Are they part of the group, the ones who get the firearms they use in 40% of crimes from family and friends? Are they part of the roughly 10% who get them from straw purchases? Or are they part of the 40% who get them from illegal street transactions, the ones where the guns are stolen from legal firearms owners who don't secure their weapons well enough to prevent easy theft?
Events like this serve to underline why we need to make private transactions, whether weapons transfered through private sales, gifts, inheritance or loaned to other parties require accountability by the legal owner for where those weapons go, for who gets them from the legal party. That should require mandatory reporting of loss of those firearms to law enforcement when it occurs, it should require a background check of those to whom the weapons are transferred from the original owner, and every transfer after that original purchase.
If we did that, we could significantly reduce those 50% of guns used in crimes from getting into the hands of criminals. But the pro-gunners would rather see guns used in crimes, even firearm deaths like this one, than be inconvenienced.
Shame on them; for that resistance, for not doing what they could help to do to keep guns ONLY in the possession of the law abiding, they share some of the blame, some of the guilt, for these occurrences. They share with the criminals a disregard for the life and safety of others.
from the HuffPo and the AP :
Laurence Lovette Jr. Guilty In Murder Of Eve Carson UNC Student Leader
12/20/11 12:51 PM ET
HILLSBOROUGH, N.C. -- A Durham man was convicted Tuesday and sentenced to life without parole in the slaying of a University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill student body president.
The jury on Tuesday found Laurence Lovette Jr. guilty of first-degree murder in the March 2008 slaying of Eve Carson. He was also convicted of first-degree kidnapping and robbery. He showed no emotion as the verdict was read.
Lovette, 20, was not eligible for the death penalty because he was a minor when the crime was committed.
For the kidnapping and robbery charges, Superior Court Judge Allen Baddour tacked on an additional 20 years to the end of Lovette's life sentence.
"Mr. Lovette will spend the rest of his life in prison," Baddour said from the bench. "This act has no place in our society. It is not activity that we can allow to occur in our society. The life that Ms. Carson led was too short, but I know that she continues to be an inspiration, not only for her family, but for thousands across this country."
Prosecutors say Lovette, who was 17 at the time, had driven in his mother's car to nearby Chapel Hill with another man, Demario Atwater, to go find someone to rob.
In the early morning darkness, they happened upon Carson, a busy Morehead scholar and much-liked student leader from Athens, Ga., who friends said regularly stayed up all night do her school work. The pair shot her five times, prosecutors said, for her ATM card and because she had seen their faces.
Atwater pleaded guilty last year and was sentenced to two life prison terms.
Carson's parents declined to comment after Tuesday's verdict. Lovette's mother and sisters also declined to speak when leaving the courtroom.Orange County District Attorney Jim Woodall had not offered the defendant any plea deal other than a life term.
"We knew we had really strong evidence," Woodall said. "I trusted the jury and felt like we'd get a conviction."
Lovette's lawyer, Karen Bethea-Shields, filed notice of her intent to appeal the verdict. She said her client was prepared to be handed a life sentence.
"There were some very difficult facts," Bethea-Shields said. "We were realistic about it."
According to prosecutors, Lovette and Atwater kidnapped Carson at gunpoint and drove in her Toyota Highlander to a nearby teller machine. The surveillance camera captured an image of a man witnesses later identified as Lovette using Carson's debit card to withdraw $700, the maximum daily limit on Carson's account.
Prosecutors say they drove to Durham to attempt a withdrawal from another ATM before returning to a secluded neighborhood near the UNC campus. Carson was forced from the car and shot four times with a .25 caliber pistol, according to her autopsy report. She would have still been conscious and aware, the medical examiner testified, when she suffered a last blast to the temple from a sawed-off shotgun.
Her body was left in the street.
Graphic photos of Carson's corpse, including her disfigured face, were shown to the jury.
The seven men and five women on the panel deliberated less than 3 hours before handing up their verdict. The jurors declined to comment following their decision.
Though satisfied with the verdict, Woodall stressed that no action of the legal system could mitigate the tragic loss of a young woman with so much potential.
"When you learn about Eve and you meet her family, you understand what an extraordinary person she was. But she was also a college student. She could have been the girl from the next dorm. We all saw our daughters and nieces in her."
None of the people I've loaned guns to have used them in a crime. Why is that? Serious question.
ReplyDeleteWe'd be willing to talk about universal background checks, if you'd show some willingness to give up something in return. What are you willing to give up that we don't already have? That's the point: You want us to give and give. When do you offer something that we want in return?
ReplyDeleteAnd by the way, requiring background checks for loaning a gun to a friend is just silly. A permanent transfer of ownership makes a kind of sense, but for just a loan?
MAgunowner said...
ReplyDeleteNone of the people I've loaned guns to have used them in a crime. Why is that? Serious question.
I don't know anything about you or to whom you loan firearms. I only have your word for it that no crimes have been committed with them; or that you would know about it if a crime were committed, if it were unsolved currently.
But it is statistically true that 60% of personal transactions don't result in crime, so presumably so far you have been among that group.
None of which negates that a major percentage of crimes ARE committed with guns from family and friends, and an additional significant number with guns from straw purchases.
Why is that - serious question - and what do you propose we do to reduce that percentage?
Would I be correct, based on your comments, in assuming you didn't know those statistics before I brought them to your attention? (Another serious question)
But it is statistically true that 60% of personal transactions don't result in crime, so presumably so far you have been among that group.
ReplyDelete-----
That is a serious misreading of the statistic! Are you claiming that of every ten guns that are borrowed, four will be used in a crime?!
Why is that - serious question - and what do you propose we do to reduce that percentage
ReplyDelete---
How would anyone be better off, in any way, if the proportion of the proportion of crime guns obtained from friends/family/fellow gang members went down? The exact same number of people would have been victimized before vs. after.
Would I be correct, based on your comments, in assuming you didn't know those statistics before I brought them to your attention? (Another serious question)
ReplyDelete---
Not surprised or concerned. Criminals who can't buy through legit channels get guns illegally from people they know. If they don't know anyone, they steal one. They're already committing a crime either way.
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteI can't speak for MAgunowner, but to answer your question (sort of), what do we do about gun violence? Punish those who commit crimes.
Greg, that's why we say it souldbe a crime to lend or sell a gun wothout having a background check done on the recipient first. It should also be a crime to leave your guns easily accessible for the thieves to take. With proper gun registration and licensing of owners, it would be a crime to not have all the paperwork and all the weapons you've bought whenever that proof is required.
ReplyDeleteNot only would straw purchasing be eliminated but the gun flow by other means into the criminal world would lessen drastically.
Why aren't you for that? Are you unAmerican or something? Do you want to destroy the country from within?
Punish those who commit crimes.
ReplyDeleteWe all know that Greg has an excellent knowledge of the US legal system.
Not really. My dog has a better idea of the US legal system than Greg does.
The problem is that while US gun laws sound impressive on paper, they are hard to enforce. Not to mention they are poorly enforced.
For example, while Federal felon in possession statutes exist--they are rarely used. It is far more likely that the felon will end up in a local jurisdiction with a slap on the hand.
They can then go out and find a gun with little trouble.
So, Greg, your lot talks, but really does fuck all about crime.
None of the people I've loaned guns to have used them in a crime. Why is that? Serious question.
ReplyDeleteHow do you know they didn't? We they within your view the whole time?
Did they say--"Can I borrow your gun for a little while?" take it and come back later?
You are asking a stupid question MAGunner.
But, with any luck one day that person will be a Federal Agent or mole: Look up the Blue Ridge Hunt. Club.
Dog gone,
ReplyDeleteDo you believe that four out of ten borrowed guns are used in a crime?
Greg Camp said...
ReplyDeleteWe'd be willing to talk about universal background checks, if you'd show some willingness to give up something in return. What are you willing to give up that we don't already have? That's the point: You want us to give and give. When do you offer something that we want in return?
I don't need to give up anything. All I need to do is to be in favor of reason and objective reality over your fantasy world of ideology. I expect you to respond to facts. The presumption that both sides of this issue are equally right is not accurate or correct.
Sooner or later you have to come to terms with that reality.
And by the way, requiring background checks for loaning a gun to a friend is just silly. A permanent transfer of ownership makes a kind of sense, but for just a loan.
I wouldn't necessarily require a background check for a loan, so long as the owner of the firearm shared in the legal consequences of what that person he loaned the weapon to did with it, and so long as that person KNEW, not just assumed or believed, but KNEW for a fact that the person to whom he loaned the firearm was not prohibited from legal ownership of a firearm.
But if that owner is not willing to share the responsibility for any illegal or harmful (ie, accidental) acts that occur with that firearm, then NO.
So if you would agree that providing a firearm to someone who then commits a violent act that injures or kills someone, or who carries it in the course of a crime like burglary results in prison time, fines, civil litigation, and the loss of future legal rights to own firearms, I'm ok with no background checks on limited short term loans. Loans for more than a month or two, as in years, amounts to near enough to a permanent transfer as to require a background check.
My point is Greg that people are allowing others access to their firearms who don't appear to know the people they give that access as well as they think they know them. That's not ok, and there needs to be greater accountability and greater records of those transactions.
These are weapons, and they should be regulated as a different class of inanimate object based on the potential damage that they do. PERIOD.
"Did they say--"Can I borrow your gun for a little while?" take it and come back later?
ReplyDeleteYou are asking a stupid question MAGunner.
But, with any luck one day that person will be a Federal Agent or mole: Look up the Blue Ridge Hunt. Club."
It's quite simple, really. I don't associate with criminals. Also, it's illegal in the Commonwealth to loan a gun to an unlicensed person. Therefore, the people I've loaned guns to don't NEED me to obtain one, because they can buy one legally, either in a private transaction or from an FFL.
When I do loan a gun out, it's more like someone can't wait to try out the 1911 I just built, or they want to compare the Cmore sight on my AR to their Trijicon.
You have a very... autistic view of the world. You should be more trusting of your friends.
Also, dog gone - how about that numerator and denominator? Do you realize your mistake yet? Did you take high school-level math?
I am totally in favor of measures that reduce violent crimes overall. What I do not support are policies or laws that simply change the nature of violent crime with no net gain. I don't care whether someone uses a firearm, a knife, a baseball bat, or their fists to harm or murder someone. I want to see the total number of violent attacks and murders reduced.
ReplyDeleteAt the same time, we cannot violate Natural Rights or civil rights to achieve reductions. For example we cannot round up all black citizens in Chicago and put them permanently in concentration camps even though something like 70% of the criminals who perpetrate violent crimes are black in the city of Chicago.
This gets to the numbers thing I keep asking and no one answers. If the gun control side could implement any policy or law that they want, how would that affect crime rates?
Would someone please expound on the following?
ReplyDelete(1) There are myriad gun control laws in existence right now in the U.S. that are not effective and/or enforced. Why is that? And why would new laws be effective and/or enforced?
(2) If a low-life wants to help a friend or relative get a firearm for nefarious purposes, all he/she has to do is report to police that someone stole his/her legally acquired firearms. At that point, in order for law enforcement to charge them with anything, law enforcement would have to build a case to demonstrate that the relative conspired to file a false police report and enable their friend/relative. Who knows how often that would be practical.
Don't get me wrong. I wish there were some efficient way to prevent criminals from perpetrating violent crimes -- even if it means a slight inconvenience to me as a firearms owner. My concern is that we could spend a lot of tax dollars chasing ghosts that result in a minimal if any reduction in violent crime.
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteYou persistently fail to understand politics. That's what we're dealing with, if we want to pass laws. If you want to achieve any of your goals, sooner or later, you're going to have to come to terms with that reality. We're as stubborn as you are. We see no reason to give up what we have now, especially since we keep gaining more and since you offer us nothing in return. It's that simple. Until you're willing to give up something important to you, we have no reason to give up something important to us.
On the question of the facts, I've explained this to you before. We know the facts. We respond to the facts. What you refuse to acknowledge is that there are many ways of responding to a given set of facts. Your response comes from your ideology as much as ours comes from our ideology. I can respect your position, even while disagreeing with it. Until you can respect mine, though, we'll keep fighting this fight.
GC writes:
ReplyDeleteYou persistently fail to understand politics.
Bullshit. I'm perfectly well aware of the politics involved. I'm just taking a longer view of them than you are. Time and trends are NOT on your side.
That's what we're dealing with, if we want to pass laws. If you want to achieve any of your goals, sooner or later, you're going to have to come to terms with that reality. We're as stubborn as you are. We see no reason to give up what we have now, especially since we keep gaining more and since you offer us nothing in return.
As enough people get fed up with the results of so many firearms and so many deaths and injuries and costs, it is inevitable that your side will lose. You are unwilling to be proactive in reducing those. THAT will be your downfall.
It's that simple. Until you're willing to give up something important to you, we have no reason to give up something important to us.
Bullshit.
On the question of the facts, I've explained this to you before. We know the facts. We respond to the facts. What you refuse to acknowledge is that there are many ways of responding to a given set of facts.
Your response is that if the person is not already dead, then we can maybe lock them up. THAT is too little, too late. It does nothing to respect the right to be alive of those who are killed, or injured. The response to Gabby Giffords is an example of the change in the public perception of what is 'enough' from your side.
Your response comes from your ideology as much as ours comes from our ideology. I can respect your position, even while disagreeing with it. Until you can respect mine, though, we'll keep fighting this fight.
I have no respect for your willingness to accept the existing amount of gun violence, and gun crime. Until you come to better terms with those numbers, I don't have to respect your position.
So far you have demonstrated that you are not safe - the photo with you having a gun in a belt rather than a holster, finger on the trigger. That you are into fantasy not fact - see previous. That you do NOT correctly understand the application of the rules of firearm safety - see previous, see also your attitude on the safety of shooting in a Walmart, and your failure to understand the laws of self defense, and of mens rea, and your unwillingness to contact law enforcement when you could do so instead of whipping out your firearm, and your support of the idiot who advocates for show and tell intimidation which even some of your fellow gun loons discourage and disparage. Add to that your insistence that no one should have to make firearms seriously inaccessible to thieves, by being secured in a gun safe that is not easily portable.
All of that, along with the many instances where you demonstrate a lack of critical thinking skills, leads me to have a considered and serious contempt for your judgment, and therefore to oppose your carrying a weapon anywhere other than at a range or on your own premises - and I don't think you are safe even there, but at least the risk to others is relatively minimal.
You sir are a menace; you are not a good ambassador for firearms.
Dog Gone,
ReplyDelete1. I know how many deaths from firearms there are per annum in this country. Coming to terms with that number is a subjective idea.
2. What reaction, other than on the part of gun control advocates, has there been to the Tuscon shooting? Did you see the recent Gallup poll about attitudes related to guns? The numbers there were on my side, if you believe in polls.
3. You may call it bullshit, but unless you're willing to give us something--concealed carry everywhere in public, for example--why should we give you anything? You want us to give up what we value, but you're unwilling to do the same. We have no reason to make a deal with you.
4. Your respect or lack thereof for me makes no difference with regard to my legal ability to own and carry firearms.
GC writes:
ReplyDelete1. I know how many deaths from firearms there are per annum in this country. Coming to terms with that number is a subjective idea.
The hell it is subjective; for the rest of us based in reality it is objective. You think accepting that number is a reasonable alternative. You are wrong. The rest of the world does not, and the continued demonstration that those deaths and injuries and threats and crimes are avoidable will eventually prevail.
2. What reaction, other than on the part of gun control advocates, has there been to the Tuscon shooting? Did you see the recent Gallup poll about attitudes related to guns? The numbers there were on my side, if you believe in polls.
Do you really believe there is not outrage over that shooting and the other shootings? You're nuts.
3. You may call it bullshit, but unless you're willing to give us something--concealed carry everywhere in public, for example--why should we give you anything? You want us to give up what we value, but you're unwilling to do the same. We have no reason to make a deal with you.
I expect you to act reasonably, and to be proactive to reduce - DRASTICALLY - the numbers of firearms deaths, injuries, threats and crimes. You are utterly unwilling to do ANYTHING. The result will be you lose everything; it is just a matter of time that your failure to be proactive will be your downfall.
4. Your respect or lack thereof for me makes no difference with regard to my legal ability to own and carry firearms. Individually, no it doesn't; but as public opinion shifts and follows the world trend, I will be the one ahead of the curve, and you will be the one underneath it as it rolls over you - and your silly fetish objects, ie guns.
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteHave you learned nothing from us? Have you not seen that we won't budge? Do you really think that America is going to turn into Europe?
You really should get out more. You're listening too much to your fellow gun grabbers. The rest of the world is free to do as it pleases, but that doesn't mean that we must follow their lead. The colonists came here for many reasons, and some of those, including freedom, are still valid.
"MAgunowner said...
ReplyDeleteNone of the people I've loaned guns to have used them in a crime. Why is that? Serious question."
As others have said, we only have your word on any of that. Just like we only have your word that you freely do CCW into major pro sports venues--in defiance of their "terms of use" or "rules for attendees".
We know that you nave no problem ignoring the requests/demands of others that you NOT carry your weapons onto their properties. So, that you might loan your gunz to someone, anyone, regardless their legal standing in MA or elsewhere is hardly beyond the realm of possibility.
And what would be your response to having one of your "loaners" get "lost" or be stolen from the car/home/gymbag of the person to whom you loaned it. Would you demand payment and immediately contact the police to report the weapon's disappearance. Serious question.
"That is a serious misreading of the statistic! Are you claiming that of every ten guns that are borrowed, four will be used in a crime?!"
ReplyDeleteI can't speak for dog gone, but I think the answer would be "No.". For me, I know the answer would be, "No.".
Saying thaT 40% of gun crimes are committed by people with gunz they borrowed does not = 4/10 loaned gunz being used for crime. It means that of ALL crimes committed with gunz, 40% ARE committed by people using gunz that they've been loaned by (or stolen from)friends and family.
So, that means that about 5-6K homicides last year were committed by people who borrowed gunz. Hey, that's only a hundred or so per week.
Hope that clears things up for you.
Greg came out with this inanity:
ReplyDelete"Do you really think that America is going to turn into Europe?"
What we'd like is for America to turn into a better America. I'm guardedly optimistic that over the next 5 years or so this will happen. The irony is despite all your opposition, you'd still be doing exactly the same thing with guns that you do now.
Okay, I'll come out and say it. I believe the fundamental reason why gun control policies are losing traction is because no one can demonstrate what they will do in the U.S. and no one can demonstrate that they work. Here is the framework where people argue about gun control. In 2010:
ReplyDelete(1) There were about 10,000 murders with firearms
(2) There were about 17,000 suicides with firearms
(3) There were about 1,000 deaths from unintentional discharge or justifiable homicide
(4) There were about 152,000 robberies with firearms
(5) There were about 160,000 aggravated assaults with firearms
How would European style gun control improve the total number of crimes and victims? A reduction in gun murders with a corresponding increase in knife murders is not a "win".
How can we say for a certainty that eliminating guns will reduce suicide when Japan has an equal or higher suicide rate with virtually no guns in their country?
How can we say that lots of guns are a problem when Switzerland has tons of guns and minimal gun control laws?
We already have thousands of gun control laws that do not work and are not effective or enforced. Why would some new law be different?
And according to the Violence Policy Center, they have discovered something like 350 concealed carry licensees (or "constitutional" carriers) who had no previous criminal record and then shot/killed someone since 2007. So, assuming their numbers are correct, spread out over 4 years and 50 states, that means there is on the order of 1 concealed carry licensee per state who "flips out" ever year in the U.S. The gun control side would have to present a monumentally compelling reason to take guns away from a group of 6+ million people when only something like 60 per year commit a grievous crime.
ReplyDelete"Do you really think that America is going to turn into Europe?"
ReplyDeleteEurope, Australia, Canada, New Zealand....I think we WILL follow the trend led by developing countries and which is also the direction that other countries are following as well, yes.
MAGunner wrote"How would anyone be better off, in any way, if the proportion of the proportion of crime guns obtained from friends/family/fellow gang members went down? The exact same number of people would have been victimized before vs. after.
If fewer firearms - better yet NO firearms- were provided to criminals by family, friends, or straw purchasers, there would be half the firearms available that are used in committing crimes now. That would make it far harder for any criminal to use a firearm, and the remaining ones available from other sources would be not only more scarce, but far more expensive.
Crunchy writes:"What I do not support are policies or laws that simply change the nature of violent crime with no net gain. I don't care whether someone uses a firearm, a knife, a baseball bat, or their fists to harm or murder someone. I want to see the total number of violent attacks and murders reduced."
ReplyDeleteCrunchy, do your damned homework.
Study after study shows that be it attacks on others, or suicides, or even accidents, firearms are far more lethal than fists, or knives, or other weapons. Further, firearms allow for the assailant to be weaker, to take far less personal risks than weapons which require closer proximity to operate. And lastly, study after study after study and statistical data show that there is something uniquely impulsive in the use of firearms that is not present in anything like the same way in other weapons, so that without a firearm there are certain kinds of harmful acts that just don't happen.
You aren't breaking any new ground here, Crunchy. This has been reviewed to death and back by experts; try looking some of this stuff up before you speak off the top of your head. You're not doing a very good job of reinventing the wheel. Far better jobs of it have been accomplished, and far better documented by experts.
MAgunowner said...
ReplyDeleteDog gone,
Do you believe that four out of ten borrowed guns are used in a crime?
Borrowed, given, taken, sold - in crimes committed, four out of ten are from family or friends,and roughly 10% were purchased by straw buyers who gave them to the criminal to use.
Or are you going to present competing statistics that say otherwise?
Is that four out of every instance where a loan takes place? There is no way to know that without transfers being documented.
If a low-life wants to help a friend or relative get a firearm for nefarious purposes, all he/she has to do is report to police that someone stole his/her legally acquired firearms. At that point, in order for law enforcement to charge them with anything, law enforcement would have to build a case to demonstrate that the relative conspired to file a false police report and enable their friend/relative. Who knows how often that would be practical.
ReplyDeleteCrunchy, if the person who is a criminal has to explain how they got the gun, do you think they are going to admit they STOLE it from the relative? Or do you think they will roll over on the relative so they themselves get a lighter sentence.
You don't have a very good grasp on this stuff Crunchy. Most of us have read a lot more case law, and a lot more studies and reports. We're not coming to this as uninformed or uneducated on this topic.
Capn Crunch said...
ReplyDeleteAnd according to the Violence Policy Center, they have discovered something like 350 concealed carry licensees (or "constitutional" carriers) who had no previous criminal record and then shot/killed someone since 2007.
I see no reason to take that as a definitive number, particularly since there is not system set up to track this information reliably.
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteBut you have no facts to support your assertion that there are more license holders who commit crimes with their guns. In other words, you're basing your claim on your feelings.
Capn Crunch said...
ReplyDeleteOkay, I'll come out and say it. I believe the fundamental reason why gun control policies are losing traction is because no one can demonstrate what they will do in the U.S. and no one can demonstrate that they work.
What total crap. We know of lots of things that work; you just don't do your homework. Care to provide a credible source for that conclusion? I'm guessing you're talking out of your behind again, and know nothing of the topic.
Here is the framework where people argue about gun control. In 2010:
(1) There were about 10,000 murders with firearms
(2) There were about 17,000 suicides with firearms
(3) There were about 1,000 deaths from unintentional discharge or justifiable homicide
(4) There were about 152,000 robberies with firearms
(5) There were about 160,000 aggravated assaults with firearms
Cite your sources; the census and other sources provide numbers much higher; the number I've seen for 2011 is over 13,000 murders / homicides, for starters.
How would European style gun control improve the total number of crimes and victims? A reduction in gun murders with a corresponding increase in knife murders is not a "win".
Most European countries have lower rates for other kinds of crime and have been posting a similar decline in violent crime parallel to the U.S. Certain measures - notably the UK public closed circuit cameras - have been especially helpful in further reducing violent crime.
You are tragically ill informed Crunchy.
How can we say for a certainty that eliminating guns will reduce suicide when Japan has an equal or higher suicide rate with virtually no guns in their country?
Because we know that suicides with firearms are particularly impulsive compared to other forms of suicide, and that without guns, there are fewer of them.
How can we say that lots of guns are a problem when Switzerland has tons of guns and minimal gun control laws?
Are you going to argue that Switzerland doesn't have gun related crime problems? Do your homework! You're wrong! START WITH THEIR FIREARM SUICIDE RATE.
We already have thousands of gun control laws that do not work and are not effective or enforced. Why would some new law be different?
Because 1. they would be enforced; and 2. we'd get rid of the shitty loopholes inserted by the NRA
"Because 1. they would be enforced; and 2. we'd get rid of the shitty loopholes inserted by the NRA"
ReplyDeleteHow? Which congressman is going to propose these new laws and how will they get them passed?
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteGreat, so now, in addition to taking away our guns, you also want cameras everywhere? I didn't realize that George Orwell was writing about you. . .
Cameras have been useful in heavily populated areas in reducing crime.
ReplyDeleteThey are widely used by businesses for that reason as well.
Are you anti-business? Are you pro-crime?
I have no problem with closed circuit surveillance by cameras for purposes of preventing crime and terrorism if that reduces both, and /or assists with the prosecution of both.
Cameras are not permitted in places where one has an expectation of privacy, such as bathrooms, hotel rooms, private homes, etc.
They are part of our public freedom, and should include our right to 'sousveillance', the photographing by citizens of government action such as law enforcement, particularly when they are acting unlawfully or abusively.
I don't see how we can advocate for sousveillance if we don't allow surveillance. In any case, I have yet to see where it limited freedom, OR privacy.
Hi dog gone,
ReplyDeleteI appreciate your attempt to answer everyone by the way. People are throwing a lot at you.
I want to make sure you understand something. I believe all gun rights advocates, who are not criminals/felons, passionately want to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals and mentally ill people. And all gun rights advocates would love to see all all forms of crime and suicide vanish. So I don't want you to think that gun rights advocates are being somehow stubborn or foolhardy. What gun rights advocates are passionate about is being able to keep and bear firearms for sport, self defense, or even collecting purposes. When I say upstanding citizens, I mean people who have no criminal record and who are mentally stable. And we already know (based on a recent survey) that something like 80% of gun rights advocates are not opposed to some training and passing background checks before purchasing firearms. The trouble is that lots of gun control policies or laws seriously infringe on the previous group that I just described. And therein lies the trouble.
One of my questions earlier asked how new gun control laws would be effective/enforced this time. Your response was that they would be enforced this time. Why? What would be different this time?
dog gone,
ReplyDeleteA quick observation ...
I suggested earlier that family/friends could evade legal prosecution for transferring firearms to felons by claiming that someone stole the firearms. And you responded that if law enforcement captured the felon " ... do you think they will roll over on the relative so they themselves get a lighter sentence?"
Now here are two interesting questions.
(1) To what extent will that deter family and friends and thus prevent transfers?
(2) Wouldn't allowing criminals to frequently get lighter sentences (for rolling-over on their family/friend) be bad?
Crunchy wrote:Now here are two interesting questions.
ReplyDelete(1) To what extent will that deter family and friends and thus prevent transfers?
The timing of the claim of theft would have to come BEFORE the family or friend commits the crime to 'count' with law enforcement. Otherwise, there is a good chance the report of theft will not be believed, particularly if nothing else is stolen and there are no signs of break in, etc. That becomes a lot to stage, convincingly.
(2) Wouldn't allowing criminals to frequently get lighter sentences (for rolling-over on their family/friend) be bad?
Why? It allows both the person who put the firearm in the hands of criminals to be held accountable, as well as the criminal still doing time.
I'd bet it wouldn't take too long for family and friends to tell the criminals they don't want any part of sharing their jail time, and denying them the weapons.
Being denied guns, or doing the time behind bars - so long as those who provide the firearms to criminals are held responsible I'm happy.
"If fewer firearms - better yet NO firearms- were provided to criminals by family, friends, or straw purchasers, there would be half the firearms available that are used in committing crimes now. That would make it far harder for any criminal to use a firearm, and the remaining ones available from other sources would be not only more scarce, but far more expensive."
ReplyDeleteIt's an issue of rates vs levels. The proportion of crime guns provided by a particular source says nothing about the number of people victimized. You're looking at the wrong outcome. Based on your persistent misunderstanding of fractions in these comments, I'm not sure you're capable of understanding the difference.
"And what would be your response to having one of your "loaners" get "lost" or be stolen from the car/home/gymbag of the person to whom you loaned it. Would you demand payment and immediately contact the police to report the weapon's disappearance. Serious question."
ReplyDeleteIf one of my guns were lost at sea in a boating accident, I would report it as required by MGL.
Saying thaT 40% of gun crimes are committed by people with gunz they borrowed does not = 4/10 loaned gunz being used for crime. It means that of ALL crimes committed with gunz, 40% ARE committed by people using gunz that they've been loaned by (or stolen from)friends and family.
ReplyDeleteSo, that means that about 5-6K homicides last year were committed by people who borrowed gunz. Hey, that's only a hundred or so per week.
Hope that clears things up for you.
-----
Crystal clear to me, not to dog gone. She said 40% of loaned guns are used in crime. Some intellectual she is.
"As others have said, we only have your word on any of that. "
ReplyDeleteYou don't know if any of my guns have been used in crimes. In the same sense, I do not know how many women you've raped this week.
We don't want to take away your guns. We just want you to have to qualify to own them. But, like the 7-year-old who cannot stand being told anything, you resist.
ReplyDeleteMikeb302000,
ReplyDeleteThat's exactly the point. We're not seven; we're adults. You want to apply the rules that are appropriate to children to us. You are correct to say that we resist. We resist your superior attitude. We resist your attempts to enact gun control. We don't trust your assurances that you don't want to take our guns.
Now what are you going to do to change our minds?
Greg, you act likle a 7 year old.
ReplyDeleteI am not sure how you came up with the idea that we have settled anything.
Have I made some sort of comment that proves we've settled anything other than you continuously prove that you are a complete idiot.
In fact, you actually do better than that you show that your ignorance knows no bounds.
Unless that is the understanding we have--that you are agreeing that you are an immature idiot--then there is no settlement between us.
Unless you get it in writing.
"You don't know if any of my guns have been used in crimes. In the same sense, I do not know how many women you've raped this week.
ReplyDeleteDecember 22, 2011 3:41 AM"
And people like Greg Camp think I'm a meanie.
It's always easy to tell when MAWeerd'ybeardy is starting to get pissed off.
"If one of my guns were lost at sea in a boating accident, I would report it as required by MGL."
So, if you lost your gunz while on a boat at see you'd report the loss, but not otherwise? Well, it's not hard to understand how an OLAGO like you applies "gunzlogic" to arrive at the point where only gunzlawz they like (of which there are damned few) are good laws.
Are your homemade gunz registered, btw?
"Are your homemade gunz registered, btw?"
ReplyDeleteThere is no gun registration in MA, except for NFA items. Does that answer your question? Does it surprise you?
Greg asked, "Now what are you going to do to change our minds?"
ReplyDeleteI guess I'll continue to try and reason with you. I have to say though, that does sound quite childish what you said.
Actually, no. I had forgotten that MA (one of the states that you moronz love to demonize for its restrictive gunzlawz) is only actually concerned with knowing who owns gunz, instead of knowing how many. Of course, given your penchant for violating other people's rights (without telling them) to soothe your paranoid fantasies that you might own an item or seven that's not, strictly speaking, legal would not be a surprise, either.
ReplyDeleteMA only compels you to register transactions, not register the firearm itself. People can move into the state with firearms, get an LTC within 60 days or so, and the bureaucrats never have any knowledge of which guns they brought in.
ReplyDeleteTo answer your question more directly, when I build a sweet custom 1911, I must register the "acquisition" of the firearm within 7 days on an FA10 form.
Here's the weird thing: federal law considers the frame a firearm, but MGL does not. MA only compels a record of the acquisition when it becomes a firearm. When it becomes a firearm is anyone's guess, since there's not much case law and it's a lofty, existential philosophical question.
Mikeb302000,
ReplyDeleteHow is it childish to resist your proposals when you offer us nothing in return? It's something like what Netflix tried this year--charge twice for the same service. Until you can offer something in return, why should we give you anything?
Crystal clear to me, not to dog gone. She said 40% of loaned guns are used in crime. Some intellectual she is.
ReplyDeleteYou are correct MA gunner; out of the many times I correctly stated the relationship between guns from family and friends and straw purchases, there was one where I wrote in haste and expressed it badly, and then corrected myself.
So what? Did that horribly confuse you? Or are you just that intellectually dishonest that you like to misrepresent it?
I'm guessing the latter, based on what your comments have shown us so far.
MA gunner writes: It's an issue of rates vs levels. The proportion of crime guns provided by a particular source says nothing about the number of people victimized. You're looking at the wrong outcome. Based on your persistent misunderstanding of fractions in these comments, I'm not sure you're capable of understanding the difference.
ReplyDeleteI understand it perfectly thank you. When we have 50% of the guns used in crimes provided in some fashion by family and friends and straw purchasers, shutting down that access to guns would reduce significantly the available supply of firearms used illegally.
You can dance around how we phrase it, in an off the cuff comment all you like, but it is still indicates the core issue of LEGAL guns being used by someone other than the lawful custodial owner for illegal purposes.
That clearly indicates that there is a significant number of LEGAL gun owners who are not careful enough of the security of their firearms.
People who allow their guns to get in the hands of a person they know who does something criminal with the gun should be accountable for the harm done with their weapon; it shows that there is a serious failure in keeping that weapon secure from bad people.
You dance around silly exercises in semantics, but you avoid the core issue.
THAT smacks of intellectual dishonesty; clearly there is a problem on your side of the issue, and you don't have any good answers or solutions for it.
It's classic 'don't look at the man behind the curtain' distraction from what is really important.
That's unacceptable, more of the too little too late response.
GC writesHow is it childish to resist your proposals when you offer us nothing in return? It's something like what Netflix tried this year--charge twice for the same service. Until you can offer something in return, why should we give you anything?
ReplyDeleteWhat you get in return is a reduction in crime. What you get in return is a far greater measure of that safety you claim you want.
We aren't offering to give up anything because we aren't the ones putting guns in the hands of people who commit crimes.
At least some of the people on YOUR side of the issue clearly ARE.
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteLook at the earlier article. We already have a reduction in crime--cause unknown. And the reduction continues year after year. We don't need to give up anything to get a reduction.
You say that some on my side are responsible for a large percentage of gun crimes? Just what percentage of total gun owners are giving out guns to criminals? It's likely that a tiny number of gun owners are responsible. Until you can offer something to those of us who follow the law and don't sell guns to criminals, why should we make a deal?
As I've asked before, how about carry in public everywhere for background checks on all gun sales?
dog gone,
ReplyDeleteWhen you responded to Greg Camps question of "What do we [gun rights advocates] get?" You responded that we get a reduction in crime and a far greater measure of safety.
I disagree that my family would receive a far greater measure of safety. If we magically eliminated all guns tomorrow, and no one manufactured or smuggled any more into the country, and "bad guys" never got their hands on another gun, and the "bad guys" didn't commit more violent crimes with other weapons than guns, and if the "bad guys" didn't commit more violent crimes overall because they knew it was impossible that the victims would be armed, violent crime would only decrease about 20%, BUT I WOULD HAVE NO WAY OF DEFENDING MY FAMILY FROM A VIOLENT ATTACK!!! HOW DOES THAT RESULT IN A FAR GREATER MEASURE OF SAFETY FOR MY FAMILY???????
And I disagree with your assertion that throwing rocks at a violent attacker or getting close enough to administer pepper spray is a wise alternative ... especially if there are two or more attackers or it is my wife defending the family!!!
You yourself said that sometimes there are situations where we cannot save a victim from an attacker because it would endanger ourselves or others. Well I am telling you that your dream of disarming everyone to save a few thousand people would endanger millions of families.
If anyone doubts my numbers, you can review them in another of Mike's columns here:
http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6314891743204395487&postID=2746263862669195795&page=1&token=1324585989424
" BUT I WOULD HAVE NO WAY OF DEFENDING MY FAMILY FROM A VIOLENT ATTACK!!! HOW DOES THAT RESULT IN A FAR GREATER MEASURE OF SAFETY FOR MY FAMILY???????'
ReplyDeleteAnd your family is with you at all times?
Capn Crunch, there is no violent attacker. That's the point. This is all in your imagination, perhaps as a subconscious way of justifying gun ownership.
ReplyDeleteMikeB,
ReplyDeleteI am with my family most of the time. If I am not, my wife is; she has a license to carry and does carry.
If my children are visiting relatives, most of them have licenses to carry and they carry.
democommie,
ReplyDeleteI am glad that you feel comfortable denying the existence of violent attacks. I explained in other posts that I have already been the subject of multiple attacks. And I also showed how many people are victims of violent attacks according to the FBI Uniform Crime Reports for 2010.
To recap the violent crime rate from those reports, one in every 62 families of four in the U.S. had at least one family member who was the victim of violent crime. And several regions have considerably higher violent crime rates. For example one in every 36.5 families of four in the Baltimore Metropolitan Statistical Area had at least one family member that was a victim of violent crime in 2010.
If/when the next violent attack happens to me or my family, I need more options than trying to outrun a criminal while carrying my children and wife on my back, or carrying around a bag of rocks that I can throw at my attackers.
If you are suggesting that I am "over reacting", explain how I am over reacting to 1.2 million violent crimes in the U.S. last year, when you are trying to prevent firearm deaths that are just 2.6% (about 32,000) of that number?
Cap'n Crunch:
ReplyDeleteYour wife carries? When she's picking up the kids from school, goint to PTA meetings, athletic events, visiting various businesses and other people's homes? Does she carry/do you carry into other peoples' homes and businesses without informing them that you have a weapon secreted on your person? When you're answering these questions, let us know what state you live in so we can check to see if you actually know and obey the laws of that state, or others that you might visit.
That 32,000 dead number, as gunzloonz are so fond of telling us-over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again--include about 17,000 suicides so that cuts the number by about 50%. Not to minimimize that number but have you ever had ocassion to brandish or actually use your weapon? Do you know anyone who has and what were the circumstances.
Here's another thing to think about. The totally bogus DGU numbers that the lying sack of shit John Lott put out there in his "study" some years back are unsupported by any genuine data. Additionally, what Lott and others never talk about is whether they notified police about the DGU's and gave descriptions to police so that they might pursue those violent felons*.
So, when you or the wife are out with the kids and some violent felon tries to rob you and you pull your piece, what happens if he has a weapon and grabs one of your children to use as a shield or a bargaining chip? It gets dicey pretty quickly.
* I say this because, in addition to not having any back-up for his horseshit assertions about DGU's, Lott has never produced, afaia, any records from police agencies to support his contentions.
There Democommie goes again, trying to catch a gun owner breaking a rule. If you're perfect, post all the details of your life for our inspection. If you have evidence that commenters here are breaking the law, post that. But your gotcha routine is getting old.
ReplyDeletedemocommie,
ReplyDeleteMy wife and I both carry wherever we possibly can. She fully understands current legal restrictions. I understand them so well I can just about tell you the actual number of legal code that applies to a given area of concern -- on a state level. We are both aware of Federal restrictions although I cannot tell you the code numbers. Federal restictions include virtually all Federal buildings -- especially post offices. (There are some interesting lawsuits brewing over that.) Something many people don't know is that the Federal Gun Free School Zone Act of 1990 does not apply to concealed carry licensees in their home state if their state allows licensees to carry into schools. If a concealed carry licensee is in another state that honors their license, no one is sure how to interpret the law in that case. Nothing in our state law prohibits us from visiting someone with a concealed handgun ... and nothing in our state law compells us to disclose that we are carrying to anyone under any circumstances except to a law enforcement officer during a traffic stop. Before I travel to any other state, I review their laws regarding concealed carry ... including restricted areas, when and to whom we are obligated to disclose, Castle Doctrine, and Duty to Retreat.
About numbers:
Yes, I understand the caveat about suicides. I used FBI crime reports which do not speak to suicides. I stated the violent crime rates in both the U.S. as a whole and a large metropolitan area (Baltimore) with a higher than average violent crime rate. The beauty of the FBI crime reports is that they break down which weapons criminals used in the four major violent crime categories. So I simply substracted all violent crimes where the criminal used a firearm to highlight how there is still a lot of violent crime. And I portrayed best case numbers for the gun-control side:
(a) I did not try to include unreported violent crimes
(b) I did not inflate the other weapon categories (remove guns and some criminals will simply use other weapons).
(c) I did not inflate the overall number of violent crimes with remaining weapons (criminals would commit even more crimes with other weapons because they have no reason to fear a guaranteed unarmed populace)
Thus removing all guns would at best reduce violent crime about 29%. I believe the number would actually be quite a bit smaller, maybe 10%. As for John Lott's tally of defensive gun uses, I think they are too high as well. Whatever the number may be, I didn't include his suggestion of how many addtional violent crimes there might be that are not documented in FBI reports.
I have not had to brandish or use my handgun since I started carrying. I would have two times for certain and quite possibly a third time before I started carrying.
As for what to do if the wife and/or I are out with the kids and a violent felon attacks, there are obviously lots of variables. There is certainly a possibility of very ugly outcomes -- whether we are armed or not. I have various strategies. First, I try to keep distance between me and an attacker, both before and during an attack. Second, I try to conceal my handgun such that a felon wouldn't know that I had one. He/she cannot take it away if they don't know that I have it and/or if they are 20 feet away. Third, I have strategies to make an attacker choose between my family and something of value -- e.g. THROW my wallet or car keys away from my family. (By the way I don't keep anything of value in my wallet -- it's a fake!) Fourth, when both my wife and I are armed, there is a very good chance that one of us can draw while the attention of the criminal is on the other. Finally, I practice a lot: I shoot 1 inch groups at 21 feet. If a violent felon grabs one of my children for a shield and has a knife or firearm, I will shoot him/her if they are fairly still, reveal two inches of his face, and there is no one behind the attacker. My wife knows her capabilities and limitations in that scenario as well.
Things really do get interesting here on this blog site! I was asked to make a comment here before on subjects without personal experiences and still dont know how to do that. But I will share my practices, if I may.
ReplyDeleteGun purchases and acquisitions, since firearms are tools for myself and others like me that I know, we all only purchase new firearms. Also once one of those arms have become damaged or inoperable, they are turned over to the state for destruction. This way no whole or part of that arm can be used by anyone that may be in part or wholly dangerous to operate. Firearms also are serialized and the destruction of a dangerous or inoperable arm assures me that the state assumes responsibility of them and relives me from further responsibility. The transfer is a legal transaction.
I see arms in garage sales and pawn shops all the time, since I would have no access to their history, I have no interest in them.
Secondly, we do not loan for any reason to anyone, including my own family members any firearms. No one touches my arms including my wife and I do not touch hers, she has her own selection. The reasons are not for the lack of trust, but rather for operational purposes. I dont pickup anyone Else's, they dont pickup mine. Everyone respects that and its only because that we dont want to unintentionally change their personal calibrations of that arm.
I dont buy any firearm that I dont need or wont use. In other words, they are not a collection, but a tool box instead. They are not glorified but maintained.
But my "handle, Texas Colt carry" indicates that I do carry a Colt .45. I have had a sidearm since I was 16 years old and I am way, WAY north of that age now. But out here, it is how you are raised and expected to be a respectable person. My father carried, my grand father and so on. The Colt is my personal carry arm. Out here our ranch land borders Mexico, hundreds of thousands or acreage that we all work. On occasion we have a illegal border crossing. If I encounter one I will call the state or county enforcement to pick him or her up. Or will take said person to a place with me to make the call if out of range and have the law meet me. I have never had to draw on anyone, its obvious that we are armed as we open carry out here on private land, so little argument from them is made.
However, a local U.S. citizen caught rustling, can be different. They make me nervous, I get the law involved first and often have to back them up instead as their numbers are thin enforcement wise out here in the boonies. Rustlers are often armed to the teeth.
I do not carry out of fear, just as comfortable without as with. And dont feel like anyone is out to get me. Carrying a sidearm has just been a part of my life since I was a kid, never really thought much about it.
But the state guys did encourage me to get licensed because of legal matters that had been changing back then. Those of us that have lived out here all of our lives have always carried, the sherrifs and state guys always knew it, they knew us and we knew them.
But with the new legal stuff, this license and the type of ammo that should be in my Colt is for meeting those legal issues/requirements for the side arm.
As far as I am concerned, and after reading this subject of guns on this blog, I think that everyone should be treating the purchase of firearms to be handled by the new arms dealers and release of ownership of firearms should be handled by the state as I have described above using our practices. I am not sure I fully understand the term "straw purchase" but I dont think that arms sales should be handled in a frivolous manner. Just like a vehicle, the state is always involved in the transaction, new or used.
This practice has worked for me for over half a century, and longer than that for my family. I dont see why it shouldnt work for everyone.
Texas Colt Carry writes
ReplyDeleteThis practice has worked for me for over half a century, and longer than that for my family. I dont see why it shouldnt work for everyone.
Because Texas CC, not everyone is LIKE you and your family. See the post I just put up about the idiot in Utah who put his roommate in the hospital in critical condition after shooting him through a wall, when he was trying to blast a mouse with a 9 mm hand gun.
A straw purchase is when a person who is not prohibited by law from owning a firearm buys a weapon on behalf of a prohibited person, to circumvent the law, without any intention of retaining that weapon for their own use. It is an illegal action which puts guns in the hands of criminals.
Your post does not address the guns used in 40% of crimes that come from family and friends. So clearly the way you do things is not the way a lot of other people do things.
"If a violent felon grabs one of my children for a shield and has a knife or firearm, I will shoot him/her if they are fairly still, reveal two inches of his face, and there is no one behind the attacker. My wife knows her capabilities and limitations in that scenario as well."
ReplyDeleteYou FEEL or THINK that you will do those things, as will your wife.
Until it actually happens you can't KNOW what you will do.
Police officers, including those who are well trained, do not always act in the way they are trained to act, particularly in highly stressful situations.
As I said in another comment when you brought up hunting skills translating to self-defense skills--they are not equivalent. Nor is all the "training" in the world the same as actually having to deal with someone who may be dangerous or just insane. I'm not saying that YOU can't possibly make the right decision in such a situation. I am saying that the vast majority of people who have firearms, including those who own oodles of handguns have little or NO training in anything more than very basic gun safety procedures--procedures which we all know they quite often forget or ignore.
I dont understand percentages and such as that, but the practice I or we use for arms ownership expressly forbids friends or family using my arms for crime, or for anything for that matter. And the point, or at least partially anyway, that I was making is that if everyone used, or was required to use my way of purchasing and releasing of arms is to stop the movement of arms to anyone else once the arms leave the new arms dealer.
ReplyDeleteNow I understand better the term "straw purchase", thank you.
It can show that some of us can live all of our lives completely oblivous to the rest of the world and the weird things people do. The way I handle arms ownership was the way my family has done for generations. I just figured that given the way transfers are being done as they are explained here, my way would help address that.
The main premise for the way we do arms ownership is to make sure that no whole arm or any part of a damaged or unusable arm can be used by an unsuspecting person.
For me at least, they way we do it fits better for controlling arms and their ownership for criminals or criminal actions as I understand the topic here. Forgive me if I have misunderstood the topic. I live in somewhat of a expected and protected world out here. The most I deal with as far as criminal activity illegals and rustlers.
On second thought, my way, our way out here likely wont work for everyone. Like you said, not everyone is like me or my family. And if everyone was required to follow my way, there would still be those that would ignore that requirement. I guess that I am admitting that I am somewhat narrow minded and expect better from all people.
ReplyDeleteI guess I dont have an answer that would satisfy everyone, thought my way would. I just dont want others actions towards arms affect my ownership of them.
democommie,
ReplyDeleteI understand and agree that neither I nor anyone knows for absolutely certain how they would react in a dangerous situation. All we can do is train and prepare and hope for the best.
I imagine there are lots of people that have only trained for basic safety as you stated. Their range of sensible options would be more limited of course.
As for the main topic of firearms getting into the wrong hands, I do not oppose background checks and sensible culpability for loaning/giving your firearm to an ineligible person. I want everyone to understand that any laws to that effect would have limited effectiveness. For example my state already has all that in place and criminals still seem to have an easy time obtaining firearms. And any time that I have asked dog gone why government would finally enforce whatever new laws she desires, her response is because government will enforce the laws this time. Yet she offers no explanation as to why anything would be different.
Texas Colt carry, if everyone was like you, I wouldn't have a problem with what you describe as your way.
ReplyDeleteToo many people don't follow your rules, which is why we have statistically so much higher rates per capita of deaths and injuries and other crimes and costs associated with firearms, in comparison to stricter countries.
I have advocated here that anyone with a serious and legitimate need for a firearms should be allowed to carry, but that those who don't have a specific need, a demonstrable to law enforcement or the courts kind of need, shouldn't carry just on spec that they will meet a criminal AND that the circumstances would permit them to safely shoot the bad guy, without harming anyone else (or coming close to doing so).
I haven't spent tons of time on working ranches, but I've spent enough that it was my observation that while out on range land, checking fence, working stock, etc., people who were sober and doing something practical were very sensible with necessary firearms. I have to indicate my preference from that experience for a long barrel weapon rather than a handgun, carried in a saddle holster, but that's a matter of personal preference.
BUT, I've also seen ranch hands do some incredibly stupid and unsafe things with firearms when they were no longer working, especially when alcohol was involved (no 'may have been' about it).
In those cases it was largely dumb luck that bullets were stopped by obstacles and natural land features, not care or planning. In a few cases it was just dumb ass luck.
So, I don't see a reason for anyone to carry going to a bar or restaurant, or to the grocery store, feed store, hardware store, or to church etc. when off the ranch or range, and when not doing that kind of work, given that demonstrable carelessness and stupidity.
You write in a very low key, straightforward manner, not the swaggering poseur machismo of some of our commenters, using stupid jargon like 'goblins' for criminals. My experience is that those who can actually DO things tend to be more understated than overstated in how they express themselves.
I would sincerely never want to see anyone who genuinely needed a firearm for working purposes - as you do - be restricted. Sadly, the incidents we report here in conjunction with the statistical reality shows that there are however some people where we would all be better off if they did not have access to guns. It is finding that balance that is important.
You don't sound like one of those idiots who has a false idea of guns in historic practical use, like those who think gun safety is a strictly modern invention. You don't sound like someone who would glamorize gun violence, but who understands firearms as a practical tool treating them with respect for what they can do.
I see you are having some 'interesting' weather in Texas. I've spent my share of time on the back of a horse in that stuff - not my most comfortable experience in the saddle. Hope you have a safe and happy Christmas down there.
Texas Colt carry makes a very good case for the basic notion that you cannot legislate morality. He does the right thing because his family has reinforced the value of doing the right thing. If laws themselves could fix everything, we wouldn't have millions of crimes every year.
ReplyDeleteThat doesn't mean we shouldn't have laws and try to enforce them. It means that any law is limited in its overall effectiveness. And any given law is powerless while a criminal is in the process of breaking that law.
Saying it another way, laws can only do two things:
(1) They prevent some people from breaking them because those people want to "do the right thing" or avoid punishment.
(2) They provide a means for law enforcement to arrest someone and the criminal justice system to try someone after they have committed the crime.
" For example my state already has all that in place and criminals still seem to have an easy time obtaining firearms."
ReplyDeleteSince I don't know where you live I can't comment on the efficaciousness of your state's firearms laws. If you live in a state that has reasonable gun laws and you abut another state, chances are good that people who see an opportunity to make money (or just hatez em some ANTIGUNZ laws enough) will take advantage of lax laws and porous borders between neighboring states to make some money or push their agenda.
Democommie,
ReplyDeleteIn states with reasonable gun laws, no one needs to import guns from other states. In Arkansas, for example, I can walk into any gun store and buy just about anything that I could want, or I can buy from another private citizen with no muss or fuss.
Greg Camp said...
ReplyDeleteDemocommie,
In states with reasonable gun laws, no one needs to import guns from other states. In Arkansas, for example, I can walk into any gun store and buy just about anything that I could want, or I can buy from another private citizen with no muss or fuss.
Yeah, you save those criminals having to go anywhere else to get those firearms that they use to commit the 50% of the crimes....and you think that is an example of a system that works.
That is just sick.
Interesting weather is large understatement. A VERY dry and windy summer. Having to deal with a lot fires from dry lightning and power lines blowing around and throwing sparks. Now we are getting big short snows followed by warmer days then rain and more snow and more warm air. It makes for a soupy mess right now. I-40 was closed yesterday for more snow heading our way and it makes truck transport even more difficult.
ReplyDeleteThere have been some ranch hands that have done stupid things with their arms, but not on my ranch. If a hand gets stupid just once, and I mean ONCE, they are done. We dont allow target shoots here, none. When needed, we sight in any arm we go into town and use a gun range.
I have two scabbards for long arms on the saddle. One for the shot gun and another for the rifle of choice needed that day. The Colt side arm is loaded with defensive hollow points but I also carry 4 clips total.
The hollow points is what the troopers and sheriffs prefer us to have. I am not sure why, dont intend to shoot anyone. They got real "tech" with us one day about over penetration and so on. Ok, will load them untill I need to chase and shoot a wildcat.
One in the pistol with the hollows, two spare with snake shot and one with full metal jacket. They are changed to the correct load to suit the need at the time.
Rattle snakes out here are not your friends! We leave them alone for the most part as they do get rid of rodents, but a lot of critters will do the same that are not harmful to a person.
Thanks guys for letting me share. It looks like I will be on the west range for a few days, just got the call. Santa will have to do without me for a while!
democommie,
ReplyDeleteIn my home state, I think you would like most of the laws and find them reasonable.
Regarding handguns:
You cannot buy one at a store without a purchase license. You have to go to your local police station to obtain a purchase license. They check you for crimes or warrants. If you are clean, then they give you a purchase license which expires in 10 days. If you actually purchase a handgun, the store fills out all four copies of the license and keeps one. Then you keep one copy and you return the remaining two copies to your local police station within 10 days to avoid fines. They keep one and send the other to the State Police. At that point your purchase license becomes a license to own, possess, and carry (openly, not concealed) your pistol. You must carry the license with you when carrying or transporting the pistol. The license includes the make, model, and serial number of the pistol -- e.g. you register it with the state. Because you are required to have a license for YOUR handgun, you can only carry YOUR handgun. You can not loan it to someone.
If you have a concealed carry license, you can simply walk into any store and purchase any handgun right then and there. However, the store still phones in a background check and gets an authorization number. The store fills out a registration form and then you (the purchaser) are required to submit the registration form to the police within a few days. And with a concealed carry license, you can carry anyone's handgun (assuming it isn't stolen).
Regardless of whether you have a concealed carry license or not, if someone steals your handgun, law requires that you report it within five days.
You can transfer a handgun if you go to your local police station and file a transfer form -- which I am sure requires a background check for the person receiving it.
There are some hoops to jump through. They are not overly burdensome in my mind unless you have a really long drive to your local police station.
Oh, and if you want to purchase a long gun, you can go to any store and purchase one. The store will phone in a background check on you before they will complete the transaction. I don't believe you, as the purchaser, have to register the long gun with your local police department.
I have no idea how similar, lax, or more stringent laws are in surrounding states.
Greg Camp:
ReplyDeleteReapeatedly demonstrating your idiocy does not make it any less idiotic.
Cap'n Crunch:
Tell me what state you live in and I'll tell you what the neigboring states' gun laws are.
Capn Crunch that sounds pretty good. Does it mean there are no private sales allowed withough that police involvement? Does it mean that multiple sales are automatically reported and invistigated if the authorities deem it appropriate? Are there also safe storage laws? If you report a gun stolen that was not secured in any way, are you in trouble?
ReplyDeleteMikeB,
ReplyDeleteHere are answers to your questions as I understand it:
Does it mean there are no private sales allowed withough that police involvement?
I have never researched this because I have never purchased nor sold privately. If you purchase a pistol privately, you would still need a license for it to be legal which would require your trip to a local police station. If you have your concealed carry license, I suspect you are still required to register it.
Does it mean that multiple sales are automatically reported and invistigated if the authorities deem it appropriate?
I do not believe there is any state authorities are monitoring how many firearms anyone purchases.
Are there also safe storage laws?
To some extent. If a child in your home finds a firearm and injures themselves or someone else, you will be prosecuted. I didn't bother to memorize the details because I never leave loaded, unlocked firearms laying around ... ever.
If you report a gun stolen that was not secured in any way, are you in trouble? No. Neither are you legally culpable for what a thief does with your firearms.
For what it's worth, I agree completely with the idea of securing firearms to prevent children or careless adults from accessing them -- as well as trying to keep them away from thieves.
ReplyDeleteI follow an important rule of firearm safety and that is keeping the firearms secured and storing the ammunition in a separate location.
I know of an instance where a burglar found the homeowner's handgun and then used it to shoot one of the responding law enforcement officers. It's bad news.
Now I know you won't like this ... one of the reasons I keep my handgun on my belt (unless I am sleeping) is to eliminate the possibility of someone stealing it from my home. And that is also a reason why I don't like "prohibited places" ... because a thief could steal it out of my car. Of course the idea of carrying around everywhere is a different matter of debate from the current topic.
Capn, You sound like a really responsible guy. Do you agree though, that not all gun owners are? Isn't it reasonable for us to want restrictions on all of you because of them?
ReplyDeleteMikeb302000,
ReplyDeleteIs it reasonable to restrict all because a tiny few do something wrong? No.
MikeB wrote:
ReplyDelete"Capn, You sound like a really responsible guy. Do you agree though, that not all gun owners are? Isn't it reasonable for us to want restrictions on all of you because of them?"
I am certain there are some gun owners that fall way short of my personal standard -- heck of just about any standard -- of responsibility. And I can see how you think it is reasonable to ban all guns or have whatever restrictions.
I agree 100% that people convicted of violent crimes and people with mental illness should not have firearms. What I do not agree with are massive restrictions on "upstanding" citizens. The real debate should be about the right of people to defend themselves with firearms and hard data on the benefits and detriments of "upstanding" citizens owning and carrying firearms.
Now listen, we're never gonna get anywhere if you keep sayin' stuff like this.
ReplyDelete"And I can see how you think it is reasonable to ban all guns or have whatever restrictions."