 2015
> ...


http://news.nationalpost.com/news/we-are-not-like-america-australia-has-had-no-mass-killings-since-gun-control-laws-tightened-20-years-ago


----------



## Colin Parkinson (17 Dec 2015)

The homicide decline continued in the US and Canada at the same time.


----------



## c_canuk (17 Dec 2015)

stealthylizard said:
			
		

> Yep, that Obama wants to go around and grab everyone's guns which is proved by all the gun control legislation that has been passed under his administration, which by my last count is ZERO.  Gun rights have actually increased under the infamous gun hater.
> 
> This could be because nothing would ever make it through the current congress and senate.  Or maybe, while he personally does care much for firearms, despite pictures of him clay shooting earlier in his administration, he realizes those feelings shouldn't guide legislation.  He hasn't even signed any executive orders concerning guns, like everyone keeps fearing he will.
> 
> Note:  I realize that the president doesn't introduce legislation, but it wouldn't be hard for him to get someone else to do it for him.



You're right, since his party has been known for effortlessly passing legislation that the republicans hate because they own the house and the senate... oh, no wait that's completely wrong.


----------



## Loachman (17 Dec 2015)

MCG said:
			
		

> The National Post recently carried an article suggesting statistics from Australia support the idea that violence does drop and criminals do not all turn to other weapons when firearms access is restricted.  Is it true?
> http://news.nationalpost.com/news/we-are-not-like-america-australia-has-had-no-mass-killings-since-gun-control-laws-tightened-20-years-ago



The article is rife with terms like "gun deaths". Not "deaths", but "gun deaths". There is a good reason why misleading terms like that are used. It is very easy to suggest a benefit, especially when speaking about suicides, to "gun control" when one speaks only about "gun deaths". Criminals remain completely unaffected by firearms legislation, no matter how restrictive it is, and most murders are committed by people with criminal backgrounds. People who commit suicide, however, come from all walks of life. Law-abiding people who wish to commit suicide may find it harder to acquire a firearm, so, yes, firearms-related suicide rates do drop, and it is only the firearms-related suicide rates that anti-gunners crow about. Overall suicide rates, however, are completely unaffected - expensive legislation that targets extremely law-abiding citizens yet exempts criminals merely increases sales of small lengths of rope and painkillers.

Note, from the charts that Colin P posted, that, following the very expensive Australian gun buyback of 1995, homicides actually increased slightly, and did not fall (consistently) below the 1995 level until 2003, by which time an awful lot of those honest Australians who had been forced to surrender their valuable property had simply bought new firearms that were permitted under the new legislation. I have no information regarding ownership rates that match this period, but it would be interesting to see them. Ownership rates would have initially declined following the buyback and then gradually recovered - I believe, but would have to dig for confirmation, that Australian ownership rates now exceed the pre-1995 rate. Graphed against the homicide numbers, that would show the two lines moving in opposite directions, ie a decline in ownership compared to a rise in murders, followed by a decline in murders compared to a rise in ownership. That would fit the US pattern.

There are no credible studies that show a drop in overall murders (or other categories of violent crime) that can be linked to restrictive firearms laws. None. That is why weasel-words like "gun deaths" are used in order to give false impressions of benefit. See also http://www.bizpacreview.com/2013/08/08/dems-publish-gun-grabbers-how-to-playbook-to-capitalize-on-tragedies-81203 for more on that.

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/082113-668335-cdc-gun-violence-study-goes-against-media-narrative.htm

CDC Gun Violence Study's Findings Not What Obama Wanted

Second Amendment: The White House asked the Centers for Disease Control "to research the causes and prevention of gun violence." We're pretty sure that what the CDC found wasn't what the White House was looking for.

The Democrats, and their media allies, obsess over some shootings while ignoring many others.

Kill innocents in a school or theater in large numbers, and the media will fixate on the tragedy while Democrats wail about America's "gun culture."

Shoot a minority who's wearing a hoodie and the left twists the story into something it isn't while the media turn the shooter into a "white" man, though he, too, is a minority — and an Obama supporter with a mixed ethnic background.

It was under these raw and highly charged circumstances that President Obama asked the CDC in January to perform the study. He was surely looking to manufacture a crisis that he could take advantage of.

What that study revealed, though, does not fit in with the media-Democrat message.

"Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals," says the report, which was completed in June and ignored in the mainstream press.

The study, which was farmed out by the CDC to the Institute of Medicine and National Research Council, also revealed that while there were "about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008," the estimated number of defensive uses of guns ranges "from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year."

Here are a few more salient points from the study:

• "Whether gun restrictions reduce firearm-related violence is an unresolved issue."

• "Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies."

• One "body of research" (Kleck and Gertz, 1995) cited by the study found "estimated annual gun use for self-defense" to be "up to 2.5 million incidents, suggesting that self-defense can be an important crime deterrent."

• "There is empirical evidence that gun turn-in programs are ineffective."

Does anyone recall this study getting extensive media coverage or the administration plugging its key findings? Of course not. It doesn't support their anti-Second Amendment, anti-gun ideology. It's therefore ignored as if it never happened at all.

More:

http://www.guns.com/2013/06/27/cdc-releases-study-on-gun-violence-with-shocking-results/

http://www.bizpacreview.com/2013/08/18/results-of-obamas-own-cdc-study-on-guns-support-other-side-81812

The one bright spot for the president was the finding that “the U.S. rate of firearm-related homicide is higher than that of any other industrialized country: 19.5 times higher than the rates in other high-income countries.”

However, these rates are horribly skewed by state and local gun laws. “If one were to exclude figures for Illinois, California, New Jersey and Washington, DC,” notes the Guardian Express, “the homicide rate in the United States would be in line with any other country.” Those are, of course, jurisdictions that have chosen to enact the country’s strictest gun laws.

The New American noted that these latest CDC findings mirror those it published in 2003, which found, “Evidence was insufficient to determine the effectiveness of any of these laws”:
 — Bans on specified firearms or ammunition,
 — Restrictions on firearm acquisition,
 — Waiting periods for firearm acquisition,
 — Firearm registration and licensing of owners, and
 — Zero tolerance for firearms in schools.


----------



## GAP (17 Dec 2015)

Gun Control means Using Two Hands


----------



## Loachman (17 Dec 2015)

How creeping restrictions work, and why we resist every attempt by our opponents to establish them:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/12/16/assault-weapons-bans-wont-reduce-crime-but-will-help-lead-to-handgun-bans/

The Volokh Conspiracy|opinion

Assault weapons bans won’t reduce crime, but will help lead to handgun bans

By Eugene Volokh December 16  

From Charles Krauthammer, writing in The Post in 1996:

"The claim of the advocates that banning these 19 types of "assault weapons" will reduce the crime rate is laughable…. Dozens of other weapons, the functional equivalent of these “assault weapons,” were left off the list and are perfect substitutes for anyone bent on mayhem….

"[T]he assault weapons ban will have no significant effect either on the crime rate or on personal security. Nonetheless, it is a good idea ….

"Passing a law like the assault weapons ban is a symbolic - purely symbolic - move in [the direction of disarming the citizenry]. Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation.

"De-escalation begins with a change in mentality. And that change in mentality starts with the symbolic yielding of certain types of weapons. The real steps, like the banning of handguns, will never occur unless this one is taken first, and even then not for decades."

I generally like Krauthammer’s work, and though I disagree with him on the merits of trying to “disarm [the] citizenry,” I think the mechanisms he describes - relatively narrow bans “chang[ing voters’] mentality” and paving the way for broader bans - are quite plausible. (For more, see this article, and in particular pp. 1077-82.)

But in any event - as I noted yesterday when quoting something similar from the Violence Policy Center — this is just good to keep in mind if you hear people wondering why some allegedly “alarmist,” “nutty” or “paranoid” gun rights supporters worry that bans on so-called “assault weapons” are just an attempt to help promote broader bans (such as on handguns). It’s hard to view taking one’s opponents at their word as “paranoia.”

Eugene Volokh teaches free speech law, religious freedom law, church-state relations law, a First Amendment Amicus Brief Clinic, and tort law, at UCLA School of Law, where he has also often taught copyright law, criminal law, and a seminar on firearms regulation policy.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/12/15/promoting-assault-weapons-bans-will-confuse-the-public-help-strengthen-the-handgun-restriction-lobby/

The Volokh Conspiracy|opinion

Promoting assault weapons bans will confuse the public, help 'strengthen the handgun restriction lobby'

By Eugene Volokh December 15  

From the pro-gun-restriction Violence Policy Center, back in 1988, near the dawn of the "assault weapons" debate (emphasis added):

"[A]ssault weapons are quickly becoming the leading topic of America’s gun control debate and will most likely remain the leading gun control issue for the near future. Such a shift will not only damage America's gun lobby, but strengthen the handgun restriction lobby for the following reasons:

• "It will be a new topic in what has become to the press and public an "old" debate. Although handguns claim more than 20,000 lives a year, the issue of handgun restriction consistently remains a non-issue with the vast majority of legislators, the press, and public. . . . Assault weapons - just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms - are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons - anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun - can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. . . ."

But the Violence Policy Center also noted the political danger of proposing assault weapons bans, especially coupled with proposing handgun restrictions:

"America's handgun restriction movement has been cautious in its response to the assault weapons debate. Their reticence is understandable. By moving against a category of firearm that is not only a long gun, but difficult to define, they run the risk of appearing to prove the gun lobby right: that is, that handgun restrictions are merely the first step down the aforementioned slippery slope."

Keep these frank statements in mind if you hear people wondering why some allegedly "alarmist," "nutty," or "paranoid" gun rights supporters worry that bans on so-called "assault weapons" are just an attempt to help promote broader bans (such as on handguns).

Eugene Volokh teaches free speech law, religious freedom law, church-state relations law, a First Amendment Amicus Brief Clinic, and tort law, at UCLA School of Law, where he has also often taught copyright law, criminal law, and a seminar on firearms regulation policy.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (18 Dec 2015)

When looking at the stats, keep in mind the ones they wash over, there are approx. 300 million guns in the US and anywhere from 17-30 million in Canada. In 2010 the North American market including police and civilians but excluding military purchased 12 *billion* rds of ammunition, that for 1 year and the average has been around 9-10 *billion* a year for the last 7 years.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (18 Dec 2015)

At 12 billion rounds for about 300 million guns, it's an average of 40 rounds per gun per year. 

I can't recall going to the range for target practice and using less than forty rounds per evening. And I was definitely going more often than one evening a year and don't consider myself an "avid" shooter compared to many people I know. 

So accounting for target shooters like me (and more devoted than I) and hunters, I think that there is a very large segment of the gun owning population out there who own guns (probably for their own safety purposes) but have never really taken them out or shot them. In case of "emergency", I would be a lot more leery of these owners reaction than the reaction of those of us that are some times pictured as "gun nuts" by the anti-gun lobbies.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (18 Dec 2015)

as anyone in the sport know there is no "average", lot's of hunters shoot perhaps 40 rds a year. My IPSC instructor goes through 40,000rd s year. I have some guns in my safe I might shoot 2-3 times a year and others twice a month.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (18 Dec 2015)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> At 12 billion rounds for about 300 million guns, it's an average of 40 rounds per gun per year.
> 
> I can't recall going to the range for target practice and using less than forty rounds per evening. And I was definitely going more often than one evening a year and don't consider myself an "avid" shooter compared to many people I know.
> 
> So accounting for target shooters like me (and more devoted than I) and hunters, I think that there is a very large segment of the gun owning population out there who own guns (probably for their own safety purposes) but have never really taken them out or shot them. In case of "emergency", I would be a lot more leery of these owners reaction than the reaction of those of us that are some times pictured as "gun nuts" by the anti-gun lobbies.



I've seen annual C7 qualifications limited to 40 rounds\ shooter\ year.

My uncle had a 44-40 Winchester that he used for deer hunting. Every year he got his deer with one shot. That casing went back in the box. After he died, the box (of 20) held 15 empty casings and five live. Other than .22 for rabbit, etc. It was the only box of ammo in the house.

On the other hand, those that reload (a figure that's never taken into account for the amount of ammo in the public domain) can realistically turn out 500-800 rounds per hour in their garage.

For US numbers, you have to take into consideration the Feds. Homeland Security alone tendered for 1.2 _*billion*_ rds of ammo just for its 70,000 agents training. However, their claim that training uses 1000-1200 rounds per agent amounts to approx 70-85 million rounds per year doesn't jive with the tender. They are stockpiling. How many other armed agencies are doing the same?

The numbers cited for ammo are taken from store\ manufacturer sales of new ammo. Millions of rounds of surplus ammo, sold by the crate, in Canada and the US is not part of the equation.

The ammo numbers are so fluid, that in all honesty, no one can accurately guesstimate how much is out there.


----------



## KevinB (18 Dec 2015)

recceguy said:
			
		

> For US numbers, you have to take into consideration the Feds. Homeland Security alone tendered for 1.2 _*billion*_ rds of ammo just for its 70,000 agents training. However, their claim that training uses 1000-1200 rounds per agent amounts to approx 70-85 million rounds per year doesn't jive with the tender. They are stockpiling. How many other armed agencies are doing the same?



There was no stockpiling by DHS
 They had open contracts for that ammo with multiple sources, and also allow other entities to buy off their contracts, and have 5 year contracts
Also while DHS annual qualification/training is 1000-1200 rds this does not include agents going to courses, agents in training pipeline, nor operational expenditures.

They did not buy 1.2 Billion rounds of ammo for a year.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (18 Dec 2015)

KevinB said:
			
		

> There was no stockpiling by DHS
> They had open contracts for that ammo with multiple sources, and also allow other entities to buy off their contracts, and have 5 year contracts
> Also while DHS annual qualification/training is 1000-1200 rds this does not include agents going to courses, agents in training pipeline, nor operational expenditures.
> 
> They did not buy 1.2 Billion rounds of ammo for a year.





> Ammunition stockpiling confirmed, reasons unknown
> 
> Data and statistics from various sources clearly show that the combined purchases of bullets by the dozens of secret and not-so-secret federal agencies has more than doubled from the Bush administration to the Obama administration. As far back as August 2012, we at Whiteout Press documented that debate with the article, ‘History of DHS Ammunition Purchases’.
> 
> ...



Perhaps they ended up not purchasing, but the intent was there. There was obviously enough concern and politics involved to get Congress looking at it.

The point of my post was to say that you can't even try estimate how much ammo is really out there.

[tangent]As an aside, do the other US agencies sell their ammo off to surplus after a set amount of shelf life, like the military does?


----------



## a_majoor (21 Dec 2015)

One does have to wonder what all those domestic agencies are doing purchasing firearms and ammunition, when many of them don't have any connections with law enforcement, security or military operations...

For example, 





> the Social Security Administration (SSA) confirms that it is purchasing 174 thousand rounds of hollow point bullets to be delivered to 41 locations in major cities across the U.S.


----------



## cupper (21 Dec 2015)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> One does have to wonder what all those domestic agencies are doing purchasing firearms and ammunition, when many of them don't have any connections with law enforcement, security or military operations...



Security is the main concern, particularly in government offices where public are served directly. The Agencies themselves may not have anything to do with law enforcement, security or military operations, but the do have interactions with people, some of whom may be pissed off for whatever reason.


----------



## cupper (23 Dec 2015)

Interesting turn of events in my home state. It doesn't effect me in that I don't own a firearm, so do not currently have a need for a concealed carry permit. But I'm not entirely sure which side i come down on it either. On the one hand you would expect that if you are issuing a concealed carry permit through reciprocity that the person applying would have to meet the same requirements as your state. But by revoking the reciprocity of most states, Virginia permit holders have a tricky maze of regulations to move through when traveling out of state.

*Lawmakers split after Virginia revokes many out-of-state concealed carry permits*

http://www.insidenova.com/headlines/lawmakers-split-after-virginia-revokes-many-out-of-state-concealed/article_c07d3854-a97c-11e5-b55d-8b093f5564e0.html



> Predictably, reaction to Attorney General Mark Herring’s announcement that Virginia would no longer recognize concealed-carry permits from 25 of 30 states split along party lines Tuesday.
> 
> While local Democratic state lawmakers offered their approval, some Republicans denounced it as a politically inspired overreach.
> “When you have 25 states that don’t meet Virginia’s standards [for concealed-carry permits], it just makes sense,” said Sen.-Elect Jeremy McPike, a Democrat whose 29th District includes Manassas, Manassas Park and much of Prince William County.
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (30 Dec 2015)

While the CDC finally managed to get one by, I suspect that they are not too pleased with the actual results, since they are not in line with the narrative nor their preferred "solution" of banning weapons. The other thing is the results are hardly surprising, most of us could have figured this out without spending a dime of government money. The only open question really is what sort of "intervention" is going to be advocated for, and is it going to be particularly effective?

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/25/us/cdc-gun-violence-wilmington.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fscience&action=click&contentCollection=science&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=6&pgtype=sectionfront&_r=0



> *When Gun Violence Felt Like a Disease, a City in Delaware Turned to the C.D.C.*
> By JESS BIDGOODDEC. 24, 2015
> 
> WILMINGTON, Del. — When epidemiologists from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention came to this city, they were not here to track an outbreak of meningitis or study the effectiveness of a particular vaccine.
> ...


----------



## Colin Parkinson (30 Dec 2015)

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/12/dean-weingarten/2015-guns-numbers/


----------



## cupper (4 Jan 2016)

Taking a step back for a minute, this is why the whole "No Fly List" needs to have safeguards, and a means of addressing mistakes and similar names. Now, I'm sure that he was a Habs fan had a lot to do with it, but still...

*This 6-year-old Habs fan is on airline’s security watchlist*

http://globalnews.ca/news/2428393/this-6-year-old-habs-fan-is-on-the-feds-terror-watchlist/



> Thousands of young boys and girls, including scores from Canada, are set to converge on Gillette Stadium in Foxborough, Mass. on New Year’s Day to watch their heroes play in the latest installment of the NHL’s Winter Classic.
> 
> Among those lucky enough to go is six-year-old Syed Adam Ahmed, alongside dad Sulemaan Ahmed from Markham, Ont.
> 
> ...


----------



## Colin Parkinson (5 Jan 2016)

KevinB, what are the pitfalls of this new push by Obama to increase the requirements to get a FFL? I am assuming extra costs, more recording, storage, license fees, etc?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (5 Jan 2016)

The best gun salesman in the US has done it again. Expect increased shortages of ammo, firearms and supplies once more.


----------



## Jarnhamar (5 Jan 2016)

We should stock up on 5.56 and 762x39. Maybe some 9mm and 308 match too.


----------



## Kilo_302 (5 Jan 2016)

As far as I understand it, all the new laws will do is make background checks mandatory and require dealers to obtain federal licenses. Is this really a reason to panic and assume "Obama is after everyone's guns?" 

If you pass a background check, you're good to go.


----------



## a_majoor (5 Jan 2016)

Instapundit nails it yet again: Gun control as theatre, rather than any form of effective or nuanced response to a "problem". Of course manipulative use of deceptive statistics and ignoring issues that don't support the narrative is all part and parcel of the Progressive project, and the ultimate end is always about power and control, not whatever the putative "problem" is:

http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/223186/



> THE DAY THE CLOWN CRIED: “‘Every time I hear about those kids it makes me mad’: Obama cries for the victims of Newtown as he pushes gun control at speech surrounded by families who lost loved ones in mass shootings,” gushes the London Daily Mail, *ignoring Obama’s silence on both the over 440 murders last year and disgraced crony Rahm Emmanuel’s sinking fortunes in Chicago, a city that should be entirely pacified, if overwhelming blue state gun control efforts actually worked.*
> 
> But “The MacGuffinization of American Politics,” as Ace described how the media crafts its Obama narratives in late 2013 rolls on:
> 
> ...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (5 Jan 2016)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> As far as I understand it, all the new laws will do is make background checks mandatory and require dealers to obtain federal licenses. Is this really a reason to panic and assume "Obama is after everyone's guns?"
> 
> If you pass a background check, you're good to go.



You clearly misunderstand the US gun owner psyche. Or more generally, the trust factor the American public has in Obama. Every time he opens his mouth and says 'gun control' or talks about 2nd amendment rights, firearms and equipment sales go through the roof.


----------



## Kilo_302 (5 Jan 2016)

You're right, I don't understand their psyche at all. I would think background checks are a completely reasonable and appropriate measure. Any law abiding citizen has nothing to fear. 

As for the American public, the majority clearly want something done with regards to further regulation. As for the minority, sales might go through the roof when he opens his mouth, but is this a rational reaction based on reality?


----------



## Rocky Mountains (5 Jan 2016)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> As far as I understand it, all the new laws will do is make background checks mandatory and require dealers to obtain federal licenses. Is this really a reason to panic and assume "Obama is after everyone's guns?"
> 
> If you pass a background check, you're good to go.



A gun owner selling a single gun may have to register as a dealer or sell through a dealer or risk being fined $25,000 should some bureaucrat determine he should have been registered.  Background checks are done through registered dealers.  Private sales of guns do not have federal background checks.  Firearms are otherwise a state concern with a whole variety of different regulation.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (5 Jan 2016)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> You're right, I don't understand their psyche at all. I would think background checks are a completely reasonable and appropriate measure. Any law abiding citizen has nothing to fear.
> 
> As for the American public, the majority clearly want something done with regards to further regulation. As for the minority, sales might go through the roof when he opens his mouth, but is this a rational reaction based on reality?



The number of convictions for firearms offenses under Obama has dropped, if a felony tries to buy a gun and is denied, they have just committed another felony, but the chances of being punished are almost zip. As for the new stuff it appears to be a mess, the whole issue of Trusts and the NFA appears to be wasted effort, with only 12 people with a NFA license being charged. The real issues will come out a week or so as people dig into it and what it says, already it appears to contradict itself according to some.


----------



## Kilo_302 (5 Jan 2016)

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> A gun owner selling a single gun may have to register as a dealer or sell through a dealer or risk being fined $25,000 should some bureaucrat determine he should have been registered.  Background checks are done through registered dealers.  Private sales of guns do not have federal background checks.  Firearms are otherwise a state concern with a whole variety of different regulation.



So shouldn't private sales be subject to background checks? I mean, there's more paperwork when it comes to buying a car privately.


----------



## Rocky Mountains (5 Jan 2016)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> So shouldn't private sales be subject to background checks? I mean, there's more paperwork when it comes to buying a car privately.



And when has a background check ever stopped someone who wants a gun from getting one?  Never?


----------



## PuckChaser (5 Jan 2016)

I hear criminals are really good at following laws.


----------



## Jarnhamar (5 Jan 2016)

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> And when has a background check ever stopped someone who wants a gun from getting one?  Never?


The male gunmen in the San Bernardino shooting knew he wouldn't pass a background check so he borrowed his  relatives. 
You could argue background checks tentatively stop some people from getting firearms. The trick being they can just borrow someone elses.


----------



## jpjohnsn (5 Jan 2016)

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> And when has a background check ever stopped someone who wants a gun from getting one?  Never?


Care to cite your sources for that particular assertion?  Don't get me wrong, the current political climate down south is going to the implementation of universal background checks an overall failure  but I reject outright that not one person would be prevented from getting a gun.


----------



## PuckChaser (5 Jan 2016)

jpjohnsn said:
			
		

> Care to cite your sources for that particular assertion?  Don't get me wrong, the current political climate down south is going to the implementation of universal background checks an overall failure  but I reject outright that not one person would be prevented from getting a gun.



Why should someone have to prove gun control works? Shouldn't someone proposing further controls show exactly how many gun deaths they're going to stop with legislation? You would find significant more support for gun control if the gun control lobby did any sort of research as to how many deaths/injuries each rule would save, using historical data, instead of saying "guns bad, ban them" and hope it fixes the problem.

In a free and democratic society, you should have to show how infringing on someone's freedom will help the greater good, instead of "trust me". Dictators and socialists impose rules without data to back them up.


----------



## Loachman (5 Jan 2016)

And stop talking about "gun deaths". That is a red herring. The means by which somebody is murdered or commits suicide is irrelevant. The best that gun laws can do is push somebody to use an alternatve method of killing him/herself or somebody else if they cannot acquire a firearm. They do not reduce overall murder or suicide rates.

And that non-benefit comes at the cost of leaving people helpless when confronted by violent criminals - those people who never have to undergo a background check.


----------



## muskrat89 (6 Jan 2016)

Some will dismiss this instantly because it is Wayne LapIerre and the NRA. That being said, he cites some things that I didn't know...

https://www.nranews.com/series/wayne-lapierre/video/wayne-lapierre-the-truth-about-background-checks/episode/wayne-lapierre-season-1-episode-5-the-truth-about-background-checks

The White House tweeted today that you can buy guns online without a background check, and that is not true - other than perhaps a private sale. I have bought guns from online dealers and they have to ship to an FFL. The FFL does the background check.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (6 Jan 2016)

Loachman said:
			
		

> And stop talking about "gun deaths". That is a red herring. The means by which somebody is murdered or commits suicide is irrelevant. The best that gun laws can do is push somebody to use an alternatve method of killing him/herself or somebody else if they cannot acquire a firearm. They do not reduce overall murder or suicide rates.
> 
> And that non-benefit comes at the cost of leaving people helpless when confronted by violent criminals - those people who never have to undergo a background check.



I love it when people quote Japan as a role model in regards to gun suicides and such, the rebuttal is like shooting fish in a barrel.


----------



## Loachman (6 Jan 2016)

Yes, and I do that too, but...

It is extremely difficult to compare statistics internationally, because many/most countries have more stringent, looser, or different definitions. Japan's cultural differences - such as its concept of honour - affect things in ways not normally expected.

Many murders that might bring dishonour to families are, apparently, officially deemed to be suicides as suicide is more accepted. That, obviously, inflates suicide rates and deflates homicide rates. And then there are police attitudes:

http://articles.latimes.com/2007/nov/09/world/fg-autopsy9

Japan's police see no evil

A drive to keep crime statistics low often fosters an official aversion to autopsies, critics say.

November 09, 2007|Bruce Wallace | Times Staff Writer

TOKYO - Photos of the teenager's corpse show a deep cut on his right arm, horrific bruising on his neck and chest. His face is swollen and covered with cuts. A silhouette of violence runs from the corner of his left eye over the cheekbone to his jaw, and his legs are pocked with small burns the size of a lighted cigarette.

But police in Japan's Aichi prefecture saw something else when they looked at the body of Takashi Saito, a 17-year-old sumo wrestler who arrived at a hospital in June. The cause of death was "heart disease," police declared.

As is common in Japan, Aichi police reached their verdict on how Saito died without an autopsy. No need for a coroner, they said. No crime involved. Only 6.3% of the unnatural deaths in Aichi are investigated by a medical examiner, a minuscule rate even by nationwide standards in Japan, where an autopsy is performed in 11.2% of cases.

Forensic scientists say there are many reasons for the low rate, including inadequate budgets and a desperate shortage of pathologists outside the biggest urban areas. There is also a cultural resistance in Japan to handling the dead, with families often reluctant to insist upon a procedure that invades the body of a loved one.

But Saito's case has given credence to complaints by a group of frustrated doctors, former pathologists and ex-cops who argue that Japan's police culture is the main obstacle.

Police discourage autopsies that might reveal a higher homicide rate in their jurisdiction, and pressure doctors to attribute unnatural deaths to health reasons, usually heart failure, the group alleges. Odds are, it says, that people are getting away with murder in Japan, a country that officially claims one of the lowest per capita homicide rates in the world.

"You can commit a perfect murder in Japan because the body is not likely to be examined," says Hiromasa Saikawa, a former member of the Tokyo Metropolitan Police security and intelligence division. He says senior police officers are "obsessed with statistics because that's how you get promotions," and strive to reduce the number of criminal cases as much as possible to keep their almost perfect solution rate.

Japan's annual police report says its officers made arrests in 96.6% of the country's 1,392 homicides in 2005.

But Saikawa, who says he became disillusioned by "fishy" police practices and in 1997 left the force in disgust after 30 years, claims that police try to avoid adding homicides to their caseload unless the identity of the killer is obvious.

"All the police care about is how they look to people; it's all PR to show that their capabilities are high," Saikawa says. "Without autopsies they can keep their percentage [of solved cases] high. It's all about numbers."

The former policeman has written a memoir of his time on the force. Called "Policeman at the Scene," it describes a police culture that has chipped away at the effectiveness of an autopsy system created during the U.S. occupation after World War II.

"The police textbooks taught us not to trust doctors," he says, adding that police officers indirectly pressure doctors to sign death certificates without an autopsy. "Doctors are afraid of the police. They are afraid of retaliation. They worry the police could prosecute them for malpractice. So they are easily pressured.

"There is no one refereeing the police," Saikawa says. "It's scary."

After the war, Americans created a medical examiner's office for Tokyo after learning that thousands of deaths in the postwar rubble were being ascribed to starvation without any forensic examination. It was soon discovered that a tuberculosis epidemic was the main culprit.

The system was soon expanded to six other big cities which, for the most part, are the jurisdictions where autopsies are done with the most frequency (in 2004, autopsies were conducted in 29% of Kanagawa prefecture's unnatural deaths; 18% of those in Tokyo). But much of the country remains without a fully functioning medical examiner system.

"There aren't many doctors who want to do this kind of work and that means some areas don't have a medical examiner at all," says Dr. Masahiko Ueno, a former chief medical examiner in Tokyo who spent 30 years in the coroner's office until he retired in 1988. Since then he has written more than 30 books about the cases that animated his career and the cold cases that intrigue him in retirement.

Ueno says his experience leaves him convinced that many homicides are being missed and he, too, blames a system that gives police great discretion over when an autopsy is performed. Although doctors are legally required to report "unnatural deaths" to police, the country's medical act does not precisely define what that is.

The philosophical approach to death investigations differs between the West and Japan.


----------



## Kilo_302 (7 Jan 2016)

Given the fact that Reagan was for more gun control than Obama, it's hard to see why Obama is so demonized by gun rights advocates. This just shows how irrational the discussion has become. 

http://i100.independent.co.uk/article/republicans-seem-to-have-forgotten-their-icon-ronald-reagan-was-actually-far-tougher-on-guns-than-obama--by8DhSwxhl


----------



## Jarnhamar (7 Jan 2016)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Given the fact that Reagan was for more gun control than Obama, it's hard to see why Obama is so demonized by gun rights advocates. This just shows how irrational the discussion has become.





> Reagan was a long-time member of the National Gun and Rifle Association (NRA) who said he took a pistol in his suitcase on his first trip to the USSR in 1988.
> 
> He even maintained his support of the gun lobby after an assassination attempt in 1981 that left a bullet an inch away from his heart, and paralysed his press secretary Jim Brady.
> 
> And yet two years after he left office, Reagan spoke out strongly in favour of a proposed bill named after his friend and colleague Brady that would have required a mandatory seven-day waiting period between the sale and acquisition of guns.



So basically he was more than happy to support firearm owners and in turn take their support while he was in office but when he couldn't benefit from it anymore he changes his act?


----------



## Kilo_302 (7 Jan 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> So basically he was more than happy to support firearm owners and in turn take their support while he was in office but when he couldn't benefit from it anymore he changes his act?



Or you could look at it another way. When in power the  gun lobby precluded him from acting on what he knew made sense and was right. Once out of office he was free support policies that he felt made sense as a gun owner and member of the NRA.


----------



## Jarnhamar (7 Jan 2016)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Or you could look at it another way. When in power the  gun lobby precluded him from acting on what he knew made sense and was right. Once out of office he was free support policies that he felt made sense as a gun owner and member of the NRA.



I could but then I would be wrong  ;D



> He even maintained his support of the gun lobby after an assassination attempt



Sounds like he stayed in bed with the gun lobby by choice to the very end.


----------



## Kilo_302 (7 Jan 2016)

Well it's no secret that once they've left office, politicians are free to speak their minds and say what they really think. It's also no secret that gun control has become a political football, and the debate is overly partisan. By speaking his mind after he left office, it's quite obvious that Reagan's inaction while IN office was primarily due to political considerations, NOT what would make good public policy. It's much the same today. 

This image in particular represents an extreme overreaction, and is also quite threatening. This is the environment in which people are expected to have a rational debate about what constitutes sensible policy around the regulation of firearms:

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jan/05/nra-ammunition-bills-threatening-photo-twitter-new-york-lawmakers


Not to mention this image, which Neil MacDonald has pointed out has an obvious subtext:

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20160105/statement-on-president-obamas-proposed-executive-actions-on-gun-control



> It's a head-and-shoulders shot taken from behind, at a moment when the president was hunching slightly, and so emphasized the protruding ears Obama himself has joked about.
> 
> But this was no joke. You don't need a membership in Mensa to figure out the subtext: "This monkey wants to take your guns, America."



It's no wonder that even a conservative politician had to wait until leaving office to suggest that a 7 day waiting period might be a good idea.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (7 Jan 2016)

The question is what is more important, gun control or reducing the violence? Gun control is a easy to define issue with nice short talking points about what promises a politician can make. Solving the root causes of the violence is incredibly messy, will take a generation if you start now. Politicians generally hate stuff like this, because you can't break in into sound bite, you risk pissing on peoples cornflakes, risk being called a racist, any positive results will happen after you leave office. So Politicians go after the gun issue, because if they fail, they blame the NRA and if they win anything they look like Gods. The actual results on the street are immaterial to most of them.


----------



## Jarnhamar (7 Jan 2016)

Background checks seems like a good idea to me. I think everyone should have them done.  They'd probably need to be revamped though, the FBI found a number of mass shooters passed background checks.  

7 day waiting period? Makes me think of Homer Simpson buying a gun- but I'm angry now!   I don't really see it serving a purpose but whatever.

Mass shooters in the US are actually responsible for a very low number of total yearly firearm homicides. The majority of deaths in the US from firearms are caused by African Americans shooting other African Americans with illegally obtained pistols.

I have an idea or two where the US should look first to curb their problems with firearm deaths.


----------



## Loachman (7 Jan 2016)

Background checks, like all other "gun control" measures, are basically useless at best.

I am unable to open the full study on DWAN, but the abstract can be viewed at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2711323:

Do Background Checks on Private Gun Transfers Help Stop Mass Public Shootings?

John R. Lott Jr.
Crime Prevention Research Center

January 2, 2016

Abstract:      

Persistent claims have been made that expanding background checks to include any private transfers of guns would reduce mass public shootings. Yet, this is the first study to systematically look to see if that is true. In fact there is no evidence that these laws reduce the risk of these attacks. Examining all the mass public shootings in the US from 2000 through 2015, we find that states adopting additional background checks on private transfers they see a statistically significant increase in rates of killings (80% higher) and injuries (101%) from mass public shootings. There is not one mass public shooting that occurred over that period where these checks would have prevented it from occurring.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 23

Keywords: mass public shooting, background check, crime 

JEL Classification: K00, K42, K40 

Obama's only valuable "gun control" achievement has been to boost firearms sales. Concurrently, homicide rates have plummetted.


----------



## muskrat89 (7 Jan 2016)

The entire NRA video discusses background checks, in fact


----------



## KevinB (11 Jan 2016)

HIPPA is more an issue that needs to be discussed than gun control.
  The fact that the mental health issues are not as sexy as a new useless law is appalling.

Gun Dealers already needed an FFL to do business.

  What the requirements are talking about is stopping "face to face" transactions between people who do not know each other.
Now I am an ardent 2A supporter.   However when one looks at the "Nation's Gun Show" in Chantilly VA, and sees the number of NJ, NY, MD plates in the parking lot - and folks buying guns in the parking lot for cash -- one has to sit back and think.
   Most guns that show up on crime scenes in the NE area (around 60%) are figured to have been bought via third party private sales from VA.

Lending or selling a gun to someone you do not personally know is 1) not a felon 2) not a resident of your state, wrong -- sadly it seems to be taking yet another law to deal with this gray market.
  
My concern is that it is taken too far, and your spouse, or child (of legal age) borrowing a gun is going to get swept up with this


----------



## a_majoor (12 Jan 2016)

More on the idea that "Gun Control" is political theater rather than an effective response to violence. As noted in other posts, if "Gun Control" actually worked, so called Blue cities and States, which have the most draconian gun control laws in the United States, are also the most dangerous in terms of gun violence, exactly the opposite of what gun control advocates claim:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/01/12/other-chairs-empty-obama-speech-deaths-domestic-foreign-column/78631644/



> *First Lady's box should be empty at State of the Union speech: James Bovard*
> James Bovard 10:46 a.m. EST January 12, 2016
> 
> Saving seats for the dead would require a lot more room for victims of Obama's policies.
> ...


----------



## Rocky Mountains (12 Jan 2016)

Out of curiosity, I checked a sampling of gun laws on wikipedia.  Most states require no permit to purchase a handgun and a few require no permit to carry it.  In these states permits are available to take advantage of open or concealed carry reciprocity between most states.  I know I should have moved there 30 or 40 years ago.  Too old now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_by_state


----------



## Kilo_302 (13 Jan 2016)

I think there's some confusion out there as to what exactly Obama is proposing. Here's a link to the CNN "Gun Control Townhall" from last week. Obama is really trying to target those who go to gun shows, purchase dozens of firearms and then resell them elsewhere where the gun laws are more strict. This happens all the time, and is one of the main ways guns get into the hands of criminals. 

If you watch the debate, you'll notice that time and time again, a "pro-gun" person will ask the same question or suggest that the new laws will make it harder for them to get guns. It's simply untrue. If you're a law abiding citizen, the new laws might even speed up the process through an improved background check system.

It makes sense to me. If you're particularly wary of Obama's plans, this is definitely worth watching in its entirety. It's just common sense.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HrBR_kXIHw


----------



## Colin Parkinson (13 Jan 2016)

Kilo when you have a party and politicians that have for decades said they want to limit and restrict who can own what, why on earth would the gun owners believe that they only want to deal with a small portion of that pie. The gun control strategy has been akin to taking slices from a loaf of bread. Gun owners have a loaf of bread, the gun controllers say “give us a slice” and we leave you alone. Come the next election cycle they say “give us a slice and we leave you alone”. Something bad happens and the politicians need to be seen to do something and they say “give us 2 slices or we take 5”. Pretty soon the loaf is getting smaller, and each time the gun controllers will say “it’s only reasonable to give us the slice we are asking for” without mentioning that they already have taken ½ the loaf without any visible improvement to the situation they claim to want to fix. When the firearm owners say; “your idea is not working, give us back a slice” the gun control types scream “Oh my god the streets are going to run with blood”. You have to understand that with the hardcore gun control types, this issue has zero to do with public safety and everything to do with control over the citizens of the country.
The president of the NRA has rightly pointed out that the gun control types are not interested in public safety and that they have failed to ensure existing laws are funded and enforced. The NRA has read the tea leaves and determined that trying to be to reasonable will lead to the gun owners being sacrificed to the altar of the “public good”. The NRA fights fire with fire and that is why the gun control types demonize it, because it is successful at thwarting them.


----------



## Kilo_302 (13 Jan 2016)

I disagree. I think public safety is ALL that's driving attempts at "gun control." It's a difficult issue to confront, given how politicized the debate is, and it would be far easier to sit back and do nothing.

From your post I understand that you disagree that background checks will have an effect. That's certainly possible, but as Obama has said, even if you can reduce annual gun deaths from 30,000 to 29,000, it will have been worth it. It's a very targeted policy, and again, it will only really affect those who purchase numerous firearms with the intention of reselling.

At the end of the day, a society that has more guns will have more gun related injuries and deaths, accidental and otherwise. THere are exceptions of course, and it's a complex issue. But given that the US won't import Kinder Surprise toys because they're a choking hazard, surely some sensible controls around guns can be implemented to prevent a guy from filling a van with Kel-tecs in Indiana and selling them in Chicago.


----------



## a_majoor (13 Jan 2016)

Kilo, please explain why, if "public saftey" is the primary goal of gun control types, the very places with the most draconian "gun control" laws, and the ones most in line with what gun control advocates hope to achieve, have the highest rates of gun crimes, violence and public disorder, exactly opposite to what the narrative tells us we are supposed to expect.

Many of these places are solidly "Blue", and indeed have not had a Republican mayor or city council for _decades_, so there has been no poitical opposition to block the enactment and enforcement of these laws. Further to that, various Federal gun control laws have been in force in the United States since the 1930's (many decades before the rising wave of gun crime that started in the 1970's...). OTOH, measures that do work, like "stop and frisk" or "broken windows policing" are bitterly resisted, often by the very same people who advocate for gun control.

Since reality is so at varience with the narrative, why should we believe anything gun control advocates tell us anymore?


----------



## Colin Parkinson (13 Jan 2016)

Actually you are making assumption about where I stand on background checks, the current background check system in the US is flawed and fails to capture the information available, they also fail to prosecute people that try to buy a gun when prohibited. The Federal and State governments could fix these issues without passing any new laws and improve the existing system. It’s also been shown that the majority of the violence happens in very localized areas mainly to a well defined demographic, Yet time and again they fail to fix the underlying causes. So if the government fails to fix things well within their mandate and control, which would not only improve public safety, but also improve society as whole, why would the gun owners believe them or give up more of the loaf? Gun control in the US is a red herring to appease voters and avoid dealing with more difficult social issues that sadly need to be addressed and urgently. We already know that gun deaths have been dropping for decades and not due to any of the current gun controls legislation. In fact it is likely the removal of lead from household products that contributed more to that than gun control. 
So does the feds either in Canada or the US offer tax rebates for gun storage safes or training? If so why not, wouldn’t that be in the interest of public safety and it might reduce accidents and thefts. Actually the RCMP in the North did actually give out or got some discount to get northerners to do just that and kudos’s to them for thinking out of the box.
I have lived with 27 years of gun control directly affecting my life and dealing and studying the issue. You will never convince me that gun control is not about social engineering, because the people pushing it have said just that over the years. This is an ideology war that is being waged, the NRA knows it, so does the leadership and movers within the gun control movement know it to. It’s people like yourself have not come to realize it.


----------



## Loachman (13 Jan 2016)

"Public Safety" has absolutely nothing to do with these proposals, or any other "gun control" measure. "Gun control" constently achieves the exact opposite of what its pushers claim, and, when it fails, they simply push for an increased dose.

I do not know why supposedly intelligent people push it. Some are well-meaning, and simply accept the lies that they are told because they have no natural interest in understanding a complex issue, but the motivation of the ones originating the lies is completely incomprehensible, unless one ascribes it to mental illness - the specific ailment is "hoplophobia", an irrational fear of weapons.

https://reason.com/archives/2015/10/04/ending-gun-violence-common-sense-versus

The only defender guaranteed to be present at any attack against you is you.

Sheldon Richman | October 4, 2015

What passes for thinking about the prevention of gun violence is not thinking at all. Thinking (as problem-solving) is a search for means that can be reasonably expected to achieve a given end. By reasonably I mean that supporting arguments can be provided to demonstrate to the satisfaction of reasonable people the connection between the means and ends. What we get from gun-control advocates is nothing like that; instead they operate on the magical belief that uttering certain words - codifying just the right incantation - will accomplish the end. 

We know they believe in magic, not logic, because those who propose to restrict individual rights regarding guns see no need to explain how their proposals would reduce or end gun violence. For them it's enough to declare their sincere belief that this is the case and to invoke polls showing that a majority of people also believe in whatever is being proposed.

What's belief got to do with it?

Passing "common-sense gun laws," gun controllers say, would prevent mass shootings. "Universal" background checks is the most popular proposal. But where is the explanation of how that would achieve the end? Not only is this not explained; the people supposedly paid to raise such questions - journalists - never even ask. Most of them operate on the basis of magical belief too.

Let's look at "universal" background checks. The term indicates that all would-be gun buyers would actually undergo a check. Leaving aside the recent mass murderers who passed background checks, we know that universal checks are impossible no matter what the legislation says because buyers in the black market, gun thieves, and those who are given guns will not be included.

Similar objections apply to the anti-gun lobby's other magical proposals. Each would leave untouched those who obtain their guns through already illegal channels. We can have no reasonable expectation that people who intend to commit violent offenses against others will be deterred by mere restrictions on gun purchases and possession. Stubbornly ignoring that self-evident truth is the sign of a magical disposition. 

We see the same disposition in the "mental health" approach to preventing gun violence. Some conservatives like this approach presumably because it deflects attention from guns. But proposing, as Mike Huckabee and others have, that the government "do a better job in mental health" - whatever that means - tells us nothing about how it would prevent gun violence. What justifies the belief that psychiatrists and others in the field can predict with reasonable accuracy who is likely to commit mass murder? (Psychiatrists are not known to be competent at predicting who among their own patients will become violent.) Isn't it more likely that people who never would have committed violent acts would be drugged and imprisoned (in "hospitals"), while others never even suspected of being potentially dangerous would go on to commit horrendous acts? One shudders at the civil-liberties implications of "doing a better job in mental health." Do we want the police to have pre-crime units?

In contrast to the incantations offered by practitioners of public-policy magic, gun-rights advocates propose measures that reasonably can be expected to prevent or reduce the extent of mass murder: for example, eliminating government-mandated gun-free zones. (Property owners of course should be free to exclude guns, however foolish that is.) Those with ill-intent are unlikely to respect gun-free zones, but most peaceful individuals will. Thus they will be defenseless against aggressors. Gun-free zones, then, are invitations to mass murder. Refusal to acknowledge that fact is also a sign of a magical disposition.

When this objection to gun-free zones is raised, gun-controllers typically respond that the answer to gun violence cannot be "more guns." But when aggressors are the only ones with guns, what would be wrong with more guns if they were in the right hands? Eliminating gun-free zones would in effect put guns in the hands of the innocent at the scene of the attack. As it now stands, the only people with guns are the killers and police, who may be miles away. (Too often the killers are the police.) The connection between means and end is clear. If would-be mass killers suspected they would meet resistance early on, they might be deterred from launching their attack. But even if not, the chances of minimizing an attack would obviously be greater if some of the gunman's intended victims were armed.

Another reasonable measure would be to remove all restrictions, such as permit requirements, on concealed or open carry of handguns. Again, the link between means and ends is clear. Concealed carry has the bonus of a free-rider benefit: when people are free to carry concealed handguns, assailants, who clearly prefer their victims unarmed, won't know who's carrying and who's not. That extra measure of deterrence - that positive externality - could be expected to save innocent lives.

Believers in gun-control magic refuse to acknowledge that one cannot effectively delegate one's right to or responsibility for self-defense. With enough money, one might arrange for assistance in self-defense, but few will be able to afford protection 24/7. It's a myth that government assumes responsibility for our security, since it does not promise round-the-clock personal protection and its officers are not legally obligated to protect you even if an assault occurs before their eyes. The only defender guaranteed to be present at any attack against you is: you.

Those who believe in the right to bear arms have common sense on their side in the matter of ending mass shootings. Magic won't do it.

This piece originally appeared at Richman's "Free Association" blog.

I believe that I already posted "Do Background Checks on Private Gun Transfers Help Stop Mass Public Shootings?" http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2711323 earlier. I am not able to open the complete paper from where I am, and can only post the abstract:

"Persistent claims have been made that expanding background checks to include any private transfers of guns would reduce mass public shootings. Yet, this is the first study to systematically look to see if that is true. In fact there is no evidence that these laws reduce the risk of these attacks. Examining all the mass public shootings in the US from 2000 through 2015, we find that states adopting additional background checks on private transfers they see a statistically significant increase in rates of killings (80% higher) and injuries (101%) from mass public shootings. There is not one mass public shooting that occurred over that period where these checks would have prevented it from occurring."

The absolute best website for factual information regarding "gun control" is the Crime Prevention Research Center at 
http://crimeresearch.org/

Here are a few more articles worth reading:

Why Do Democrats Get Away With Lying About Guns?
http://thefederalist.com/2015/10/14/why-do-democrats-get-away-with-lying-about-guns/

Gun Control: More Racial Disparities Than the Drug War
http://www.the-american-interest.com/2015/10/02/gun-control-more-racial-disparities-than-the-drug-war/

CDC Gun Violence Study's Findings Not What Obama Wanted
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/082113-668335-cdc-gun-violence-study-goes-against-media-narrative.htm

"One 'body of research' (Kleck and Gertz, 1995) cited by the study found 'estimated annual gun use for self-defense' to be 'up to 2.5 million incidents, suggesting that self-defense can be an important crime deterrent.'"

CDC Releases Study on Gun Violence: Defensive gun use common, mass shootings not
http://www.guns.com/2013/06/27/cdc-releases-study-on-gun-violence-with-shocking-results/

The vast majority of US firearms-related homicides are gang-related. Police shootings account for over a thousand more, annually. There are only about 2000 non-gang/non-police firearms homicides annually in the US, out of over 300,000,000 people and about the same number of firearms.

America does not have a gun problem. It has a gang problem, fed mainly from drug income and concentrated in certain parts larger cities which almost invariably have extremely restrictive firearms policies. The US is a very safe place for anybody not living in those areas and not active in the drug trade.


----------



## Kilo_302 (24 Jan 2016)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Kilo, please explain why, if "public saftey" is the primary goal of gun control types, the very places with the most draconian "gun control" laws, and the ones most in line with what gun control advocates hope to achieve, have the highest rates of gun crimes, violence and public disorder, exactly opposite to what the narrative tells us we are supposed to expect.



Here are some numbers for you. Because we are talking about public safety, we're talking about NDs and suicides as well. Conveniently, each slide also includes some information on what is required to purchase a firearm.

http://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/death-by-gun-top-20-states-with-highest-rates/


Here's a specific example of what can happen in open or concealed carry States when someone isn't trained, or they're just drunk. I've said it before and I'll say it again: There are far more idiots out there with guns than there are people who actually want to do harm. It's not fair to ask citizens to be around these pylons when they're carrying lethal weapons. Our _freedom from_ the possibility of dying a violent death because some idiot didn't engage his safety is more important than that idiot's _freedom to_ carry. 

Ironically, this guy later said he had brought his gun for self-defence _in the event that there was a mass shooting._

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/crime/shooting-reported-at-renton-movie-theater/



> Authorities have in custody a man who they believe accidentally shot and injured a woman in a Renton movie theater Thursday night, Renton police Cmdr. David Liebman said.
> 
> Investigators believe the 29-year-old man was intoxicated when he entered a showing of the film “13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi” at Regal Cinemas The Landing 14, 900 N. 10th Place, with a loaded gun before 8:15 p.m., he said.
> 
> ...


----------



## Jarnhamar (24 Jan 2016)

[quote author=Kilo_302] 

Here's a specific example of what can happen in open or concealed carry States when someone isn't trained, or they're just drunk. 
[/quote]

Go ahead and compare the number of deaths caused by drunk firearm owners against the number of deaths in vehicle accidents where alcohol is a factor.



> Our freedom from the possibility of dying a violent death because some idiot didn't engage his safety is more important than that idiot's freedom to carry.


Except for the ton of examples where someone with a CCW permit stops a robbery, assault or murder.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (24 Jan 2016)

Kilo,

The test is not "perfect safety from a gun related incident or accident".  The test is actually "does CCW improve overal public safety, or not?".

I will be honest and say- I don't know for sure. Some of the data from US jurisdictions that have it, do seem to imply a correlation between CCW and lower crime rates, but correlation is not causation.


----------



## PuckChaser (24 Jan 2016)

Its funny, the anti-gun lobby doesn't demand a perfect safety record from jurisdictions where they ban CCW or guns completely. However, people like Kilo demand a perfect safety record to justify the "privilege" of owning a firearm. That sort of hypocrisy makes perfect sense in the progressive sunshine and flowers world, but the rest of us in the real world see right through it.


----------



## Kilo_302 (24 Jan 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Go ahead and compare the number of deaths caused by drunk firearm owners against the number of deaths in vehicle accidents where alcohol is a factor.
> Except for the ton of examples where someone with a CCW permit stops a robbery, assault or murder.





			
				SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Kilo,
> 
> The test is not "perfect safety from a gun related incident or accident".  The test is actually "does CCW improve overal public safety, or not?".
> 
> I will be honest and say- I don't know for sure. Some of the data from US jurisdictions that have it, do seem to imply a correlation between CCW and lower crime rates, but correlation is not causation.



Of course more people die in alcohol related incidents in cars, that isn't the point. The point is more people carrying guns in public will result in more incidents like this one. Statistically, there are very few incidents were CCW permits save lives, and there is evidence that CCW increases the likelihood of violent crime.

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2014/november/donohue-guns-study-111414.html



> ew Stanford research confirms that right-to-carry gun laws are linked to an increase in violent crime.
> 
> Right-to-carry or concealed-carry laws have generated much debate in the past two decades – do they make society safer or more dangerous?
> 
> ...


----------



## Kilo_302 (24 Jan 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Its funny, the anti-gun lobby doesn't demand a perfect safety record from jurisdictions where they ban CCW or guns completely. However, people like Kilo demand a perfect safety record to justify the "privilege" of owning a firearm. That sort of hypocrisy makes perfect sense in the progressive sunshine and flowers world, but the rest of us in the real world see right through it.



If you understand public policy at all you'll understand that no one believes a "perfect safety record" is possible. It's about balancing personal freedoms with the safety of the public as a whole. My position is not hypocritical. 

If more people are injured or killed in States where owning and carrying a gun is easier, it follows that we should examine why that is and enact public policy to address the issue accordingly. Do you care to comment on the "gun deaths by State" link I posted or shall we continue with the meaningless rhetoric?


----------



## SeaKingTacco (24 Jan 2016)

Sorry Kilo, but that is not how it works.

I have expressed my reservation about CCW data. But how do you statistically quantify crimes that never get committed, because the perpetrators fear someone in the room, bus, street, etc is armed?

And the comparison between gun deaths and alcohol/drunk driving deaths are exactly the point.

Both can be and are societal problems. But only one is orders of magnitude more likely to impact you personally. Any guesses on which?


----------



## Kilo_302 (24 Jan 2016)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Sorry Kilo, but that is not how it works.
> 
> I have expressed my reservation about CCW data. But how do you statistically quantify crimes that never get committed, because the perpetrators fear someone in the room, bus, street, etc is armed?
> 
> ...



How does it work then?  I've posted a link that clearly shows higher incidents of gun deaths/injuries in states where it's easy to procure a firearm, and I've posted a link to a study that shows more people with CCW permits appears to lead to an increase in violent crime. 

http://www.vpc.org/press/gun-deaths-surpass-motor-vehicle-deaths-in-21-states-and-the-district-of-columbia/



> “Firearms are the only consumer product the federal government does not regulate for health and safety,” states VPC Legislative Director Kristen Rand. “Meanwhile, science-based regulations have dramatically reduced deaths from motor vehicles in recent decades. It’s well past time that we regulate firearms for health and safety just like all other consumer products.”
> 
> Nine out of ten American households have access to a motor vehicle while fewer than a third of American households have a gun. Yet nationwide in 2014, there were 33,599 gun deaths compared to 35,647 motor vehicle deaths.





There was a time when vehicles were essentially deathtraps, so common sense public policy was enacted that increased safety standards. Public awareness campaigns combined with strict sentencing has reduced drunk driving deaths as well. AND before all that, we made it illegal to drink and drive. NONE of these tools are acceptable to the gun lobby. There simply isn't ANY sensible measure that doesn't provoke outrage. Obama wants to make it harder for people to buy dozens of weapons and turn around and sell them in the streets, and that's somehow transformed into  "he's taking all our guns!!." This simply isn't a rational debate.


----------



## muskrat89 (24 Jan 2016)

> I've posted a link that clearly shows higher incidents of gun deaths/injuries in states where it's easy to procure a firearm, and I've posted a link to a study that shows more people with CCW permits appears to lead to an increase in violent crime.



No surprise - I guess it depends on where you get your statistics...

http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/concealed-carry/

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jul/14/murder-rates-drop-as-concealed-carry-permits-soar-/?page=all

http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Concealed-Carry-Permit-Holders-Across-the-United-States.pdf

http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/gun-control-myths-realities


----------



## a_majoor (24 Jan 2016)

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> No surprise - I guess it depends on where you get your statistics...
> 
> http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/concealed-carry/
> 
> ...


----------



## Kilo_302 (24 Jan 2016)

That is precisely what you do.


----------



## Jarnhamar (25 Jan 2016)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Of course more people die in alcohol related incidents in cars, that isn't the point. The point is more people carrying guns in public will result in more incidents like this one. Statistically, there are very few incidents were CCW permits save lives, and there is evidence that CCW increases the likelihood of violent crime.


Muskrat beat me too it regarding your stats and the stats that absolutely conflict with those. 

If I can pick up what I think you're laying down here, you're not really all that concerned about drunk drivers but more concerned with drunk ccw permit holders.

Sorry dude the number of lives saved (and crimes stopped) by CCW permit holders in the US far exceeds the number of drunk CCW permit holders shooting someone by accident.

From the MADD website 10,076 Americans died in 2013 in drunk driving accidents. How many died from drunk CCW shootings?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (25 Jan 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> From the MADD website 10,076 Americans died in 2013 in drunk driving accidents. How many died from drunk CCW shootings?



Well, he didn't die, but that's obviously only because good 'ol Dickie Cheney wasn't drunk enough.  ;D

I think that if you are looking at stats for drunk CCW shootings, you have to look in the "Hunting Accident" column. I am no young chicken, but I have never heard of any American instance of a shooting where it was found that the shooter was just drunk and as a result decided to pull out his gun and shoot ... for fun or because it seemed a reasonable idea at the time.

Of much more concern to me are cases, like the Trayvon Martin instance, where people carrying but incapable of controlling their personal fears shoot without real cause. Not that the instance occurred - I know it will from time to time - but rather that the justice system in the US seems to be too kind and sets the bar for negligent homicide too high on the sole basis that "packing is legal to defend oneself, so if you are scared enough it is justified to shoot". And don't get me started on those "Stand Your Ground" statutes.

Now don't get me wrong, I happen to have nothing against CCW itself. But if you pack, IMHO it's your responsibility to control your emotions. It's not up to other citizens to make sure that they don't appear threatening to you - it's for you to make the distinction. Similarly, if you are packing and get yourself into a situation, it's up to you to defuse it by withdrawing yourself. Only if that doesn't work can you consider yourself to be in danger that justifies killing another human being.

Sorry if people don't like my view, but this is my stand.


----------



## Remius (25 Jan 2016)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Well, he didn't die, but that's obviously only because good 'ol Dickie Cheney wasn't drunk enough.  ;D
> 
> I think that if you are looking at stats for drunk CCW shootings, you have to look in the "Hunting Accident" column. I am no young chicken, but I have never heard of any American instance of a shooting where it was found that the shooter was just drunk and as a result decided to pull out his gun and shoot ... for fun or because it seemed a reasonable idea at the time.
> 
> ...



Funny you should mention your stand on this.


Something these numbskulls clearly didn't follow.


http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2016/01/argument_at_mississippi_gun_st.html


----------



## Colin Parkinson (25 Jan 2016)

If you want to reduce gun crime we can start here http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/10/08/america-s-mass-shooting-capital-is-chicago.html

Of course

Just a coincidence I sure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cook_County_Democratic_Party

https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20151027/downtown/does-chicago-have-strictest-gun-laws-country-its-complicated

Vice has an interesting solution and focuses on the problem https://news.vice.com/article/street-gangs-have-a-great-solution-for-reducing-violent-crime


----------



## a_majoor (25 Jan 2016)

Colin P said:
			
		

> If you want to reduce gun crime we can start here http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/10/08/america-s-mass-shooting-capital-is-chicago.html
> 
> Of course
> 
> ...



Exactly. _IF_ gun control worked as its advocates suggest, then Chicago would be the safest place in the United States. The fact that these gun control laws and regulations do not have the effect the proponents suggest means their arguments and premisis are flawed. 

But of course real evidence should never get in the way of a good narrative....


----------



## a_majoor (27 Jan 2016)

Best comment to explain the true motivation behind "Progressive" attempts at gun control from Instapundit. The story itself is also astounding, with the so called journalist commiting elementry safty blunders simply becasue they could not be bothered to learn or understand:

http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/225128/



> Guns are one of those things that point out the flaws and contradictions that are at the heart of liberalism. *First, the ignorance and lack of personal responsibility:* "This gun terrifies me and I have no idea how to properly use it, I could never be trusted with this responsibility." *Next comes the kicker, the massive egotism and self centered worldview:* "And I'm awesome and amazing and the smartest and best at everything. So if I can't handle it, clearly no one else can." *Leading to the final tenet, control:* "As such, they should be banned from doing so."


----------



## Jed (27 Jan 2016)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Best comment to explain the true motivation behind "Progressive" attempts at gun control from Instapundit. The story itself is also astounding, with the so called journalist commiting elementry safty blunders simply becasue they could not be bothered to learn or understand:
> 
> http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/225128/



So a journalist acts like a goof (albiet a polite goof) and ignores the show rules being asked to attend the Shot Show. I thought the show staff did a professional job escorting him out, especially considering the team continually refused to comply with turning off the camera and mic after being repeatedly asked to do so. 

If this was say, one of those sex toy shows, that make the rounds at the exibitions, I wonder how this journalist would fare?  ;D


----------



## Loachman (27 Jan 2016)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> How does it work then?  I've posted a link that clearly shows higher incidents of gun deaths/injuries in states where it's easy to procure a firearm, and I've posted a link to a study that shows more people with CCW permits appears to lead to an increase in violent crime.



"Gun deaths", as I have repeatedly stated, are a red herring, invented by gun-grabbers to deceive the gullible.

They are irrelevant. The only relevant numbers are OVERALL murder and suicide rates, independent of means.

Of course "gun deaths" can be expected to be higher in areas where firearms are easier to acquire, but overall murder and homicide tend to be lower. Restrictions on lawful ownership of firearms do not lower murder and suicide rates; they only cause people to use alternate methods.

Japan, for example, has almost no suicide "gun deaths" at all - as close to none as anyone can get. Is that really a good thing? Compare their overall suicide rate with that of the US and tell me. They have a tradition of using swords and knives, and that is considered to be an honorable means of death. "Acquisition" also needs to be considered fully and properly. There are many countries wherein private possession of firearms is tightly controlled or even completely illegal, yet criminals have no difficulty obtaining them. There is an unlimited global supply for those willing to flout laws.

There is no CREDIBLE and PEER-REVIEWED study that shows an increase in violence of any kind where CCW has become legal. On the other hand, however, those jurisdictions in the US which have the most restrictive firearms laws also have the highest violent crime rates, including murder.



			
				Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> http://www.vpc.org/press/gun-deaths-surpass-motor-vehicle-deaths-in-21-states-and-the-district-of-columbia/



The "Violence Policy Center" is a rabidly anti-gun organization that routinely fibs. They also do not care about any other means of committing violence. Stabbings, stranglings, poisonings, and bludgeonings do not trouble them at all.



			
				Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> There was a time when vehicles were essentially deathtraps, so common sense public policy was enacted that increased safety standards. Public awareness campaigns combined with strict sentencing has reduced drunk driving deaths as well. AND before all that, we made it illegal to drink and drive. NONE of these tools are acceptable to the gun lobby. There simply isn't ANY sensible measure that doesn't provoke outrage. Obama wants to make it harder for people to buy dozens of weapons and turn around and sell them in the streets, and that's somehow transformed into  "he's taking all our guns!!." This simply isn't a rational debate.



Firearms, however, are not "death traps". They function reliably and safely, as they are designed to do, and are not therefore comparable to early motor vehicles. Strict sentencing for criminal or negligent misuse of firearms has always existed. "We", long ago, made it illegal to shoot people, while drunk OR sober, except in situations of self defence and ordinary citizens are held to a high standard when doing so, and often to an unreasonably high standard. "These tools" are COMPLETELY acceptable to the "gun lobby" (ie, responsible ordinary citizens). None of the "sensible measure(s) that ... provoke outrage" have any shred of sensibility within them, in reality. They are completely misdirected, useless, stupid, and harmful.



			
				Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I think that if you are looking at stats for drunk CCW shootings, you have to look in the "Hunting Accident" column.



CCW - which is for defensive purposes - and hunting are two completely different activities and situations.

CCW people are extremely careful. They tend to be very responsible people, as, in their view, one of the worst things that could ever happen to them would be the loss of their legal ability to carry. They have lower arrest and conviction rates than police, kill more criminals per capita, and kill fewer innocent people per capita in the US.



			
				Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Of much more concern to me are cases, like the Trayvon Martin instance, where people carrying but incapable of controlling their personal fears shoot without real cause. Not that the instance occurred - I know it will from time to time - but rather that the justice system in the US seems to be too kind and sets the bar for negligent homicide too high on the sole basis that "packing is legal to defend oneself, so if you are scared enough it is justified to shoot". And don't get me started on those "Stand Your Ground" statutes.



Trayvon Martin's death was unfortunate, yet justified under the circumstances. George Zimmerman's initial actions may have been imprudent, but were not unlawful either before or after he was violently attacked by somebody bigger and stronger than himself, and was in real and possibly mortal danger when he fired. Due to the evidence, including his injuries and eyewitness testimony, police declined to lay charges. Charges were only laid, later, due to unfair political pressure. George Zimmerman was subsequently acquitted, and rightfully so. Anybody who believes that "if you are scared enough it is justified to shoot" applies in the US is wrong. Shootings are investigated and charges laid where warranted. The "Stand Your Ground" laws are also quite reasonable. While they were called into question by politicians, journalists, and certain members of the public who hold anti-firearms agendae in the Trayvon Martin case, they were never a factor. George Zimmerman had no ability to withdraw when he fired. He had a two-hundred-pound-plus and over-six-foot violent person sitting on him, beating him, and bouncing his head off of the hard surface beneath him. Those laws were never raised in his defence for the very reason that they did not apply.

Another article:

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/tell-the-truth-about-gun-violence-numbers-14975

Tell the Truth About 'Gun Violence' Numbers

Understanding firearm ownership in America starts with a clear-eyed look at the data.

David Keene

January 21, 2016

One would get the impression listening to gun control advocates or, indeed, to President Obama and those Democrats vying to succeed him that the United States is in the midst of an epidemic of violence; awash in blood with murderers and mass killers roaming the streets carrying guns they've bought at gun shows, over the Internet or from crazed neighbors. In fact, many Americans share this view. A recent Pew poll asked respondents if they believe the U.S. homicide rate has gone up or down over the last twenty years. Fifty-six percent of those polled said it has gone up and only twelve percent believed we are safer today than two decades ago.

The perception here and abroad has little to do with reality and a lot to do with political grandstanding. In fact, over the last twenty years or so the U.S. homicide rate has not just receded, but has been cut in half. The United States does indeed have a higher homicide rate than some industrialized nations in Europe and Japan, but is very, very different in size and complexity to those nations usually cited by those who wish to blame guns for the differences.

Here is one simple fact for those who blame firearms ownership and availability in this country for the murder and violent crime rate that plagues some of our major cities: while crime and violence were being cut in half, gun ownership was doubling.

It is too simple to claim that there is less violence in the United States today because more of our citizens are armed, but it is clear that there is no correlation between the number of guns in private hands with either the murder or violent crime rates as claimed by most gun control advocates.

The president likes to talk about ‘gun violence’ which is something that includes firearms accidents, suicides and those killed with guns. There are statistically very few firearms accidents in this country thanks to safety training and common sense. Two-thirds of all gun deaths are suicides and while some claim that making it more difficult for potential suicides to get guns would decrease the total number of suicides, international data suggest otherwise. That leaves two additional categories although former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg's groups lump those killed by police and even the death of the Boston Marathon Bomber as a firearms homicide. They are criminal gun violence and so-called mass shootings.

Criminals using firearms are the biggest problem, but it is a problem we as a society know how to handle. If a thug walks into a convenience store with a gun and robs it, he has committed both a state and federal crime. Robbery is a state crime, but committing a felony with a firearm is a federal crime and prosecutable as such with a five year minimum sentence. A felon in possession of a gun is also prosecutable and can get five to ten years for having one in his possession.

Back in the nineties, the NRA partnered with law enforcement officials and prosecutors in Richmond, Virginia, which was at that time listed as America's murder capital. The message was simple. Use a gun to commit a crime and you will get five years in a federal penitentiary with no possibility of a plea bargain. The murder rate dropped 32 percent the first year and another 20 percent the next, but the U.S. attorney who participated in what came to be known as “Project Exile” was criticized by Eric Holder, then Deputy Attorney General, for wasting prosecutorial resources.

Today felons or criminals using firearms are rarely prosecuted by the federal government. In fact, today's U.S. murder capital is Chicago, the jurisdiction with the lowest rate of such prosecutions. Before President Obama issued his recent series of “Executive Orders” on gun violence, it was suggested that they would include instructions to U.S. prosecutors to begin charging gun criminals under existing law. That idea was dropped in favor of actions that don't target criminals, but will make it harder for non-criminals to buy firearms.

The final category involves mass shootings such as the killing at the Sandy Hook Elementary School and the Washington Navy Yard. These tragedies rarely if ever involve criminals. They are invariably perpetrated by the severely and dangerously mentally ill. This category of violence is the most difficult to deter or prevent, but beefed up school security, getting the states to put the most potentially dangerous into the background check system and rebuilding the U.S. mental health system are the keys to dealing with them.

The American people are lucky in that the nation's founders wrote the age old right of self defense into our Bill of Rights. Many nations don't recognize such a right, but Americans do. It is estimated, in fact, that as many as 200,000 crimes are deterred in a typical year by armed potential victims. It's why in every jurisdiction that has legalized what we call ‘concealed carry’ has seen a drop in violent crime. Burglars don't break into a house with a Rottweiler in the yard and are reluctant to use violence against a man or woman who just might be able to fight back.

David Keene is the opinion editor of the Washington Times and a member of the board of the Center for the National Interest. He additionally served as chairman of the American Conservative Union and president of the National Rifle Association.


----------



## Jed (27 Jan 2016)

Great Post, Loachman.  Too Long to Quote.


----------



## George Wallace (28 Jan 2016)




----------



## Loachman (28 Jan 2016)

Loachman approves that.


----------



## a_majoor (29 Jan 2016)

Citizens stopping criminals. Remember, when seconds count, the police are minutes away....

http://crimeresearch.org/2016/01/concealed-carry-permit-holders-from-alaska-to-south-carolina-stop-dangerous-armed-robbers/



> *Five Concealed Carry Permit Holders from Alaska to South Carolina Stop Dangerous Armed Robbers*
> 24 Jan , 2016
> 
> Columbia, South Carolina, January 23, 2016, From The Herald:
> ...


----------



## KevinB (1 Feb 2016)

I will say that more often than not that when a Concealed Weapon holders stops a criminal act without firing the weapon or doing something else 'dramatic" they often go on their way without reporting the incident, as they would prefer to go on their way and not deal with Law Enforcement.
  Most off duty carry incidents with LEO usually try to resolve that way too as many departments do not give court time for off duty actions...

 Gun Control is less about guns, and more about Fear and Control, elected officials fear the people, and want to control them.


----------



## Jed (1 Feb 2016)

KevinB said:
			
		

> I will say that more often than not that when a Concealed Weapon holders stops a criminal act without firing the weapon or doing something else 'dramatic" they often go on their way without reporting the incident, as they would prefer to go on their way and not deal with Law Enforcement.
> Most off duty carry incidents with LEO usually try to resolve that way too as many departments do not give court time for off duty actions...
> 
> Gun Control is less about guns, and more about Fear and Control, elected officials fear the people, and want to control them.



Right on. Far too many good people in the general population do not understand this.


----------



## KevinB (1 Feb 2016)

Jed said:
			
		

> Right on. Far too many good people in the general population do not understand this.



And unfortunately many "spokespeople" from the Gun Owning public come of as rabid lunatics, so the rational ones messages get ignored.   It's much easier to focus on an idiot foaming from the mouht about 'RIGHTS" at Starbucks with his Tapco tarted up SKS, than someone else in a suit talking sanely.


----------



## Jed (1 Feb 2016)

KevinB said:
			
		

> And unfortunately many "spokespeople" from the Gun Owning public come of as rabid lunatics, so the rational ones messages get ignored.   It's much easier to focus on an idiot foaming from the mouht about 'RIGHTS" at Starbucks with his Tapco tarted up SKS, than someone else in a suit talking sanely.



Ha ha, ain't that the truth. That's why I try to hold back from Gun Control discussions. It tends to go from a Richter scale of 1 to 8 in 10 minutes.


----------



## KevinB (1 Feb 2016)

And no misspelling Mouth was not intentional - but it does kind of fit when you look at some of the crowd I was referring too...


----------



## Kat Stevens (1 Feb 2016)

KevinB said:
			
		

> And unfortunately many "spokespeople" from the Gun Owning public come of as rabid lunatics, so the rational ones messages get ignored.   It's much easier to focus on an idiot foaming from the mouht about 'RIGHTS" at Starbucks with his Tapco tarted up SKS, than someone else in a suit talking sanely.




Which is why my SKSs are bone stock and get my coffee a Micky Dees.


----------



## Jarnhamar (1 Feb 2016)

It's Canadian but speaking about firearm rights it's hilarious watching gun owners scream on facebook about their rights and freedom of speech because facebook is banning the selling of weapons on their site.

Our freedom of speech is being infringed! I have a right to sell whatever I want on facebook. Our rights are being violated. canada is becoming a police state. Sign this petition at change.org


----------



## Kat Stevens (1 Feb 2016)

Yeah, but that group was pretty handy, and good for some gun porn.


----------



## Lumber (3 Feb 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> It's Canadian but speaking about firearm rights it's hilarious watching gun owners scream on facebook about their rights and freedom of speech because facebook is banning the selling of weapons on their site.
> 
> Our freedom of speech is being infringed! I have a right to sell whatever I want on facebook. Our rights are being violated. canada is becoming a police state. Sign this petition at change.org



Probably the same sort of fellows who believe that their is a constitutional right in Canada to bear arms.


----------



## mariomike (8 Oct 2016)

October 7, 2016

Some lawmakers want to allow first responders to carry guns
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/7/some-lawmakers-want-to-allow-first-responders-to-c/

That could get interesting in the back of the ambulance.


----------

