Gun Confiscation Now Beginning in California

[Ronin]

Mickey:

Exactly! We ARE completely f-cked up in this country! It just seems to me that decreasing the THOUSANDS of firearms in the gun market today would decrease the LIKELIHOOD of the maniacs out there getting ahold of a "piece", and using it to whack someone.

And I don't see why semi-autos need to exist in the civilian population. Destroy the damn things. Most of the kids at Colombine died because Dylan Klebold started spraying with his TEC-9. The other little jerk, Harris, couldn't even control his sawed-off shotgun, which recoiled and broke his nose! I'll bet that never happened playing Doom!

My point is the semi-auto killed more people than the shotgun, the pipe bombs, and the GIGANTIC propane bomb, probably combined. It's just too damn easy.

[Ronin]

Mickey:

Good point. I don't know why. I guess because,

A) Guns make loud noise,
B) Guns have the main purpose of killing people,
C) Your child isn't likely to force-feed cleanser to another child,
D) The law is stupid and inconsistent.

Especially, D.

[Tony10]

Well, I guess I'm never gonna get an answer here.

Some of you: Mickey, John, whomever--failed to note that I removed suicides and accidentals from my weekly total, which was clearly stated as firearm HOMICIDES. I'm not going to walk into this argument after jobbing the numbers!

So quick to launch your attacks, and you don't even know where I stand...

Crazy, isn't it, that commie pinko fronts like the AMA and those ER doctors think that 400 people getting murdered with guns every week is a "problem"? After all, as John pointed out, there's 270,000,000 people in this country!

Now, that's what I call an acceptable "kill rate"!

I'm not sure where you guys live in Texas, but I can assure you that "kill rate" is much more concentrated in large urban areas like the one I live in, so it doesn't seem like some miniscule percentage when it's on the local news every night, 365 days per year. Or when you've (true story) had a no-more-than-12-or-13 year-old gangbanger stick a pistol in your face, ready to smoke you to prove he's down with his homeys just because you happened to look at him funny on the el. Or so he thought.

So I have my answer: if we can't even agree that there's a problem, we can't even begin to seek a solution.

And believe it or not, that explains a hell of a lot.

I fold on this one.

[Edited by Tony10 on 10-13-2000 at 02:39 PM]

[Yojimbo]

Ronin,

Background checks?

I don't think anyone has a problem with backround checks. I like other law abiding gun owners want to be sure that guns are sold to good mentally sound people. This how ever only works for guns purchased legally.


Time limits?

There is no reason for waiting periods if you passed the above instant backround check.


Bans on semi-autos and other military-style weapons?

True assault weapons have been strictly controlled since the 1968. Maybe Hawk can tell us the exact law but I beleive it the Gun Control Act of 68. The current "Assault Rifle" ban is sham and only bans firearms that look nasty and evil. It had no effect at all because crimes with assault weapons are very rare. Did you ever wonder why it didn't stop Colombine?

Yes, more guns in the good guys hands is the answer. If you read further down in my long post above you will even see that it saves us money.

The bad guys will always have guns so I say even the odds.

The root cause of all this violence is the lack of repect for life. Much of these problems are the result of bad parenting. Once we can tackle these issues we'll a long ways better.

[Eazy-E]

Yojimbo,

That was an interesting post with the paper from Mr. Lott and Mustard. That is a controversial paper, to put it lightly. They basically rushed it into publication without going through the peer review process that 99% of economics papers go through before being published.

This doesnt mean that this is a bad paper per say, but it makes one wonder what their motivation is. Maybe their statistical methods wouldnt hold up to rigorous review from talented peers?

A more recent working paper by a University of Chicago economist, Mark Duggan, constructed a bigger and more robust data set than Mr. Lott and tested similiar hypotheses and found very different results. Basically, more guns 'cause' more crime in a statistical sense.

This paper is currently going through the rigorous peer review process, unlike Lott's, and seems to be getting better review. People think that Duggan's data set is bigger (better statistically) and that his analytic techniques are generally more rigorous. So, overall, Duggan's conclusions are more believable.

So if you want to see the 'cutting edge' of gun control research, I have included the summary below.



NBER WORKING PAPER BIBLIOGRAPHIC ENTRY
More Guns, More Crime
Mark Duggan

NBER Working Paper No. W7967
Issued in October 2000



---- Abstract -----

This paper examines the relationship between gun ownership and crime. Previous research has suffered from a lack of reliable data on gun ownership. I exploit a unique data set to reliably estimate annual gun ownership rates at both the state and the county level during the past two decades. My findings demonstrate that changes in gun ownership are significantly positively related to changes in the homicide rate, with this relationship driven entirely by the impact of gun ownership on murders in which a gun is used. The effect of gun ownership on all other crime categories is much less marked. Recent reductions in the fraction of households owning a gun can explain at least one-third of the differential decline in gun homicides relative to non-gun homicides since 1993. I also use this data to examine the impact of Carrying Concealed Weapons legislation on crime, and reject the hypothesis that these laws led to increases in gun ownership or reductions in criminal activity.

[Ronin]

Yo:

I agree the A.W. Ban didn't stop Colombine. Better enforcement would help. In fact, fine-tuning the current laws may be all that is needed. LIKE I SAID, I'm only interested in results. If no new laws are needed, fine, I'm happy.

I think passing a psychiatric evaluation would be another useful criteria for owning a firearm, and would probably not be "instant", thus necessitating a waiting period. Anyone here want schizophrenics and manic depressives owning guns? I don't.

Who needs a semi-auto? That's my question. But if a total ban isn't needed, again, fine.

Too many loop-holes. Too many deaths, regardless of statistics. Fix the problem, I say. And there IS a problem.

[Mickey Finn]

Tony

An answer to what? And where did I attack you? It never happened. Believe it or not, I am very willing to look at the arguments and numbers on both sides of this. As far as I know I am the only person on this board that has lost a member of the immediate family to a firearm homicide. Oddly enough it also appears I am the only one to have ever used a gun in self-defense in a non-military context. Don’t try and stuff me in a box. My ideas, beliefs and persuasions criss cross all the traditional party lines.


There always seems to be some confusion among anti gun people and the media between semi-automatic and automatic. SA means one trigger pull, one bullet, just like a double action revolver. Automatic means you pull the trigger and hold it back and the thing keeps spitting bullets till the magazine runs dry. That is a very large difference and fully automatic weapons are already illegal in most jurisdictions without dealer permits.

I don’t really understand saying a semi auto is bad. They have been around since before WW I. In California any semi auto with a magazine capacity of over (I believe) eight rounds is illegal. Used ones can be re sold, but no new ones can legally be brought into the state. I can see a potential argument against high capacity semi autos, but two extra rounds before a reload is not really that big a deal. Especially when using speed loaders for a revolver. Last I heard most of the speed shooting hand gun records where held by, believe it or not, revolvers. In spite of the fact that I own high capacity firearms, I can see an argument against 15 or for that matter 40 round magazines. Using a 40 round magazine in a hunting capacity is not going to happen legally, and I really can’t imagine a home self-defense scenario where I am going to want to cap off 40 rounds in my own house. (But then again I haven’t pissed off any Columbian drug lords this week) But then again, it bothers me when I have the government coming to my home, forcing their way in to my house and taking possession of weapons that I legally purchased. I have never been convicted of committing a crime (I swear it!) and I have never been in a mental institution (well, once, but I was visiting) yet my Government no longer no longer will allow me the freedom to continue to own that which I already have. That DOES piss me off a bit.








[Edited by Mickey Finn on 10-13-2000 at 04:15 PM]

[EJ]

chat now or i will call you...

[Mickey Finn]

LOL! I'll try, but last time I couldn't get the damn thing to work.

[Tony10]

Sorry, Mick, maybe it wasn't you. Somebody was suggesting I was jobbing the numbers with regard to the statistics. Hell, if the AMA is part of the anti-gun conspiracy, then frankly: I give up.

And nobody's personally attacking me; I meant that the moment one even SUGGESTS--as I have--that we ought to take a look at possible solutions--without mentioning what they might be--a lot of people start dog-piling with the Golden Oldies of Gun Ownership. When I didn't even say anything about not owning guns!

My "answer" which I'm looking for is: okay, so guns are never going to be banned (let's assume)--they're here to stay. Something's gotta change; or is it the case, as some have suggested above, that 400 gun homicides a week is acceptable, considering that we're a nation of 270 million people? If you have lost somebody to gun violence, I doubt you feel that way.

So my question is: okay, so some of you want all guns to be legal. Allowing that, what then is the solution to this problem of gun homicides?

[Hawk]

Go on with your bad self Yojimbo!!! I'll stop you when you lie & you ain't lied yet!!! Ronin, you keep bringing up Colombine. That was a tragedy. Now, lets talk about a worse one, Oklahoma City. Don't you feel remorse as much for those people, children included, as you do for those at Colombine. If so, then why aren't you and Gore leading an attack on fertilizer & closed panel vans. They are easier to get, don't arouse suspicion, and obviously more devastating then assault rifles. The bottom line is making either illegal isn't going to get the job done. It just makes for political BS.
Hawk

[Jaguar Wong]

Wow, I don't even know what side of the fence I'm on now.

The root cause of all this violence is the lack of repect for life. Much of these problems are the result of bad parenting. Once we can tackle these issues we'll a long ways better.

This quote (by Yojimbo) pretty much sums up my thoughts about the problem.

I gotta say that before I started reading this thread, I was in the same mindset as Ronin, that is if I'm reading his posts correctly. There is no real need for one person to own an arsenal of weapons when they only plan on using them for personal/home defense. I'm sure one will do. Also, I don't know much about the gun bans, but I do know that they are slowly growing to include many types of small arms and pistols. I don't know if that's bad, but I'm pretty sure that keeping the guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens won't stop all gun related deaths. I also agree with Ronin's idea of stricter background checks to obtain weapons.

After reading everyone elses arguments, though. I really don't know where I stand anymore. I guess the stricter checks may stop a few potential deaths, but now the thought of CCW permits seems like it may help the law abiding citizens. I'm definitely more aware now because of this thread. Who would have thought you could get this kind of logical gun debate in a MMA forum? I'm still leaning toward Ronin's ideas, but now I'm really going to start looking into every side before I start solidifying my stance on guns.

Thanks guys.

I probably won't be buying a gun, but now I have a whole new respect for them. 'cept for them gang banger wannabe's.

[Truth]

Lycrymosa - Republicans do support the right to choose, the choice belongs to the baby that's in the womb. That baby is there by no action of its own and should have the right to choose life.

The argument that since republicans support life over abortion does not mean we can't support the death penalty without being a guilty of hypocrisy.

The baby as I stated did not "choose" to be conceived by the two people that were responsible. Therefor in my view that baby should be allowed to run its natural course in life. Just think about all the unborn people just in our life time. Yes there could have been killers, rapist, child molesters, but there could have been just as many geniuses, maybe a cure for some terrrible disease.

The criminal on the other hand did take a course of action that he/she "choose". If that course of action involved intentionally killing anoter human being, and the proof is irrifutable, then that killer should be put to death.

If someone walks into a convience store on the 4th of July to rob the till and shoots the clerk in the procees and it's captured on video tape, we know this is the killer we have in custody. He should be awarded a trial, be convicted and put to death by Labor Day weekend.

This way all his buddies would know that so and so killed someone and is already dead, that would stick in there head and may make them think twice about killing someone. If we keep that up and didn't allow so many appeals and b.s. for the cases that are open and shut, capital punishment would make a difference.

If the criminal just would have not killed that person they would be going to prison and put to death.

Pretty simple.

[Edited by Truth on 10-13-2000 at 10:53 PM]

[Linden]

Truth, I have to correct you on the abortion issue. A child in the womb is not of conciousness, therefore it does not have the right, nor is entitled the right to request a full term pregnancy.

Until we begin to legislate the right for a woman to have a child, then it being a woman's body, and her own biology, we have no right to tell her that she is not entitled to end a pregnancy before the child is of consciousness.

Again, this is a right-wing religious issue and has no basis in reality. Conservitives simply feel that God's power is being overturned, and have trouble dealing with the realistic aspects of human existence, and human psychology.

In an idela world there would be no unplanned pregnancies, but this is not an ideal world.

Also, just because a child is born does not mean it automatically inherants a life of privilege and happiness.

As for the death penalty issue, the reason people like myself are against the death penalty is because our system of justice is imperfect and on occassion, and rather more frequently than you know, convicts the wrong person of a crime. We do not have a perfect justice system, therefore inevitably someone will be put to death who was, by all accounts, innocent. This can be seen by the number of cases that have been overturned recently due to DNA evidence who would have been put to death otherwise.

Besides, it costs more to pursue a death penalty case than it does to incarcerate a person for life.

That is a fact.

[John Bennett]

Considering the benefits of wide gun ownership, seven thousandths of one percent is a perfectly acceptable loss rate.

Did you know that traffic engineers can predict with great precision the number of deaths which will occur on any given roadway for each 5 mph increase in the speed limit?

By your reasoning, we should all drive around at no more than 10 mph to save children's lives and avoid the slaughter that occurs on our roadways every day.