# I have officially changed my views!



## Cruentus (Jan 20, 2004)

Some of you will be happy to hear this, others will be very sad. However, I have changed my views in regards to gun control.

I always believed in upholding our 2nd amendment rights, and the rights for citizens to carry what they want. Yet, I used to always think that people should have to be licensed to carry anything, just like we have a drivers license. You could swipe your gun license, and a data base would keep record of what arms you own, and even when, where, and what type of bullets you buy. THis way we could have more lienient gun laws as to what we could carry, they just would have to be registered. This way, we could identify people much easier if they commit a murder.

I have completely 180ed from this view, however. I now believe that we shouldn't even have gun licensing. Here is some of my reasoning (in order):

1. Historical precidence has been set. Other countries have required the license and registration in a similar fashion to what I proposed. Yet, they moved to using that licesne and registration to confiscating all firearms. THis is something we cannot have, and until I am confident that one thing won't lead to the other, I can't support registration and licensing.

2. Criminals don't register and license their arms, law abiding citicens do. All we are doing is regulating the law abiding citicens rather then the criminals.

I have other reasons, but I am out of time for my post.

Any thoughts on the matter?


----------



## teej (Jan 20, 2004)

Paul,

Please consider researching and making an educated decision for yourself about joining the National Rifle Association. This organization has been informing the public to the views you concluded to for a very long time. Well before you were born even.

The NRA usually provides the information that you would need to verify their claims. In fact Paul, do some research on your own, and look into the crime rate in Australia since that counrty instituted their new gun bans several years ago.

The NRA might not be for you, but do the research yourself and come to your own conclusion as to whether to join or not. 

All NRA members have known for a long time exactly, the reasons that caused you to change your mind. 

Teej


----------



## dearnis.com (Jan 20, 2004)

Always good when someone comes to their senses!


----------



## koss (Jan 20, 2004)

you're right Paul,...one of those countries is Romania,where I came from!They have  very restrictive laws for the gun owners and they are closely watch by the autorities!Did that stop the bad guys using their ilegal firearms?Not at all!The bad guys did not have guns before because they couldn't afford them ...but now with what's going on in Eastern Europe,they have and do use all kind of crazy stuff while the lawful gun owners are still under watchful eye of the government!Yugoslavia, before the war was a much safer place than Romania and guess what? there were way more guns in the hands of law abiding citizens than in Romania or any other country in Eastern Europe -not including the far east Russia of course,...so again, I think your conclusion is right!


----------



## OULobo (Jan 21, 2004)

I'm glad to have more people come to "the dark side", but I'm even more glad to hear that it is really possible for some people to change their minds, either through debate or research. How am I supposed to stay a cynic when things like this happen.


----------



## theletch1 (Jan 21, 2004)

> How am I supposed to stay a cynic when things like this happen.


 Watch C-SPAN. 

Paul, great to see that you've changed your mind.  Even if you don't carry it's a bonus to know that you'd have the RIGHT to do so.


----------



## Cruentus (Jan 21, 2004)

Hey, I am a very opinionated person who is not afraid to speak my mind; yet I firmly believe in taking full responsability for what I say, and I believe in keeping an open mind. Part of having an open mind, to me, is not being afraid to admit when I am wrong. I find that people trust what I say and believe more when I can honestly admit it at the times I am mistaken.

Having said that, this should be a lesson to all of us in support for gun rights. People who believe in some level of gun control are most likely not stupid, or ignorant, or flaming liberals. They just may be ill informed. Far too often both sides revert to more name calling and rhetoric, and nothing gets accomplished. 

My belief in required licensing and registration was not illogical; it was just ill-informed. My thought was that licensing and registration would free up our rights a bit more to carry and own. However, by becoming more informed on the issue I realized that there is no check or balance here; in other words NO WAY to prevent the next step, conviscation of arms. Furthermore, we are regulating the law abiding citizens by doing this while the criminals who don't abide by the laws run free. And as much as my first reaction was to try to "argue" my way away from these points, historical precidence has been set. Registration has led to confiscation in other countries; and crime rates have gone up in these other countries where this occured. Registration wouldn't be a bad thing if we could somehow prevent these other effects from happening; and as it stand right now, we can't.  So, the proof is in the pudding, and I cannot argue with that...I can only admit to being ill informed.

So, this should be a lesson. Many people who believe in proper registration might just need a little bit more information on the subject. Our jobs (for those of us who support the 2nd amendment), when it comes up, should be to inform. And we should inform in such a way where they don't feel "ignorant." And we should stay away from getting caught into the arguement trap where we are doing more name calling and rhetoric spewing then informing.

My 2 cents....thanks for listening guys.

:2pistols: :asian:


----------



## Cruentus (Jan 21, 2004)

> _Originally posted by theletch1 _
> *Watch C-SPAN.
> 
> Paul, great to see that you've changed your mind.  Even if you don't carry it's a bonus to know that you'd have the RIGHT to do so. *



For the record, I do own a russian SKS, and I plan on getting a CCW and possibly getting a glock. I am looking at next year for this goal.


----------



## Arthur (Jan 21, 2004)

Fantastic thread Paul! I really respect you for starting a thread to announce your change in opinion. 

Its been interesting and valuable to me to watch and participate in the threads that lead up to this one, and its all a good reminder, that there is value in these forums beyond entertainment.

Thanks for posting, and I too welcome you to the "dark" side.

Arthur


----------



## Seig (Jan 23, 2004)

While I believe in a lot of what the NRA is doing, in some respects, they are a bit rabid for my tastes.  I would like to see a little more moderate group.


----------



## Ceicei (Jan 24, 2004)

I'm glad you did your homework!   You are to be commended for seeking information with an open mind.

- Ceicei


----------



## Marvin (Feb 9, 2004)

> _Originally posted by PAUL _
> * I plan on getting a CCW and possibly getting a glock. I am looking at next year for this goal.
> 
> *


Paul, look me up when you are ready to get that CCW! And whenever you want to test drive a Glock
Marvin


----------



## Rich Parsons (Feb 9, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Marvin _
> *Paul, look me up when you are ready to get that CCW! And when ever you want to test drive a glock
> Marvin *



Paul,

Let me know if yo cannot get a hold of Marvin. I have my ways to get a message to him .


HI Marvin, I still owe you a visit out to test drive myself.


----------



## Marvin (Feb 9, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Rich Parsons _
> *Paul,
> 
> Let me know if yo cannot get a hold of Marvin. I have my ways to get a message to him .
> ...


Yes I do!!!
What about this weekend?


----------



## Marvin (Feb 9, 2004)

Rich, maybe not.
I don't think the Boss would like me going out with the boys on Valentines Day.


----------



## KenpoTex (Feb 10, 2004)

First of all, WAY TO GO PAUL!  it's always nice to see someone make the right decision.  I think you made some valid points with regard to people's position on gun control.  I feel that most of those who support gun control are merely ignorant of the true facts and if they would objectively look at the evidence that they would change their minds.  Of course, this is just what the Brady bunch, and VPC and the other gun-grabbing groups like to capitalize on.  They turn the issue into an emotional one to try to sway people because they know that the facts do not support their position.
  Now to get on my soapbox a little:



> _Originally posted by Seig _
> *While I believe in a lot of what the NRA is doing, in some respects, they are a bit rabid for my tastes.  I would like to see a little more moderate group. *



Seig, while I definately support your right to have your oppinion, I must say that I disagree.  In my oppionion the NRA is not "rabid" or zealous enough.  They are the most powerful lobbyist group in the nation but they do not use their power to its full potential.  I also feel that they have taken the wrong direction with their message (probably to appear more moderate).   What I mean by this is that they are always talking about how gun-control will reduce or eliminate the ability of the hunters and sportsmen to pursue their hobby.  However, this is really NOT the issue.  The second ammendment is not about the right to hunt or even the right to self-defense, these two rights were taken for granted when the founding fathers wrote the Bill of Rights.  The 2nd Ammendment was put in place so that the people could keep and bear arms to resist a tyrannical government.  based on this, the weapons that are actually protected by the bill of rights are military type weapons-the "so called" "assault weapons" that are the initial target of most anti-gun groups.  I know this might sound a little extreme but think about it.  If the 2nd ammendment only applies to single shot rifles and shotguns then the first ammendment only should apply to quill pens and hand-operated printing presses.


----------



## Arthur (Feb 10, 2004)

> If the 2nd ammendment only applies to single shot rifles and shotguns then the first ammendment only should apply to quill pens and hand-operated printing presses.



Sweet line! I'll be using tat in the future. Thanks Kenpotex.

Arthur


----------



## KenpoTex (Feb 11, 2004)

I've gotten quite a bit of mileage off that one myself...usually after I bait the trap by playing devil's advocate and talking about how wiretaps or internet censorship should be legal accross the board.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Feb 13, 2004)

Problem with the "sweet line," is, a) we're still talking pretty much the same old way, and the Bill actually only guarantees freedom of speech--which has generally been interpreted to mean speech in all its forms, including the freedom to advertise; b) ya needs to read the whole Amendment, including the part about the, "well-regulated militia."  Huh, REGULATED. Wonder what they meant.


But hey, they will have to peel my Red Ryder BB gun from my cold, dead fingers.


----------



## KenpoTex (Feb 14, 2004)

Allow me to clarify my little "statement."  The implication should not be drawn that I don't feel the 1st Ammendment should cover modern technology.  My point is that the same special-interest groups and politicians with personal agendas who spend their time seeking to eviscerate the 2nd ammendment are the same ones who would scream the loudest if the other ammendments were attacked.  Although, they don't seem to have a problem forgeting about due-process or the restrictions on unreasonable searches and seizures when it comes to attacking gun owners.
  Now on to other things...


			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> ya needs to read the whole Amendment, including the part about the, "well-regulated militia."  Huh, REGULATED. Wonder what they meant.



I'm not going to get into this one too much (I could go on all day) but that one little phrase ("well regulated militia") has been the subject of more debate and controversy than you can shake a stick at.  If you read commentary from the "founding fathers" and the framers of the Constitution you will see that the militia was not the National Guard (as some would argue today), nor was it the military.  The militia was every able-bodied male who could be counted on to fight if another country attempted to invade or if the government tried to force its will on the populace.  I don't believe that anybody who is willing to objectively examine the original intent of the framers could deny their desire for this ammendment to protect and guarentee the right of the private, law-abiding citizen to possess firearms.
  The next issue then becomes, what firearms should/shouldn't the people be allowed to possess?  As I stated before, it is clear that the purpose of ensuring private ownership of firearms was/is to protect against enemies both foreign and domestic, therefore the logical progression of thought would dictate that the people should not be prohibited from owning weapons consistent with this purpose. In other words; rifles, handguns, and shot-guns similar to those used by the military.  
  Finally, these arguments should be unecessary due to that often forgotten little phrase "shall not be infringed." I'm not going to define the word "infringed" because I'm sure all of you have access to a dictionary.
  Comments/Feedback are more than welcome,
  Respectfully, 
  Matt


----------



## rmcrobertson (Feb 14, 2004)

Perfectly-reasonable rejoinder.

However, a couple of things occur, the first of which is that I meant to emphasize the, "well-regulated," adjective, not the, "militia," noun. Leaving aside the question of whether or not a revolution would still be worth having (given the technology available, I'd move out of the country first), it seems to me that the Framers had something like the Swiss model in mind--everybody gets basic training, everybody takes home a sealed military weapon, gods help you if they find that weapon unsealed without orders. (Of course, if the gov. is the problem, I doubt anybody'd be all that worried about the year in jail.)

What I don't see is how, "well-regulated," is compatible with a situation in which any and every numbnuts can cart home whatever they please. I also don't see how our present lunacy is compatible with what the Framers probably depended upon, a society in which everybody who wanted them had access to hunting weapons and basic self-defense weapons for the home.

To speak in more-partisan terms about the present, too, there are two other issues: a) the flood of guns in this country isn't driven by civil libertarians of any kind, but by corporations; b) a lot of the claims about, "the right to bear arms," aren't coming from people who just want hunting weapons, or home-defense weapons, or even "militia," weapons, which could be handled with rifles, shotguns, and a sealed automatic weapon with standardized ammunition.

A lot of anti-gun maniacs forget that guns are just tools, and apparently think  that All Deer Are Sacred--probably because they've never lived in the country. They also, often, have some class biases against the Lower Forms of Life they associate with guns.

And uh sorry, but be honest. A lot of the claims are coming from people who want A WHOLE BUNCH of fancy handguns, even though handguns are relatively-poor self-defense weapons; who want to Own Their Own Dragunov Sniper Rifle; who are infatuated with bang-sticks; who have a professional interest in a constant expansion of guns.

They're just tools. They should be treated as such, not glorified. And the problem with a lot of the NRA rhetoric is that it reminds me that Heinlein was right about one thing having to do with guns--unless you're wise, having hold of them makes you stupid and vulnerable.

Thanks for the discussion; I appreciate the manners.


----------



## KenpoTex (Feb 15, 2004)

First of all let me state my appreciation for the fact that we have been able to discuss this issue in a courteous manner.  So many times on these forums, debates degenerate into name-calling contests.
  There are still a few things I would like to discuss:


			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> What I don't see is how, "well-regulated," is compatible with a situation in which any and every numbnuts can cart home whatever they please.



Maybe I'm missing something but I think we are subject to enough regulations and unfortunately we can't "cart home whatever we please."  It is already unlawful for a person who has been convicted of a felony or certain misdemeanors to even _attempt _ to procure a firearm.  I do not have a problem with this.  We have the _National Instant Criminal Background Check System_ (NICS)in place for this very reason.  For those of you who aren't familiar with this system it is  a way to instantly (at least in theory) ascertain whether the prospective gun-buyer has a criminal record.  The way it works is that the gun-dealer calls the F.B.I. and gives them the customers information (name, d.o.b., D.L. number, etc) and he/she is put through and instant federal background check.  Unfortunately, for the customer, sometimes they don't get the results immediately so the buyer has to wait until they do.  In other words, the weapon does not leave the store until the person has been "cleared."    As I said above, I don't have a problem with this system.  However, I do have a problem with waiting-periods, registration of the weapon, or any other procedure that goes beyond checking someone's criminal history.  Waiting periods (sometimes referred to as "cooling off" periods) are nothing more than some bureaucrat's lame-brained attempt to reduce "crimes of passion."  My question on this is "if they took time to go buy a gun is it really a crime of passion?"  but that's another debate.  
  My problem with the registration of firearms is simple: Registration is the first step toward confiscation.  Call me a radical or conspiracy-theorist if you will but dust off the history book and you will see that everytime a country or city confiscates guns this action was preceded by registration i.e. Nazi Germany, and more recently England, Canada, and Australia.  We as Americans are not immune to this either, as it has happened in places like Chicago and N.Y.City.
    As far as the issue on what people should be allowed to own, if you want to own a "whole bunch of fancy handguns or a Dragunov sniper rifle" more power to you.  The people who are going to lawfully acquire their firearms, regardless of the type, are not the ones we need to worry about.  In fact the so-called "assault-weapons" that everyone whines about are used in fewer than 5% of crimes involving guns anyway (and in some cases far fewer).  Once again we see a trend of stupid laws that really accomplish nothing.  For example, the state of California just made it illegal to own a .50 caliber rifle (.50 BMG) because in a sniper rifle configuration it is capable of one-mile+ accuracy.  Obviously no one stopped to consider the fact that these weapons usually weigh about 20-30 lbs. (depending on the model); retail for anywhere from $2,000-$8,000 and are only capable of that kind of shooting in the hands of a highly trained marksman.  In other words, some gang-banger who can't even keep his pants up is going to have a hard time acquiring one, much less using it to it's full potential.   
  This has been my "long-winded" way of explaining why I think we have plenty of regulations.  Instead of Well Regulated we have become Too Regulated. To me the issue is simple, restrictive laws are not going to prevent crime b/c the only ones who will follow them are the people who aren't committing the crimes.  Instead of making all of these assinine laws we should nail the people who break the ones we already have, but again, that's another discussion.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Feb 15, 2004)

Again, perfectly-reasonable rejoinder.

However, as you can already imagine, I still have a few probs...

One is that, "well-regulated," can't by any means describe the current mess--which we are in, in part, because of the utter refusal by corporations and international arms sellers to limit their sales in any fashion over the last twenty years. So for example, we get repeated claims that getting the old Sat. Night Special is a civil rights issue...

Another is the craziness of the NRA, sorry. When I was a kid, LOTS of people (out in the country, anyway) had guns, the NRA was basically a hunter's orginization, there were relatively-few handguns available, etc. , etc. The good old days, when supposedly people felt safe on the streets and in their homes. Now...there are LOTS of handguns, companies like Colt and Norco support the NRA, the NRA is a pretty big-n'-powerful lobbyists' group, and LOTS of folks feel unsafe all the time in their homes and on the streets.

It's not about freedom, it's about an arms race.

And as for the Nazis (who tend to be an extremely-heavily armed group in this country, by the way), or Australia, etc., well, 1) all those regulating countries added up together and including Canada don't have 1/1000th our gun death rate, 2) who says we have to put up with what the Germans did?

It's of course a hypothetical, but what would be so awful about a situation in which, a) everybody could buy hunting equipment after a background check, b) everybody could buy a shotgun for home defense, c) nobody could have a handgun on the street except cops, d) grownups to get a sealed, auto weapon for the, "militia," part?

Or there's my other compromise---no guns for men, all women required to carry them.


----------



## Tgace (Feb 15, 2004)

All I have to say on the matter is, in my professional opinion, the problem isnt gun control....its criminal control. Any LEO (who isnt bucking for a political position) will tell you the same thing.


----------



## Cruentus (Feb 15, 2004)

We definatily have problems, and this I don't disagree with. I just am not convinced anymore that high regulations on firearms are the solution to the problem. 

*Language arguements aside here are what our rights are...*

1. We have the right to defend our selves, our family, our community, and our property. If a criminal can get a hold of a firearm because they aren't abiding by regulation, but I can't because I abide by the laws and I am a law abiding citizen, then how can I defend against a firearm? Having the rights and obligations for self defense goes hand and hand to having the ability to own and carry arms it would seem.

2. We have the right to defend ourselves from a tyranical government, whether it is our own government, or an invador. I am not touching the terrorist arguement here because this war on terror bullcrap has been monopolized enough, but what if WWII reached our soil more then pearl harbor. What if the red army marched in through alaska during the cold war and decided to invade. I know that it is fiction, but remember the movie "red dawn"? It's highly unlikely, but possible. What will our long range missles and nuclear technoligy do if war ever hits our own soil? It will allow retaliation, but not protection. I am sure that we can 'all of a sudden' provide arms to citizens in this dramatic case (for those who aren't already dead), but what good will that do? If Guns are too well regulated, then people won't know how to use the firearms effectively anyways.

Also, the civil war was less then 150 years ago. This is not a long time by civilation standards. Its not inconcievable to think that a rebellion couldn't occur again. What if we have a rebellion on our hands, or worse yet a leader that turns completely tyranical? Our ability to rebel against our own government, as scary as it sounds, is an important right that the framers had in mind, I believe. The framers just led a rebellion from the England. There were certian things in place because of that. Because of this, I don't buy that they wanted to go by the swiss standard of everyone having a sealed firearm. First, it negates being able to learn how to use it, and second, it negates being able to use it to defend yourself against your own government like the US had to do at one time against the crown.

So, these are our basic rights...self defense is a basic right. These are what need to be protected at all costs.

* So now that we know what has to be protected, how does this fit with regulation? *

1. _ Regulation only regulates those who abide by the law, while criminals run free. _ You can outlaw handguns on the street tomorrow. The problem is that the criminals are not going to abide by these rules. The law abiding citizen is the one who will lose the privilage to own a hand gun, while criminals now have free reign. If the criminal doesn't see a badge or blue uniform around, then they now know that they have free reign over every other citizen. I wouldn't mind regulation if it wasn't for the fact that the criminals aren't the ones that regulation regulates.

2. _ Historical precedence has been set; registration of arms in other countries has lead directly to the banning of firearms. _ Full registration has been tried in other countries before, and this lead directly to a banning of firearms in these countries, which lead to an immediate rise in the crime rates. This tells me that registration is not the solution. For one, we still have the 1st problem; criminals aren't the ones who are going to be registering their arms. Second, what garauntee is there that we won't lose our right to self defense? Until these problems are solved, I don't think registration is a viable consideration.

3. _ We have a problem with violence in our country _ We clearly have a problem with violence in our american culture. It is glorified here. I don't think it is wise for every A-hole who has the tendency to road rage to also be armed. However, how do we prevent the violent people from comitting violence with firearms? Banning or "registration" or making firearms more difficult to come by will only help the average @$$hole, because he knows that if he goes to shoot someones tires, or brains out, that he will be less likely to be open for retaliation. The solution to solving violence in our country isn't through gun control. Everyone was critical about how the columbine shooters were able to get arms so easily. How come people weren't as critical about the fact that the parents and teachers didn't seem to notice the sociopathic behvior of these shooters? It seemed almost a secondary issue. What wasn't even a secondary issue is the fact that kids in general aren't being raised by parents anymore, and aren't being instilled good values, but instead are raising themselves through daycares and MTV. THis is competely relevent because while both parents have to work to support consumerist behoviors, the kids are left to indulge in the host of violent toys, games, media, etc.; its not just that kids are exposed to more violence through the TV and other media outlets, but they're not being instilled good values by parents who pay attendion to them to counter balance it. Then they grow up to be sociopaths who live in a fantasy world of violence that they've built, and who road rage and shoot out your tires because they didn't like the way you changed lanes.

Sorry for the rant, but I agree that there is a huge problem with violence and the fantasy of violence in our country. Yet, I think the solution is far deeper then gun control, and I think that gun control will actually only hurt the situation. Now, I can't say the the NRA is doing good things to combat the violent culture that we have built either. But I think that we need to stop looking at the "tools" that violent people use, and start looking at the causes and some real solutions. Trying to solve the problem by looking at the "tools" rather then the causes is like only dealing with the symptoms of the disease instead of trying to find a cure. 

4. _ Corporate intrests involved in the gun issue _ There is not doubt in my mind that gun companies are in cahoots with the NRA to lobby for less gun regulation. More regulation = less sales, obviously. To not realize this is to be pretty blind, in my opinion. But, how big of a problem is this, really? That is the question that I have. To me, this needs to be addressed on a more larger scale, because this falls in line with corporate control on our society that is a problem in many different facets outside the gun industry. In regards to how this problem relates to gun issues, I think the bigger problem would be to address how we can regulate the criminals without lossing our freedoms of self defense, and how we can help cure the epedemic of violence in our country. These seem to be more pressing issues then corporate agendas in the gun community. "Corporate regulation" seems part of a bigger picture that should be addressed on a larger scale.

*Solution?* There are a lot of problems, and I don't pretend to have all the solutions. I think that I can be a pretty reasonable person. Despite my crazy sense of humor and attitude, I don't indulge in "warrior fantasies" and I don't pop a wood at the site of a newly polished AK-47. However, after doing a fair amout of thinking and research, I can't see that gun control is any kind of solution to our problems. I think the problems are much more complex, and need to be addressed at many different levels of our society and government before gun regulation should be a consideration.

PAUL
 :ultracool


----------



## rmcrobertson (Feb 15, 2004)

Again, seems pretty reasonable to me. I especially agree that it may be too laate for serious regulation, since we (and the Germans, and the Czechs, and the South Africans, and the Russians, and the English, and the French, and the Taiwanese, and let's not forget the Brazilians) have cheerfully been handing out an endless supply of dangerous toys to idiot children for the last fifty years or so. Barn doors and horses, is all.

And again, it has not been my experience that real hunters and serious target shooters are even remotely the problem.

As for the thing about criminals having lots and lots of guns, well, the problem is that a) I really think people exaggerate the threat; b) there sinply aren't very many scenarious in which a concealed handgun is going to help you, at least if you're a guy. (There is the John Barnes in "Mother of Storms," solution--a cheapish .22 magnum six-shot disposable, with the bullets tagged and a radio transmitter that screams for the cops when you fire it; c) the real self-defense that would make sense involves doing everything possible to remove the conditions that help create violent crime. 

Before anybody yells, from my viewpoint, it's a version of pre-emption--if you have to wait until the bad guy's gun comes out, you've already waited far too long. It's not liberal, it's hard-headed and pragmatic--do what works, not what's romantic.

Another approach would be to require a REAL training process for gun owners, not just a video or two. Again, it has been my experience that people who actually know  guns, and who treat them as tools, are not the problem.

Personally--and this is just opinion--it kinda bothers me when SOME martial artists get overly fascinated with sheer technology of any kind, and a little too into  the hope that they might get to shoot some fool...fortunately, I can't see that that has been a problem in this discussion.


----------



## M F (Feb 16, 2004)

I have worked in a correctional facility four almost four years.  I have seen many inmates come and go on firearms charges.  ONE of these was an individual with no previous criminal record.  All the rest have been individuals with criminal histories, most with felonies.  In the past 18 months we have housed between 300-400 federal inmates.  All felons.  Over 75% of these felons have been charged with the offenses of Felon in possession of a firearm, or False information to a gun dealer (lying on background check forms, trying to illegally obtain a firearm).  Criminals DO NOT obey laws.  Criminals will have guns.  Period.  Law abiding citizens must have the ability to counter any level of force a criminal my be able (and willing) to use against them.


----------



## KenpoTex (Feb 16, 2004)

First of all, excellent posts guys, I think you have all made some valid points.  There are still a few things I think need to be addressed:


			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> "well-regulated," can't by any means describe the current mess--which we are in, in part, because of the utter refusal by corporations and international arms sellers to limit their sales in any fashion over the last twenty years.


  Why should they have to limit their sales?  And, as both myself and others have said, our current "mess" is not due to the lack of gun regulation, but rather to the failure of our justice system to adequately deal with the criminals.  And I think it is interesting to note that while gun ownership in the U.S. continues to increase, as of 2001 our homicide rate at a 30-year low coming in at 5.6 per 100,000



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> The good old days, when supposedly people felt safe on the streets and in their homes. Now...there are LOTS of handguns, companies like Colt and Norco support the NRA, the NRA is a pretty big-n'-powerful lobbyists' group, and LOTS of folks feel unsafe all the time in their homes and on the streets.



Once again, the reason that people feel unsafe is not because of a lack of gun regulation but because of the failure of the system to keep criminals off the streets.  Take for example the girl that was recently murdered in Florida, her killer had already been imprisoned twice: once for rape and the other time for kidnapping and rape.  However; in both cases he only served two years before he was paroled.  Why would ANYONE feel safe when we are letting a repeat kidnapper and rapist back onto the streets?



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 1) all those regulating countries added up together and including Canada don't have 1/1000th our gun death rate



Take a look at England, since they banned public ownership of firearms in '98 (with the exception of break-action shotguns) their violent crime rates have skyrocketed, it has gotten so bad that they are considering making it illegal to carry a knife in your pocket.  Why? because when the law-abiding citizens are forced to surrender their arms the criminals know they have free reign.



			
				rmcrombertson said:
			
		

> It's of course a hypothetical, but what would be so awful about a situation in which, a) everybody could buy hunting equipment after a background check, b) everybody could buy a shotgun for home defense, c) nobody could have a handgun on the street except cops, d) grownups to get a sealed, auto weapon for the, "militia," part?



a) we can
b) we can
c) I direct your attention to the stats. from states that allow concealed carry.  Take Florida for example, when they passed their concealed carry law their violent crime rate dropped drastically, and again, those who are going to get a CHL so they can carry their weapon lawfully are not the ones we need to worry about, the ones we need to worry about have them already.  In fact, during the first seven years after they first allowed concealed carry there were over 100,000 permits granted, during this same period of time only 12 were revoked and not necessarily because a crime involving the gun was commited.  
d) In Switzerland they don't get a sealed rifle, only the ammunition they are issued is sealed and must be accounted for, they are free to practice with the weapon at the local range, and they are able to own other firearms.  Their laws regarding the purchase and ownership of firearms are similar to ours in several ways.  For example, transferrs of a firearm between private parties do not require a permit.



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> b) there sinply aren't very many scenarious in which a concealed handgun is going to help you, at least if you're a guy.


There have been several credible studies, including one by the U.S. Department of justice that estimate that guns are used defensively 1.5 million times per year or more.  In contrast, according to the F.B.I.'s Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) in 2002 there were 14,054 homicides in the U.S.  Firearms were used in 9,369 of these.  While those numbers are still unacceptably high, how high would they be if people could not possess weapons to defend themselves?



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Another approach would be to require a REAL training process for gun owners, not just a video or two.


Most states that allow concealed carry do require some sort of training; usually something like 8-16 hours which includes instruction on use of force laws as well as safety.



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Again, it has been my experience that people who actually know guns, and who treat them as tools, are not the problem.


  Exactly!


----------



## rmcrobertson (Feb 16, 2004)

Weel, just to keep the beach ball bouncing, a couple of things occur in no particular order.

When we talk about the assault rate, "skyrocketing," in, say, England, we're talking about something radically different from the US. We're talking about, say, having the national murder count go above 50.

Second, I'd argue that we argue for guns because we're short-sighted. We utterly refuse to do anything about the social conditions of violence (yes, I understand that in the end people make their own choices), we utterly refuse to spend the money that adequate educational and criminal justice systems would cost (for example, LA has by all estimates only 50-60% of the number of cops it should have)--in other words, we skip all the prevention that would be possible, because we're too frickin' cheap, we wait till the last minute when there's an emergency, and then we rely on a gun to save us. Leaving the question of social policy alone, is this even good martial arts?

That guy who got out in Florida? I will bet if you check, you'll find a guy who a) was a severely abused kid and got no help because we're too cheap, b) never got evaluated and never got halfway-decent therapy on his first trip to jail because we're too cheap, c) got out early because we're too cheap to keep 'em in jail aand check their records responsibly, d) never got supervised decently once he got out because we're too cheap...so again, while people in the end make their own choices (in the end, he may have just been a rotten guy from a good family and a happy home, who knows?), is this even good martial arts practice?

And just incidentally, why in the HELL didn't somebody teach that poor girl to watch where she was, scream her head off, and fight rather than EVER getting in a car with a bad guy?

Third--why NOT regulate corporations? We do it for other products, and usually with damn good reason too. Sorry, but of all the good arguments I've seen, this is by far the weakest. Why? because if we consider our present fix as a case of "us," vs., "them," of good guys and criminals, well, looks to me like corporations end up being the guys profiting by running guns to both sides.

Last, if I lived way out in the country, I'd have a shotgun in the house--even more if I were a woman--but that's a far cry from carrying a gun with me everywhere. 

Again, thanks for the intelligent and courteous disagreements.


----------



## KenpoTex (Feb 17, 2004)

And, to "bounce the ball" a little farther...lol.



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> I'd argue that we argue for guns because we're short-sighted. We utterly refuse to do anything about the social conditions of violence (yes, I understand that in the end people make their own choices), we utterly refuse to spend the money that adequate educational and criminal justice systems would cost (for example, LA has by all estimates only 50-60% of the number of cops it should have)--in other words, we skip all the prevention that would be possible, because we're too frickin' cheap, we wait till the last minute when there's an emergency, and then we rely on a gun to save us. Leaving the question of social policy alone, is this even good martial arts?



Excellent points!  I couldn't agree more that we need to spend more on the criminal justice system.  People say "well, we can't put/keep them in prison 'cause the prisons are too full"  Okay, so we build more prisons.  "We don't have enough cops" I agree (I also think 99.9% of cops are severely underpaid) so we hire more cops.  Where do we get the funding?  Let's cut the fat off the welfare system and eliminate all the stupid studies about the spotted-owl and spend the money where it will do some good.  However, even if we do this I personally don't want to have to rely on the police to protect me.  In fact, it has been ruled, and upheld many times, that the police do not have the obligation to protect individuals, just to preserve the public order.  There is also the issue of responce time.  The police are not a proactive organization, they are a _reactive_ organization.  By the time they show up the deed has been done.  For the record I have nothing but the deepest respect for the LEO's; however unless we each have our own personal officer to follow us around it's not going to matter.  So let's build more prisons and hire more cops but don't try to take my guns.


			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> That guy who got out in Florida? I will bet if you check, you'll find a guy who a) was a severely abused kid and got no help because we're too cheap, b) never got evaluated and never got halfway-decent therapy on his first trip to jail because we're too cheap, c) got out early because we're too cheap to keep 'em in jail aand check their records responsibly, d) never got supervised decently once he got out because we're too cheap...so again, while people in the end make their own choices (in the end, he may have just been a rotten guy from a good family and a happy home, who knows?)


a) Who knows?
b) Therapy for a convicted kidnapper/rapist...yeah right!  No disrespect intended but the rehab. doesn't work for someone like that.  I have had many discussions with people in various areas of the criminal justice system (and I myself have a B.S. in criminal justice) and if you study the information regarding recidivism rates it becomes obvious that the rehab. isn't doing the job.  As you said in your last post, and as I firmly believe, we are all ultimately responsible for our own actions whether we weren't potty-trained properly, or whether our parents were abusive, or any of the other common "cop-outs."  And, as far as I'm concerned, someone convicted of kidnap and rape should NEVER get out, if we're not going to fry him (which is what scum like that deserve) then sentance him to life w/o parole.


			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> And just incidentally, why in the HELL didn't somebody teach that poor girl to watch where she was, scream her head off, and fight rather than EVER getting in a car with a bad guy?


  With all due respect, I hope you're not trying to say that she was in any way responsible for what happened to her.  While I do believe everyone, especially females, should know how to defend themselves or handle a hostile encounter her lack to training in no way alleviates his responsibility.  That comment reminds me of the old notion that rape was allways the woman's fault because "she was a tease" or "she dressed too provocatively."  If anyone is to blame it is the judge who released the guy.  Incidentally, the same judge who granted him parole after both of his convictions has a record of being ridiculously lenient towards violent offenders of this type.  He was also aware that this dirt-bag was in violation of his parole due to a drug-related offense but he refused to put him back in jail (this was like two weeks before he kidnapped the girl).  I personally think he should be indicted as an accessory.


			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Third--why NOT regulate corporations? We do it for other products, and usually with damn good reason too. Sorry, but of all the good arguments I've seen, this is by far the weakest. Why? because if we consider our present fix as a case of "us," vs., "them," of good guys and criminals, well, looks to me like corporations end up being the guys profiting by running guns to both sides


  I honestly cannot think of any other industry that is _more_ regulated.  From the manufacturers, to the middle-men(dealers), to the consumers there are scores if not hundreds of regulations/rules/restrictions.  As far as the corporations "running guns to both sides" There are very few companies that even sell directly to the public, you usually _have_ to go to a dealer and with the laws the way they are most (most, not all) will not risk their license by selling a firearm w/o running the background checks etc.  Most guns used by criminals are either stolen or purchased in private transferrs which can't be effectively regulated, nor should they. 


			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Last, if I lived way out in the country, I'd have a shotgun in the house--even more if I were a woman--but that's a far cry from carrying a gun with me everywhere.


  Again I ask, "why shouldn't a responsible law-abiding citizen be allowed to carry his/her gun anywhere(with the exception of court-houses etc.).  Saying that you should only be allowed to have one in your home is akin to saying that your home is the only place where you will ever be threatened.  Is that good martial-arts?

I think what it boils down to is the fact that regardless of the state of the criminal justice system, and the number of restrictions placed against the gun industry/gun owners you will always have crime and the criminals will always have guns...why shouldn't we?

I appreciate your continued courtesy and look forward to future responses.


----------



## Cruentus (Feb 17, 2004)

> And I think it is interesting to note that while gun ownership in the U.S. continues to increase, as of 2001 our homicide rate at a 30-year low coming in at 5.6 per 100,000



Interesting. This doesn't specifically say that guns are the solution to our problems, but it does point to the idea that banning or heavy regulation is not the solution to our problems.

If you look here you can see some trends regarding the crime rates: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/cv2.htm

The overview shows how violent crimes have dropped dramatically. What it also shows is that victimization reports have not dropped proportionally, and crimes recorded and arrests for violent crimes have actually gone up slightly. This seems to point to the theory that our law enforcement has improved its ability to catch criminals and prevent crime. Our improvement of law enforcement could be part of the reason these crimes have gone down. 

Also interesting to note, even though gun sales have gone up, gun related crimes have plumetted: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/firearmnonfatalno.htm

This further demonstrates to me that there really is no direct correlation to gun ownership and crime.

Upon looking at this homicide chart that covers a longer period, the homocide rates seem to correlate with the crime rates: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/hmrt.htm 

It would seem that gun ownership and regulation doesn't correlate with crime statistics (as cause or prevention). So when people argue that gun control prevents crime, I would argue that this is a false statement.

On a side note, what does seem to correlate with violent crime rates is the economic cycle. Its interesting to note that it seems that there is more crime during an economic recovery period then during the downturn, but that the "momentum" starts during the downturn. Crime went up during the depression, but went up further during the recovery. Crime started to go up  during the poor economy in the 70's but rose more during the recovery periods in the 80's. These charts are too limited to give a full analysis, but if these are right and if history is an indicator, crime rates should be going back up again as the economy recovers (scary thought). Whether it does or not could really prove whether or not we have gotten better at preventing crime, or if our lower crime rates were just a product of the economic cycle. Too bad I don't have a chart for 02' and 03'.

PAUL


----------



## rmcrobertson (Feb 17, 2004)

Another thing that correlates very highly with crime, particularly violent crime, is the number of males aged 16-24 in the population. That number's been dropping; so...

I like the, "spotted owl," studies. And welfare cheats....not a big drain on the economy or a big problem, unless we're talking about a) corporations, b) the moral issues. If we're going to spend the money where we oughta...and just to keep this in terms of arms....remember, the B-2 costs around 500 million a plane. It was designed to fly over the Soviet Union AFTER a nuclear was had begun (because then, their best radars would've been knocked out) and attack underground government bunkers, wiping out the people with the authority to stop the war...uh...

But as for actually carrying guns around, I remain dubious--just in terms of practical self-defense--about their utility.

Thanks.


----------



## KenpoTex (Feb 18, 2004)

Good post Paul, I enjoyed checking out the links.  There is a good site www.guncite.com that has tons of info. similar to these links and links to many other studies and documents that you might check out.
Once again let me say that I have enjoyed this discussion and I appreciate the fact that we were able to maintain a courteous and respectful tone.  


			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> But as for actually carrying guns around, I remain dubious--just in terms of practical self-defense--about their utility.



I can respect that.  I live in Missouri, one of the only 4 states that don't allow concealed carry so this is a moot issue for me.  Would I carry if it was legal? Sure; Do I think everyone should? No (I don't think everyone should be allowed to drive...lol)  If a person either does not want to, or doesn't feel the need to carry I can understand that.  All I ask is that they treat my choice with the same understanding.  And in all honesty, while I would carry if I lived in a state that permitted it, I doubt that I would ever have to use it because I would hope that I would be able to avoid, defuse, or neutralize the threat without resorting to that level of force.  Also, in many violent encounters you won't have time to draw a weapon whether it's a gun, knife, pepper-spray, or whatever (that's one of the reasons we study martial-arts isn't it?) but you never know and I feel that it's better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.
  I think we've about beat this one to death, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, however I'm always interested if anyone cares to discuss this further or has any other perspectives to present.


----------



## Loki (Aug 18, 2005)

1. Historical precidence has been set. Other countries have required the license and registration in a similar fashion to what I proposed. Yet, they moved to using that licesne and registration to confiscating all firearms. THis is something we cannot have, and until I am confident that one thing won't lead to the other, I can't support registration and licensing.

 2. Criminals don't register and license their arms, law abiding citicens do. All we are doing is regulating the law abiding citicens rather then the criminals.[/QUOTE] 
 Paul, assuming you still hold these views (last reply was over a year ago):

 Could you describe these precedents in more detail? Which countries confiscated firearms?

 I'm not sure how the system works in America, but do you buy a gun and then register it? or do you get a license to carry firearms first? and what does one have to do to get such a license?

 In Israel, I know anyone over 18 can apply for a license and subsequently carry a gun. Not only that, most people that reach the age of 18 are enlisted in the military and carry M-16s. I'd have to verify with statistics, but if I'm not mistaken, Israel doesn't have a fraction of the problem America has with gun control and fatalities caused by misuse.

 Isn't it safer to license citizens and have them register firearms?


----------



## KenpoTex (Aug 19, 2005)

I'm sure Paul will chime in to address the questions you directed to him.  In the meantime, I'd like to touch on a couple of your points.


			
				Loki said:
			
		

> I'm not sure how the system works in America, but do you buy a gun and then register it? or do you get a license to carry firearms first? and what does one have to do to get such a license?


It really varies from state to state.  In some states, you have to obtain a license to buy any firearm (this usually applies to the northeast).  Several more require a permit to purchase a handgun.  The rest do not require a permit to purchase but still require the purchaser to go through a background check (as do all the others).

Concealed carry is a different issue.  Most states (35 I believe) are what is known as "shall issue" states.  In these states, as long as you meet the requirements and have no criminal background, they are required to issue you a permit.  Several others are "May Issue" states in which you may or may not get a permit depending on the whim of some bureaucrat.  Only four states (Kansas, Wisconsin, Illinois, and Nebraska) do not issue permits at all.




			
				Loki said:
			
		

> Isn't it safer to license citizens and have them register firearms?


It doesn't work.  The only people who will submit to the licensing procedure are the ones who are not criminals.  The bad guys aren't going to register because they're already committing a crime by possessing the weapon.  Besides, registration is just the first step toward confiscation.  Look at England, Australia & now, maybe, Canada.


----------



## Loki (Aug 19, 2005)

kenpotex said:
			
		

> I'm sure Paul will chime in to address the questions you directed to him. In the meantime, I'd like to touch on a couple of your points.
> It really varies from state to state. In some states, you have to obtain a license to buy any firearm (this usually applies to the northeast). Several more require a permit to purchase a handgun. The rest do not require a permit to purchase but still require the purchaser to go through a background check (as do all the others).
> 
> Concealed carry is a different issue. Most states (35 I believe) are what is known as "shall issue" states. In these states, as long as you meet the requirements and have no criminal background, they are required to issue you a permit. Several others are "May Issue" states in which you may or may not get a permit depending on the whim of some bureaucrat. Only four states (Kansas, Wisconsin, Illinois, and Nebraska) do not issue permits at all.
> ...


 Thanks for the info kenpotex, but a few more questions: you said that there are requirements besides not having a criminal background. I assume these also vary from state to state, but roughly, what are these requirements?

 Secondly, do criminals buy there weapons in the same places honest civilians do? Or do they rely mostly on the black market/some other source?

 Lastly, could you link me to articles on confiscation in England/Australia? On what grounds are these weapons confiscated?

 Thanks for your time


----------



## KenpoTex (Aug 19, 2005)

Loki said:
			
		

> Thanks for the info kenpotex, but a few more questions: you said that there are requirements besides not having a criminal background. I assume these also vary from state to state, but roughly, what are these requirements?


You have to be 18 to buy a rifle or a shotgun (or ammunition for the gun), and 21 to buy a handgun (and ammo).  You also cannot have been convicted of a felony, and certain violent misdemeanors (e.g. Assault), or have been dishonorably-discharged from the military.  For a concealed-carry license in most states, the required age is 21 although some states require you to be older.  For example, in Missouri the min. age is 23, and in New Mexico, I believe the min. age is 25.  For more detailed information on a state-by-state basis than I can provide you should look at www.packing.org.  This site has assembled data from the various states and is considered the authority on gun-laws (especially as they apply to concealed-carry) in the US.



			
				Loki said:
			
		

> Secondly, do criminals buy there weapons in the same places honest civilians do? Or do they rely mostly on the black market/some other source?


They can't buy them in a gun-store or from any [honest] licensed dealer because the dealers are required to perform a federal-level background check on all purchasers.  Many criminals steal the guns they use, others may buy them from someone who is legally allowed to purchase firearms.



			
				Loki said:
			
		

> Lastly, could you link me to articles on confiscation in England/Australia? On what grounds are these weapons confiscated?


 They were confiscated (or required to be surrendered) on the theory that "fewer guns=less crime."  This isn't the case.  For specific articles, just type in England and/or Australia + gun bans/gun control.  You'll find all the information you could ever want (and more than you could ever read.)  I used to have a great article that showed a timeline of the bans in England from the time that they merely required them to be registered, to the time that they totally banned them  (1997-98).

Also, backtrack through some of the threads on this forum, this issue has been discussed many times.  You'll probably find a lot of the info. you're looking for just by looking through the old threads.


----------



## TonyM. (Aug 20, 2005)

Glad you came around Paul. Totalitarianism is unhealthy for the flesh as well as the spirit.


----------



## KenpoEMT (Aug 20, 2005)

Personally, I think we should require all law-abiding citzens to carry a sidearm at all times  . I imagine that those who lack common sense would be weeded out fairly early by 9mm natural selection :lol: .   ...I bet that common courtesy would return to society rather quickly.


Officer:             "License and registration, please."
Random citizen:  "Okay, here you go."
Officer:             "Are there any firearms in this vehicle, sir?"
Random Citizen:  "Um...no, officer."
Officer:             "WHAT?!? Sir, do you realize that as a law-abiding citizen you are REQUIRED  to carry a firearm at all times for the safety and well-being of society? The first offense penalty is $50.  Is this your first offense, sir?"
Random Citizen: "Um...I...Uh..."
Officer: "Step out of the vehicle, sir."

:rofl:


----------



## Rich Parsons (Aug 20, 2005)

Theban_Legion said:
			
		

> Personally, I think we should require all law-abiding citzens to carry a sidearm at all times  . I imagine that those who lack common sense would be weeded out fairly early by 9mm natural selection :lol: .   ...I bet that common courtesy would return to society rather quickly.
> 
> 
> Officer:             "License and registration, please."
> ...





Actually, I Have said this for years, also you should only be allowed to carry the bullets in the gun on you. 

If you break a law then a jury of your peers can convict you.

Guy 1: Hmmm, look at the bad guy who just pulled a gun. ** pulls his own out

Guy 2: Yep. ** pulls his own out.

The Bad guy is now faced with the though of knowing that there are two or more guns point at him ** Note: Training of use would be required, and people would realize that standing in a circle or across from the other guy with a gun is not a good idea **. He also would realize that he would need to face them and all the bullets they have.


----------



## KenpoEMT (Aug 20, 2005)

Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> Actually, I Have said this for years, also you should only be allowed to carry the bullets in the gun on you.
> 
> If you break a law then a jury of your peers can convict you.
> 
> ...


Total agreement here.


----------

