“justified” as a descripter is certainly open to debate
Feinstein, Boxer, Schumer, Kennedy and Owens were all elected by someone, potentially people from these boards have voted for and will in the future vote for those who do want to restrict or end the right to own firearms.
Anywhere from 200,000 to 2,000,000 times a year, firearms are used by citizens to defend themselves from crimes. Those numbers may seem ‘small’ to you, but in comparision with the number of accidental deaths annually, they seem rather huge to me.
It’s not a small thing when it renders my firearm useless as a defensive tool. It’s also certainly not small when considering that the only way to enforce such a law would be to allow police carte blanche to enter the home of a firearms owner at any time to check their compliance with the ‘safe storage’ law.
There is no gun show loophole. That’s a misnomer given to the fact that private citizens are free to sell their property to other private citizens. In the case of firearms, it is already a felony to sell a firearm to a prohibited person.
Well, we’ve reached the point where we are each going to start to repeat ourselves. And going into areas covered by many a past debate.
Suffice it to say that I have been presented those self-defense studies before. They have dramatically underwhelmed. There is no good data to show any significant number of lives saved by defensive gun use in the US. My read on the body of evidence is that any small effect was more than offset by the increased risks (which was not restricted to accidents) of owning firearms. But it is at the point that these debates usually devolve and the CDC gets accused of being a bunch of ho’s and medical epidemiologist acused of all having political agendas by virtue of the fact that they conclude that guns present more risks than benefits. No thanks, I’ll defer.
The op has been addressed. A public health perspective has been applied. It doesn’t get much traction in the public eye because Joe Public doesn’t really care about gun deaths if he percieves them as not likely happening to him. great glowing, the situation here is quite similar, “justified” just means that such was the reason that we are doing it, not that it is a good justification. Similarly the gun control that gets done (and is blocked) is more often a reaction to percieved fears rather than to the significant numbers of real deaths. Fear of the random sniper, of the madman, of the boogeyman home invader, of the stormtroopers taking over. Really doing good here is more boring.
From the Bureau of Justice Statistics:
Offenders
According to the 1997 Survey of State Prison Inmates, among those possessing a gun, the source of the gun was from -
[ul]
[li]**a flea market or gun show for fewer than 2% **[/li][li]a retail store or pawnshop for about 12% [/li][li]family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source for 80% [/li][/ul]
During the offense that brought them to prison, 15% of State inmates and 13% of Federal inmates carried a handgun, and about 2%, a military-style semiautomatic gun.
On average, State inmates possessing a firearm received sentences of 18 years, while those without a weapon had an average sentence of 12 years.
Among prisoners carrying a firearm during their crime, 40% of State inmates and 56% of Federal inmates received a sentence enhancement because of the firearm.
Originally from catsix -
This is part of the problem. Many of the gun control people just simply don’t know what the heck they are talking about.
Ban 30-30s? The 30-30 not a very high power cartridge when compared to most hunting rounds.
Part of it may be the strange system for describing ammunition. If you could even call it a system
30-30
9mm
270
.30 06
.45
300
12 gage
38 special
.380
.357 magnum
If you don’t know much about guns these numbers will be meaningless. Maybe that’s a good thing. It is easy to spot folks that don’t know anything about guns. People that don’t know much about guns should not be trying enact new laws about them.
The problem with this is that the “cures” Hemenway proposes for the “public health issues” he perceives guns to be the source of, are the exact same “cures” the gun banners propose implementing to solve the “violent crime epidemic.” Those being: registration, mandatory locks, licensing, expanded background checks, outright bacn on certain classes of guns . . . Simply putting a new header over the list of “remedies” doesn’t change the fact that the “remedies” are objectionable, ineffective, unethical, illegal and stupid.
You nailed it.
If the anti gun crowd really wanted to make a difference in the small number of accidental deaths, they would focus on education and training. Like the NRA does.
Complicating simple tools to make them ‘seem’ more safe often makes them more dangerous.
Don’t forget all the weird calibres like .454 Casull and the ever popular garter-gun the .22 mag.
It’s an extremely disjointed system of Imperial, Metric, cartridge length, powder weight, and a bunch of other stuff that all goes into ‘how much energy does this thing hit a target with?’
Yet another reason that I go to doctors for medical problems and gunsmiths for firearms issues and not the other way around.
DSeid: my “extremism” is reserved for people using “junk science” and manipulated figures to enact their agenda. By long association, I have lost what little respect I might have ever had for Sarah Brady, and thus the majority of the gun control movement. I know that it is probably wrong to tar an entire movement with the same brush from the bucket of sludge that its lowest denominator swims in, but that “lowest denominator” tries every few years to freshen its “respectability” by jumping on the newly arrived “bandwagon” of whatever group joins the fray. And if said group in turn gets “chummy” with The Brady Bunch, then as far as I’m concerned, fuhgedaboutit.
I have no problem at this stage in responding civilly to an honestly asked question or thoughtfully presented view on the matter as presented by other posters here on the SDMB.
I also realize that there may yet be a fair and balanced “middle ground” of gun control that stems the tide of guns to criminal’s hands while yet preserving the liberty currently enjoyed by most gun owners around the nation. Finding that middle ground and getting to it in such a way that any new legislation cannot be usurped by the “ban 'em all” crowd is tricky.
Also: I realize that the pro-gun movement is not above number fudging and selective editing in presenting their views as well. But I figure there’s enough people “out there” to call them on it and keep them honest (which they mostly are; the media doesn’t give the pro-gun movement any “free passes”)
In closing, you would be hard pressed to find any anti-gun group publicly espousing a “ban 'em all” line anymore; they learned long ago how counterproductive that was. But I don’t doubt for a second that that’s no longer their “endgame.” They’re just willing to be patient and try an incremental approach, and not crow their victories when they get them (it just draws attention an re-fuels the debate, which I don’t believe they are interested in).
And many on the gun control side believe that compromise is always one step closer to their goal than the last law that was passed. They want compromise by making laws stricter and stricter, but how many of them are willing to compromise by allowing the sunset or repeal of laws that have been dismal failures in the reduction of crime?
catsix: I also think that sunset provisions may be a decent safeguard against gun-control run amok. I still have personal reservations, though. What you might call “a lingering fear.”
ExTank: I do think it’s a good thing to remove, one way or another, ineffective laws that fail to have an effect on crime but do restrict the rights of ordinary citizens from the books, so I’m kind of a fan of sunset provisions.
What I’m not a fan of is passing a bad law like the ‘assault weapons’ ban that affects cosmetic features and doesn’t even target criminals most preferred activities.
This is something Hemenway said on the Book TV program I mentioned in the OP. Was he wrong? Or did I misunderstand him? If he was talking about any one type of gun, I missed that point.
I say, there is no way to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. There is no way to bring about a situation in which no one owns guns at all. It can’t be done. There will always be a black market. Also, it will always be possible to obtain the information and materials to construct a gun on one’s own.
Think of Prohibition. Manufacture and sales of alcohol were forbidden in the U.S. Yet alcohol remained plentiful: it was smuggled in from other countries, and it was manufactured clandestinely. Alcohol prohibition didn’t work. The war on drugs isn’t working either. I see no reason to think that a complete ban on the pvt ownership of guns would work any better.
Re criminals possessing guns, here’s an idea. Every citizen age 18 or over has the right to bear arms – with this exception: if you use a gun in a crime, you’re barred for life from legally owning a gun. If you’re caught with a gun in your possession, you’re charged with the crime of illegal gun possession, and, if convicted, sent to jail. This would apply only to people who use a gun to commit a crime; people convicted of crimes not involving the use of a gun would retain their right to bear arms.
I didn’t intentionally atribute anything to you that you didn’t say. I was responding to someone else who was replying to something you’d said. When snipping the post to which I was responding down to the point I wanted to address, I accidently left in your name – the post was addressed to you. Sorry if this was not clear.
And, yes, I’m well aware that the number of actual children killed and injured in gun accidents is quite small. But if we can reduce these numbers even more (without infringing on anyone’s right to bear arms), why not do so? As it is, these few deaths and injuries are not only terrible tragedies for the people involved, they’re being used as propaganda by the gun-banners.
This is, with the exception of those few who have their rights restored after their prison sentences, exactly how it works now. All persons who have been convicted of a felony or a misdemeanor requiring more than a one year jail sentence have forfeited their right to possess a firearm.
Also, the NRA wholeheartedly supported Project Exile. Project Exile involves imposing stiff penalties against those who do use firearms in the commission of a crime.
This would allow people currently prohibited as felons (those serving sentences under felony drug possession conviction for example) to possess firearms, as well as those who have committed violent crimes with other means. I really don’t think that someone who has committed a violent felony (e.g. the premeditated murder by stabbing of another person) should get out of jail and then be legally able to own firearms.
Firearms owners like myself, and the NRA as an organization, make exhaustive efforts to do this with education of both parents and children. Teaching parents to store firearms in places that are inaccessible to children, and teaching children not to touch any firearms. The Eddie Eagle program is actually quite effective until 20/20 sticks a real gun into a toy box for the shock value. This is often used as ‘evidence’ that Eddie Eagle doesn’t work. On the contrary, it’s reasonable ot assume that a child will think anything mixed in with toys or in a toy box is a toy. It’s also reasonable to expect a parent not to store their Glock .45 in with Junior’s Matchbox cars.
catsix – okay, in Hazel’s idea criminal code, the ban on gun ownership can include people convicted of violent crimes not involving guns, so long as the law is tailored to effect only people convicted of serious violent crimes.
everyone – But re gun laws, why isn’t this enough? Why do we need hundreds of laws forbidding various specific, scary-looking guns, legislating the permitted length of the barrel, limiting the number of guns one can buy per month, etc.? Do these laws actaully accomplish anything? Other than providing busywork for which govt officials can be paid?
The education programs catsix describes sound good. I’m trying to think of ways to get this education to everyone. Add it to the school curriculum? Would the banners object? I supposed they might think such education would act to promote or encourage gun ownership.
Hazel, I would like to see at least enough firearms education in elementary schools to teach kids not to touch them in the same way that their kindergarten teacher might tell them that they cannot touch the stove or to be careful about hot water.
Many of those who are opposed to firearms ownership have also been opposed to teaching kids anything about firearms - including not to touch them - because of their opposition to ownership or because they believe their kid will never see one. Their kids may have friends whose parents own firearms, though, and they’d be better prepared if they even had the simple message that Eddie Eagle promotes.
Stop.
Don’t touch it.
Leave the area.
Tell an adult.
Of course education is not just for the littlest kids. It’s also for adults who own firearms and for teenagers, to learn not to leave firearms in areas accessible by children, and how to treat guns, and how to treat the topic with kids.
Telling a 98-lb woman to “learn judo” to fend off a 200-lb rapist is every bit as stupid, and offensive, as telling a disabled widow whose life-insurance inheritance ran out before the mortgage was paid off to “go get a job”.
While we’re at it, maybe we should hold the oil companies liable for selling more gasoline than people would use if they obeyed the speed limit.
Sheesh.
The problem with the education approach is that it doesn’t work. I’ve posted from one abstract already and there are others. The educational approaches can work in getting kids to parrot answers, or perform in a play situation, but when tested in real life type situations they picked up and played with the guns. This is not 20/20. This is reality. Poison labels don’t work well either. You need to keep the poison out of kids reach and locked up.
Show some cite to support the contention that it does work in real life. Otherwise when it comes to kids and what they’ll do, ask me, and I won’t deign to comment on different calibers of ammunition.
ExTank, there is a problem with your tarring the current suggestions with the percieved end goal of gun control promoters. Let me attempt to illustrate it:
Early Union organizers, back in the day when workers were really abused and had no power, were mostly socialist, communists, and anarchists. Many of them had the end goal of the destruction of capitalism as a system. Did that make union organization per se wrong or something to be fought against? Were workers any less in need of some workplace protections because the organizers wanted to go far beyond that if they could?
Most of us are not organizers. Most of us do not want banning. Many are just afraid and get feel good proposals that do little to assauge their fears. Some of us would like to see real progress and we see little but self-centered whining out of the NRA crowd. Eddie Eagle? As a serious proposal to decrease gun violence? Sheesh, talk about stupid. As you associate all gun control with Brady’s alleged prevarications, I associate most gun rightists with the NRA’s misrepresentations and bratty narcissism. It is likely unfair of both of us.
Now when they get up and use their lobbying power to advocate for more vigorous crackdowns on corrupt dealers (stings, etc.) and other diversions of legal guns, intead of obstructionism to the exclusion of real ideas, then I’ll stop tarring the bunch together. So far the gun control crowd is playing to the middle much more effectively.