Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't know if statistics go into that detail. But one thing you can extrapolate by other crime statistics - the vast majority of gun violence occurs by a very small segment of the population - people with drug problems, low income and poverty areas, people with mental issues, usually not the legal and typical gun owner.
That's why gun control measures are never successful, people address the symptoms (or the tools) and not the cause. In another post on another forum I addressed that a bunch of medical doctors got together and are treating gun violence as an epidemic and a public health desiese (kind of melodramatic statement, but that is not the point) - and applying scientific problem solving skills to the issue. They found the same results that I listed above - gun violence is limited to a small segment of the population. The answer even to them, objective scientists with perhaps a liberal tendency, is not gun control but addressing those people that cause gun violence. Recognize patterns that result in gun violence, recognize host factors, recognize environmental factors.
Excellent point Dd, the survey I posted earlier breaks down deomgraphically the people who legally own guns, let's just say those people aren't the ones going around knocking over liquor stores and getting into turf wars over drug corners. You are very correct that "guns" are merely a tool that these people use to commit crimes. Obviously attacking the issues of systemic poverty that breeds criminal activity is not easy to do.
The one thing I would add though is the question of, is there no room for additional regulation to attempt to keep guns solely in the hands of legal gun owners? That's my personal take on the issue, I want the legal responsible citizen to be able to own a gun if they want to, because it's not the legal responsible citizen that is committing gun crimes. However, we are doing a poor job keeping guns solely in the hands of responsible citizens. Current laws enforced by gun dealers block around 39% of transactions from occurring because the person attempting to buy the gun has a criminal background. Just to build on what you said earlier, those with a criminal background (even for misdemeanors) are 7+ times more likely to commit a crime with a gun. So, that part of it is working.
What isn't working is the private sale and transaction of firearms between individuals. Currently 40% of all annual firearm sales are private party-to-private party over the internet. If we assume a similar rate of 39% denial in dealer transactions do to failing criminal checks, it is reasonable to state that at a minimum, around 8%-10% of annual gun purchases are being done over the internet and ending up in the hands of people who should not have a firearm based on current laws. In the case of an intra-state transaction there is no regulation of that sale. Even inter-state transactions, while supposed to be conducted seller to dealer to dealer to buyer so the checks are performed is easily circumvented. Then there is the omnipresent issue of gun shows and straw purchases. It's a complicated problem, but obviously we would all be better off if the criminals couldn't so easily get a gun. The problem is, you need to preserve the rights of legal gun owners while doing it. I don't know what the solution is, but most gun enthusiasts and sportsmen I know aren't against regulation if it's done it right, they are against the blanket half-baked attempts that try to get pushed through.
I stumbled across this from the Congressional Research Service about the current state of gun control. It has a lot of updated facts and figures on gun ownership, gun crimes and even delves into crimes prevented by a legal gun owner. I thought you might find it interesting. Nothing revolutionary versus what was already discussed, but it puts it all in a non-biased, officially sourced document:
Thanks for all the consideration NJGOAT...... it still leaves us wondering huh?
Dd714, I live pretty rural, and the gun violence i have seen is all based on drugs, and most of that is either due to would be theft or people just going moon bat crazy.
Since i carry and or if there is a bump in the night am in carry mode instantly I end up with a gun and the bad guy leaving, and no shots fired except once.
The last time was at the place i sit texting now in 06. 2 guys looking for trouble and they found it. Still no shots fired.
I suppose because I carry and or am armed in bumps in the night my figures are all skewed too.
Several times living in other places as rural or more so, my wife would be aware of possible intruders before i was and would make me aware often times just passing me a firearm. Not all intruders are of criminal types, as some are lost, others oar broken down, and some are interested in nutty BS I do and just have a need to understand .
(when city person sees a tee pee, or maybe a totem pole they do get curious. At another rural place I had troubles with flatlanders and made the totem pole to guard the place, and that works somewhat)
Back then, a gun was a single fire musket, that often missed the target. Maybe the forefathers could not predict semi automatic machine guns.
well, if the founding fathers wanted to list the musket they would have. that is why they listed "arms" instead. as they knew that they were talking about all the implements of war.
of course going by your post, the founding fathers would never have known about computers and modern newpapers either. but those are covered under the 1st Amendment as well.
Last edited by monkeywrenching; 09-02-2012 at 09:13 AM..
Do you know what I'd like to see in the wake of one of these shooting tragedies? I would like to see news reports of all the people who've bought guns, who have not used them for nafarious prurposes. People buy guns everyday in this country, who use them safe and responsibly, but you never hear about them now do you? No. Instead, we hear of only a few wack jobs, who politicians use to base entire agendas off of, and achieving them by employing scare tactics and raw emotion of the public.
As far as the website in the OP goes, { which is clearly biased when you take a look around it } I think the writers do have a valid point. Infact, I agree with it. I don't believe that "the right to bear arms" was ever intended to be what it is made to be today. I think the founding fathers may meant for the ammendment to apply only to state militia as the article suggests, or that it meant a right of the individual to keep and bear arms to protect themselves against a tyranny or dictatorship. When we consider the latter premise, you have to admit it's quite laughable. If we were ever, as a people, to be overtaken by our own government turned tyrannical, do you honestly think we would stand even 1/2 a chance standing on a hill with our p shooters against the modern weaponry of an entire military? I think not. They could kill any of us from hundreds of miles away. We would never know what hit us. The second ammendment was written in a time of revolution, and some validly question whether or not it is outdated today.
That being said however, this is still the USA, and our entire country is based on freedom. Regardless of what the founding fathers meant or didn't mean, or even if the 2nd ammendmant had never been written, it is essential that we are able to live our lives with as little government interference as possible. We do not need protection from ourselves, and I would rather live In a world that is less safe, then have to live in a world that is dictated by Government. Ban and destroy all guns if you so desire, but you will still have the violence we see today. Some men just want to watch the world burn, as accurately stated in the the movie "Batman; The Dark Night".... Guns, are just the match with which they use to ingite the fire.
Also from one of the founding fathers:
"He who would sacrifice essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, desrves neither"
Ben Franklin
Very well reasoned, whippersnapper. I do disagree on the might of our own military, because while it is unmistakably technically unsurpassed (and thank God!), there was an internal survey, which some tried to keep quiet, some years go (about 15 or so if I recall) where they asked the young men in our National Guard & Army if they would ever turn their weapons against an armed but righteous citizenry to take our people into custody just for their political opinions, or to confiscate all their lawfully owned weapons. The answer was a resounding No. Never.
So, the government will have to concoct quite the tall tale of conspiracy and woe to get all those patriotic Guard and Army personnel to go out, fully convinced that ALL we nice citizens suddenly mean bad business. And to boot, most every one of those who serve also have those very same personal and legal weapons at home. So in all likelihood, the gov'mint might well find those Bradleys and Abrams pointed at them!
Very well reasoned, whippersnapper. I do disagree on the might of our own military, because while it is unmistakably technically unsurpassed (and thank God!), there was an internal survey, which some tried to keep quiet, some years go (about 15 or so if I recall) where they asked the young men in our National Guard & Army if they would ever turn their weapons against an armed but righteous citizenry to take our people into custody just for their political opinions, or to confiscate all their lawfully owned weapons. The answer was a resounding No. Never.
So, the government will have to concoct quite the tall tale of conspiracy and woe to get all those patriotic Guard and Army personnel to go out, fully convinced that ALL we nice citizens suddenly mean bad business. And to boot, most every one of those who serve also have those very same personal and legal weapons at home. So in all likelihood, the gov'mint might well find those Bradleys and Abrams pointed at them!
You are correct, there isn't a very good likelyhood that our own military would turn against us, for the reasons you stated above. However, I once read an article, on a website who's address I wish I could remember, that suggested that our Government would "outsource" the disarming of U.S. citizens to other governments, like perhaps the Chinese or Russian military. The website was clearly a conspiracy theory site, but I found the concept of our govn't outsourcing the disarmament both intriguing and plausable.
The debate would have been so much simpler rresolved had the framers made them two seperate ammendments.
how about having a proper education instead? after all there is a comma in the 2nd Amendment, a comma which already seperates the 2 meanings. to badd both the rpublican and the democrat parties just do not even see that it is there.
As regards the disarming of our citizenry, it's interesting that, I was in the Greater Canook Army (the proud and very historically interesting Seaforth Highlanders, a Scottish heritage Regiment out of Vancouver, B.C.) and we were quietly informed that one of our primary and potential in-country purposes would be to actively suppress an outraged and street-mob-action citizenry, in essence to legally contain them by force if necessary. Now, I don't know if Canada has a vitally important "Posse Comitatus" clause...
...in their somewhat fanciful Constitution (thx, Pierre E. Trudeau, for your little historical egocentric masterpiece. No property or privacy rights, no 2nd Amendment type of freedom guarantee, but lots of women's rights stuff. Which was OK, but still, a lot of common sense bitz are simply missing!
Here in the US, I do believe the National Guard is the only legal agency that can raise arms against it's own citizens, and as I noted, they probably would not.
I agree, mw; that danged comma is a real English language mind-wrencher, but at this point a number of Constitutional scholars have wrestled with it endlessly, and have, of course, via that Supreme Court ruling just a year or so ago, determined that it does indeed apply to the common man, not just some longf-abandoned militia. Or perhaps we should form up a sort of new-age NRA Militia?.
Since we know more legislation would effect no meaningful changes, except for a predictable increase in firearms crimes against a now-totally unarmed citizenry, one can only surmise what a politician might have in mind with such a vile pseudo-legal action. And consequent Nat Gard deployment. Hmmm... to perhaps establish martial law, aká some current rogue African Nations?
Or to have the UN (oh joy! my favorite organization! So effective internationally!) take over our law enforcement structure? Perhaps will Hillary at it's helm in a few years? But of course, then this ceases to be the good old US of A, and all it's current laws are off the books anyhow, right? Then it's vigilante- plus common-sense law. And my NatMat M1A of course (good out to at least 900+ m!)
Here in the US, I do believe the National Guard is the only legal agency that can raise arms against it's own citizens, and as I noted, they probably would not.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Some alternate but unpleasant scenarios!
