Here's a shocker; more guns, less crime AGAIN

I've mentioned it before; but perhaps it bears repeating. I was raised in the middle of the USA, in the cornfields of Illinois. My father and I hunted rabbit and pheasant since I was 10, when I got my first shotgun for Christmas. I kept that weapon and the shells for it in my bedroom closet. Somehow, I managed to avoid killing anyone or injuring myself.

In season, my dad and I would go out hunting, leaving early enough so that we'd be walking the cornrows before the sun came up. Afterwards, we'd have breakfast at a diner; it would be full of hunters and farmers, shotguns and rifles leaned up against the walls everywhere and in the back windows of pickup trucks. Nobody shot the place up.

My dad would drop me off directly at school. I'd take my shotgun into the school with me and hang it up in the cloakroom with my coat; at lunch I'd walk down the alley to my house and drop it off. Somehow I managed to avoid shooting up the school.

The basement of the school, which had been built in 1903, had a .22 rifle range in it. In my day, we no longer had 'target practice' as part of the curriculum, but at one time it was, I was told; makes sense, since the range was obviously still there.

I knew kids who had guns and some who did not. Some hunted and some did not. No one would ever have thought to point a gun at another person. Everyone I knew who owned a gun practiced gun safety; my dad assured me if he ever saw me doing something unsafe with my weapon, he'd beat me with it; I believed him.

I know people were committing crimes with guns. I know the world was not a safe place. And I know 'things have changed' since my boyhood. But guns are not evil. People can be trusted with firearms and we have a culture of legal and safe gun ownership in the USA that goes back to our founding and before that.

And this is something that many Americans no longer identify with or understand; many people not raised in the culture I was raised in don't get it at all. But no matter how mystifying it may seem; we gun owners who grew up with them do understand. Guns are part of our culture; they're part of our heritage. They are inextricably tied to our identity; we think of guns when we think of what it means to be an American. Some people belittle this; they think we see guns as an extension of our manhood in a more literal sense; but it isn't that. It represents not power or potency, but freedom.

Mao said that all power flows from the barrel of a gun; he was right. Our founders knew it before he did. European nations have struggled for freedom and democracy also, but we in the US took ours by force and built our entire ethos on top of that. Our land was peopled with those who could master our environment already; people who didn't like being told what to do and for whom the notions of kings and lords was a distant concept of their father's fathers, not their own. When they took their freedom, the first thing they did was to make sure that the government erected in its place understood that the power flowed up from the electorate to the elected, not the other way around, and that guns reside in the hands of the people because that is where the power resides. There is no one responsible for protecting our freedom but us; we are not the protected but the protectors of our own freedom.

A gun is a tool. But it is, for some of us, also a powerful symbol. One which is part of and permanently identified with how we see ourselves. We are not swaggering macho gun-slingers; we are filled with silent resolve and determination that says that we will never be defeated, that we will never trade our precious liberties for safety, for security, or for the illusions of those things. The only force that can ever defeat America is our own people. If we disarm ourselves, we remove the symbol and the power of our authority.

If we outlaw private ownership of guns, the government will not turn evil overnight. Our freedoms and liberties will not vanish instantly. No one will kick in our doors and destroy our way of life in a jack-booted moment of rage. But when those things come, one by one, and decade after decade, we will not have the means to protest, let alone defend, what we once held precious.

So when I say this, I don't say it as an arrogant boast or an idle threat. No one will ever take my guns from me while I live. No one. Ever. I will die first. But I will not die alone that day. Hope that doesn't seem too melodramatic.
 
And this is something that many Americans no longer identify with or understand; many people not raised in the culture I was raised in don't get it at all. But no matter how mystifying it may seem; we gun owners who grew up with them do understand. Guns are part of our culture; they're part of our heritage. They are inextricably tied to our identity; we think of guns when we think of what it means to be an American. Some people belittle this; they think we see guns as an extension of our manhood in a more literal sense; but it isn't that. It represents not power or potency, but freedom.

I have a problem with the lady across the road who doesn't have any respect or interest in guns, wanting to get a handgun for her purse but also told me that she doesn't want to learn how to use it. She didn't grow up with guns and has no interest in being a responsible gun owner. I don't want her owning a gun.

I have a problem with a guy I worked with who seemed to use his vehicle as a weapon to intimidate and bully people with. He doesn't come from a background with guns. He doesn't have any respect for them. But I most definitely remember him saying he wanted to keep a shot gun in his car. I don't want him owning a gun.

I'm not worried about the guy living in the middle of nowhere that has wildlife to contend with. Or my husband and father-in-law that like to go hunting sometimes. I'm not worried about people that enjoy guns as a sport and/or show a healthy interest and respect for weapons. They're the ones that will still bother to own a gun when the laws are restrictive. I don't want to make it easy for idiots to buy a weapon.
 
There is a reason my 9mm is locked in it's case and the key is in a different area (it's on my car keys, but I can't ever find them on the first try)

There is that periodical time when my impulse control is sadly lacking....I really don't need 15 rounds at the ready....or another 15 at that, since the gun came with 2 magazines.
There is that bumper sticker: I am out of estrogen and I got a gun!

If you know what's good for you, you head that warning!
 
I have a problem with the lady across the road who doesn't have any respect or interest in guns, wanting to get a handgun for her purse but also told me that she doesn't want to learn how to use it. She didn't grow up with guns and has no interest in being a responsible gun owner. I don't want her owning a gun.

I have a problem with a guy I worked with who seemed to use his vehicle as a weapon to intimidate and bully people with. He doesn't come from a background with guns. He doesn't have any respect for them. But I most definitely remember him saying he wanted to keep a shot gun in his car. I don't want him owning a gun.

I'm not worried about the guy living in the middle of nowhere that has wildlife to contend with. Or my husband and father-in-law that like to go hunting sometimes. I'm not worried about people that enjoy guns as a sport and/or show a healthy interest and respect for weapons. They're the ones that will still bother to own a gun when the laws are restrictive. I don't want to make it easy for idiots to buy a weapon.

Absolute safety and absolute freedom are incompatible with each other. We have established a series of compromises regarding gun ownership. I feel they go quite far enough. But they do not guarantee that people I would prefer not have guns won't have them. In fact, many of them will. While unhappy with idiots owning guns, I would be unhappier losing my rights to ensure they don't have them.

Since we cannot have absolute freedom and absolute safety, I choose the maximum amount of freedom. That does mean less safety. I can live with that.
 
We're somewhere in the middle between absolute safety and absolute freedom. The question is, can we slide over more one way or the other? Or should we?

I personally believe that we have some room to slide more to the safety side. :)
 
We're somewhere in the middle between absolute safety and absolute freedom. The question is, can we slide over more one way or the other? Or should we?

I personally believe that we have some room to slide more to the safety side. :)

Greater regulation can also have an unintended consequence ... the right is more likely to be denied to people at lower income levels. Massachusetts as an example, its possible to own a gun and/or carry. However, it involves living in (or moving to) the right town. That can take money, esp. if you're in the wrong town. Then once you're there, the application is best done through an attorney. That takes money...how much depends on how much extra work the attorney has to do. Some people, including myself, start running out of hundreds (or thousands) to play with. I don't think someone's right should be denied because they can't afford the machinations of the legal process.
 
I've mentioned it before; but perhaps it bears repeating. I was raised in the middle of the USA, in the cornfields of Illinois. My father and I hunted rabbit and pheasant since I was 10, when I got my first shotgun for Christmas. I kept that weapon and the shells for it in my bedroom closet. Somehow, I managed to avoid killing anyone or injuring myself.

In season, my dad and I would go out hunting, leaving early enough so that we'd be walking the cornrows before the sun came up. Afterwards, we'd have breakfast at a diner; it would be full of hunters and farmers, shotguns and rifles leaned up against the walls everywhere and in the back windows of pickup trucks. Nobody shot the place up.

My dad would drop me off directly at school. I'd take my shotgun into the school with me and hang it up in the cloakroom with my coat; at lunch I'd walk down the alley to my house and drop it off. Somehow I managed to avoid shooting up the school.

The basement of the school, which had been built in 1903, had a .22 rifle range in it. In my day, we no longer had 'target practice' as part of the curriculum, but at one time it was, I was told; makes sense, since the range was obviously still there.

I knew kids who had guns and some who did not. Some hunted and some did not. No one would ever have thought to point a gun at another person. Everyone I knew who owned a gun practiced gun safety; my dad assured me if he ever saw me doing something unsafe with my weapon, he'd beat me with it; I believed him.

I know people were committing crimes with guns. I know the world was not a safe place. And I know 'things have changed' since my boyhood. But guns are not evil. People can be trusted with firearms and we have a culture of legal and safe gun ownership in the USA that goes back to our founding and before that.

And this is something that many Americans no longer identify with or understand; many people not raised in the culture I was raised in don't get it at all. But no matter how mystifying it may seem; we gun owners who grew up with them do understand. Guns are part of our culture; they're part of our heritage. They are inextricably tied to our identity; we think of guns when we think of what it means to be an American. Some people belittle this; they think we see guns as an extension of our manhood in a more literal sense; but it isn't that. It represents not power or potency, but freedom.

Mao said that all power flows from the barrel of a gun; he was right. Our founders knew it before he did. European nations have struggled for freedom and democracy also, but we in the US took ours by force and built our entire ethos on top of that. Our land was peopled with those who could master our environment already; people who didn't like being told what to do and for whom the notions of kings and lords was a distant concept of their father's fathers, not their own. When they took their freedom, the first thing they did was to make sure that the government erected in its place understood that the power flowed up from the electorate to the elected, not the other way around, and that guns reside in the hands of the people because that is where the power resides. There is no one responsible for protecting our freedom but us; we are not the protected but the protectors of our own freedom.

A gun is a tool. But it is, for some of us, also a powerful symbol. One which is part of and permanently identified with how we see ourselves. We are not swaggering macho gun-slingers; we are filled with silent resolve and determination that says that we will never be defeated, that we will never trade our precious liberties for safety, for security, or for the illusions of those things. The only force that can ever defeat America is our own people. If we disarm ourselves, we remove the symbol and the power of our authority.

If we outlaw private ownership of guns, the government will not turn evil overnight. Our freedoms and liberties will not vanish instantly. No one will kick in our doors and destroy our way of life in a jack-booted moment of rage. But when those things come, one by one, and decade after decade, we will not have the means to protest, let alone defend, what we once held precious.

So when I say this, I don't say it as an arrogant boast or an idle threat. No one will ever take my guns from me while I live. No one. Ever. I will die first. But I will not die alone that day. Hope that doesn't seem too melodramatic.
Outstanding! Now, where is the crowd of smiley's applauding?
 
A gun is a tool. But it is, for some of us, also a powerful symbol.
Some of those who banned personal firearm ownership used a hammer and a sickle as their symbols...
Godwin's law notwithstanding, is a ban on gun ownership by the public, which Hitler did do, really a good idea?
 
Some of those who banned personal firearm ownership used a hammer and a sickle as their symbols...
Godwin's law notwithstanding, is a ban on gun ownership by the public, which Hitler did do, really a good idea?
I just want to point out again that regulatory control and a ban are not the same thing. It's a tactic of the gun advocacy lobby to conflate all of the issues into one giant effort to ban guns.

As I see it, there are three different issues at hand. First is gun related crime. Second is gun related injury and death. Third is which weapons should be legal/banned and who should be allowed to own them. Picture a vennn diagram. These three issues intersect, but are also distinct.

We have gun crime. Can we do anything about it? It's a big topic, but maybe we can.

Related to, but distinct from gun crime is gun related injuries and deaths. Are these avoidable? This includes 8 year old Billy accidentally shoots his friend playing with dad's gun. This also includes hunting accidents or anything else. It intersects gun crime where guns are used in criminal acts, but the issue is larger than that. This is where I suggest gun owners should be required to carry a liability insurance. I also understand that there are very valid arguments otherwise. But the issue is one that i believe we can all agree exists. It's not a matter of existence. It's disagreement about scope and about resolution.

The third, regulation, is where we get into whether certain guns should be banned or legalized, whether high-capacity magazines should be legal, who should own them, whether there should be a national registry and the entire run of things here.

This may seem obvious to everyone here. I don't know. My intent isn't to oversimplify things. It's strictly to distinguish the three different discussions. I get leery when in the same thread, some people are speaking in absolutes, such as complete bans (as though that will ever happen in the USA... over your cold, dead hands. Right?) When most people, even among gun control advocates, aren't at all interested in a ban.

Rambling, I know, but just my thoughts. :)
 
I just want to point out again that regulatory control and a ban are not the same thing. It's a tactic of the gun advocacy lobby to conflate all of the issues into one giant effort to ban guns.

That's not true, IMHO. In fact, it's a known tactic of a group formerly called "National Council to Control Handguns," then, "Handgun Control, Inc." (HCI), and now "Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence."

They used to propose outright handgun bans:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...dq=national+council+to+control+handguns&hl=en

http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...dq=national+council+to+control+handguns&hl=en

Later, when the realized that their plan to ban hanguns outright was not going to work, they adopted a 'divide and conquer' strategy. First, they went after something that they felt had high emotional impact, the feared "Saturday Night Special."

http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...dq=national+council+to+control+handguns&hl=en

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturday_night_special

The phrase Saturday night special is pejorative slang used in the United States and Canada for any inexpensive handgun. Saturday night specials have been defined as compact, inexpensive handguns with low perceived quality; however, there is no official definition of "Saturday night special" under federal law, though some states define "Saturday Night Special" or "Junk Guns" by means of composition or materials strength.[1] Low cost and high availability make them attractive to low-income buyers despite their shortcomings.

Laws prohibiting or regulating the purchase of inexpensive handguns such as the Saturday Night Special are controversial in the United States. Saturday Night Specials are a legislative concern because of their offensive use by criminals and defensive possession by potential victims, particularly in low-income high-crime neighborhoods in large urban areas. The two primary areas of contention relate to the availability of guns and the effect of purchase price upon the demographic of who buys them.

They went after mail-order gun sales and sales of weapons from the surplus arsenals of the military of (non-automatic) weapons to the public. FYI, it is still possible for a citizen to buy a WWII-era surplus US Army M1 Garand directly from the US Army, but not many people know about it.

Since that time, they (and the gun-control lobby in general) have continued to alter their public face. They no longer claim to be anti-gun. They claim to be for 'common sense regulation'. But they continue to push for registration, for lengthy waiting times after background checks, for mandatory federal databases of gun purchases, for tracking ammunition sales. They have been instrumental in banning 'assault rifles' (now expired federal law, still law in Calinfornia) and extended-capacity magazines, as well as a host of other bans, restrictions, and attempts at taxes. Anti-gun legistlators such as Barbara Boxer have repeatedly introduced legislation that if passed into law would place a 10,000% tax on ammunition; effectively banning weapons, since no one would be able to afford to shoot them.

You can see how their tactics work; in the 1970's, they talked about them openly:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...dq=national+council+to+control+handguns&hl=en

This is a divide-and-conquer mentality that began after the assassination of JFK and has continued on unabated since that time. The anti-gun people have become more silent; they peaked a decade ago in terms political power; but they are still out there, and their aims have not changed; complete bans on all private ownership of guns in the USA.

Sorry, but this is not really something worthy of debate; it's historical established fact. I am certain that there some, like yourself, who really do just want 'common-sense rules' and regulations to try to make the USA a safer place. But your comrades, well, they're accurately called 'gun-grabbers'. That is what they are.

Yes, we think gun regulation is gun control is gun confiscation. They are all means to the same end - no private ownership of guns in the USA. And the founders of HCI will tell you that themselves, if they will no longer talk about it in public.
 
That's not true, IMHO. In fact, it's a known tactic of a group formerly called "National Council to Control Handguns," then, "Handgun Control, Inc." (HCI), and now "Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence."

They used to propose outright handgun bans:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...dq=national+council+to+control+handguns&hl=en

http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...dq=national+council+to+control+handguns&hl=en

Later, when the realized that their plan to ban hanguns outright was not going to work, they adopted a 'divide and conquer' strategy. First, they went after something that they felt had high emotional impact, the feared "Saturday Night Special."

http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...dq=national+council+to+control+handguns&hl=en

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturday_night_special



They went after mail-order gun sales and sales of weapons from the surplus arsenals of the military of (non-automatic) weapons to the public. FYI, it is still possible for a citizen to buy a WWII-era surplus US Army M1 Garand directly from the US Army, but not many people know about it.

Since that time, they (and the gun-control lobby in general) have continued to alter their public face. They no longer claim to be anti-gun. They claim to be for 'common sense regulation'. But they continue to push for registration, for lengthy waiting times after background checks, for mandatory federal databases of gun purchases, for tracking ammunition sales. They have been instrumental in banning 'assault rifles' (now expired federal law, still law in Calinfornia) and extended-capacity magazines, as well as a host of other bans, restrictions, and attempts at taxes. Anti-gun legistlators such as Barbara Boxer have repeatedly introduced legislation that if passed into law would place a 10,000% tax on ammunition; effectively banning weapons, since no one would be able to afford to shoot them.

You can see how their tactics work; in the 1970's, they talked about them openly:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...dq=national+council+to+control+handguns&hl=en

This is a divide-and-conquer mentality that began after the assassination of JFK and has continued on unabated since that time. The anti-gun people have become more silent; they peaked a decade ago in terms political power; but they are still out there, and their aims have not changed; complete bans on all private ownership of guns in the USA.

Sorry, but this is not really something worthy of debate; it's historical established fact. I am certain that there some, like yourself, who really do just want 'common-sense rules' and regulations to try to make the USA a safer place. But your comrades, well, they're accurately called 'gun-grabbers'. That is what they are.

Yes, we think gun regulation is gun control is gun confiscation. They are all means to the same end - no private ownership of guns in the USA. And the founders of HCI will tell you that themselves, if they will no longer talk about it in public.

Let's not forget the investigation of the ATF's "Fast and Furious" gun tracking program that allowed thousands of guns to be illegally purchased and transported into Mexico. What was the agenda for that? Possibly enacting "tougher" gun control laws in the US?
 
Thanks for the post, Bill. The only response I have is that it sounds like, yet again, we have such a profound lack of trust in our country that we are paralyzed from making any progress. It's going to be our downfall. :)
 
Thanks for the post, Bill. The only response I have is that it sounds like, yet again, we have such a profound lack of trust in our country that we are paralyzed from making any progress. It's going to be our downfall. :)

Well, there is a reason for that profound lack of trust.

http://www.bradycampaign.org/about/
We are devoted to creating an America free from gun violence, where all Americans are safe at home, at school, at work, and in our communities.

The Brady Campaign works to pass and enforce sensible federal and state gun laws, regulations, and public policies through grassroots activism, electing public officials who support common sense gun laws, and increasing public awareness of gun violence.

Yeah, sounds reasonable, right? I mean, who isn't for an America free from gun violence? Who doesn't want sensible gun laws?

http://books.google.com/books?id=fo...ook_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA

CQ congressional quarterly weekly report, 1975

The National Council to Control Handguns is endorsing the 'Ban Handguns' approach...

Now do those two things sound the same? But they're from the same organization. 1974 to 2011.

1979, US News and World Report:

The National Council to Control Handguns, which supports a ban on all handguns, says that a bill outlawing only Saturday-night specials would have little effect on crime, because criminals would simply buy larger, more expensive ...

Gun Control: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, 1976

Probably handgun registration to control illegal transfer although [the National Council to Control Handguns-NCCH] . . .does not believe registration by itself worth the bureaucracy it would require.

Handgun crime control, 1975-1976: hearings before the Subcommittee ...
Nelson T. Shields, executive director of the National Council to Control Handguns, said the incident demands quick and decisive congressional action. "Nobody needs a handgun," Shields said. ...

But here's the kicker, my friends. This where the HCI flat-out admitted what their long-term strategy was:

http://books.google.com/books?id=XR...National Council to Control Handguns"&f=false

"...a 7 to 10 year program...of step-by-step anti-gun legislation...which would, in the long run, make possession of all handguns and ammunition illegal."

It's taken them a lot longer than "7 to 10 years," but the goals of the NCCH / HCI / Brady Campaign have not changed; only their public statements have changed.

Why on earth would any gun owner believe them?
 
I was thinking bigger.

We are so polarized by a lack of trust in this country that even when we can agree on a need, two sides are so distrustful of the other that we can accomplish nothing.

I didn't intend that you should do more research to show me WHY we are so distrustful. At almost every level of our government, there is so much animosity and distrust that very little gets done.

The gun debate is a symptom. Not the disease. :) As I said, if we're so completely distrustful of the other side that we cannot find common ground, we're done for.
 
OK, so maybe the Brady campaign can't be trusted. But the Brady campaign is not all of one side of the debate. No more than Operation Rescue encompasses all of the pro-life side of the abortion question or the Minutemen encompass all of one side of the immigration debate. According to their report, they made about 1.3 million in membership dues last year, so at most, they have a few hundred thousand members.

Pretending that an entire side of the debate is summarized by the most extreme position on that side accomplishes very little. Besides being wrong, it will also alienate the people who might see their way to compromise - there are clearly many moderates on this issue. It will isolate you and prevent you from accomplishing your goals. In other words, it's counterproductive. The entire debate is not summarized by "complete ban vs. complete freedom" and I think we all know that.
 
The entire debate is not summarized by "complete ban vs. complete freedom" and I think we all know that.

But is is. There is nothing more for gun owners to gain; we can only keep what we have or lose. On the other hand, there is nothing anti-gun people can lose, they can only maintain the status quo or win. We don't 'want' anything except to be left alone. Anti-gun people, on the other hand, do want something; they want our guns.

You are correct that not all people who are in favor of so-called 'common sense' laws and regulations want to ban guns. However, when we compromise and give up some gun ownership rights to the 'common sense' people, we also give them up for the not-so common sense people. A loss is a loss.

Compromise with gun control means I lose something. It does not matter if the person wants my rights wants them for 'reasonable' purposes or to take them all away eventually.
 

Latest Discussions

Back
Top