Last week we posted the video from Al Jazeera's Inside Story, in which Elliot Fineman of the National Gun Victims' Council made several very good points.
1. Reminiscent of my continual harping on the fact that all the guns used in crime were once owned by law-abiding gun owners, Elliot said, "every criminal was once a law abiding citizen."
The connection between law-abiding gun owners and criminal gun owners is blurred, it's a gray area. I call the inhabitants of that gray area, "hidden criminals," but what Mr. Fineman reminds us is that some of the solid law-abiding types also flow over to the other side. This happens through all the social ills which I outlined in my Famous 10%.
2. The element of surprise is what makes concealed carry an exercise in futility. The example given was when President Reagan was shot by John Hinkley Jr., the disturbed young man was able to get all six shots off before he was stopped by the secret service. Even surrounded by professional body guards, an untrained person like that could get away with an attempted assassination.
Jared Loughner was another more recent example and one with better marksmanship.
Gun owners are fooling themselves that carrying a gun will save the day. It's far more likely that the gun they carry will one day be misused in some way than that it will save a life.
3. Elliot Fineman mentioned a study which uncovered the fact that 25% of guns manufactured go to criminals. I've said this for years, now I learn that there is evidence for what seems to be simple common sense. Criminals get their guns through unregulated private sales, theft and straw purchasing, all of which could be either eradicated or severely diminished through proper gun control. But the NRA and the gun manufacturers don't want that because it would cut into their business by a whopping 25%.
4. In the UK, lawfully owned handguns are a thing of the past. Civilians for the most part cannot own them. The criminals, however can and do acquire them on the black market. The result is an extremely low gun murder rate compared to the US. The few murders they do have are obviously being committed by criminal gun owners.
Mr. Fineman drew an interesting conclusion from this. In the United States, if we could somehow remove all the guns from the civilian population, like England did, we too would have the low gun murder rate, with that lower number of murders being committed by criminals. The rest are being done by so-called lawful gun owners.
This obviously gets back to the gray area and the concept of "hidden criminals." Truly law-abiding citizens obviously do not go around killing people, but the gun owning public is not limited to just these types of responsible people. That's why we need strict gun control.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
So because you are male you might someday become a rapist? Or females might become hookers? Give me a break Mike. Innocent until proven guilty except in Mikes world where anyone who owns a gun might suddenly become a criminal. Guns don't cause crime anymore than cars cause drunk driving. Your flawed logic doesn't work.
ReplyDeleteYou're the one with flawed logic which is why you have to mis-characterize what I say.
DeleteI didn't say "guns cause crime." You wrongly said I said that.
Reminds me of the story about the woman who takes her husband's boat out for the afternoon. She gets pulled over by the game warden, who claims that she's fishing without a license, since there are polls in the boat. She says that if he drops the fishing charge, she'll drop the attempted rape charge. He has the equipment, after all.
ReplyDeleteBut seriously,
1. You have yet to tell us how you'll keep guns from crossing our vastly porous borders into the hands of criminals. You have yet to explain what will happen to the 300,000,000 guns in this country once they become illegal.
2. Situational awareness helps, but because some people get surprised, no one should be allowed to carry a gun? Some people run into walls and step out into traffic while talking on cell phones. Shall we ban those?
3. The NRA isn't a gun manufactuerer. It is a non-profit civil rights organization. It's "business" is promoting the rights of American gun owners.
But Fineman may claim whatever he wants. Claims and hunches aren't evidence. However, pretend that he's right (I'm sure that you will). That would suggest a much higher rate of crimes committed with firearms than actually occurs. Why obtain an illegal gun if you're not going to do something with it?
4. Murder will happen, regardless of the tools available, and higher population numbers can result in a higher rate of crime.
We already have too much gun control, not too little.
3. It's business is marching to the drum beat of the gun manufacturers who have bought the organization.
Delete2. No one said "no one should have guns." Why do you keep saying we say that when we don't?
1. Guns would never come across our borders at the rate they are being produced from within. Some yes, but not in the millions. Again, no one is saying the 300 million guns will become illegal.
Mikeb, face facts. We can't believe you. You've given us no reason to have faith in what you say. You don't admit that you want to disarm everyone, but we know how you feel about guns, and we've never seen you identify the limits of your desire for control. Would you trust someone who repeatedly called you a dupe and a liar and an insane person?
DeleteLook at your dismissive attitude toward the NRA. You really can't bring yourself to consider the possibility that the NRA is doing exactly what we want it to do. No, it has to be a sinister conspiracy. Since you can't see any good on our side, we have no reason to believe you.
You are also unrealistic. How many tons of hard drugs come across our borders every year? Concealing guns would be even easier. Drugs have chemical signatures. Dogs can smell them. Guns, on the other hand, could be broken down and put into a box of machine parts and who would be the wiser? As you've been shown repeatedly, making a gun at home only takes a little skill.
To sum up, you ignore reality and offer us nothing. Tell me why we should trust you.
"In the United States, if we could somehow remove all the guns from the civilian population"
ReplyDeleteUtopian fantasies are fun but not very realistic.
Maybe if you take an island nation, ban all guns from civilian ownership, create some of the harshest penalties for ownership of illegal guns, all of the gun violence and murder will go away--just like in JAMAICA. Oh, wait. They have a very high gun death rate, much higher than the U.S.
Liberal utopian fantasies are neat. When you get your world without violence, how about you start wishing for rainbow farting unicorns. That would make by 6 year old happy.
First of all, we cannot totally stop criminals that are willing to be captured or killed in the act. We can only minimize their carnage. The fastest way to stop a criminal after they have begun injuring or killing people is with a gun. The sooner a person with a gun confronts the criminal, the sooner the carnage ends. So in these cases, the more armed citizens there are, the better. If anyone disagrees with this, tell me how a criminal could pull off a mass murder event at a shooting range or a police station.
ReplyDeleteAs for surprise attacks on concealed carriers, if a criminal suddenly appears around a corner and shoots someone in the back, of course that is a desperate situation. And yet it isn't hopeless. First of all the concealed carrier still has a very good chance of returning fire even while wounded. That would obviously prevent additional injury to the concealed carrier or any family members and improve their chances. Second, it would attract attention to the criminal which they do not want. If I am in public and see a thug draw and shoot a citizen, while the thug may "get away" with shooting that citizen, they won't get away with anything else because I will put them down. They won't harm other people in the area. And they won't scurry away to repeat the same exercise another day. At the very least, even unarmed citizens might be able to describe the criminal or record a license plate if the criminal was stupid enough to leave the scene in a registered car.
Criminals get their guns through unregulated private sales, theft and straw purchasing, all of which could be either eradicated or severely diminished through proper gun control.
ReplyDeleteEven if Private Sales were regulated, there is nothing you can do about straw purchases (it's already a crime) Theft, Fake/Fraudulent/Stolen ID's, or corrupt FFL's. If you didn't know, corrupt FFL's contribute more to the trafficking market than any other segment. Private sales only contribute about 1/4 of the firearms to trafficking.
In the UK, lawfully owned handguns are a thing of the past. Civilians for the most part cannot own them. The criminals, however can and do acquire them on the black market. The result is an extremely low gun murder rate compared to the US.
And a Violent Crime Rate 5 times that of the US. I don't understand the hard-on some of you have with reducing 'gun death' but not violent crime in general.
That's why we need strict gun control.
Negative. Comparing the 10 states with the strongest gun control laws with the 10 states with the least restrictive law I found that the states with more gun control have a higher murder rate and higher violent crime rate. They also have a higher percentage of gun crimes and a higher percent of their violent crime results in murder.
Wrong, Bill, I've already shown how straw purchasing could be completely, or nearly completely eliminated. Did you miss that one?
DeleteI must have missed that one, or it included some type of registration scheme
DeleteIt sure does.
Deletehttp://mikeb302000.blogspot.it/2010/10/straw-purchasing-solution.html
"Even if Private Sales were regulated, there is nothing you can do about straw purchases (it's already a crime) Theft, Fake/Fraudulent/Stolen ID's, or corrupt FFL's"
ReplyDeleteAre you stupid or just lying because it sounds better than saying, "I needz my gunz so bad that it's okay with me if people get injured and killed, by the thousands, so that I can haz teh gunz."? Nothing can be done? You know that's bullshit, whether or not you will admit it in a public forum.
Mikeb30200 asks a question of Greg Camp:
"2. No one said "no one should have guns." Why do you keep saying we say that when we don't?"
Very reasonable, non-dupey, really honest, completely SANE Greg Camp sortawhines:
"Mikeb, face facts. We can't believe you. You've given us no reason to have faith in what you say. You don't admit that you want to disarm everyone, but we know how you feel about guns, and we've never seen you identify the limits of your desire for control. Would you trust someone who repeatedly called you a dupe and a liar and an insane person?"
That first sentence is a command. Why Greg Camp insists on mikeb302000 facing "facts" is a bit of a mystery to me as mikeb302000, all by his onesies, uses a lot more facts (except about how teh gunz work, you boyz are really good at that shit) than the bulk of the pro-killing NRA Type 2A's that congregate here.
The second is untrue. You could believe mikeb302000's statement, you choose not to; it's not his fault that you're a paranoic.
The third sentence is a very long winded way of saying that you have no fucking idea what mikeb302000 actually thinks so you'll just make shit up that allows you to feel good about being pro-killin' people that scare you.
Your last sentence, like so many of your statements, is a plea for others to be nice and let you tell your lies (which, this btw, is one of) without being called out for it. You are, of course, be willing to provide instances of mikeb302000 repeatedly calling you a dupe, a liar and an insane person? I think you might have confused mikeb302000's comments with mine. I freely admit that I think you're an insecure, dishonest, irrational clown. Deal with it.
The rest of the rant that follows your first paragraph is nothing but a regurgitation of previous comments by you and others (with no facts in evidence supporting them) who are the Pro-killing adherents of the NRA.
Oh, btw, Greggie and the rest of you folks who like to characterize mikeb302000 and others who would like to see SOME regulation of firearms as ANTI-GUN, well, from now on, I will be referring to the lot of you as Pro-killing adherents of the NRA. I know that a number of you will carp about it but, a number of you will feel a little thrill at being labeled that way.