How Gun Control Advocates Think. Or Not.

Over on the post Mayor Bloomberg = Mayor Blameberg? MikeB302000 and I are having it out. “How many times do I have to lay out the facts concerning background checks and preventing straw purchasing with registration for you to get it,” MikeB asked. “I say you’re willfully wrong. And with all your intellectual vigor, whatever the hell that is, you haven’t proven a thing to me.” To which I replied “In answer to your question ‘how many times do I have to lay out the facts . . . ?’ Try once. Give me one fact regarding background checks or straw purchasing that offers convincing evidence that the former lowers firearms-related crime or that the latter (registration) reduces straw purchasing. Fact. Not opinion. Or conjecture. Fact. One. For each preferably, but I’ll take what I can get. In fact, it doesn’t have to be convincing. Just factual.” And then something amazing happened . . .

It is a fact that if straw purchasers knew they’d have to produce the gun and paperwork at a later date or go to jail, they would stop doing what they do. That’s a fact based on human nature and the absolutely safe assumption that some of the straw purchasers are intelligent enough to put 2 and 2 together.

Do you deny that? If we’re arguing in good faith, you should not demand facts or proof for that which is self-evident.

Wow. Just wow. Skipping ahead . . .

I didn’t say if something is self-evident to me it’s beyond scrutiny. I said you’re playing hard to get when you say what’s self-evident to me is not to you. Much of what I say and think is not able to be proven with “facts,” it requires common sense and honesty. I don’t think you’re using those, in the name of arguing, all’s fair on love and war, and all that.

Let’s try this for a fact.

Our homicide rate compared to the UK is sky high. Our gun rate per capita compared to the UK is sky high. The fact is, if we had the gun control laws of the UK, our homicide rate would be lower.

Now, before you give me that old speech about correlation and causation, just try for a moment to be objective and tell me if that qualifies as a “fact.”

Anyone care to jump in here? And if you do, please remember that well-reasoned, fact-based logic is not your friend. Well, it’s your friend. Not Mike’s. Nor any other gun control advocate, as far as I can tell.

avatar

About Robert Farago

Robert Farago is the Publisher of The Truth About Guns (TTAG). He started the site to explore the ethics, morality, business, politics, culture, technology, practice, strategy, dangers and fun of guns.

247 Responses to How Gun Control Advocates Think. Or Not.

  1. avatarwaif says:

    What book is the table in the picture from?

    • avatarRobert Farago says:

      The Economist’s Pocket World in Figures.

      • avatarUtah_Rob says:

        But how did Russia get on that list? They have strict gun controls!…

        • avatarCarlosT says:

          Number 11, Brazil, legislated away gun rights almost completely away in 2003, and continues to experience murders, including firearms murders, all the time. If you can make a really strong case, you might be able to get a gun to have in your home, but forget about carrying. Somehow, restricting law-abiding citizens’ access to firearms hasn’t been the win for public safety it was expected to be.

  2. avatarUtah_Rob says:

    Um, yes… it is a _fact_ that correlation and causality are two different things.

    Mike wrote “It is a fact that if straw purchasers knew they’d have to produce the gun and paperwork at a later date or go to jail, they would stop doing what they do.”

    I read that as: “if X purchasers knew they’d have to produce the X and paperwork at a later date or go to jail, they would stop purchasing X.” It’s hard to disagree with Mike on that one, whether X is guns or books or pants.

    • avatarBob says:

      In the science of Logic there are a few rules that must be followed in order to prove a conclusion.

      1. The theorem must be valid. “If Premise A, then Conclusion B.” If there is EVER any situation that can result in premise A being true without conclusion B also being true, then the theorem is invalid.
      “If you have $100, then you have at least $20″ is a correct theorem.
      “If you have $20, then you have $100″ is an invalid theorem, because if the total amount of money you have is between $20.00 and $99.99 then the theorem is incorrect.
      2. Premise A must be proven to be true. Let’s assume you do have $100.
      3. Then we can conlude that you also have at least $20.

      Now that we know how to properly analyze MikeB’s argument, let’s take a good look at it.

      Mike wrote “It is a fact that if straw purchasers knew they’d have to produce the gun and paperwork at a later date or go to jail, they would stop doing what they do.”
      1. This theorem is invalid, because we know that there are some straw purchasers who will not be stopped by any law of any kind. However, I don’t think that is EXACTLY what MikeB meant to say. So I will change his theorem to more accurately state what he was trying to say. “If straw purchasers knew THAT THERE IS A HIGH PROBABILITY THAT they’d have to produce the gun and paperwork at a later date or go to jail, A HIGH PERCENTAGE OF THEM would stop doing what they do.” Now I think almost all of us would accept this theorem as “self-evident”. For the sake of argument, we’ll assume acceptance of self-evidence, for the moment.
      2. The premise clause of the theorem is not true. I don’t see how we could change the current laws to make it true either, without establishing some kind of government control that would severely violate the civil rights of all our citizens, and I just don’t think the people of America will ever allow that kind of government to happen.
      3. Therefore we must accept that the resultant conlusion clause of the theorem is not supported.

      MikeB’s argument falls apart (even with our new accurate theorem), because the premise clause is not true and probably never will be true.

      • avatarA Different Bob says:

        “… The premise clause of the theorem is not true… Therefore we must accept that the resultant conlusion clause of the theorem is not supported…”
        ——————–
        Not necessarily. False premises don’t preclude true conclusions. Consider:
        A. Insects have eight legs (False)
        B. Bumblebees have eight legs (False)
        C. Therefore, bumblebees are insects (True)

        Just sayin’, y’know?

  3. avatarbontai Joe says:

    but.. but… it’s the children, we need to save the children! Seriously, when the folks making the laws can’t tell the difference between an AR-15 and a full auto M-16, and also decree that a bayonet lug makes a rifle “bad”, then I expect little in the way of factual arguement when trying to talk to them. Oliver Wendell Holmes once said, “Man’s mind stretched to a new idea never goes back to its orignal dimension.” Once the determination was made by someone that all guns are “bad”, owning guns is “bad”, carrying guns is “bad”, enjoying shooting guns is “bad”, you can’t get new ideas into a locked brain no matter how many facts you have at your disposal. It comes down to control. I have never met a gun owner that insisted some one else MUST own guns if they didn’t want to. We don’t impose our wants on others. But gun control people definitely want to impose their will on us. They don’t like guns and we therefore must be wrong, because we enjoy them. I would never make a vegetarian eat a cheese burger, but PETA people want to deny me my cheese burger because of their beliefs and want to impose that belief system on me. It’s all about controlling people and imposing their will on folks that don’t agree.

    • avatarSilver says:

      Spot on, in regards to it being all about control. I’d venture to even say that when it comes to many antis, guns aren’t even what they hate; subconsciously, they hate their inability to control those with the means to defend themselves.

    • avatarSanchanim says:

      I couldn’t agree more. Most people serving in government, not all but I am guessing a vast majority couldn’t tell you if a gun is legal or not yet they signed the gun control bill into law!

  4. avatarDaniel says:

    Okay. I’ll take a crack at this.

    Let’s reference ye olde Merriam Webster:

    fact noun \ˈfakt\
    5: a piece of information presented as having objective reality

    Okay. Let’s define reality.

    re·al·i·ty noun \rē-ˈa-lə-tē\
    1: the quality or state of being real
    2 a (1) : a real event, entity, or state of affairs (2) : the totality of real things and events b : something that is neither derivative nor dependent but exists necessarily

    Now let us define conjecture:

    con·jec·ture noun \kən-ˈjek-chər\
    2 a : inference from defective or presumptive evidence b : a conclusion deduced by surmise or guesswork c : a proposition (as in mathematics) before it has been proved or disproved

    I will leave mikeb to decide how to interpret the English above. I will also leave it to mikeb to understand that “common sense” is a highly-subjective concept that is open to interpretation and is inevitably going to have a different definition from person to person. Which is why pro-gun folks don’t employ it in their lexicon. They prefer solid, well-defined language, whereas anti-gun folks like open-ended interpretations of the English language so that they may be free to subjectively define what is best for the rest of us.

  5. avatarLemming says:

    Well, that Britian’s homicide rate is lower than the US’ is potentially a fact. Metadata supporting that this is (a) true (b) accurate and (c) measured the same way in both countries, would promote it to an actual fact.

    That the difference is due to gun control is not a fact. It is a theory. I could suggest several studies and experiement that could be performed to validate or discredite the theory, but folks smarter than I have already done so.

    Hmmm, also note:
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html

    • avatarTotenglocke says:

      Historical data shows that the US has always had a higher murder rate than the UK, even before the UK became an Orwellian nightmare. It’s a social issue, not an inanimate object issue.

      • There are other factors besides gun availability, but that’s one of them.

        • avatarTotenglocke says:

          Then explain this: as gun ownership has increased, concealed carry has increased, and the scary looking weapons ban has gone away, why have violent crimes involving guns gone down in the US?

          I mean, your “brilliant” logic tells us that these evil inanimate objects cause crime, so how can in increase in these scary objects result in a DECREASE in said crime?

        • avatarSam says:

          Cue jepoardy music

        • First of all the decrease is minimal. With proper gun contol laws it would be significant.

          Secondly, your correlation that more guns has meant less gun crime is no more valid than some of my correlations that you reject out of hand.

        • avatarRobert Farago says:

          Have you read John Lott’s book? If EVER there was a statistically-based conclusion that is it. Staggeringly thorough. OK, boringly. But there it is. Facts lined-up in a row. Available at Amazon. You REALLY ought to try to read it.

        • avatarJarhead1982 says:

          Kinda like that claim that gun ownership is at its lowest point, based on the GSS survey of only 2,770 people in the US. When in fact the total numbers today are more than ever in US history.

          Yet the anti’s claim the same methodology and relative sample sizes (much larger) for Kleck & Gertz’s study on defensive gun uses is not valid.

          Such hyspocrisy by Mikeb dont you agree!

        • I’ve read it and have it handy on my shelf. I’ll refresh my memory of it soon and make a post – just for you, it’ll be fact-based.

        • avatarTotenglocke says:

          I never claimed that more guns = less crime (though there are researchers and statisticians who HAVE published research papers and books on that very relationship). I simply pointed out that your claim that the presence of guns causes crime is false by showing you that the number of guns has increased dramatically and yet over the last 20 years, violent crime has decreased significantly.

  6. avatarLow Budget Dave says:

    I would say that we are comparing apples and oranges. Britain has had gun registration since the 1920′s, and an outright ban since 1997. Neither law substantially reduced the murder rate, although the rate of accidental killings was directly changed.

    In the U.S., something like 40% of households own guns. If we started taking them away, it would take decades. During those decades, a substantial portion of the population would be at the mercy of armed criminals. Britain simply never had this transition problem.

    Even if you prove that a disarmed society is better, you still need to come up with a plan to do so.

    Here is the problem I have with gun laws in the U.S.: Let’s say you are a member of a terrorist organization, and you are personally on the “no fly” list because of your many contacts with terrorists. You can still walk into a gun store, plop down your money, wait three days, and buy as many guns as you want.

    Federal law does not prohibit members of terrorist organizations from purchasing or possessing firearms, or explosives for that matter. Can we at least agree that maybe we should at least have a registration process for terrorists who want to buy guns?

    • avatarRobert Farago says:

      Definitely not. The Terrorist Watch list is a program without judicial review. Or a quick and efficient way to challenge the initial determination. There are thousands of people who’ve been put on the list erroneously. Even the New York Times (gasp!) have run stories on how people have been “ensnared” by the list.

      And we know that the feds have tried (and are continuing to try) to label groups antagonistic to Uncle Sam as terrorists. Clock this article in USA Today, published the day after the Hutarees walked. (Mentions them at the end.)

      According to U.S. law, you are innocent until proven guilty. If you can PROVE someone’s a terrorist in a court of law, then fine, charge them and take away their constitutional rights. If you SUSPECT someone’s a terrorist, work within legal bounds to surveil that person. Otherwise, leave them the f alone.

      Oh and do you think a terrorist could get a gun without buying one from a gun dealer?

      • avatarAharon says:

        Last I heard, American citizens who advocate for their freedoms under the Bill of Rights are being considered potential terrorist suspects in some modern era political circles and that includes parts of the US Federal Government.

      • avatarmikeyt95608 says:

        No Fly List? Hell, I discovered that I am on that list due to the commonality of my name. Am I a terrorist? Nope, just an average guy with a suitcase filled with shorts heading off on vacation. Yet I was treated like a criminal because some fist fvcker in a bureaucracy needed to come up with some kind of justification for his/her paycheck.

        • avatarRopingdown says:

          My vacation-land next-door neighbor in Spain has a wife who loves Manhattan. But his name is common, and the same as a very-much-wanted Mexican gangster. Every year for three years they pull him aside and interrogate him for two to three hours at Kennedy Airport. You would think they settled things the first time, no?

      • avatarHal says:

        THANK YOU…

    • avatarBob says:

      The problem is in how and who decides that someone is a terrorist.

      Is a terrorist someone who disagrees with the government? I think most of the TTAG readers disagree with their government as regards the gun-control laws.

      So is a terrorist someone who disagrees with the government and has taken steps to prepare for violence on a large scale? Does owning more than a certain number of guns (3, 10, 20?) or more than a certain amount of ammo (200 rounds, 500 rounds?) sound like preparation for large scale violence?

      Or how about membership in an organization that advocates violent opposition of the government? Some people have put that kind of post on the TTAG website. So it is obvious that everyone who visits the TTAG web site is a domestic terrorist, right? WRONG.

      Are you starting to see the problem with designating someone as a terrorist? Even if they can find a way to accurately designate real terrorists, what is to stop a “terrorist” from buying his weapons illegally? Most of the weapons that are used illegally (during the commission of a crime) were purchased/obtained illegally by that criminal. If criminals can do it, terrorists can do it too.

  7. avatarSilver says:

    I don’t usually use internet acronyms, but…ROFL. That made my day.

    I don’t bother with mikeb anymore; it’s not worth the time or effort to debate a mind incapable of rational, logical, factual discourse. But like anyone who wants so dearly for us to be like our socialist police state friends across the pond, I’d say look away from gun violence for a second and look at violent crime and theft as a whole in the UK. The findings may surprise you.

    It’s almost as if…gasp…violence exists independent of firearms, or even MORESO in places where the strong rule with no equalizer. But nah…after all, there was no violence or crime before the invention of the gun, right?

  8. avatarFrank says:

    In my experience gun control advicates don’t think. They run purely on emotion. That is why their arguments do not hold up to logic or the facts. An armed society is a polity society.
    http://www.gunfacts.info

    • avatarKelly in GA says:

      I’ve found that liberals in general run on emotion without fact. Republicans don’t want healthcare to pass because they want old people to die. That’s a fact. I mean honestly, who wants their kids to know their grandparents? We all fought with our parents at one point, why would we want to subject our children to those people. And they smell bad.
      >
      sarcasm engaged hardcore.

      • avatarMadDawg J says:

        Go Dawgs!!!

        Kelly you make me proud that UGA is still turning out some people able to think for themselves intelligently and rationally.

  9. avatarJBartlett says:

    Fact) A straw purchaser and the person consummating the purchase is already violating the law and as such care nothing about the law or how it is enforced.
    Fact) Providing a proof of legal purchase later to prevent going to jail means nothing to a law breaker, just as other crimes has the same type of penalty.
    Our justice system has given the law breakers the idea that the punishment is easier than the benefits of the crime.

    • Now who’s making shit up and calling it fact? Straw purchasers by definition have clean records. They know they’re breaking the law, but it’s one they can easily get away with, thereby maintaining the clean record. They’re a different breed than the ones they buy for. That’s why they’d be deterred by proper gun control laws.

  10. avatarmikeyt95608 says:

    “Much of what I say and think is not able to be proven with “facts,” it requires common sense and honesty.”
    Or, as a logical person would read that…
    “Much of what I say and think is not able to be proven with facts, it requires speculation and assumption.”
    Those who wish to live with heads firmly buried deep in the sand are often impervious to factual statements. Finite statistics that point out the traumatic results and tragedies are flaunted to illustrate an emotional response to a logical question. It does not take a lot of reason to inspire heart felt reaction when a picture of a smiling child is plastered on a television screen under a heading that reads “Yet another senseless victim of handgun violence…”
    What you have there is a tragic plea for emotional response while pinning the responsibility for the death on an inanimate object. Forget the root cause of the death (malice, neglect, irresponsibility, etc…), just focus on the sad image of a life lost.
    As I have lamented before, it will never cease to amaze me that the same people that propose greater restrictions in the interest of public safety are often the very same people who could not care less if I live or die. I have been lectured about the unsafe practices in my life (Firearms, motorcycle riding, cliff diving…) by a smashed drunk registered nurse with her car keys in one hand and a drink in the other. Did that make her a credible source of criticism? Nope.
    As for our esteemed mr. bonomo, well, let his own admissions speak for him. He is almost as credible as that drunk woman in the bar parking lot. Conjecture and posture unsupported by facts or actions.
    As for “inventive math…”
    9 out of 10 criminals prefer an unarmed victim.
    See? I can make up “statistics” that are not supported by any muddling “facts” and use these false “stats” to bolster the spin on my argument. I am not sullied by any kind of support or factual research. Why should I when I can make a “common sense” statement that draws a conclusion from speculation?
    Have you ever really had an argument with a fire hydrant? Same effect.
    This one is going to turn into a Troll Roast Flame Festival. Where is my popcorn?

  11. avatarJohn says:

    “Let’s try this for a fact.

    Our homicide rate compared to the UK is sky high. Our gun rate per capita compared to the UK is sky high. The fact is, if we had the gun control laws of the UK, our homicide rate would be lower.

    Now, before you give me that old speech about correlation and causation, just try for a moment to be objective and tell me if that qualifies as a “fact.””

    That is not a fact. Even if the UK had identical gun laws to the US the UK would still have less homocide rates per capita based on demographic conditions alone.

    I’ll betcha a dollar that violent crime in the UK would decrease if their laws were identical to the laws where I live.

    It is a fact that a if a criminal wants a gun badly enough, the criminal will find one.

    In addition, any laws that require a straw purchaser to produce paperwork could be argued as unconstitutional because it would violate the 5th amendment and a persons right to protect against self incrimination.

  12. avatarJohn Fritz says:

    Over on the post Mayor Bloomberg = Mayor Blameberg? MikeB302000 and I are having it out.

    You guys made the formatting explode in the comments section.

  13. avatarTotenglocke says:

    FLAME DELETED

  14. avatarMilsurp collector says:

    Sure, our homicide rate might lower if we had draconian gun laws, but it wouldn’t lower to anywhere near theirs. Look at the size of the U.S. then look at the size of Great Britain. Common sense, a true rarity in these times, dictates that if there are a couple hundred million more people in one country vs. another, crime rates across the board from petty larceny to 1st degree murder are going to be higher in the country of a vastly higher population.
    I almost feel sorry for any citizen of Great Britain who desires to have the freedoms we do, and not just lax gun ownership. I’ve seen videos of people being questioned by multiple police officers on the streets of London for publicly speaking about ethics, the economy, politics etc. It’s no surprise that there are surveillance cameras everywhere too. It’s frightening, and the sad thing is there are plenty of people who prefer that lifestyle because they’ve been taught from birth that a heavily policed state is a happy state.

  15. avatarJames says:

    Facts shmacts. You can use facts to prove anything that’s even remotely true.

  16. avatartdiinva says:

    The United States has always had a higher murder rate, everything else equal, than Europe and Canada every since records have been collected. It’s the nature of our society.

    Homicide rates among whites and Asians in the US are comparable to the rest of the develop world. Homicide rates among Hispanics are only slightly higher than the rest of the developed world. Homicides in the black community are what make our murder rate deviate from the rest of our peers. The reason is simple. Many African-Americans live in the ungoverned areas that are called our inner cities. 70% of the children are born out of wedlock and grow up fatherless. Ungoverned areas where there is no viable family are prone to the kind violence that pushes up the murder rate. We don’t have a gun problem we have gang problem. While there are gangs in the Hispanic community they operate like organized crime did in Irish, Italian and Jewish communities in the early part of the 20th Century. They are more careful about who gets shot. It’s about business.

    Now to MikeB.

    From what I have garnered from in the past couple of weeks, Mike B is a sell admitted felon (convicted or not), he is Italian living in the old country which sounds to me like he is a wiseguy living on the lam. I give him the benefit of the doubt and choose to believe that he has reformed himself. His anti-gun zeal is that of reformed sinner (criminal) so I am willing to cut him a little slack. What I am not willing to tolerate is his tone, his hit and run personal attacks and his fundamental dishonesty about his anti-gun position. As far as I’m concerned he has outlived his usefulness as gadfly. I think the real problem is that he (we?) have nothing new to say on his topic of choice and frankly I think he has been mailing it in for quite some time. Perhaps he only needs to take a few months off, reinvigorate himself and then come back with some new ideas.

  17. avatarST says:

    Using recent stats and Google, I dug up the following:

    America
    National population of 311,591,917.
    Britian.
    National population of 62,218,781.

    I would sure hope the homicide rate in the UK is lower.

    • avatarMoonshine7102 says:

      Actually, the rate is normally reported as number of incidents per 100,000 people, thus avoiding the problem you are alluding to.

    • avatarMichael B says:

      Typically they measure it per capita to account for population differences.

  18. avatarAharon says:

    According to the DailyMailOnline link, violent crimes rate per 100,000 people:

    UK 2,034
    Sweden 1,123
    France 504
    Finland 738
    Canada 935
    USA 466
    Mexico with its gun-control__________? Numbers please.
    Where is gun-happy Switzerland? ___________?

    Australia 92 — only 92? Come-on! Oh yeah, this is that island place that keeps calling missing tourist washed-up corpses drowning victims. In Australia, unless proven otherwise a washed up eaten corpse (or whats left of it) drowned and was not first killed by a great white shark. It would be bad press otherwise and would thus reduce tourism.

    • Australia 92 — only 92?

      Something’s wrong there. According to Australian Institute of Criminology, just their sexual assault rate is 94/100,000

      http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/violent%20crime.aspx

      • avatarAharon says:

        Perhaps the media story wasn’t proofread or it could have been done by an idiot or both. Australia has been known in the past for manipulating up or down rates of violence to achieve political ends. Thanks for your reply.

        Interestingly, as of I think two years back, 25% of the violent street assaults in London are now being done by teenage girls and young women. Guns in England are mostly gone (it is illegal to defend oneself with any weapon) thus freeing up the lack of fear among thugs to attack people. Now in England with the current generation liberation empowerment movement, a whole new class based on their sex alone is joining the violent assault gang banger community.

  19. avatarkoolaidguzzler says:

    This thread was opened on the predication of a pissing match. It achieves little beyond stroking cyber egos. Pass.

  20. avatarDerek says:

    “…you should not demand facts or proof”
    “Much of what I say and think is not able to be proven with facts.”
    Well, it’s about time he admitted it. I guess I’ll just let eveyone else waste their time with mikey cus I sure as hell won’t be anymore.

  21. avatarKYgunner says:

    Mikeb does not live in North America anymore. He has no vested interest in what happens here, so of course he’s not going to give two flyin f^cks about our rights as citizens. SO F’IN STOP TRYING TO ADVOCATE FOR RESTRICTING THE RIGHTS OF PEOPLE IN OUR COUNTRY!!! This has bothered me since I saw a post he made that said he doesn’t live in the states. Tourists don’t make the laws. So please, Mikeb30200, piss off and go eats some pasta. Start commenting on Italy’s clusterf^ck of a system and advocate change there.

    • KY, don’t you think it’s for me to decide what I have a vested interest in, not you?

      • avatarCarlosT says:

        Do you live here? Are you planning on moving back? Will you be subject to the laws you’re proposing?

        If the answers to these questions, especially the last one, are “no”, then no, you don’t have a vested interest.

      • avatarKYgunner says:

        Maybe so. I admittedly don’t know all the facts of your situation. If you wish to explain why you left yet feel the need to publicly fight against the rights of people that live here, I’m all ears.

        But the fact that you advocate for change in a place that you no longer reside in is like me trying to change laws in Belize. Yeah I visited there once, even had a good time. But I am not in a position to say what people that live there can and can’t do.

      • avatarHal says:

        Okay Mikey… not even trying to pick on you. I’m just curious at this point. I’d like some facts that you CAN provide:
        1) Are you in fact a felon?
        2) If so, what were you convicted of?
        3) Why did you emigrate? Were you or are you a citizen of the United States?
        4) What is your profession?

        Just wondering. I mean, it may make you seem a little more sincere and open to honest dialogue if you set the record straight. I am not tracking the thread where you discussed this previously.

        • Hal, who the hell do you think you are to interrogate me? The way I play it is this. I don’t give a fuck who you are or what you’ve done. I wouldn’t presume to ask you personal questions about your past. I take you at face value.

          In return I won’t humor your silly attempts to slur my name by asking those questions. You can take me at face value or not, as you like. These things about my past which some of you are obsessed with are off-topic. What I say about gun control is the topic.

          You’re not the first gun-rights guy to take this approach with me. When you can’t find a way to win the argument straight-up, you resort to this kind of personal attack by innuendo. It’s shabby and it says more about you than my refusal to cooperate says about me.

        • avatarMoonshine7102 says:

          Uh-oh. Big “M” is back. Contrast this post with the one from little “m”, above. See the difference?

        • avatarMike Taylor says:

          When he whines and spits he’s “Big M?” I just thought that made him an azz.

        • avatarTSgt B says:

          Wow, Mikey, a little touchy, aren’t we? Bad day, or pasta shortage? Pretty damned hypocritical for someone who lives to tell others what is wrong in their lives and how they should live them.

          I have a suggestion: why don’t you mind your own damned business, and quit dictating your insanity upon the law abiding citizens of this Great Nation?

        • avatarRopingdown says:

          Mikeb, why don’t you unburden yourself. You developed a full-blown neurosis when it occurred to you three or four years ago that maybe you would not have ruined your life if there had been extremely strict gun controls in the US when you were in your twenties and thirties. We understand. Obsessing on that thought is likely irresistible for you. You’re a victim of the demons of your memory. You should face it. It was you who were not strong enough to obey the spirit of the law, not us.

          As for the bizarre concept that on the internet your own life, work, location, and past are irrelevant, how did you ever arrive at that impression? Of course these factual circumstances are relevant. It would be irrelevant if people started to question your sex life. That has no bearing on the issues. But when you lecture folks about what gun laws should be in the US then of course having a criminal record or living outside the jurisdiction is relevant. Otherwise, people on the site will find before long that their discussions are interrupted by the idle argumentation of prisoners-with-net just trying to pass the time.

        • avatarMoonshine7102 says:

          “It would be irrelevant if people started to question your sex life.”
          —–
          Not according to Freud. ;)

        • I’m laughing out loud, literally. Hahahahahaha. That’s the best pseudo-psychological nonsense I’ve read in a long time. You’re shootin’ in the dark and you’re way off target.

          Notice, I’m not interested in exploring where you and the others went wrong. I figure most of you are the insecure types who found guns empowering. But I’m not demanding to know your personal stories as a prerequisite to taking you seriously. And I won’t humor any attempts to do that to me.

        • avatarMoonshine7102 says:

          “That’s the best pseudo-psychological nonsense I’ve read in a long time…I figure most of you are the insecure types who found guns empowering.”
          —–
          Pot, meet kettle.

        • avatarRopingdown says:

          I’m not shooting in the dark. The light is on your past, which reveals your present advocacy as a sham. Why listen to a guy who may not purchase a gun legally talk about why guns are illegal. If you had used guns in the past as we do, to hunt deer, or for defense when going to advise a client stuck in a lockup in the most dangerous neighborhood in Philadelphia (yes, they store an attorney’s gun at the front desk), I’d be interested. But that isn’t what you did with guns, is it Mikeyb? I’ve said it before: Deny the past actions I called into question weeks ago. Then let me prove your denials are lies. We have very open records systems in the US. Simple. I believe you are going to end up, once again, costing a web site more hits than your pointless trolling provides. What? No “Semper Fi”?

        • avatarHal says:

          Hey man, just because we’re on opposite sides of this issue doesn’t mean we can’t have honest dialogue. There are a lot of accusations floating around in this thread.

          I looked at my earlier post and said to myself, “self, maybe I shouldn’t have accused him of preaching things for a society in which he is no longer a participant. Maybe he is in Italy for work, or the military. Maybe he’s there for a sick relative. I don’t know.

          It was an attempt to allow you the chance to set the record straight. Being defensive gets you nowhere. Being sincere and honest would allow us to take you more seriously, rather than being able to write you off as a hypocrite. Because I hate to break this to you, a felon with no civil rights preaching to us about gun control comes off as someone who is more concerned about his own occupational health hazards… than public safety.

          So this was not an attempt to slur your name. Your defensiveness suggests to me that you have done that yourself with your actions. I mean, I will turn those exact same questions on myself (you will see no personally identifiable is revealed):
          1) I am not a felon
          2) I have never been convicted of a crime… But I do average about one speeding ticket every two years.
          3) I have not emigrated. I am a fourth generation Pennsylvanian living in Texas.
          4) I am a Law Enforcement Officer, and an Army Infantry Officer on the weekends.
          (On a totally unrelated note, I love Lewis Machine and Tool)

          These questions are not a personal attack, unless the answers are so shameful that you cannot stand to answer them. I had a feeling that was not the case so I was TRYING to reach out to you and make this a little more fair. Your reluctance makes me question that. Tell me, who’s character is making a poor showing here?
          Failure to answer these simple questions will continue to make you look like a fool with no credibility within the scope of this argument.

        • avatarSanchanim says:

          I have to agree with HAL on this. I thought the whole point was to have open dialog since our government seems to not be so open. I feel practical gun laws should be in place. I know others feel no laws should be in place.
          Yes I lived outside the US for a number of years, and yes I even served in the IDF so a foreign military. To that end I have seen how things are done in different countries, like the UK, and Israel, which BTW has one of the most armed civilian populace in the world I think.
          I have alternate opinions and really want to know others. I can understand all points and finding something that benefits us all in the long run and puts forth a positive view of gun ownership, usage, and open carry / concealed carry benefits us all.
          As a law officer I know HAL understands the benefits of proper training, and usage, and also feels deeply about our right to bare arms.
          Ralf has also given solid insight into current laws, and I thank him for that as well.
          If we can stop the flaming attacks and think about things in a constructive manner, I only wish TTAG had a pipeline to gun advocates in government and the like. Really if we stand together, from different view points and hash out something that works then what we will see is what this country was based on. The citizen being heard, and putting forth plans based on fact, and addressing concerns. Not everyone is going to be happy, but reach across the isle as it were and get it done!

        • avatarHal says:

          Thanks bud:) How was Israel? I really respect the IDF…

        • avatarSanchanim says:

          It was nice I met my first wife there.
          The army was great actually. There is a certain bond I think soldiers in the IDF feel that you don’t get here. I never served officially in the armed forces here, but was in ROTC for many years prior.
          I probably would have stayed in if I hadn’t damage my knee so bad, but oh well.
          I have been back since 97 and living in the golden state ever since. Now with my second wife, and wishing for change in a lot of things, but not sure how we as citizens can implement it.

          Actually since you are a law officer I was thinking it would be cool if TTAG could interview you and others about concealed carry, proper etiquette if you do and also what is law enforcement’s overall view on things. It could be one long article but worth the read I think…

        • avatarSanchanim says:

          Thanks for the link!

        • avatarHal says:

          I will be contributing articles soon, but none about that topic are planned as of yet. Besides, my agency is not typical and my response in those situations would likely be different than a regular Police Officer.

        • avatarMoonshine7102 says:

          “Besides, my agency is not typical ”
          —–
          Hey, check it out, everyone. We’re being watched by the BATFE (ASRBF). ;)

        • avatarHal says:

          I can ASSURE you that is NOT the Agency I work for:)

        • You’re a slick operator, Hal, but I don’t buy it.

          “These questions are not a personal attack, unless the answers are so shameful that you cannot stand to answer them. I had a feeling that was not the case so I was TRYING to reach out to you and make this a little more fair.”

          Thanks for trying to help me like that. But, even in this slick soft explanation you get your innuendo in, don’t you, “unless the answers are so shameful that you cannot stand to answer them.”

          You wanna help me, Hal, take me at face value. Argue with me straight-up. Don’t repeat bullshit personal attacks on me that you’ve read. Stay on topic.

        • avatarHal says:

          Well, ARE they too shameful? I’m trying to have a discussion with you. I want you to have the oppurtunity to lend some validity to your stance on this website. If you can’t see where being a FELON would be a conlfict of interest in this discussion, then I don’t think we’re actually HAVING a discussion. I.. I can’t even wrap my mind around that kind of stupidity… or WORSE, that kind of blind ideology… I mean… this can’t even be REAL… It’s like Robert Farago is posing as Mikey and this just the longest April Fool’s Day joke ever…
          If you can’t provide an explanation for your alleged felonious conduct then don’t expect us to take ANYTHING you say on this topic “straight up.”
          The nerve…

        • avatarHal says:

          Furthermore, as you STILL have not done anything except deflect attention away from questions that are VERY pertinent to THIS topic (gun control) and THIS discussion, you CONTINUE to look like a fool with no credibility within the scope of this argument.

        • avatarRuffRidr says:

          “I wouldn’t presume to ask you personal questions about your past. I take you at face value. ”

          Yet your blog has on a number of occasions posted personal information about gun rights advocates in an attempt to discredit them. I suppose you don’t take responsibility for that either.

        • avatarHal says:

          It’s been a while since Ridr and I posed these challeneges to Mikey and he
          Hasn’t. Addressed. Any. Of. Them.

      • avatarGrant says:

        “It is a fact that if drug users knew they’d have to produce a urine sample at a later date or go to jail, they would stop doing what they do.”

        Except that’s not what actually happens, is it?

        “It is a fact that if drunk drivers knew if they get caught they’d go to jail, they would stop doing what they do.”

        Except that doesn’t happen, either.

        “It is a fact that if murderers knew if they get caught they’d go to jail, they would stop doing what they do.”

        Seeing a pattern yet?

    • avatarTexanHawk says:

      I disagree with MikeB’s viewpoints on gun control and his Pollyanna ideals, but if’n he’s still an American Citizen, regardless of where he lives, he has a vote. I don’t care why he resides overseas; I spent 11 1/2 years overseas (not counting the 4 years in El Paso) serving our nation and voting absentee ballot.

      • avatarHal says:

        Roger TexanHawk. I would never dare to claim that he doesn’t have a say if he’s still a citizen especially if he’s a Service Member in Italy. However, if he is an American who has knowingly and purposefully forsaken our social contract, you can imagine why some might be skeptical about his push for laws that will have no bearing on him. I mean, I think the carbs in all of that pasta might be killing more fat Italians than our guns… but I’m not pushing for mandatory whole grain pasta and rigatoni registration in Italy…

      • avatarMike Taylor says:

        There might be a difference between serving the United States and avoiding for felonious reason…
        I will stand with you, a citizen has a voice. Yet a criminal on the run has no say in the jeopardy of my liberty, nor yours. On that I am quite firm.

  22. avatarJwhite says:

    “if straw purchasers knew they’d have to produce the gun and paperwork at a later date or go to jail”

    Last I checked that is the case here in California.
    You walk in to a store. You ask to purchase a firearm.
    They hand you some paper work, you fill them out.
    You pay up front or right there, and you come back in 10 days.

    The 10 days is a “cool-down” because *automatically* buying a firearm means your angry.. whatever… I already own multiple guns, 10 days means jack squat to me. I digress… If a straw buyer was able to do the following..
    A) Wait 10 Days (Oh My…)
    B) Pass an FBI InstaCheck
    C) Float the tab
    The sale technically speaking… Qualifies as a legitimate sale. It’s what that buyer, nay, individual does with the firearm after the perfectly legal purchase that makes for this “what if scenario.”

    If the individual did indeed hand over a legally purchased firearm to a convicted felon, parolee, yada yada yada, they broke the law, and thats that. How do you suppose the “law” which failed to stop the straw buyer in the first place, is going to prevent such an act? “make it so guns are harder to purchase!” How? If the individual legally purchased the firearm, there was nothing they could have done to prevent the legal purchase. “Make them wait 20 days!” That only delays the inevitable. “Make the background more detailed!” Who’s to foot the bill? The buyer? The Tax-Payer? Perhaps, but still… As mentioned earlier, the firearm was purchased legally, so they already passed the background check. “The police should have a say in who can and who can’t have a gun.” Again, who foots the bill? You’re going to trust that police, who are sworn to protect the constitution, will be granted the legal right to make that decision? Yeah, good luck with that one buddy.
    That battle is going all the way to the Supreme Court, which, has favored the 2A time and time again, as they should. If someone has other “ideas” I’m all ears, because seriously, sticking your head in the sand doesn’t solve the problem(“ban all guns”). Did you know sticking feathers up your butt doesn’t make you a chicken.

    In any system there will be corruption.
    I now segway over to http://chasthuglife.blogspot.com/
    A glorious list of “Trappas-Thugs-Rappas-Bangers-Delight” The majority in possession of firearms, openly admitting to drug dealing, and flaunting their spoils and gang affiliations.

    What amazing powers these invisible laws have on criminals! They truly are the epitome of the model citizen. Correct me if I’m wrong.

    “produce the gun and paperwork at a later date or go to jail”

    Supposedly ballistic fingerprints are kept on file incase your pistol turns up at a crime scene. That said, if they find the gun, and it still has serial numbers, you’re looking at catching a case. If you “lost” the gun, and out of fear of retaliation, did not report the theft/burglary/robbery, you have a right to due process, that if anything is the only situation I could see that could potentially get you off the hook for “loosing” your firearm. You’re still looking at some kind of investigation which may or may not result in jail time because of the failure to report a crime, lost firearm, or both. “Arrest them for not having something” obviously you’re you a lawyer.

    • That 10 day waiting period doesn’t work. Straw purchasers can still beat the system in CA. My plan is for a 3 month check and yearly thereafter. That would put them out of business.

      • avatarRalph says:

        Alert the media. mikey has a plan.

        We’re all saved.

      • avatarMoonshine7102 says:

        “That would put them out of business.”
        —–
        And when it doesn’t, you’ll push for monthly checks. When that doesn’t work, you’ll push for weekly checks. Then daily. Then hourly. Sorry, no. Maybe we should try working on the behavior problem instead of the object? Just musing, of course.

      • avatarMilsurp collector says:

        No matter how long a “waiting period” is criminals will always be able to obtain guns illegally on the black market and murder people. But I’m sure restricting the rights of the law-abiding millions of gun owners just to save a couple of lives is totally worth it for you, isn’t it?. Gimme a break. I don’t like what I read in the newspaper as much as the next guy, but no matter what people young and old are always going to kill each other ’til the end of time. So we might as well allow the law-abiding innocent to be able to protect themselves in times of peril from murderers and rapists who are a VERY REAL threat to anybody, no matter their demographic or income.

        People like you think that because I’m a human being, I’m supposed to go out of my way to care about the deaths of other human beings I don’t even know because “we’re all human and should care so much about the lives of all our fellow men and women”. Stop with that emotional, flower-power, preachy BS. I’m not obligated to care about the safety or lives of anyone outside of my friends and extended family, and I should never be required to.

        Wait a sec, why am I even arguing with you? You’re a felon.

      • avatarHarold says:

        “mikeb302000 says:
        April 11, 2012 at 14:08
        That 10 day waiting period doesn’t work. Straw purchasers can still beat the system in CA. My plan is for a 3 month check and yearly thereafter. That would put them out of business.”

        All they would have to do to beat this system is move. Many drug dealers already do this where there is a time requirement on how long their residence has to be under observation before their residence can be raided.

        • Yes, of course some would beat the system, but not most. Why are you trying so hard to protect these law breakers?

        • avatarJarhead1982 says:

          Why are you trying so hard to screw with the law abiding when you have not, nor will you ever rescind, Haynes vs US 390, 85, 1968!

          http://supreme.justia.com/us/390/85/

          You know, the US Supreme Court ruling that states Mikeb and all like him are not legally liable to follow any law requiring them to knowingly violate their 5th amendment right of no self incrimination, making over 85% of all existing gun control laws not applicable to felons.

        • Why do you find it necessary to repeat made-up bullshit about me? Why can’t you just argue straight-up?

          The reason I’m trying to “screw with the law abiding” is because you’re the source of the criminal guns. Through straw purchasing, theft and unregulated private sales, all from so-called LAW-ABIDING folks, criminals get all the guns they need.

          You’re such a patriotic and responsible citizen, why don’t you want to stop this?

        • avatarMike Taylor says:

          B…bo..boo freakin hoo. Wipe your nose and get over it.

        • avatarHal says:

          Yeah Mickey’s still trying to figure out why the entire American population is still here with all these sweet sweet guns…

        • Actually it’s not quite the ENTIRE population. I know you don’t want to consider the 30,000 dead and 100,000 wounded each year, that’s year after year. You’re kidding yourself if you think the relatives and friends of those people are in agreement with your nutty ideas.

        • avatarHal says:

          Too skinny. See reply posted closer to the front of the this thread.

      • avatarElliotte says:

        And what if the straw buyer lives in a bad neighborhood? One where there’s lots of break-ins? He goes and buys a bunch of guns, meets his 3-month check-in and then informs the criminals. The criminals then stage a break-in, take the guns, and the guy calls the cops to report a break-in and theft of his guns and a few other things. Later once the heat’s off (or in advance) the bad guys pay the straw buyer for the guns.

      • avatarRyan says:

        All they have to do is tell the people they sold it to to bring it back a week before their check in and if they don’t the straw purchaser will call the cops and report a stolen gun.
        Thats one loop hole i thought about the instant I read your idea. I’m sure others can and already have found others.

        All that does is makes law abiding citizens lives harder.

      • avatarDubya Bee says:

        I suppose you have a constituency to support that plan??

        What? You’re just another foreigner who wants to tell us Citizens of the U.S.A. how we should run things?

        How original. Now P$ss off.

        • You don’t know anything about me, except that you don’t like my gun control ideas.

        • avatarBill says:

          We know you are not too bright. We know you believe the State owns you. We know you think you have the right to force your will on others who have done nothing to you. We know you are a busy body who loves to stick his nose in other people’s business. We know you think your “feelings” trump our rights. We know you are so befuddled you can’t make an intelligent argument. We know you love to resort to ad hominems when you are on the ropes. I could go on all day, but you get the point.

      • avatarTSgt B says:

        How about a 3 month waiting period to post you nonsense? What the Hell don’t you understand about “Shall not be Infringed”?

        • What I do understand is you’re already infringed. We’re just gabbin’ about the right degree of it.

        • avatarMike Taylor says:

          So if we as law abiding citizens are already infringed, what’s a bit more encroachment? That would like my neighbor building a fence through the middle of my lawn and telling me that as long as I put up with a little he might as well take it all.
          Perhaps there is a reason you are received with the same fervor as herpes in a whorehouse.

        • avatarMoonshine7102 says:

          The Greatest Little Whorehouse in Texas called, and they’re might upset with the comparison you made. They say that, given the choice, mike can keep his money and they’ll welcome herpes with open arms. Expect a call from their lawyer.

        • avatarHal says:

          Ha! Now THAT’s funny.

    • avatarMike Taylor says:

      All modern firearm sales in California have to go through a FFL dealer in order to be legal, thus all private sales have been subjected to background checks/verification. This includes the infamous gun shows which are heavily reputed to be convergence points for criminals of all stripes. That has been on the books for years. How well has that worked on curtailing crime in L.A.? Oakland? It has not worked. Not one little bit. Yet, our esteemed pet troll seems to think that as soon as the rest of the country falls in for the whole unicorn fart powered mysticism that we will be saved from our own wretched selves. I say to hell with our friendly ex-pat felon.
      His positions have been based on personal assumptions, speculation and projection all along. I have said this on TTAG before and I will say it again:
      I’ll not take moral direction from a drug addled criminal. Questions?

      • avatarHal says:

        “our esteemed pet troll”
        Ha! You sir… Are a funny bastard.

      • In spite of the Brady opinion of CA gun laws, they are sorely lacking in some areas, particularly in the bakground check for mentally ill people. But, in spite of that, however bad it is, it could be much worse. What’s needed is stricter gun control, not only in one state, but in all of them. Californian criminals can take an afternoon drive and find themselves in some of the gun-friendliest states in the country. Don’t you think that would dilute whatever effectiveness the state laws have?

        • avatarJarhead1982 says:

          So go complain to the BATF as last we checked, they are the ones refusing to prosecute more than 1% of the 930,000 plus felons who the background check has stopped from buying from a licensed source since 1994.

          The BATF/Government who has no comprehensive mental health system letting all those cuckoo’s go in the other 750,000 rejections by the background check since 1994.

          The BATF who cant stop the 95% plus of felons who dont even attempt to buy from a licensed source to begin with.

          http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/html/bcft/2008/bcft08st.pdf
          http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=940

          The BATF who refuses to stop much less catch any of the people using a fake identification.

          http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/03/21/national/main280557.shtml

          The BATF whose instituting of new draconian FFL rules and invasive fee’s, Hitler like inspections, paperwork errors now a felony, etc, etc, etc, in their 1994 Mein Kampf change to the FFL laws drove 70% of the 245,000 ffl licensee’s away from renewal between 1994 – 2004, making them no longer legally required to report firearms sales.

          Lest we remind all of the gun running the BATF does on the side in Mexico, the Carribean and God knows where else in the various Fast & Furious version of the Watergate scandal.

          Funny how the consistent trend here is the BATF/GOVERNMENT FAILING TO ENFORCE THE EXISTING LAWS.

          Then again, it is very consistent for felons, like MikeB to demand stricter gun laws, it is that way they can insure safer works conditions for themselves.

        • Jarhead, I agree with everything you said, except that last sentence or two. That was just stupid.

        • avatarTSgt B says:

          And this is just another example of the your lack of knowledge of and also the absolute FAILURE of “gun control”, as it is against federal laws for a resident of one state to purchase a handgun under any circumstances in another state (with VERY few and strictly controlled exceptions).

          Did a clown with a squirt gun scare the Hell out of you when you were a child?

        • Sarge, When you said this, “it is against federal laws” did you forget we were talking about criminals?

        • avatarMoonshine7102 says:

          Aha! So we DO agree that criminals will not respect the law, then?

          *edit: Welcome back, little “m”. You’re much less full of acid than your big brother, Big “M”.

  23. avatarCarlosT says:

    Anyone wanting to understand violence and why it happens should really read Steven Pinker’s The Better Angels of Our Nature. There are a lot of factors involved in rates of violence, and access to particular weapons really isn’t an important one. After all, the worst genocide since the Holocaust was accomplished mainly with machetes.

    The other, more important factors include things like rule of law, which allow people to settle disputes with lawsuits rather than guns and knives. This is why prohibitions generate so much violence. When alcohol was illegal, distributors murdered each other over market disputes. Now they just sue or say nasty things in the press. The same thing is happening how with drug prohibition.

    Another big factor is whether or not people have access or can rely on the criminal justice system. If they can’t, they will pursue justice on their own, which can get locked into cycles of revenge. Also important are cultures of honor, which often prevent people from laughing off insults and walking away. Research has shown that this is most prevalent in the South, and is more common in the US than in the UK, and helps explain part of the difference in homicide rates between the two countries.

    Finally, you can look at the various states themselves and see that “lax” gun laws doesn’t correlate with high violent crime. Given that the right to keep and bear arms is a civil right, that’s all we need to know.

  24. avatarJB says:

    Rediculous… Fact 1 is just a statement of a theory of the thought of another. What is a straw purchaser? A team of exploitee and exploiter. All the exploiter has to do is conscript an exploitee. Most crime is not well thought out and the statement in itself proves that a lot is not well thought out.

    Fact 2 is indeed a fact but if you say the sky is blue over America and the sky is grey over the UK does that mean it is different sky? Merely facts that can show no causation. Guns do not cause homicide, killers do. People kill with things other than guns. The question should be “why?”

    The great horror is that killers will always find a way to kill, should others always be at their mercy?

  25. avatarMakattak says:

    Here’s my question. Is the final goal of your “gun control” to prevent straw purchases?

    I can prevent that. No more restrictions on who can buy a gun. We will not have anymore straw purchases.

    If your goal is not preventing straw purchases, but preventing guns from getting into the hands of criminals, further restrictions will not prevent that. I’ll not even argue that gun registration may prevent straw purchases. It probably will prevent many of them. It will not decrease the amount of guns in the hands of criminals, only change the source of their supply. It will further not decrease the amount of crime in the country as apples to apples comparison of countries before and after gun control show not only no corresponding decrease in crime, but an increase in total crime. (Just less gun crime.)

    It will more effectively infringe on the rights of law-abiding citizens and make it far easier for a federal government that has descended into tyranny to attempt to collect the guns.

    So, your plan is useless towards decreasing crime and is merely an infringement on law abiding citizens. Unless, of course, your main concern is the straw purchasing, but I have already told you how to put an end to that.

  26. avatarLevi B says:

    Arguing this way is playing the anti’s game.

    I’m worried about my reduced freedoms, not crime. Criminals can only take freedoms away from me occasionally and then a lot of times only if you let them. The government can take away your freedoms the rest of your life.

  27. avatarWilliam says:

    Amen to this + infinity

  28. avatarDavidT says:

    “Our homicide rate compared to the UK is sky high. Our gun rate per capita compared to the UK is sky high. The fact is, if we had the gun control laws of the UK, our homicide rate would be lower.”

    Or not. While our violent crime rate is falling in most areas (NYC and other victim disarmament zones excepted) the rate of violent crime in the UK is rising, as is the rate of “hot” burglaries (where the premises are occupied by the LEGAL occupants). Extrapolate a few years, particularly with people getting arrested for self-defense, and I can see them having worse per-capita stats than we do now.

  29. As I’ve said before…many times…..gun control and/or “gun free zones” create two huge problems:

    1.) You take the weapons out of the hands of law abiding citizens.

    2.) Criminals will still get deadly weapons (guns, knives, clubs, etc) and/or ignore gun free zones.

    Law abiding citizens now have no way of defending themselves from a violent attack. The police cannot protect you. You are responsible for your own protection.

    • avatarJoel says:

      I like how Mikeb never responds to these kinds of comments. probably because FLAME DELETED can’t find anything to “disprove” here.

      • Actually Joel, I have responded to those comments many times.

        The problem with what Jonathan said, and many others, is that it presumes that shooting crimes are all done by criminals., or by those who were already criminals up until the moment of the shooting.

        The more you lower the bar for gun ownership, the more of those first-time criminal acts we have.

        Allow guns on all the campuses in the country and the accidents and the fuck-ups on the part of the lawful young gun owners will far outweigh the relatively rare school shootings that make the headlines.

        • avatarTSgt B says:

          That is EXACTLY the same argument we’ve heard regarding the passage of “shall issue” concealed carry over the past couple of decades – and it has ALWAYS been wrong.

        • avatarMoonshine7102 says:

          “the relatively rare school shootings”
          —–
          Well, presidential press secretary shootings are also relatively rare, but I know a certain someone who used one to launch her carreer as a gun control advocate.

  30. avatarSanchanim says:

    I did have a question maybe someone can answer. I was going through the posts but didn’t see it.
    Do we have any numbers on how many “straw purchases” are made in the US each year? I ask because yes I think it is bad, and should be stopped or at least if the gun is used in a crime that the person who facilitated the purchase is held accountable. I think we can all agree on that.
    Also do we know how many folks have repeated thefts of their guns? I ask because if we can say that if you do not report a stolen gun and it is used, and you are held responsible as a gun owner you better report thefts period. It would easily show a trend where a straw purchaser continually losses his or her guns, which begs the point that maybe they shouldn’t own any.
    Lord knows when I was in the army, if you lost your rifle it was time spent in the brig. If you lost a firing pin or other major part it was time in the brig.
    I don’t want to infringe on 2A but be responsible. Lock them up if you got them.
    Also if you can eliminate the ease of a straw purchase then the price on the street goes up which means hopefully less criminals will have access.
    I am not saying do yearly checks or what ever, just that using the current information we have in place and centralize the information. Gosh that sounds like a gun registry doesn’t it.
    You can still use the standard ten day period which we are all used to. In fact I would like to see it where if you are on the registry you can get a gun same day in any state. Assuming you own more than one. In this case it means if you were going to shoot your wife for sleeping with the UPS guy then you would use one you already own, but adding another one doesn’t matter.

    • avatarTom says:

      just that using the current information we have in place and centralize the information. Gosh that sounds like a gun registry doesn’t it.

      E-Trace. We have a gun registry in the USA. Also a lot of the state CCW and Hunting License records are public records.

    • avatarBob says:

      Think about your question for awhile. “Do we have any numbers on how many “straw purchases” are made in the US each year?”

      Where do you think those numbers would come from? How could the number of straw purchases be counted? Does a straw purchaser complete a form, and check the straw purchase box? If I were a straw purchaser, would I tell any law-abiding person about it?

      Since straw purchasing is a crime, and it is usually not detected by law enforcement until another criminal has been caught with the weapon, there is no way to even estimate the number of straw purchases.

      Here is what we do know. Most of the guns used by criminals are illegally owned. The criminal either stole the gun himself, got it from someone else who stole it, got it from a friend or relative (who probably knew he could not legally obtain a gun), or got it from a straw purchaser. It is impossible to estimate the numbers or percentages of those guns from each of those types of illegal transfers.

      • avatarSanchanim says:

        Ok I guess I should rephrase the question. By numbers I mean out of all the crimes committed in the US with guns, how many were traced back to owners who either had them “stolen” without reporting it or after investigation knowingly gave it to the person? I understand your point, but the entire article is pointing to stop Straw purchases, and so my question is how do they know anyone made a straw purchase? Yes ok that is sort of a duh question, but it means someone needs to find out for guns recovered in crimes how were they obtained and were they tracked back to people who might be considered straw men?

    • avatarvirtualjohn says:

      Folks like you, Sanchanim, are the reason we have all the screwed up gun laws we have. I remember people arguing the 1968 Saturday Night Special ban was a good idea on the basis product safety. ‘We all want guns to be safely built. I think we can agree on that.’ Horse-pucky!
      What is it about the Second Amendment is so damn hard for people to get. Read it!
      ‘A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.’
      Tell me what gun law does not infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms? If you can understand that ALL gun laws infringe in some way or another on this right, you can make the logical move to all gun laws are unconstitutional. Obviously some acts are criminal and they may or may not involve a gun, that is not what is commonly meant by gun laws.
      So I guess I can answer your implied question with; No, I can’t agree with you.

      • avatarMike Taylor says:

        As for GCA 68′…
        Davis, Raven, Lorcin…need I go on? How effective was that crap fest of legalese bull-snot in relation to safety?
        Short form answer: Not even a little.

      • avatarSanchanim says:

        Well as much I would like it to be free on all counts I doubt that is going to happen no matter how much drugs we take. So if we except there will be some laws in place, how do you make it work in some level that people can live with. I live in CA, and the laws here are wacked, and silly, put in place by people who probably couldn’t tell if a gun is legal or not.
        When I lived in Israel everyone carries, yes you take yearly safety course, or if you are in the army you carry all the time.
        I wouldn’t mind if it was that way here either, so how do you get to that point?
        Erasing all laws on the books now probably isn’t going to happen so how do you change it?
        I am a proponent for reason. Some say now laws at all. And based on 2A this is a valid argument.
        But if you think reasonably the anti gun folks want no guns and the other side wants everything. So find a middle ground that makes sense.

        • avatarvirtualjohn says:

          Senator Helms once said, “Compromise, hell! That’s what has happened to us all down the line — and that’s the very cause of our woes. If freedom is right and tyranny is wrong, why should those who believe in freedom treat it as if it were a roll of bologna to be bartered a slice at a time?”

      • Oh, so you don’t accept ANY gun control laws at all? Is that your position?

        • avatarJarhead1982 says:

          Since the gun control laws are theroretically only to apply to felons, and it is not illegal to lawfully exercise ones rights, and since Haynes vs US 390, 85, 1968 does exist, the circle jerk of insidious viral infection, “progressivous idiotus” that the existing 20,000 plus gun control laws apply to felons in any shape or form answers itself, explain again who the laws only affect?

          Oh thats right, the law abiding.

          Still looking for that US Supreme court ruling that lawful exercise of a right is illegal.

          Besides, these laws dont apply to you, uh I mean felons!

    • Of course no one has a number of how many. Just think about the nature of the act. How could they?

    • avatarTSgt B says:

      Hmmmm; sounds like something an Austrian “gentleman” said in or about 1933, and all that happened was WORLD WAR II and the Holocaust.

      It is NONE OF THE GOVERNMENT’S DAMNED BUSINESS WHAT A LAW-ABIDING CITIZEN LAWFULLY OWNS, PERIOD.

  31. avatarAuguste Comte says:

    All good intellects have repeated, since Bacon’s time, that there can be no real knowledge but which is based on observed facts.

  32. avatarTom says:

    Just to put my 2 cents in.
    I am opposed to gun registration by our government as I do not want nice SS personnel showing up on my doorstep with a list of guns that I own and telling me May I have them please?

    • Self-serving paranoid lunacy is what that is.

      • avatarJarhead1982 says:

        Like your self serving paranoid fears projecting the childhood boogeyman fantasy of blood thirsty monsters, unkown, unseen, creating bloodbaths in the streets, upon all the law abiding gun owners who choose to carry concealed and you are more afraid of them than the criminals doing so?

      • avatarHal says:

        My oh my Europeans have a short memory…

      • avatarMike Taylor says:

        You have a point mikeyb. Those kind of tactics could never happen here…
        Wait a minute…
        http://www.icarry.org/ftopict-5548.html
        Perhaps that was just a fluke…
        http://reason.com/archives/2005/09/10/defenseless-on-the-bayou
        This can’t possibly be what you have in mind…
        http://thedailybell.com/1677/Gun-Confiscation-Frustration.html
        …in the long run it will always be determined by those most affected whether or not to accept a government as just. Not some pasty faced ex-pat with sins to atone.

        • avatarHal says:

          Mike! Hello again. Glad to have you back in the fray! I feel like arguing with this guy is like trying to herd cats…

        • avatarMoonshine7102 says:

          Cats called…

        • avatarMike Taylor says:

          I used the analogy of “arguing with a fire hydrant” in an earlier post. The circular logic, double standards and just plain annoyance of it all kind of gets to me. I used to think I was a fair minded and well balanced person, but thanks to the pet troll I now know that I am a greedy, blood thirsty prick that hates children. Or something to that effect…

        • Mike, that’s not a fair characterization of what I say. My idea is that SOME of the lawful gun owners are a problem. Most are not, but your reluctance to admit I’m right and to respond with such sarcasm is weird.

        • avatarHal says:

          FLAME DELETED

        • avatarSanchanim says:

          Made the pop corn, opened a beer..
          Waiting for the smack down to begin lol

        • avatarHal says:

          Flame deleted? My memory might not be serving me, but I thought I was merely pointing out the Mikey whines about statements containing “innuendo” but will post a statement in response to Mike Taylor with sharp negative implications. “Most are not, but your reluctance to admit I’m right and to respond with such sarcasm is weird.”
          Merely highlighting Mikey B’s neverending hypocrisy. I apologize if I added anything that was out of line. That was never my intent.

        • avatarRobert Farago says:

          No harm no foul [language]. Well now anyway. Your insights and passion are always welcome here. For now.

  33. avatarTom says:

    As I stated earlier; the Government has E-Trace, State CCW and Hunting Licenses so I would say they have a better handle on who has what or at least potentially who has what. I could imagine that Credit-Debit Cards are scanned and filtered as well.
    I will say that if a gun is used in a crime and is recovered, the Goblin and the Original Owner will be easily identified. In between, FTF transfers and ID are a phone call away.
    I will say that some of the better gun rings and straw purchases involve shady gun shops with FFLs and Straw Buyers with falsified ID and gun records from the git go. Actually had a friend who unwittingly was the errand boy for one of these operations.
    From what I can glean, most guns used in crimes are stolen or given to the Goblin by a friend or relative.
    Gun registration will not solve anything if the gun is stolen, borrowed, or both the FFL and the purchasers are falsifying records.

  34. avatarHal says:

    Admittedly, firearm registration would probably impact straw purchasers.  This is if a straw purchaser is one who:

    1) Legally purchases or obtains a firearm
    And
    2) Knowingly sells that firearm to one who intends to use it unlawfully or to further a criminal enterprise (or something like that)

    Roger.  I get it.

    However I am forced to argue that firearm registration would:

    1) Only TEMPORARILY and PARTIALLY prevent criminals from obtaining firearms 

    And

    2) Have dramatically negative consequences for our (not Mikey’s, as he’s already a slave and just too dumb to realize it) society.

     Now  keep in mind that I am about to make arguments based on measured conjecture.  I will not be dropping statistics like flashbangs.  I will not use citations.  But unlike someone, I also won’t try to convince you that my arguments ARE factual, or that I’m authoritative when I’m actually a smug know-nothing living in exile.  I figure, f*ck it…  If Mikey can throw down arguments with no factual backing then so can I.  I can do the “common sense” dick dance with the best of them (think “Silence of the Lambs”).

    “Partial prevention? Consequences?” you may ask…

    Yes.  Gun registration would only have limited impact on criminal elements and would have dark, far-reaching consequences for our society.  

    LIMITED EFFECTIVENESS
    I feel pretty confident in this assertion because [as I bludgeon a dead horse with the UBR on my LMT308]… criminals couldn’t care less about the law.  What they fail to obtain from straw purchasers, they will learn to obtain from smugglers.  Oh and, by the way, they’re not going to be using nice, safe, Federally regulated semi-automatics when that starts to happen.  Imagine America’s ganglands, but replace KELTECs and Glocks with fullauto Scorpions.  Now factor in bangers’ existing propensity for hitting little kids instead of their intended targets.  Get the picture?

    SCARY RAMIFICATIONS 
    Little Mikey is already advocating for “checks” on your guns.  Checks.    By the government.  In your home.  Every three months.  Or yearly.  Or whatever.  Presumably at random intervals.  Own more than one gun? Buy and sell frequently? I hope you have a nice coffee pot because you and Special Agent so-and-so are going to be SUCH friends.

    “Well sir, everything seems to be in order here with your firearms but your vegetable garden… WELL… that’s another story.”

    Have fun facing charges for your unregulated, undocumented tomatoes, you scary domestic terrorist you.

    And who will conduct these checks? Why, the fine folks at the newly quadrupled BATFE.  That’s who.

    And an unknown number of years down the line, well, you don’t need those weapons anyways.  Or your opinions.  Or your votes.

    “Freedom isn’t free” is not just a cheesy punchline.  It’s reality and it carries with it certain responsibilities.  The American social contract has some serious, no-bullshit clauses attached.  For example:
    -Sometimes you have to hear things you don’t want to hear, that you disagree with and there’s not a thing you can do about it.  
    -You won’t always agree with how others live and you are not empowered or entitled to force them to live differently.  
    -Work hard and keep your head above the water, because being poor here is a lot tougher than it is in Europe (for now).  
    -You have rights.  Not entitlements.
    -Someday you might face adversity.  It might be the kind of adversity that makes you better in the long run, or it might kill you.  The same rights you enjoy may well intensify that adversity, sometimes dramatically.  It’s not always perfect, but that’s the price we pay to live as free men.
    - Your rights extend until they encroach on the rights of others.  

    Wicked men are out to rob, rape or kill you.  Perhaps they want to do all three.  They exist in every nation on Earth, in every locality.  What sets us apart from the rest of the world is that we’re still free to prepare ourselves for contingencies.

    So enjoy your time in Europe, Mikey.  You can keep it.  For your sake, I hope you’re not still around when the music stops.

    • avatarMike Taylor says:

      O.M.G.
      Hal, you struck pay dirt with each point.

      • avatarHal says:

        Well your “esteemed pet troll” comment still has me chuckling, so consider us even bud:)
        I want an air rifle that runs on unicorn farts… those squirells digging up my lawn would be TOAST!

    • avatarSanchanim says:

      I agree HAL.
      Lets say we as responsible gun owners don’t mind the E-Trace registry, and apply to be part of it. No in home checks or questions about what you own or why.
      We make laws the same in all states and we can go in and buy guns on the spot. Conceal carry is the same for all 50 states so you get a license and you can carry any where in 50 states.
      Federal laws now dictate what is a banned gun and what isn’t. The nonsense about magazine capacity and bullet buttons goes away.
      We as Americans are now treated the same regardless of where in the country we live, and our freedoms are more so now because I can go anywhere and buy a gun, no waiting period and legally.
      Is this something we think it is worth working towards?
      Ok maybe it is a pipe dream and being a CA resident I can say I feel like a second class citizen when it comes to firearms. The flow chart as to what is an assault rifle is laughable. concealed carry is almost non existent.
      The funny part is I can’t understand why! I lived in Israel for a time where everyone has a concealed carry, and the other half is in the army so I was perfectly comfortable walking around the mall with a loaded M-16b on my back. Never felt safer despite the intifada and bus bombings.

      • avatarHal says:

        My heart goes out to you bud. You should move. The Supreme Court will probably (rightfully) rule your State’s laws unconstitutional before they are changed from within. A bullet button on my LMT would be like a shit stain on the Mona Lisa. It makes me sad just thinking about it…

      • avatarRopingdown says:

        Israel’s gun laws are actually much tougher than the US, PA in particular. The right to own a pistol extends to a relatively small group of people, see http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/israel-firearms.htm. The right own it is also withdrawn at age 70. It is true, however, that those who do have the right to a pistol often do carry. The number of guns a person may own is very limited, as is the type of action. Typically IF a person qualifies they have a right to one firearm, either a pistol or rifle depending on their status. The easiest way to qualify is to be a jeweler or money-courier. I would say CA has much looser gun laws if you live outside of the three major coastal cities. But since Israel has a large standing and reserve army, it seems as though they have a lot of guns. Per person? No, not so many.

        • avatarSanchanim says:

          True. I guess for me since I was in the IDF, all our friends were active IDF it sort of makes it seem like a lot.
          When we went out all of us had our rifles with us. Yes overall the laws are strict. You have to have a yearly course etc.
          Another thing to concider is that we are talking a total population less than that of New York!
          To be honest at least from perception gun deaths from Israelis on Israelis didn’t seem that high to me. Of course there are plenty of other issues to deal with, but I don’t remember hearing about small shops getting robbed at gun point or anything.

    • Thanks for admitting to the “limited” and the “temporary” benefits of my ideas. I guess that means with a little tweaking, the benefits might actually become substantial.

      • avatarJarhead1982 says:

        Like the $2 billion plus albatross of long gun registry in Canada that has been removed becuase it didnt solve any crime. (New Zealand too, them Kiwi’s are a practical lot)

        Or the useless as teets on a boar hog CoBIS that cost US tapayers in NY, MD, NJ over $40 million in 11 years and traced only two firearms proving that yes, they were stolen has been rescinded.

        Yeah, such a consistent trend the government failing to enforce anything much less not spend tax monies needlessly with no tangible results.

        Its why they should revive Project Exile.

        Then again, were the government to enact strict draconian and untterly useless gun control laws, the follwing would occur here as well.

        http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.11261/pub_detail.asp

        For example:

        On August 8, 1973, C.L. Sulzberger in a Times op-ed piece, Arms and the Soviet Man, reported that “underground gun factories had been discovered” in several Republics within the Soviet Union. “Machine tools have been stolen from government factories” and used to make guns, “including pistols disguised as fountain pens” and there are “considerable quantities of explosives and firearms” in four Republics.” Noted Sulzberger, “The interesting thing is that Soviet society, with its known predilection for discipline and supervision should be suffering at all from this kind of ailment.”

        Other newspapers have echoed these reports. On December 11, 1988 England’s Manchester Guardian reported that “the number of weapons held illegally in Azerbaijan [then a part of the USSR] is clearly formidable.”

        The Times has reported several times on the illegal manufacture of firearms in that most brutal and effective of police states, Maoist China. On February 10, 1980 its Peking reporter, Fox Butterfield, described a recent Peking bank robbery and stated that during Mao’s rule “many workers in factories are said to have fashioned knives and guns.” In June of that year Butterfield reported on another Peking bank robbery in which two criminals carried four homemade guns. Other news articles in the Times have described gang wars and other criminal acts in China where such bootleg weapons were used.

        In these two highly regimented Communist police states even the ownership of machine tools by private individuals was strictly forbidden, as was their use for private purposes. Yet in both nations, during the height of Communist power and despite omnipresent informers, bootleg guns were made either by stealing the machinery outright for use in underground factories or were used to make guns in state owned factories under the noses of authorities.

        The Times archives provide many other examples of the ease with which guns of any sort can be fabricated quickly and in large numbers even in primitive conditions. On may 7, 1987 Times correspondent Seth Mydans reported on Philippine gun bootleggers who manufactured to order “sophisticated copies of European and American handguns complete with nickel or silver plate and counterfeit brand markings.” In the town of Danao “3,000 gun makers provided a livelihood, directly or indirectly, for 60% of the residents.” A portion of their products are “periodically discovered” being smuggled into Japan.

        Mydans described a typical gun maker, Benjamin Barriga, who produced these copies “on a hand turned lathe in a pigsty that abuts his thatched home…” And another manufacturer “whose five-man assembly line shares a thatched workshop with wandering pigs and chickens.”

        The Times reported on August 18, 1980 on fighting between Moslems and Hindus in the Indian state of Kashmir “where the manufacture of so-called country guns is something of a cottage industry.” On April 27, 1987 the Times reported widespread gun bootlegging in the Indian state of Bihar, where “even an old truck’s steering wheel can be fashioned into a gun barrel at one of dozens of makeshift factories.”

        Thus, experience proves that even in the violently repressive police states or under primitive conditions the most sophisticated and varied kinds of weapons can be bootlegged.

        In the U.S. there are of course no restrictions on the private ownership of machine tools; anyone with a little cash can buy a lathe and milling machine, and the necessary skills are readily acquired or hired. With millions of available machine tools and millions of garages and basements in which bootleg factories can be established, the number of guns that can be illegally produced is unlimited.

        Predictably, the tighter that firearms restrictions would become, the greater would be the rewards for bootlegging. Thus, the only way to enforce such laws would be to emulate, and go much further than, the Communist dictatorships which themselves failed to stamp out gun bootlegging.

        It would be laughable to attempt enforcement without first prohibiting the private, individual possession of the machine tools. Those remaining in factories would have to be carefully monitored and controlled. Naturally, few Americans would willingly obey bans on ownership of tools. To enforce those bans the guarantees under the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable search and seizure would have to be abandoned in order to permit random inspection of homes and shops suspected of harboring machinery or machinists.

        So let us suppose Holder’s Fast and Furious conspiracy had succeeded in mobilizing public support in such a way as to satisfy to the fullest the gun banning desires of Chicago Democrats. The evidence from Mao’s China, the USSR, the Philippines, et al. via the NY times makes it obvious that the only way to enforce such a ban would be to abandon our long held Constitutional protections of personal freedom, property, and privacy. And that would require a fundamental transformation of American society.

        Ah, but of course. That fundamental transformation is exactly what has been declared as the goal. A few dead American lawman is a small price to pay for that, and as Holder has said, no apology need be given.

      • avatarHal says:

        I would like to think that my comments underscore the opinion that such laws would be futile and cause much more harm than good. But hey, you’re having a rough day, so if you have the psychological need to interpret my comments as some sort of admital that you’re ideas have ANY validity then so be it. Get down with your bad self and have a cannoli.

        Good to see that you don’t have the personal courage to answer my inquiries to you in an above post. You’ll understand if I take your opinions with a grain of salt until you do.

  35. avatarJJ Swiontek says:

    Hey MikeB302000, Denver underworld alreeady has the answer to your idea… criminal gun-rentals. In an area of Denver called 5-points one can ‘rent’ a gun to commit a crime. $300 up front. $150 back if you don’t fire the gun in the commision of the crime. Nothing back if you fire it.

    The straw-buyer keeps the gun and can produce it when asked to do so by the authorties.

    This rental process has been going on for about 4 years now.

    Next idea?

  36. avatarST says:

    I’ve completed some personal research on gun control in connection with an academic paper I’m writing currently.This should shed some light about the real-world effectiveness of the Brady Check system,literally from the horse’s mouth.

    Here’s an excerpt from the Congressional testimony from David Cuthbertson ,Assistant Director Criminal Justice Information Services Division of the Federal Bureau of Investigation to the Committee on Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism

    NOVEMBER 15, 2011

    FCDH Congressional Testimony.

    The NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 (NIAA)

    “The fact that NICS in some cases lacks ready access to relevant prohibiting records was brought home following the tragic shootings on April 16, 2007, at Virginia Tech University in Blacksburg, Virginia. The Virginia Tech shooter was able to acquire firearms from an FFL despite a disqualifying mental adjudication because the records of his adjudication were never transmitted to the NICS Index.”

    From a Washington State Police Congressional Statement on their own firearms program :

    Statement of Heather Anderson Section Manager Washington State Patrol

    Committee on Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism

    November 15, 2011, :

    “Washington`s Continued Efforts

    Misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence are not all entered into our state criminal history repository. The courts have reported many of these charges are not followed up with fingerprints, so the information is not available from the repository.

    WSP is not connected to the AOC database to pull data. AOC information is name-based and WSP data results from fingerprint cards.

    State misdemeanor and felony warrants are not all forwarded to the National Crime Information Center (NCIC). There is much stakeholder work to accomplish this move of, on average, 165,000 misdemeanor warrants and 19,000 felony warrants. We are currently working on the felony state warrants.”

    • avatarSanchanim says:

      That is a very good point. It doesn’t mean it is worthless but certainly fallible for sure.

      • avatarST says:

        “And this all started five years ago. It started five years ago, as the senator said. A shooting in my district. On investigation, we found out that he had a restraining order, that he should have not been able to have bought a gun, mainly because he was adjudicated by a court, which automatically goes to the 1968 Gun Control Act.”

        -Carolyn McCarthy, June 13 , 2007.
        National Criminal Background Check Improvement Act News Conference.

  37. avatarDyspeptic Gunsmith says:

    If the deterrent value of strong punishment stopped criminal behavior, we wouldn’t have murders, would we?

    There are still states that put people to death for killing other people. There is no higher cost to a crime that first degree murder. And still, murders are a crime with new criminals perpetrating them every year, without fail.

    So much for the theory that just making the penalties stronger will prevent behavior “X,” whether it is straw purchases of a firearm or commission of a violent felony (with or without a gun).

    Mike, I have to break some news to you: Quit believing that criminals are bounded by your rules. They’re not. It isn’t that there’s some “loophole” in your precious laws. It isn’t the “loophole.” It is because: Criminals. Don’t. Obey. Laws.

    That’s why we call them “criminals” instead of “choir boys.” See, we have a specific word in the english language for this sort of person. We invented that word for a reason.

    Talk to some LEO’s about this. LEO’s of some experience will tell you that hardened criminals show contempt for ALL laws. They don’t care whether it’s a penalty for jaywalking or murder. They believe they’re not bound by law, period. I know LEO’s who run nearly every car they stop in central Nevada. Why? Because about one-third of the cars that do stupid things like violate the 25MPH speed limit through small podunk towns in central Nevada turn out, upon running the occupants for wants and warrants, to be wanted for something else much more serious than doing 50 MPH in a 25 MPH zone, or they’re smuggling dope, or (insert serious offense here). Included in these offenses are possession of stolen guns and other property, or felon in possession of a weapon, etc.

    These LEO’s have said “If these clowns could contain themselves and be law-abiding and low-profile outside of their chosen field of economic law-breaking, they’d probably avoid being caught for a much longer time.” But they can’t help themselves. Laws are for “other people.”

    And that’s why you’ll never be able to legislate criminal behavior out of existence.

    • avatarMike Taylor says:

      Wha…criminals break laws…are …you…actually saying people are responsible for their own actions?

    • “If the deterrent value of strong punishment stopped criminal behavior, we wouldn’t have murders, would we?” That’s wrong. No one is saying ALL criminal behavior would be stopped by any particular law.

      If murder were not severely punished, do you think there would be exactly the same number of murders as we have now? I don’t. I would imagine the deterrent factor works for some.

      • avatarMoonshine7102 says:

        “I would imagine the deterrent factor works for some.”
        —–
        So you believe that there exists a large group of people who are sociopathic enough to genuinely want to kill their fellow human beings, but rational enough to obey the law because of the consequences? I can’t…I mean I just…wow.

      • avatarLeo Atrox says:

        I see no problem with what you just said there. But, while we are on the topic of “deterrent value,” which deterrent do you think would stop a larger number of people from committing crimes:

        A) You may eventually be discovered to have been the perpetrator, arrested, and put in jail for a few years.

        Or, B) The same as A, plus there is a chance you will be shot and killed (or wounded/maimed) on the spot.

        Despite what may seem like a clear-cut answer to many in this forum, I will concede that I’m not in a position to know which would be a more effective deterrent among the general population in the US (I’m just one guy). But I believe I know which is more likely to prevent repeat offenses for those who choose to commit a crime despite these deterrences …

        Not that I’m saying that shooting any criminal in the act of committing a crime is justified. That would certainly have to be determined based on the situation … But the deterrent still exists, so I think this is a valid consideration.

        BTW, Mike: A person is ~133 times more likely to be murdered with a gun in the US than he is in the UK, based on UN firearms murder and population statistics … Not that the UN can truly be considered an impartial and unbiased party in the debate, or that all States report their statistics accurately. I just thought that was an interesting figure that you might want to load into your anti-gun blunderbuss. (I know that was a heavy-handed attempt at irony, and I apologize.)

      • avatarTSgt B says:

        “If murder were not severely punished………”

        Let’s have a chat with former AG Janet “The Wookie” Reno about some 87 criminal homicides in Waco a few years back, and then get back to me about severe punishment.

      • avatarJay says:

        The argument is that of those Hollywood movie studios and music labels. If you spy on everyones internet communications you can prevent people from sharing files for free with others. If you shut down websites without due process you will scare everyone into not downloading movies and music. If you throw people in prison for sending someone a MP3 the music industry will not lose money.

        When that doesn’t work, as it won’t, they will just increase the burden. They will say that they didn’t do enough, they didn’t fail, there just wasn’t enough restrictions. So they will emplace traffic shaping and firewalls. Require permission to go on the internet and to have a website. You will need to have a ID that “regulates” everything you do just in case you might be thinking of possibly downloading something for free.

        Even then they still won’t succeed. This is because people will always find a way around everything. The more walls you build, the more challenges. There are people out there that like that. They like doing things you say they can’t do. Even 2 year olds do this. You tell them stop crying, what do they do, cry even more.

        If you cannot understand, let me simplify. If you say, “Don’t do that.” It doesn’t give you some kind of magic power and everyone will listen. Murder is wrong, we have laws against such actions, even others around the world feel the same, but people still do it. It is the culture, the society, that will dictate how people grow up and how they live amongst others.

        You cannot stop violence with your magic pen and paper. You cannot rid the world of violence in the first place. There will ALWAYS be violence. That is the real world. Can we stop a lion (predator) from attacking and eating a cute little (prey) animal? Yes, if we killed them all, but that would be violence.

        The best thing you could do is make it easier for the prey to defend itself against the predators. To stop promoting violence with the current militarism and to stop allowing government to get away with things you couldn’t.

        You could ban the right to arms altogether and only the physically weak and incapable will suffer at the hands of the strong and relentless. Ban guns and knife crime will increase. Women, disabled and elderly will suffer the most. Rape and murder of females will increase. Organized criminals (predators) will have a major boost in confidence. The risk of death will increase for the police.

        There is no point in removing people’s rights in a vain attempt to keep them safe from criminals. The more laws you pass the more criminals you will have. Is it better to make the American people more prone to becoming a “criminal” because you passed a million liberty adversed laws? Does that make you feel good about yourself? Do you think you are a hero when you write a few words on a paper, then enforce it with violence against the weak, the same violence you are trying to stop? There is no “reasonable regulation” or restriction when you are talking about removing human rights. It has never been justified or honorable and it never will be.

  38. avatarDan says:

    I personally don’t care about trying to find the facts that will change the mind of a gun grabber. This is compared to me being a Christian; I am not going to try to change the mind of an Athiest, with what I believe are facts, and they will not listen to. So I don’t care if they go to Hell, I also don’t care if gun grabbers get victimized. The US is not some small European nation. In the rural areas many Farmers/Ranchers have lathes and other steel/wood working equipment. Guns are now like fire, they have been invented, can’t uninvent. There are areas within this Nation where there isn’t any Law Enforcement and what little there is, they are on the side of those they are assisting, when needed. I really hate it when others compare the US with England or whatnot. We are different, not better not worse, but different. We Americans have always flaunted the laws and we have always depended on ourselves for our own protection. I say just leave me and mine be. MikeB and all his ilk can move to the foreign country of their desire, or remain here and not purchase or support firearms. It seems to me that those who are fighting to rid us of firearms are either wealthy or from the criminal element. So, don’t care. Just like I will not get rid of my Bible, I will not get rid of my guns, nor will I bend on what both mean to me. Yep, I am a fanatic…

  39. avatarvirtualjohn says:

    “Compromise, hell! That’s what has happened to us all down the line — and that’s the very cause of our woes. If freedom is right and tyranny is wrong, why should those who believe in freedom treat it as if it were a roll of bologna to be bartered a slice at a time?” – Senator Jesse Helms

  40. avatarMike DeArmond says:

    If more guns cause more crime why is Switzerland one of the LOWEST crime rates in the free world instead of the highest?

    • For one reason, because people aren’t walking around the streets with pistols.

      • avatarMoonshine7102 says:

        Nope. Good try, though. The correct answer is, “Because Swiss males grow up expecting to undergo basic military training, usually at age 20 in the Rekrutenschule (German for “recruit school”), the initial boot camp, after which Swiss men remain part of the “militia” in reserve capacity until age 30 (age 34 for officers). Each such individual is required to keep his army-issued personal weapon (the 5.56x45mm Sig 550 rifle for enlisted personnel and/or the 9mm SIG-Sauer P220 semi-automatic pistol for officers, medical and postal personnel) at home.” In fewer words, because there’s guns fvckin’ EVERYWHERE.

        • There are not guns everywhere. You can’t count the army issued rifles that gather dust in the closet. They don’t have the gun culture that we do. They don’t have extremists like you demanding to carry guns everywhere they go.

        • avatarMoonshine7102 says:

          I most certainly can count weapons held by private citizens; you’re not controlling the discussion here. Regarding the “gun culture”:

          “Recreational shooting is widespread in Switzerland. Practice with guns is a popular recreation, and is encouraged by the government, particularly for the members of the militia.”

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland#Recreational_shooting

          I’m not saying you don’t know what the fvck you’re talking about, though. I suspect you’ve just done incomplete research.

        • avatarRopingdown says:

          Michael, you clearly haven’t spent much time in Switzerland. In, for example, Zürich you will often and ordinarily see guys with the rifles over their back going for training sessions. Go further into the suburbs, for example south south-west to the mountains around Küsnacht, and you will often see hunters openly carrying rifles at the appropriate time of year. As for pistols, once you obtain your license you are free to carry it concealed with a few exceptions, and many people do: The exceptions (so far as I know) are Geneva, Zürich, and Basel cities, all of which require a carry permit. Basel issues them freely to people of good character. Outside these cities, and especially in German-speaking regions, pistol carry is not rare. Snubbies and calibers above .45ACP are not allowed for carry, and for purchase only by collectors.

        • You just made that up, admit it.

      • avatarRopingdown says:

        You know nothing of Switzerland, obviously, but claim you live in Rome. That’s unusual, not to travel or at least know about the facts of life in Switzerland. Perhaps you identify primarily with southern Italians? Can’t afford to travel north? What do you know? Honestly, what academic or productive subject do you know? Share with us, Michael.

        • avatarHal says:

          One of my questions to him was regarding his profession… and he wouldn’t even answer that. I love the implications of your post though… interesting.

        • Carrying guns for personal protection is not as common in Switzerland as it is in the US.

          Is there something you disagree with in that statement?

  41. Mike B, your reverse “attack” on Hal was over the line. What Hal was really asking is DO YOU HAVE A VESTED INTEREST IN THIS DEBATE? The courts often say that someone does not have “standing” in this or that issue. I suspect from what I’ve seen you may not have standing. Gun rights opponents don’t have standing to attempt to cancel the rights of American citizens, whether it be the Second Amendment or some other enumerated right. I can understand that you don’t want to reveal any information about yourself that may be derogatory, but you can’t blame Hal for trying to put a real face on you. So often gun rights opponents are quick to condemn those of us who believe the Second Amendment is a vital part of our Constitution and of our society as a whole. Those who choose not to participate in gun ownership are free to follow their own opinions about that. Those of us who believe otherwise feel this is a vital part of personal freedom and from observation we know that governments are never kind to disarmed populations, because they are easy to subjugate. I hope you can enjoy somehow your adventure into slavery.

    • Ivan, You’re not about to be subjugated. That’s why your 2A rights can be infringed upon. Even the Supreme Court said as much. The impending tyrannical government is a myth invented by gun owners desperate for justification and by gun manufacturers and the NRA interested in gun sales. The United States of America does not resemble even in the slightest those numerous countries you keep referencing as having been first disarmed and then subjugated.

      For crying out loud, man, UK citizens have more 1st-amendment type freedoms than you do, and that’s in spite of their gun laws. What you’ve got is the Patriot Act, indefinite incarceration, terror watch lists, government wire tapping, and so on.

      Hal’s questions were “attack by innuendo.” He’s not the first to resort to that when all else fails.

      • avatarHal says:

        “What you’ve got is the Patriot Act, indefinite incarceration, terror watch lists, government wire tapping, and so on.”

        But he’ll tell you you can’t acquire the tools to protect yourself and preserve our liberty into future ages as was intended by our forefathers…

        “The United States of America does not resemble even in the slightest those numerous countries you keep referencing as having been first disarmed and then subjugated.”

        Hmmmm, this seems to be in direct conflict with his other statement. But according to him… MY arguments are the ones that have failed.

        Europeans (for lack of a better description because he refuses to provide one) have a short memory, huh?

      • avatarThomasPaine says:

        “Ivan, You’re not about to be subjugated. That’s why your 2A rights can be infringed upon”

        Individual rights are inalienable. They come from the Creator, and pre-exist government (i.e. “natural rights”). By virtue of being inalienable, no man or government has legitimate authority to cancel rights. By what authority does mikeb302000 claim this power? And are we to believe that were we in eminent danger of subjugation, that our oppressors would cease infringement?

        Give me Liberty!

      • mikeb302000 says:

        UK citizens have more 1st-amendment type freedoms than you do, and that’s in spite of their gun laws. What you’ve got is the Patriot Act, indefinite incarceration, terror watch lists, government wire tapping, and so on.

        This snippet is yet one more example of your making stuff up as you go along.
        Only a week or so back, a UK citizen was jailed for posting a derogatory tweet about a footballer.
        Downloading non pornographic material freely available on the internet can put you inside for ten years or more.
        You can be prevented from going about your lawful business, or even from going back to your home on the whim of a police officer.
        You can be prevented from associating with certain people, or meeting more than two people at the same time despite never having been convicted of a crime.
        You can be incarcerated for eight years at the behest of another nation without ever being charged with a crime.
        You can lose your employment for being a member of a legitimate political party.

        Tell me again how much better it is here……

        ….& don’t forget to explain how the UK’s violent crime & theft rates that are more than double those of the US are a sign of freedom.

        • You want a pissing contest about who’s worse. We’ve got Guantanamo, man. We’ve normalized torture. We’re ironically called the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave.

        • What I’d like is to have a reasonable debate with someone of an opposing viewpoint.
          Instead, unfortunately, we get you.

      • avatarRopingdown says:

        For crying out loud, man, UK citizens have more 1st-amendment type freedoms than you do,

        Mikeb302000, you must be kidding. With prior restraint in publishing, with the Official Secrets Act, with massive court powers to forbid the revelation of certain classes of legal order, and with a much more restrictive defense for newspapers regarding the unintentionsal defamation of public figures….Brits have much less in the way of 1st Amendment rights. Have you actually lived there?

      • avatarAlaskan Nutkase says:

        FLAME DELETED

        Now… do you even realize what you are saying? or are you just asleep and letting your rattling lips and fingers have free range on your computer? Our rights were put in place for all of our protection. We may not like your opinion(no matter how hilarious it is) but I for one respect it :) becuase that is a freedom that you enjoy- PROTECTED BY GUNS!

        and whats more, I see everything in a balance sense… for everybody who makes absolutely no sense at all there is somebody who is making the most sense… thank you for allowing our tangable existance

        • You respect my opinion? Yet, in the same comment you made that stupid joke about hot air.

          The truth is, my opinion makes a good deal of sense. If it were mere “hot air” you’d simply ignore it. But it hits home, so you can’t.

        • avatarMike Taylor says:

          Are you off your meds again? Get it through your head, these points are little more than insults and threats issued by a petulant child with no real horse in the race. You are a nobody. Yes, a hot air filled nobody, but the fact will not change. You are not a voting member of this nation, you have no legal right to own a firearm and frankly you are full of yourself.
          FLAME DELETED

    • avatarHal says:

      That’s what I get for trying to be nice.

  42. avatarMatt in FL says:

    I think I said this yesterday, but it was deleted.

    TRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
    {breath}
    TRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL

    Oh, and the neat thing about “notify me of followups by email” is that I can follow the discussion without generating pageviews.

  43. avatarTodd says:

    It is a fact that if straw purchasers knew they’d have to produce the gun and paperwork at a later date or go to jail, they would stop doing what they do. That’s a fact based on human nature and the absolutely safe assumption that some of the straw purchasers are intelligent enough to put 2 and 2 together.

    We have such laws in illinois you have to get a license to own or purchase. If you sell, dispose of or in anyway transfer the gun you have to keep a record for 10 years any transfer to some one without a FOID card is a felony. We have our own straw purchase law so as to not habe to wait on the feds it too makes it a felony to act as a straw buyer

    Yet they dont seem to impact the crime in chicago

    • avatarMoonshine7102 says:

      No, see, you haven’t made it illegal ENOUGH. Mike is certain that, if we just go along with him and make straw purchases even more illegalER, then we will see a precipitous drop in gun crime.

    • Todd, the crime in Chicago is not due to straw purchasing IN CHICAGO. If every place had your kinda laws, you’d see the improvement.

      • avatarDonovan says:

        Yea geeze Ted see the light.

        If we made it legal for all citizens and criminals to buy guns in chicago there would no longer be any illegal gun purchase crimes. Duh.

      • avatarRopingdown says:

        The extreme crime in Chicago is due to Chicago being full of criminals, notably on the south and west sides. The teenagers aren’t just shooting each other. They’re beating each other to death with 2×4′s, stabbing with knives and just plain kicking each other to death, or so report the newspapers. And whose favorite film is “The Godfather”? Got a lupara, or have they gone out of style? My skeet guns are from Renato Gamba in Gardone Val Trompia. Very nice work. The SD? From Urbino, long ago the home of Baldisare Castiglione. I still think of Italy as the modern home of Live Pidgeon Competition. Crime isn’t about guns. Ben Franklin had guns. My uncle the judge had guns. Crime is about criminals and greedy imbalanced impulsive impetuous people, like Luciano, Bonano, Gambino, Capone. Well, that’s a lot of Italian. Who knows why?

        • avatarMike Taylor says:

          Add one more to that list: Google Bonomo criminal indictment. Have fun…

  44. If the US brought in the same firearms laws as we have in the UK, there would be a massive increase in crimes involving firearms & an equally huge increase in homicides, only this time the victims would be mainly ordinary, law-abiding citizens, rather than criminals.
    Does Mikeb03200¼ really think the criminals will instantly give up using guns?
    I suggest he looks to the nation directly south of the US to see what happens when the legal possession of firearms is proscribed.

  45. avatarHal says:

    “mikeb302000 says:
    April 12, 2012 at 14:54
    Actually it’s not quite the ENTIRE population. I know you don’t want to consider the 30,000 dead and 100,000 wounded each year, that’s year after year. You’re kidding yourself if you think the relatives and friends of those people are in agreement with your nutty ideas.”

    This was in response to one of my earlier posts in this thread. I would have replied to his post directly, but it’s become too skinny! Sorry to ALLCON.

    I joked that Mikey was probably amazed that the entire population was still here despite the fact that we have so many guns (I used the term “sweet sweet guns” and stand by that). Regrettably, I was a little unclear in my verbiage and wasn’t trying to imply that the entire population possessed guns. Rather, that a misguided ideologue such as Mikey is most likely amazed that the entire population as a whole hasn’t been wiped out by the sheer number of guns in America. I apologize for overwhelming you, Mikey. It was a joke.

    Once again your hypocrisy knows no limits, Mikey. On one hand you would accuse me of personal attacks against you when I was actually reaching out to you. See if anyone on this site ever does that again. With the other hand, you launch a personal attack against me in an attempt to paint me as callous and uncaring. Trust me Mikey I have considered the dead, and unlike you, to me they’re not just numbers to be recited to push an agenda. Try and remember which one of us faces bad guys for a living every day. Bad guys like YOU, an alleged felon. I have had friends die violently. I am an American. These are MY people dying. I didn’t tuck tail and run away to Europe (once again, if I am out of line at all by saying that, then all you need to do is answer my questions and I will gladly apologize). I wish we lived in a world without violence but I also understand that it is part of this world whether I like it or not. So I train for that fight, whatever it may be and whenever it may come. I would not dare to tell another human being that they are not entitled to do the same. I am not capable of that kind of audacity.

    I would like to point out that you have still not mustered the personal courage to address my inquiries or my arguments. As such, you remain a vapid, duplicitous fool whose opinions are worth less than nothing in the context of civil rights.

    • avatarAlaskan Nutkase says:

      I have had a similar comversation where I presented factual evidence to back my opinion… the response was… well lacking, I was actually really disappointed, I was looking forward to a real argument.

      • avatarHal says:

        At this point I’m 33% convinced that he’s just an adaptive string of computer code programmed by Fascists for the sole purpose of annoying us.

  46. avatarRopingdown says:

    I think the interaction with Mikeb302000 has revealed itself, in this thread, to be absurd. He has claimed to live in Italy, but doesn’t know much about Switzerland, his neighbor, including its well-known and highly-decent gun culture? He has used a UK web address for some of his blogging but doesn’t know the restrictions on speech in the UK? He doesn’t know the statutory framework of US gun law. He doesn’t, in short, seem well-informed about anything. He professes no professional qualifications or education. He will never refer to where or how he lives. He wishes not to have the details of his past published, but also never mentions his present. I don’t think it really sharpens anyone’s thoughts in defense of 2Am. rights or law, because he’s all over the place and doesn’t seem to have any mastery of US social statistics or law. What is the point? I’ll leave that question for others to answer. I know there is no point. If I want educated anti-gun discussion, I’ll turn to the higher-brow anti sites in San Francisco: equally looney, but very well educated in the ground matter.

    • avatarMatt in FL says:

      Ropingdown, I love you for your dedication to this, but I think you’re tilting at windmills.

      • avatarRopingdown says:

        Call me Don. Don Quixote. I enjoy the back-and-forth when people contribute interesting info or a new POV. I very much like the diversity of backgrounds among the site’s comment contributors. But when M’s stuff appears on the page, I feel I am being used excessively in the long march to a million monthly clicks. My brain says to me “you’re actually reading groundless opinions, gratuitous insults, and ill-intentioned trolling by a (perhaps ex) criminal, (perhaps ex) addict, a non-entity with no specialization.” If I click on a post tomorrow, it could happen all over again. Putting up with that isn’t my thing, and I’m not paid to write or click. Indeed, if it isn’t a pleasure or a learning experience, there is no point to visiting the site. Michael Bonomo’s involvement negates any pleasure and a good part of the learning time. I would point out that it is exactly on the posts where gun law and general (reader) opinion come together that M always trashes the joint. Yet those are the only posts of interest to me. I’ve been shooting for more than forty-five years, including hunting, war, clays. I’ve been carrying for ages. I’m not here for gun tech. Thus, you can appreciate, my disappointment. Perhaps the contact with a person of his character, unrepentant, simply disgusts me. That’s RF’s choice. It’s a big web. Time is fleeting. I’ve already raised the issues. I’ll come back in May and take a look.

    • avatarHal says:

      Once again… Like herding cats…

  47. I can’t resist adding to this discussion. I must return to my previously stated opinions about something that people like Mikey overlook every time in this debate. That is, plain and simple, HUMAN NATURE AND BEHAVIOR. In my advanced years, having had a long career working among many professionals and many levels of supervision, I know that everybody is different. That said, most people behave reasonably well, but the CRIMINAL MIND is outside the norm, and generally cannot be changed or rehabilitated. Mikey, that is why gun laws do not achieve their supposed purpose. I have had guns since I was 13, something difficult or impossible for a 13 year old to do these days. But has teen crime been eliminated, using guns or not using guns? Of course not. Neither I nor the people I associate with have committed any crimes or any gun crimes and have been forced to comply with all the red tape in acquiring a gun. You mentioned the FOID card in IL, (many other states are just as bad) but IL still has gun crime, even in Chicago, the center of rigid gun control in Illinois. For people in general and civilian individuals in particular to own whatever gun they want, crime will not increase or decrease because of it. Part of human nature is that innocent law abiding people begin to bristle over things like gun laws and they come to disrespect the laws and the people who force those laws upon us. As one commentor said on this site several weeks ago, make something illegal or hard to get, and you instantly create a black market. So Mikey, stay home and revel in all the safety you perceive that your gun laws provide. But be very careful not to defend yourself lest you find yourself incarcerated and subjugated.

    • I agree with you that “most people behave reasonably well.” The problem is this, with gun ownership what it is today, and growing, the small percentage of folks who don’t behave reasonably well, among law-abiding gun owners we’re talking about, is too high.

      Whatever number you put on it, when you consider the huge numbers of out there, it’s too many, That’s why we need stricter controls than we did when you were a boy. It’s a different world today.

  48. No No NO, Mikey. It may be a different world but human nature hasn’t really changed. The NUMBER of miscreants has increased simply because the POPULATION has increased. Granted, some of the problems are caused by the “rat” phenomonon, that is, too many rats crowded together in too small a space begin to get frustrated and then behave outside the norm. People are much the same, one reason that rats and mice are research subjects. Personally I want to live in an uncrowded rural setting, which I can afford to do, because I don’t like being in big cities, in spite of their advertised amenities and advantages. I find that if I want those things, for short spans of time, I can travel there and get a nice motel room (taking my concealed weapon with me by the way). The total number of guns owned by Americans does not bear any relationship to the amount of crime.
    You said something else that always is irritating: you allude that “there are too many guns”. I have yet to hear the Bradys or anybody such as you tell us just how many would be “acceptable”. In view of the enormous number of models of guns and with new and improved ones being produced, you might guess that gun hobbyists and shooting hobbyists and concealed carry licensees would buy some of them, NOT FOR CRIME, but for lawful uses, INCLUDING gun collecting. That is what gun shows are for. In case you don’t know, prior to the late 1970′s and just after the BATF was given its new dealer licensing power, guns shows were off limits to licensed dealers. FFL’s were not allowed to do business in other than their registered place of business. But NOW all the anti gunners have flipped this policy so that anybody who is NOT an FFL is engaging in the “gun show loophole”, which totally changes the gun show purpose and traditions. Over the years I have attended many gun shows, this is where gun people gather and make friends and talk and visit and learn about gun technical issues. After all there is a lot of engineering and technical stuff involved in guns and shooting and ammunition and accessories and hunting. You might look into it sometime. Just as with airplanes, or photography, or RC modelers, motorcycles, race cars, these people have no crime in mind, just hobbying and enjoyment. And you and your antigun friends want to destoy anything like this that represents FREEDOM. As far as carrying concealed it is just the same as a car insurance policy, a home insurance policy, a health insurance policy, a life insurance policy. You HOPE not to need it but if you do on RARE occasions, you’ve paid for it and it’s yours to use and take advantage of, many of these things are life or death things.

  49. Mikey, there may be more miscreants with guns now than ever before, because there are more people on earth and in the USA than ever before. You make the judgment that there are too many. Too many what? People? guns? People who don’t behave like they should? I happen to think there are too many people and too many who don’t behave properly. Too many guns? I personally don’t think so, but you cannot tell us what number is an acceptable number. I presume you and those who think like you believe that ZERO is the only acceptable number and you and I both know that will never happen on earth. If all law abiding persons turned in their guns and no one thereafter was allowed to have a gun (legally) there would be more crime of all kinds than you could ever imagine. The fact that about 1/2 of all Americans own guns keeps a huge number of crimes from ever being comitted, we’ll never know how many. But you and everybody benefits from the mere fact that all those guns are out there and the creeps can never be sure who will use them or where. A lot of creeps don’t want to take that chance so they are doing cybercrime, identity theft, embezzlement, etc. so they don’t really have to confront somebody who could dispatch them. In summation, if you don’t like violence now, you don’t want to know what it would be like if the government disarms law abiding citizens.

    • Your presumption is wrong. I don’t think zero is the only acceptable number of guns.

      I would like higher standards for gun ownership, that’s all. I would like to know that we’re doing everything we can to keep criminals from getting guns.

      • FLAME DELETED
        “Doing everything we can to keep criminals from getting guns” can only happen if every basic Right is not only infringed but trampled into the dust of history.
        I’m not just talking about the RKBA either; What you want is no right to privacy, no protection from search & seizure, no warrants needed for a search, no restriction on ANY government intrusion into your home.

        Ivan Pistov demonstrates quite clearly your ignorance fuelled demands for worthless legislation that would have NO EFFECT WHATSOEVER on criminals.

        FLAME DELETED

        • No, Mike, it’s not like that. We’re not at all talking about trampling rights or destroying rights. We’re talking about minor changes that would have a major impact on the problem with minimal changes for you.

          I realize it’s hard to argue against something like that, so you tend to exaggerate our suggestions in order to better feign outrage. But, try to be honest about it. Raising the bar a little bit on who can qualify for gun ownership would save lives and only disarm the worst of the unfit and dangerous guys.

        • Yeah right…

          It took a little over 40 years from the first restrictions on firearms ownership to the UK government barring their possession for personal defence & about the same again until they made possession of handguns & semi automatic rifles illegal.
          In between those points, ever greater restrictions were applied to the use, possession & type of firearms.
          Guess what?
          Criminal use of firearms rode after EVERY restrictive law came in, with crime involving handguns rising fourfold within five years of their very possession becoming illegal.
          Gun control isn’t something governments see as crime control; it’s something they use as social control & anyone saying otherwise is either complicit or dumb.

  50. One last comment and then I gotta do other things.
    You would like higher standards for gun ownership. That sounds to me like one of the female state legislators in Austin a couple of years ago, in response to some tragic shooting at the time. She said “We need to do more thorough background checks for concealed carriers” (it wasn’t a concealed carrier who committed the crime). I have been through THAT mill 4 times and believe me the background checks and fingerprints and photos they do on an applicant take weeks and the questions they ask on the application itself give the state police a lot of places to look and check. I never got to ask her just what more could be added to the background check to make it “more thorough”? Granted this process is not for mere gun ownership, but the Form 4473 and FBI background check for that little exercise is pretty intrusive. Some people are erroneously denied and they never know why. And whenever a government gets the legal go ahead to apply “higher standards” they usually tend to move the goal posts. This amounts to a RIGHT becoming a PRIVILEGE. This is what we don’t like about stuff like this here in the good ol’ USA. And who gets to set the standards? Remember the old phrase, “who’s watching the watchers?” There is plenty of evidence these days about corrupt cops and officials getting into trouble and violating law and rules and procedures. In short WE DON’T TRUST THEM.

Leave a Reply

Please use your real name instead of you company name or keyword spam.