Do Firearms Cause Murder...

[modarnis]

OK, I can see your really wanting to press this point. You can purchase a gun without said education, thats true. What I'm interested and talking about is when that gun affects other people (from yourself). What you do in the privacy of your home is not my business (although it could be argued that the potential of a firearm reaches beyond the four walls of your house). Are you going to use your gun for anything other than collecting? If so you will be fased with education courses. Concealed carry courses, hunter education courses, even gun clubs and ranges require you to act on at least the very basic of firearms etiquette. Sure you can go out and shoot in your backyard, but unless you live in the right area that is illegal and you will asses heavy penalties if you destroy the propety or life of someone else in the process.

7sm

Not trying to press any point. I believed that your statement that mandatory education was already required was factually incorrect. If education requirements constrain purchase in any way, that flies in the face of what one does in their home isn't yours or mine or whomevers business position you seem to advocate. Its an interesting question, and I certainly don't know if there is a right answer, but can you really support individual liberties that are significantly constrained by regulation? It would seem that you either trust people to behave within the boundaries of your society's criminal or you don't

You seem somewhat reluctant to answer my question, or take the bait as it were as to how regulations, above and beyond criminal laws that already proscribe killing, raping, maiming, stealing, robbing or reckless conduct, actually have any real societal benefit.

Pick one, education requirement, waiting period, regulating the magazine capacity or grip style of a weapon, local registration above and beyond existing federal or state firearms databases. What is the measurable benefit to society of these type regulations?

 

[Flatlander]

Sorry folks, I'm confused.

What are the current requirements to obtain a firearm? Are these regulations set out by the State, or by the Feds?

What are the current requirements to carry a firearm? Are these regulations set out by the State, or by the Feds?

If there are no current educational requirements to carry, then I think that a measureable societal benefit may be found in having a more functionally armed society. Without doubt, this would cause me to think twice before committing a violent act; as opposed to challenging someone that I could have a reasonable chance of surprising or defeating through superior tactics.

Quite simply, it raises the bar.

A secondary measurable benefit that I can postulate would be that overall, you'd end up with a (generally) gun safety concious populace, thereby potentially leading to fewer accidental gun deaths.

Gun deaths should never be accidental.

 

[Cruentus]

Sorry folks, I'm confused.

What are the current requirements to obtain a firearm? Are these regulations set out by the State, or by the Feds?

What are the current requirements to carry a firearm? Are these regulations set out by the State, or by the Feds?

I can answer some of those questions, although Modarnis might be able to answer them better, being an attorney and gun advocate and all.

Regulations are on a state level, so I can mostly speak for my state.

First off, in order to carry concealed you have to have a CPL (concealed pistols license), and I covered those requirements earlier (I think this thread, but it could have been in one of the other ongoing threads on this topic), but it is basic safety training and background check.

The CPL also gives you benefits in terms of puchasing a firearm.

If you don't have a CPL, when you purchase a firearm you pay your money to the dealer and sign some paperwork. There is no waiting period per say, but you aren't allowed to walk out with your firearm right then. You have to take your reciept of purchase to the police department in which you live, get a temporary registration, then you GO BACK to the dealer to pick up your firearm, in which you have to GO BACK to the police department so they can inspect your firearm. They register the firearm with that office, and issue you a "green card" which is your registration that you must have on you whenever you have the firearm with you. That's basically how it works, if I remember correctly. The process is a huge unecessary pain in the ***.

Now, if you have a CPL, the process is much easier. Upon purchasing the firearm, you sign some paperwork and walk out the door with your purchase. That's it. You are supposed to register your firearm and get your "green card" for that piece if you intend to carry it, which you can do at your leasure.

Now that said, I think the fact that you have to register your gun is ridicules. I don't think ownership should be regulated in a manditory fashion like that, and I see no societal benefit for the registration process.

As far as the CPL requirements go, you have to be careful about regulating skill level, as it seems that you are advocating here. By who's requirement do we go by to regulate skill? Bottom line, it is not the States responsability to regulate peoples preparedness to defend themselves. So a CPL course should only contain minimal safety and self-defense concepts to deter accidents, as it does today in our state, and that is all. Again, as I have said this before, an individuals firearm skill or self-defense preparedenss is ultimatily that individuals personal responsability.

Finally, since you mentioned a gun safety consious populus, I would like to point out that some people simply refuse to be responsable. For some people, it doesn't matter how many safety courses they take, or how stringent the requirements are to purchase or carry a firearm. There are those who still will refuse to follow safety precautions, will have "accidents," regardless of what the laws are. It is important that any regulation isn't geared towards saving these people from themselves, because they are essentially unsavable. Any requirements should be geared towards the regular populus, who will behave safely regardless of manditory safety requirements. Just something to think about.

Paul

 

[elder999]

I carry a concealed Ruger P97 .45 caliber eight-shot semi-automatic handgun almost everywhere I go, though Rita and I have taken to carrying Glock 29 10mm’s in the field because they’re easier to bicycle with and will take out a black bear, and I keep a shotgun or two in my home — all within easy reach. They all hold bullets or shells designed to kill or shred a violent criminal-or a bear- instantaneously, before he can take another step or move his hand another inch. I don't keep gun locks on these weapons, and I don't apologize for them, and it's not just because it is my” Constitutional” right to keep guns, although that is reason enough. It is because I have been convinced by overwhelming evidence that guns keep me and my family safe.

Does that sound like the rantings of a paranoid, gun-toting nut? Probably, if you are a paranoid, gun-grabbing ignoramus who knows nothing about guns and the role they play daily in American society in the prevention of crime. To those of you who do know the relationship of gun and crime statistics, the weapons I keep probably make a lot of sense.

We who own guns for self protection have been much maligned by those who think guns are evil, even though the statistics about gun use show that guns are used far more often by average citizens to prevent violent crime than they are used by criminals to commit crimes. The evidence is greater than ever, thanks to the largest and most accurate study ever undertaken. It was performed by John Lott, a senior research scholar at Yale Law School who had never owned a gun and who had spent most of his career doing research on nongun-related issues. The study's findings are contained in his scholarly 1998 book, More Guns, Less Crime (University of Chicago Press), which is a detailed analysis of 18 years of the gun/crime relationship in all 3,000-plus counties in the United States.

After Lott finished the study, he went out and bought his first gun.

Here are a few of the things he found, much of which will sound like plain common sense to us gun owners:

• In counties that have "right-to-carry" laws or "shall issue" permits, that is, where a citizen must be issued a gun permit after meeting certain criteria, usually a background check and having taken a gun safety course, violent crime goes down dramatically while it goes up in surrounding counties that issue permits only at the discretion of the relevant law enforcement agency. Furthermore, the crime rate continues to go down year after year due to the increasing deterrence of more people getting the "shall issue" permits.

• Private citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals more than 2,000,000 times a year. Since the safety of children is often cited by gun opponents who don't want guns in private homes, the study analyzed deaths of children per year for the sake of comparison. For children under age 5 in the United States, less than 20 died of gunshot, about 100 drowned in bathtubs, and about 40 drowned in 5-gallon water buckets.


• Resistance with a gun, rather than passive resistance, is the safest option for the private citizen when confronted by a criminal. For a woman, especially, it is the best option, increasing her chances of not being injured by two and a half times.

• The biggest drops in violent crime occurred in urban areas, especially in poor neighborhoods, and among women and the elderly, who are most vulnerable.

When his study was released, Lott was instantly attacked by the likes of New York Senator Charles Schumer and other anti-gun advocates as being a stooge of the gun industry, which he is not. The mass media briefly mentioned his book, then ignored it much like they have ignored the 2,000,000 annual instances in which guns are used to prevent crime while heavily reporting the under 20 instances of young children being killed by guns.

What are we to conclude from this study, especially in the wake of the mass shootings at some of the nation's schools, such as at Columbine High School? If it is clear that guns save lives far more often than they take them, what happened at Columbine? May I be so crass and insensitive to suggest that some of the teachers-or security guards- should have been armed? In a country like Israel where they fear attacks by madmen and terrorists, the teachers carry guns into the classroom and they consequently have no gun attacks on their students. Here in the United States, we have a federal law that bans guns from within 1000 feet of schools, even sometimes posting signs outside the school announcing to the world and to the nuts it is a "gun free zone." Do you think there may be an analogy here, that perhaps Israel's policy works and ours doesn't?

In the counties mentioned in Lott's study, where "shall issue" laws are in effect violent crime goes down, while it goes up in the surrounding counties where there are no "shall issue" laws. Do you think there may be a connection there too? Do you suppose that violent criminals and nuts may be figuring out where the easy prey are?

We who realize the value of guns have been very silent in the face of the all-out war on gun ownership that is currently being waged by certain politicians and the mass media. Yet the evidence clearly shows that gun possession and "shall issue" laws save lives. Isn't it time we stopped apologizing for our guns and spoke up?


Anti-gun groups, politicians, and the mass media regularly hide incidents and studies that portray guns favorably, and they spare no ink to tell the rare story when guns are used by criminals or by accident. Then they pass stupid laws that endanger our children. We who know the truth about guns need to let that truth be known: Guns save lives and prevent criminal attacks. They protect our families from harm, not expose them to danger.

 

[Cruentus]

Nice post.

 

[7starmantis]

Not trying to press any point. I believed that your statement that mandatory education was already required was factually incorrect. If education requirements constrain purchase in any way, that flies in the face of what one does in their home isn't yours or mine or whomevers business position you seem to advocate. Its an interesting question, and I certainly don't know if there is a right answer, but can you really support individual liberties that are significantly constrained by regulation? It would seem that you either trust people to behave within the boundaries of your society's criminal or you don't

Ok, I stated in my last post what I meant about the required education, which (agree with it or not) is required to perform any of the things I mentioned in my previous post. Nowhere did I say there was mandatory education for purchasing or owning a gun, neither did I support such a requirement. In fact, in my last post I even said there was nothing of the kind. I'm not sure what your point is in pressing this idea, especially since its not an idea I agree with.
I think individual liberties have changed with our society. We can't hold to outdated and archaic training, we certainly don’t support the carrying of archaic weapons for self defense (no one wants to carry a single loading musket for self protection). In this way our liberties change at least in the way they affect others liberties. I guess you could say that regulation squelches those liberties, but I'm accepting of the regulation, it’s like paying your taxes, not something I necessarily enjoy doing, but something I'm ok with because I see its effectiveness and need.

You seem somewhat reluctant to answer my question, or take the bait as it were as to how regulations, above and beyond criminal laws that already proscribe killing, raping, maiming, stealing, robbing or reckless conduct, actually have any real societal benefit.

Pick one, education requirement, waiting period, regulating the magazine capacity or grip style of a weapon, local registration above and beyond existing federal or state firearms databases. What is the measurable benefit to society of these type regulations?

I wasn't aware you had asked me a question. I posted my beliefs of how education and regulation benefit society as a whole (previous posts in this thread and maybe a couple other threads going on over this topic). While you have laws that forbid the killing of another, education makes those laws more effective to the general populous. There are many, many traffic laws on the books, do we advocate doing away with driver’s education courses and just let anyone buy a car and drive around? While most vehicular deaths are accidents, I can see where education and regulation benefit the society. It’s the same with firearms, you can't seriously believe everyone growing up in today’s society will have a healthy respect and understanding of firearms and firearms safety, usage, and laws.

However, this is way off topic; maybe you can open another thread if you would like to pursue this topic more.

7sm