# The Million Mom March-or is it Farce? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 14, 2000, 4:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-million-mom-march-or-is-it-farce/19482 "2000-05-14T04:12:20Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2000, 2:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-million-mom-march-or-is-it-farce/19482/81 "2000-05-19T14:04:55Z")
> [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > It’s always been clear that increasing the number of people packing heat would lower the risk of being killed by someone who’s already a violent criminal, but raise the risk of being killed by an otherwise law-abiding citizen having a bad day over some trivial confrontation. > > That is not clear at all. The statistics do not suggest that the lack of the presence of a gun would have prevented a homicide. All it says is that since guns are available that people who decide to kill somebody use them. It doesn’t say that they wouldn’t have done the homicide anyway. Maybe you’re really arguing with what I said _after_ this paragraph. But what I said here is unassailable. If you put one extra gun out into the world, it creates possibilities. Maybe someone will, with that gun, shoot a criminal who’s trying to rape and kill them; maybe they’ll shoot their next-door neighbor who accidentally ran over their flowerbed with their riding mower. The likelihood of either is small, but positive. So by definition, it increases the likelihood of both kinds of events. So it lowers the risk of being killed by someone who’s already a criminal, but it increases the likelihood of a fatal outcome in an encounter between previously law-abiding citizens. Period. That’s statistics - not anyone’s individual statistics, but statistics as a field. Nothing’s said here about how _much_ it affects either probability, or whether it affects one likelihood more or less than the other. (That’s what the next paragraph addressed, in the post you cite.) Once we get into that, that’s where the legitimate argument is. > [@](#): > > It also doesn’t say who the perpetrators of these domestic homicides were. Were they already violent criminals who simply commited another act of violence against somebody they already know? The answer to this is likely yes. 80-90% of all violent crime is commited by a recividist. So, these aren’t “otherwise law abiding citizens”, these are violent criminals who shouldn’t have had a gun in the first place but purchased it illegally. > > So, if you want another solution that works to reducing violent crime, how about we try locking these guys up, and keep them locked up without parole or earned time off, or other bullshit. OK, but I was specifically addressing homicides, not violent crime in general. And the BJS statistics sure seem to say that if you’re a more or less law-abiding citizen to begin with, you’ve got more to worry about, in that respect, from other law-abiding citizens who get their dander up, than you have to worry about from prior criminals. If I’m _robbed at gunpoint_, it’ll almost certainly be by someone who already has a record, or should’ve had one but wasn’t caught yet. But I’m more likely to be _killed_ by someone who doesn’t fit that description. It depends on what you’re worried about. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2000, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-million-mom-march-or-is-it-farce/19482/82 "2000-05-19T14:37:53Z")
**RTFirefly** > [@](#): > > It’s always been clear that increasing the number of people packing heat would lower the risk of being killed by someone who’s already a violent criminal, but raise the risk of being killed by an otherwise law-abiding citizen having a bad day over some trivial confrontation. **Glitch Responded** [quote] That is not clear at all. The statistics do not suggest that the lack of the presence of a gun would have prevented a homicide. All it says is that since guns are available that people who decide to kill somebody use them. It doesn’t say that they wouldn’t have done the homicide anyway.\*\* This is pure speculation on my part before someone crucifies me…I’m just trying a little applied logic to see what everyone thinks. It seems to me that a gun almost certainly increases the chances of a crime being committed…be it a recidivist or a regular shmo who just happened to get pissed off. By its nature a gun makes it easier to hurt someone. It allows an attacker to act from a distance in addition to the psychological boost of power it hands the wielder. While handling a knife or bat may also provide a sense of power they don’t equate to the same level as a gun. This acting from a distance that a firearm allows helps to separate the attacker from the crime to some extent. Getting up close and personal to stab someone or bash their brains out requires a little more will from the attacker. In addition, it is easier for the victim to escape/defend themself from other weapons. There is a chance to grapple with the attacker or simply run away that is a far less available option if a gun is pointed in your direction. Obviously some people are committed to hurting another person even if they have to use their bare hands. This is more likely with a committed criminal than a regular guy who happens to get really worked up. A gun is a great equalizer. At 150lbs. I’d never pick a fight with Mike Tyson but if I have a gun I’m far more likely to stand-up to him and see what happens. In this respect logic would seem to support Glitch in his assessment. Glitch was responding to my question of whether everyone in the country being armed (as some suggest) is really a good idea. As argued above I’m not so sure it would be a wise move. \*\* To Lamia, Pepperlandgirl and Weirddave\*\* Just to weigh in on your ongoing argument… I may not be thrilled with guns but I am far less thrilled with ignorance. I think it is prudent to give children (maybe ages 8-10 or so) _very_ basic training in firearms. I’m not suggesting teaching them to be marksmen but knowing which side of the gun is the business end and what a gun can potentially do is prudent. Kids are naturally curious. Should they come across a gun they will play with it. Those that understand its operation and its danger are less likely to hurt someone than a child who has never seen one and starts randomly exploring the weapon. In essence they need to be taught cautious respect. If the parents want to teach markmanship or hunting to their child then that’s extra and up to the parents. If the parents want to teach their children that guns are evil and should be avoided at all costs than that’s up to them as well. The references to sex-ed are relevant in that sex-ed does not teach or encourage kids to have sex…simply to be aware of some issues surrounding sex so they can hopefully make better decisions when faced with it in the future. Some goes for gun education. Some children will still make bad decisions but at least education minimizes the impact and numbers of bad decisions. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2000, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-million-mom-march-or-is-it-farce/19482/83 "2000-05-19T14:40:58Z")
**Glitch’s quote above should read…** > [@](#): > > That is not clear at all. The statistics do not suggest that the lack of the presence of a gun would have prevented a homicide. All it says is that since guns are available that people who decide to kill somebody use them. It doesn’t say that they wouldn’t have done the homicide anyway. Sorry about that…the rest is mine. ---
**Author:** ![Glitch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/0ea827/32.png) [@Glitch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Glitch)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2000, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-million-mom-march-or-is-it-farce/19482/84 "2000-05-19T15:44:30Z")
> [@](#): > > This is pure speculation on my part before someone crucifies me…I’m just trying a little applied logic to see what everyone thinks. Certainly nothing wrong with that! In fact, it is a darn shame that didn’t occur MORE often on the board. > [@](#): > > It seems to me that a gun almost certainly increases the chances of a crime being committed…be it a recidivist or a regular shmo who just happened to get pissed off. Of course, there is little doubt that some crime would be prevented if there were no guns at all. Some people would be too cowardly to cut somebody up with a knife over using a gun, but the statistics do not remotely suggest what proportion that would. Realistically, what proportion of violent criminals do we REALLY think this applies to? Criminology studies would suggest very few. Violent criminals view us civilized folk as “white bread” (a street slang term with an obvious highly racist background but has come into more common use as just any sheep-like prey). Violent criminals view people as a resource, as prey. Something to be devoured. Anybody who gets in their way is THAT person’s problem. They view their actions as absolutely necessary or justifiable. Violent criminals in surveys routine claim that the it was the victim’s fault for doing “…fill in the blank…”. One of the common causes is “they pissed me off, they shouldn’t have done that.” And make no mistake from a self defense perspective, gun and knives at the close quarters of most crimes are virtually as effective and lethal. Against, untrained shooters against person with a knife lose roughly 80% of the time. Even with training the rate drops to about 16-33%. A person without a weapon is almost always in a lot of trouble against a knife. Turning and running is practically equally effective against a person with a knife vs. a person with a gun. There are really only two scenarios to consider: 1. Not secluded. If you aren’t secluded, it is extremely unlikely that a criminal is going to take pot shots at you. It attracts too much attention. And if he is the sort who could care less about attention, he was likely going to kill you anyway. This is true because of the notion of predetermined action, something which felon survey’s have shown to be prevelent in criminal behaviour (and so becomes a key defense issue for us … but that’s a tangent). In other words, when the encounter starts the criminal has already decided if he is going to kill you or not. If he is, and you stay you die. If you turn and run, he may decide to fulfill his plan and try to kill you. It is very difficult to get out of knife range or point blank gun range before he can hit you, so if he decides that he is going to try chances are you will be hit (the good news is if he hits you with a gun at least it makes plenty of noise to attract attention). 2. Secluded. In the secluded case, clearly it because easier for the criminal to decide to use his gun/knife or not. Again, we face the problem of getting away quickly enough. Certainly, in the secluded scenario the gun using criminal is at a tremendous advantage over a knife using criminal since he can fire with impunity. But secluded crimes are far rarer then unsecluded crimes, with the important note that many crimes start off unsecluded and become secluded (NEVER go with a criminal because all he is try to do is get you secluded!) So, the conclusion is that only in the smaller subset of secluded crimes is there much of a difference between a gun toting criminal vs a knife toting criminal. Also, note the assumption above no guns at all. The statistics do not say how many of those homicides were a result of illegal guns, when you factor in recvidism rates (I recall somebody else posting them at about 66% so lets use that lower rate rather than mine just for arguments sake), most of those domestic homicides were statistically committed by an illegal weapon. So, where is the argument for gun control, like registration, in this? This is an excellent argument for increased enforcement and prosecution, but not for gun control that will keep guns out of the hands of criminals (the exception being the mandatory background check for all gun sales). ---
**Author:** ![Glitch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/0ea827/32.png) [@Glitch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Glitch)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2000, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-million-mom-march-or-is-it-farce/19482/85 "2000-05-19T15:47:40Z")
the very last sentence should be: but not for gun control that will **not** keep guns out of the hands of criminals. A rather important “not”. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2000, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-million-mom-march-or-is-it-farce/19482/86 "2000-05-19T16:58:19Z")
**Glitch** > [@](#): > > Also, note the assumption above no guns at all. The statistics do not say how many of those homicides were a result of illegal guns, when you factor in recvidism rates (I recall somebody else posting them at about 66% so lets use that lower rate rather than mine just for arguments sake), most of those domestic homicides were statistically committed by an illegal weapon. So, where is the argument for gun control, like registration, in this? This is an excellent argument for increased enforcement and prosecution, but not for gun control that will not keep guns out of the hands of criminals (the exception being the mandatory background check for all gun sales). I disagree in the large picture with the above statement. I do agree there is no doubt that criminals will always have access to guns. There’s not a country in the world, regardless of how strict their gun control is, that at least some criminals can’t obtain a firearm. That said anything that throws roadblocks in the way of obtaining a firearm can only have a positive impact on criminal possession of firearms (the NRA neutered bills that have made it so far notwithstanding…these bills were DOA and never had a chance to affect anything). By imposing registration restrictions (sans loopholes) you make more than the criminal responsible for the firearm. Now the guy selling the weapon is guilty of a serious crime. The price now goes up on the firearm as a result. People can be held responsible for serving alcohol and then letting that person leave drunk. Stores can be busted for selling cigarettes to minors. Car dealers must check to see that your a licensed and insured driver (at least in Illinois). People selling firearms should be similarly responsible for what they sell. I realize that change would be slow in coming. There are a ton of firearms already out there. However, slowly but surely, the number would shrink making the remaining firearms valuable and thus harder to obtain. Once obtained they wouldn’t be used as ‘casually’ as they sometimes are now (i.e. gang initiation rites). The pro-gun lobby regularly points out how easy it is to obatin a firearm illegally and somehow use this as an excuse to avoid restrictions. It seems to me that this argues more than anyting for _useful_ restrictions. Even if the first ones down the pipe aren’t perfect you keep tweaking and plugging loopholes till a decent system evolves. We must also accept the fact that NO system will be 100% effective. This seems to be another NRA tactic, “That won’t work because it’s not flawless…criminals can still get guns!” So? Fewer will get guns and that can only be a good thing. Law abiding citizens may have to jump through a few hoops but they can still get their firearms as well. I find going to the DMV for my drivers license a pain but I can live with it. I don’t see why buying a firearm HAS to be easier than buying a car…Constitutional right or not. ---
**Author:** ![Glitch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/0ea827/32.png) [@Glitch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Glitch)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2000, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-million-mom-march-or-is-it-farce/19482/87 "2000-05-19T17:17:24Z")
Jeff, I am afraid you are going to have to be MUCH more specific if you want to seriously discuss this. > [@](#): > > That said anything that throws roadblocks in the way of obtaining a firearm can only have a positive impact on criminal possession of firearms Like what? What roadblocks do you have in mind? Registration? It won’t make one iota of difference. The criminal will still buy their gun on the black market just like they do now. Waiting periods? It won’t make one iota of difference. The criminal will still buy their gun on the black market just like they do now. Sure we can pursue useless legislation like this, but what a waste of effort when we could focus on that which works. Mandatory background checks? Please read my posts. I have already said I support background checks. What else do you propose? > [@](#): > > (the NRA neutered bills that have made it so far notwithstanding…these bills were DOA and never had a chance to affect anything). Can we drop the political rhetroic BS? Has a single post of mine mentioned HCI, or any other gun control lobby? No. Yes, we all know that all the illegal guns sales are solely the fault of the NRA and their lobbying. _sheesh_ I could just as easily post about all the BS that various gun controls lobbies put out, I don’t because it is just that bullshit. Meaningless political bullshit. You want to talk about possible solutions, fine. You want to focus blame, count me out. > [@](#): > > By imposing registration restrictions (sans loopholes) you make more than the criminal responsible for the firearm. What greater restriction would you like to see BEYOND the currently existing restriction they are not allowed to purchase or own a firearm? > [@](#): > > Now the guy selling the weapon is guilty of a serious crime. He already is. Also, PLEASE for the love of whatever you hold holy, read my posts. Did I or did I not say that I think a person who sells a firearm illegally should be chargable with manslaughter if such a weapon is used in a homicide? Did I or did I not say that I support background checks for ALL gun purchases? Please please please … READ my posts. > [@](#): > > The pro-gun lobby regularly points out how easy it is to obatin a firearm illegally and somehow use this as an excuse to avoid restrictions. It seems to me that this argues more than anyting for useful restrictions. What greater restriction would you like to see above and beyond that it is illegal for a criminal (or anybody else who fails a background check) to purchase or own a firearm? > [@](#): > > This seems to be another NRA tactic, “That won’t work because it’s not flawless…criminals can still get guns!” So? Fewer will get guns and that can only be a good thing. Please see above. ---
**Author:** ![Glitch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/0ea827/32.png) [@Glitch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Glitch)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2000, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-million-mom-march-or-is-it-farce/19482/88 "2000-05-19T17:20:01Z")
For the record, I am not nor have I ever been a member of the NRA or any other pro-gun lobby. The reason being that these organizations tend to focus on the constitutional side of the argument, which in my opinion, is irrelevent. The reality is that the firearm possesses a very real and vital role in a person’s self protection spectrum and as such the trained, responsible law abiding citizen should be allowed to own one for self protection. ---
**Author:** ![momo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f4b2a3/32.png) [@momo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/momo)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2000, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-million-mom-march-or-is-it-farce/19482/89 "2000-05-19T17:20:03Z")
Glitch: > [@](#): > > momo: I apologize for the unintended insult. I have never seem it definied in any dictionary as “hopeless coward”. No problem. > [@](#): > > I was not engaging in name calling in the slightest, although you can continue to pretend I was if you wish. Um, you posted after me - I was referring to many posters on either side of this debate, in this and other threads. Aside from the above, I don’t mean you specifically. > [@](#): > > The reality is that many people do not understand weapons and are irrationally afraid of them, even just contact with them or seeing them. I have a hard time accepting that a fear of a device whose primary purpose is to inflict damage on living things is “irrational.” On the contrary, I think it’s about as rational as one can get, and the basis of the conversation going on here regarding children and gun-education. My $0.02 worth on that point is that if the atmosphere exists for kids to be exposed to weapons (family/friends have guns in their homes, for example), then it behooves the parents to make sure their kids understand that guns are not toys, and that they know the basics of safe gun handling. These are simple enough that even fairly young children can understand them. Fear, IMHO, is a good motivator for internalizing these basics - I think what you’re referring to is changing that fear into a “healthy-respect,” which certainly does make sense. > [@](#): > > These people invariably do not recognize the value of the gun to the law abiding citizen for self defense. These people oppose guns from an irrational fear that is common in the modern day civilized human. It is this same irrational fear that cripples people under the adrenal stress of violent attack which is why I am very familiar with it (feel free to read various books on adrenal stress and self defense to find out what I am talking about). > > **What I don’t understand is how my position is considered to be somehow defeatist.** > > Who said that? I did say that you tried arguing from ignorance about weapons, which certainly seemed to be the case. Apologies for equating “crippling fear” with weakness, but that seems to be your point: a pro gun-control stance coming from someone who is not intimately familiar with guns is null and void for the same reason. Secondly, it doesn’t matter to me what “value” a law-abiding citizen gets out of owning a gun. Obviously, if you have one, you must see some value in it. And if it’s legally owned and operated responsibly, then you have every right in this country to have one. You broad-brush statements that equate a pro-control stance with ignorance and irrational fear, yet at the same time acknowledge that there are perfectly valid reasons NOT to own a gun. To whit: it appears you have a modest amount of fear yourself - enough that you’ll arm yourself against it. In any event, I’ve not seen a lot of evidence here or in related threads to support that most pro-controllers believe you do not have the right to protect yourself in a legal and responsible manner. > [@](#): > > **Also, how do you regard the U.S. stats (overall deaths by handguns, regardless of category) when compared to other industrialized nations? Are the higher U.S. numbers acceptable to you? (before asking me to back up the numbers, they’re readily available in this thread).** > > So what kind of bullshit question is that…Of course, handgun death rates aren’t acceptable. No fucking kidding. Gee, that is a brilliant piece of insight. I was wrong - the numbers I’m talking about don’t seem to be readily available, here or elsewhere: I’m referring to comparative stats of gun-deaths similar to those that have been posted specifically for the U.S. but compare these to other industrialized nations, or at least the G7 (or is that G8 now?). I did a rather exhaustive search last night but didn’t find much. If anyone has found such data I would appreciate being steered in the right direction, although it’s more than possible that I’ve missed them if a link’s already been posted. Glitch: I’m trying to drive the point that there’s a valid reason for the gun-control movement in the U.S. Yes, I’ve looked at the stats and the charts and I’m thrilled to see the numbers going down over the past few years. But even with the reduction these numbers are still incredibly higher than they are in other countries - you know, the ones where they register guns? And yes, when I find them, I’ll back up that statement. > [@](#): > > Private gun ownership in the US reduces violent crime. What also works is enforcement and prosecution of the laws that keep criminals from owning or using firearms…. I want gun death rates to go down, that why I support those things that actually work…. > > …citizens kill 3,000 violent criminals a year with handguns, and wound another 17,000 more And here’s where we’ll never agree: there’s no such thing as a “good kill.” I’m tired of the “remedy for the bad use of guns in violent crime is the good use of guns in self-defense” argument, and if we’d just lock the bad guys up there’s be no problem. There’s two things fundamentally wrong with that: 1) the constant is the gun (Cold War argument coming back), and 2) bad-guys get locked up all the time for multitudes of offenses which is driving prisons beyond capacity, and 3) even if you could lock them all up, there’s still… what was posted earlier… 250 million guns in the U.S? Even if that number is off by 50%, a gun for every other man, woman, and child in the U.S. is, if you’ll pardon the expression, overkill. I believe that debates about gun ownership and gun control are driven more by values and ideology than by pragmatism–and the existing empirical research, if the discussion in this thread is representative, is at the most complex and at the least inconclusive. There is a _gun culture_ in the U.S. - that’s why the debate is so heated. On the one hand, I’m relieved that you appear not to base your belief that private gun ownership is an essential check on political oppression. But you do appear to base it as an valid reaction to America being _a violent place._ I certainly don’t disagree with that. However, I _personally_ believe our national fascination with guns and their reflection in our popular culture is just as much a part of the violence as it is a reaction to it. You believe that more controls will have little impact on this violence, and I believe the same will have little impact on your right to protect yourself. But the irony of the Second Amendment debate is that acknowledging an individual right to bear arms can facilitate gun control more than denying it ever could. I understand that there are enough alphabet groups advocating getting rid of all guns, but they do not represent the majority of the pro-control camp _in my opinion_. The validity of that approach is just as ludicrous as the concept of arming every man woman and child in the U.S. as a solution. Looking more to the middle of the debate, there’s more to the gun-control movement than keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. It’s also about keeping them out of the hands of our children, and sacrificing virtue for fear. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2000, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-million-mom-march-or-is-it-farce/19482/90 "2000-05-19T18:06:02Z")
Man…where to start? **Glitch** > [@](#): > > Can we drop the political rhetroic BS? Has a single post of mine mentioned HCI, or any other gun control lobby? No. Yes, we all know that all the illegal guns sales are solely the fault of the NRA and their lobbying. _sheesh_ I could just as easily post about all the BS that various gun controls lobbies put out, I don’t because it is just that bullshit. Meaningless political bullshit. You want to talk about possible solutions, fine. You want to focus blame, count me out. It’s not ‘meaningless political BS’. Background checks, which you say you support, are currently mandated by law. _Except_ when it is a private owner…i.e. at a gun show. This is a HUGE loophole that is taken advantage of. Someone here posted that to avoid regulation some gun show organizers voluntarily put a background check booth on the floor of a gun show. In four days it was never used _once_. Exactly where did this exemption come from? It came from NRA lobbying. Your comment, “Yes, we all know that all the illegal guns sales are solely the fault of the NRA and their lobbying,” is antagonistic rhetoric. I don’t believe anything like that. However, the NRA does fight tooth and nail against almost all proposed gun legislation that in some fashion restricts the purchase or ownership of a firearm. I think it is the ‘slippery-slope’ mentality at work here. The NRA must fight ALL restrictive gun legislation on the theory that if they give an inch they’ll lose a mile…i.e. over time they’ll get nickle and dimed to death. Unfortunately there is precedent for that sort of thing so I can’t entirely fault the NRA for taking the stance it does. Still, I’d have much more respect for their cause if they proposed meaningful legislation of their own that to some extent makes it more difficult for criminals to obtain a firearm while introducing only modest hurdles for law-abiding citizens to overcome that they can live with. **Glitch** > [@](#): > > Like what? What roadblocks do you have in mind? > > **and…** > > What greater restriction would you like to see BEYOND the currently existing restriction they are not allowed to purchase or own a firearm? 1. Severe penalties for sellers flaunting background checks as you mentioned (assuming loopholes are closed). 2. Harsh penalties for possession of unregistered guns. 3. Mandatory registration of gun upon purchase…even if purchase is between two private parties (akin to switching registration upon sale of a vehicle). 4. Severe penalties for straw purchasers. 5. Outright banning of certain firearms and related materials (assault weapons, ‘disposable’ guns, high-capacity ammo clips, and cop-killer bullets to name a few). > [@](#): > > _Now the guy selling the weapon is guilty of a serious crime._ – Jeff\_42 > > **Glitch** > He already is. Also, PLEASE for the love of whatever you hold holy, read my posts. Did I or did I not say that I think a person who sells a firearm illegally should be chargable with manslaughter if such a weapon is used in a homicide? Did I or did I not say that I support background checks for ALL gun purchases? Please please please … READ my posts. I did read your posts. I agree 100%. I wasn’t disagreeing with you. The only thing I would add is _enforcement_ of these laws. Painful penalties applied in something more than a haphazard manner will achieve, to some extent, what I wrote in my previous post. It will become more difficult for criminals to obtain a firearm when the sellers know there are really consequences with teeth waiting for them if they get caught. They will raise their prices to account for the greater risk they are running thus taking some of the weapons out of reach of some low-lifes. Not perfect I’ll admit but it’d help. ---
**Author:** ![Lamia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Lamia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamia)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2000, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-million-mom-march-or-is-it-farce/19482/91 "2000-05-19T18:23:24Z")
> [@](#): > > \*\* > See, this is the problem. You have no idea how to handle a gun. If you come acros one, _there is no way you can make it safe_. While you are waiting for someone else to come make the gun safe, who knows what could happen? Anyone could pick up that gun and shoot themself, you or anyone else-on accident or on purpose. You can’t even safely pick up that gun and put it out of reach until a professional comes because you don’t know how! How safe is that? In my mind that is a much more dangerous situation than someone picking up a gun, ejecting the magazene and pulling back the slide. That gun is now safe. If you don’t know this, the potential for disaster is HUGE. > \*\* I am not sure how things are where you live, but where I live ordinary citizens do not come upon guns lying in the street. I might as well worry about learning how to disarm explosives just in case I happen to find a bomb lying around. The day I have to worry about stumbling over a gun while out for a stroll is the day I’ll pack my bags and move to a country with stricter gun control laws. > [@](#): > > \*\* > Nobody is saying that you must own a gun, fire a gun or anything like that, but it is only prudent that you know how to handle one, just in case. I’ll adress the ability of kids to learn tomorrow, I’m tired. > \*\* If people want to learn how to handle guns that is quite alright with me. I certainly would never try to stop an adult from mastering proper use of a gun. It is the idea that this training should be forced upon young children against their parents’ wishes that I find disturbing. ---
**Author:** ![momo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f4b2a3/32.png) [@momo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/momo)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2000, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-million-mom-march-or-is-it-farce/19482/92 "2000-05-19T18:29:13Z")
**Very Quick Correction:** My last sentence of my last post should’ve read “It’s also about keeping them out of the hands of our children, and **not** sacrificing virtue for fear.” **Glitch:** Forgive me if you have already posted this, but are there web-links available for information on “Project Exile” and Gark Kleck’s comments that you referenced? I’d like to take your advice and read-up. Thanks. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Zambezi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7cd45c/32.png) [@Mr.Zambezi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Zambezi)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2000, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-million-mom-march-or-is-it-farce/19482/93 "2000-05-19T19:12:01Z")
Jeff offered some remedies to “the gun problem”: > [@](#): > > 1. Severe penalties for sellers flaunting background checks as you mentioned (assuming loopholes are closed). Interesting in that there are oenalties for this but to date, they have not been enforced. The NRA supports stricter enforcement of current laws as, apparently, you do. > [@](#): > > 1. Harsh penalties for possession of unregistered guns. Um, guns aren’t required to be registered in most places (class III weapons excepted} [/quote] > [@](#): > > 1. Mandatory registration of gun upon purchase…even if purchase is between two private parties (akin to switching registration upon sale of a vehicle). Yeah, that should stop black market trading! Guys on the street will now carry form 84-35-1000a, registration transfer form in triplicate just in case anyone wants to trade coke for a .380. And how will this allow law enforcement to clamp down on gun crime? > [@](#): > > 1. Outright banning of certain firearms and related materials (assault weapons, ‘disposable’ guns, high-capacity ammo clips, and cop-killer bullets to name a few). This is great! Assault weapon is a meaningless category. What gun could not be used for an assault? Are only mean-looking guns dangerous? All guns are disposable in that they can be thrown away. Care to illuminate us on what a “disposable” gun is? Cop killer bullets? I assume you mean the limited production teflon coated bulletswhich were designed by rthe police and that were made illegal **14 years ago.** > [@](#): > > The NRA proposed alternative legislation based upon the actual design and construction of the bullets. The final, approved version of the bill (H.R. 3121 passed in 1986) prohibited the sale of armor piercing ammunition [which may be used in a handgun] other than to law enforcement and the military. Representative Mario Biaggi (D-N.Y.) the original bill’s sponsor, stated that the final legislation "… was not some watered down version of what we set out to do. In the end there was no compromise on the part of police safety… Not only are they (armor piercing rounds) illegal, the freaking NRA drafted the law! Whew! talk about rhetoric. Get yer facts straight, kid. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Zambezi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7cd45c/32.png) [@Mr.Zambezi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Zambezi)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2000, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-million-mom-march-or-is-it-farce/19482/94 "2000-05-19T19:19:01Z")
one more for the road: > [@](#): > > Gary Kleck, in Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control (Walter de Gruyter, Inc., New York 1997), summarizes the findings of forty-seven such studies, indicating that less than 2% of crime guns were assault weapons (the median was about 1.8%). According to Bureau of Justice Statistics, (Criminal Victimization in the United States, 1993, May 1996) offenders were armed with a firearm in 10% of all violent crimes. That would mean less than .20% (one-fifth of one percent or 1 in 500) of violent crime offenders used an assault weapon (1.8% X .10% = .018%). ---
**Author:** ![Glitch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/0ea827/32.png) [@Glitch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Glitch)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2000, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-million-mom-march-or-is-it-farce/19482/95 "2000-05-19T19:35:43Z")
Jeff: Concerning the policical NRA crap. Let me put it this way… arguments like “It is a common NRA tactic…” is meaningless. It isn’t an argument it is an attempt to place blame, or possibly demonize the opposition. I don’t sit here saying the HCI is responsible for women not being able to defend themselves againts rapists do I? So, again, to put it simply, I will not reply to anything that starts with “It is a common NRA tactic…” or the equivalent because it is meaningless. Either you have a proposal that is supported by facts and proper reasoning or you don’t. Let’s not drag what one group does or doesn’t do … because the reality is that unless you can prove them wrong (see the previous sentence i.e. with facts and reasoning) then you have no basis to critize their tactics. Period. ---
**Author:** ![momo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f4b2a3/32.png) [@momo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/momo)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2000, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-million-mom-march-or-is-it-farce/19482/96 "2000-05-19T19:36:13Z")
Mr.Zambezi, You state that an “Assault weapon is a meaningless category.” Could you please explain how Mr. Kleck is defining one in your quote? ---
**Author:** ![Glitch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/0ea827/32.png) [@Glitch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Glitch)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2000, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-million-mom-march-or-is-it-farce/19482/97 "2000-05-19T19:37:09Z")
My apologies for the many typos in the previous post. I typed it very quickly. I’ll be back to reply to the rest later. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Zambezi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7cd45c/32.png) [@Mr.Zambezi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Zambezi)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2000, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-million-mom-march-or-is-it-farce/19482/98 "2000-05-19T20:03:22Z")
THe Federal Crime bill of 1994 calls assault weapons any with these characteristics: > [@](#): > > A folding or telescoping stock > A pistol grip > A bayonet mount > A flash suppressor, or threads to attach one > A grenade launcher. This tends to be the working definition in US debates post 1994. As you can see, most of the features are cosmentic. No calibre is listed, nor is firing capability. “assault weapon” in military terminology is one that can be switched from semi to full auto. Such weapons have been illegal since 1934 except by special permit issued by the (FBI?) ---
**Author:** ![momo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f4b2a3/32.png) [@momo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/momo)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2000, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-million-mom-march-or-is-it-farce/19482/99 "2000-05-19T20:13:19Z")
Mr.Zambezi, Thanks for the clarification. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Zambezi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7cd45c/32.png) [@Mr.Zambezi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Zambezi)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2000, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-million-mom-march-or-is-it-farce/19482/100 "2000-05-19T20:33:41Z")
whoops, I mis-pasted. There is a little more to the law. Here it is again: > [@](#): > > . It also prohibits new civilian manufacture of “large capacity ammunition feeding devices” declared certain weapons as assault weapons, and states a semi-automatic rifle is an assault weapon if it can accept a detachable magazine and has two or more of the following: > > A folding or telescoping stock > A pistol grip > A bayonet mount > A flash suppressor, or threads to attach one > A grenade launcher. **Jeff** , please note the reference to “large capacity feeding devices”. Yep, that’s right, they are already out of manufacture, though not, thank goodness, illegal. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-million-mom-march-or-is-it-farce/19482.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-million-mom-march-or-is-it-farce/19482.md?page=6)