Guns and Gun Control
 

Hello all! I am new here, as I am certain you are able to see in my status. If the subject line interested you enough to enter this thread, then you are the people I need to speak to. If you didn't care about the topic, you would not be here.

The posters here are primarily 'Greek' or hope to soon go 'Greek', making you generally young, predominantly female, middle to upper class, and relatively well educated. This is exactly what I am looking for. Firearms are mainly an issue of interest to middle age white guys, ie. me, yet we hear much about them in the press and, unfortunately, that is where many people not involved with firearms get the information that they have.

These are some of the things which I have noticed:

Females tend to discuss this topic from an emotional position rather than questioning information and reaching logical conclusions. Think Rosie O'Donnell.

People from major metropolitan areas (NYC, L.A., Chicago, Detroit, Boston, D.C.) tend to support gun control more than in other cities and rural areas (Oklahoma City, Phoenix, Austin, Indianapolis, Jacksonville).

Men are generally more opposed to gun control, where women tend to have no feelings on the topic or lean toward supporting gun control.

Educated people tend to oppose gun control until they reach higher levels which would permit them to teach on a university level, there they appears to be a shift and more support gun control. This is most noticeable at the traditionally more liberal schools such as U.C. Berkley as opposed to a school like Texas Tech.

The reason for all this is that I am interested in your views. Where you get your information from. If you think that there is a problem related to firearms, why and what is your viable solution? I would also like to know where you are from, sex, age, level of education, level of education you expect to reach, and 'greek' or not. The reason for the last question is that the 'greek' community as a whole is widely involved in civic and community charitable activities. Those activities tend to be more within the realm of the more 'liberal' mindset. We don't see nearly as many Republicans doing volunteer work at homeless shelters as we do Democrats.

I will go first. I am male, 43, born in N.Y., but grew up in Oklahoma City. My father is a retired FBI agent. I am a business consultant and currently live in Austin, Tx. As a consultant I travel and go where I am needed having worked in 4 states, 8 cities, doing 14 jobs, in the last 12 years, my current client being in Indianapolis, In. Past clients include federal agencies (FAA, NASA), state agencies (1 in Ok., 3 in Tx.), and private industry. I was an engineering major at Oklahoma State University and was going to pledge a frat called Triangle, but the structured lifestyle was not for me.

Hopefully this will illicit a spirited discussion and I may be able to determine exactly how this topic is being addressed, if at all, at both high school and college levels. If you make a statement as fact all I ask is that you be able to back it up with references and that those references not be an anti-gun organization or a study funded by one. How much credibility would a pro-gun poster have if all their references came from the National Rifle Association. Please no hit and run or hateful responses, I am not here to flame or get flamed and this can be an emotional topic if it is approached from that angle.

If any of you have considered or end up considering doing a paper on this topic for school, be it for the historical significance or the social impact, I have done much research over the last 20 years and would be happy to share that information to anyone who might find it helpful.

If there are few or no responses then I will assume that the topic is not really of any real interest to you which could very well be the case. Otherwise, talk to me people.

uh...i think people have the right to bear arms. I think some should be harder to get than others, and there should be background checks, but I don't believe in an all out ban.

Jeff,
This is a public forum so I don't it's right to ask us all about our personal background. For a point of reference, I will tell you that I'm a Canadian male who's greek and currently in my university.
I study sociology/criminology which is the nature of my argument.

There is a correlation with Guns and violent crime. The US homicide rate is by far the highest of any first-world country. Canada is right in the middle in terms of relation to other countries ( i think japan and the czech republic are the lowest). What americans don't realize is the accessibility how guns do much more bad than good. Yes violence and crime will always exist in every society - crime has to.

But then again stories of kids shooting kids in high school in other countries are almost non-existent.

Just my two cents,
Nick.

I am female, 23, from West Virginia (guess that probably gives away MY opinion).

I find this a very sensitive subject considering the state I live in. It's easy for people to say "ban guns" or "more control" when they have no idea what life is like in rural areas--especially in poor states such as mine. It might be the year 2001--but people DO still rely on hunting as a source of food. There isn't an answer to the gun control question because once you take them away--you have starving people, if you keep them--you have criminals. It's a lose lose situation.

At this point, the laws vary state to state and I feel that it should be left up to the state. I was on CNN's website recently and they had a site that gave the basic gun laws of each state. I'll try to find it and post the website.

As for school shootings. School shootings are statistically down. They receive more attention via the media--making them seem like they are more common. However, the statistics of deaths related to school shootings is up. Kids aren't going to school and shooting one person anymore, they are killing multipule people. I did receive this info via the internet previously, I will try to find that source again.

Obviously gun related deaths and crimes will go down with a ban on firearms, but I feel that if someone wants to kill someone--they'll do it with any means they can aquire.

Another reality that we'll have to live with is a rise of animal population. The deer population is already very high, and with 80% of the US's forests GONE--deer and other animals have nowhere to go but to towns and cities. We'll have a higher rate of starving animals, higher rate of animals being hit on the road, and a higher rate of human encounters with wild animals (which CAN be disasterous and deadly).

This is what I found:
Study results to date show that there were 173 incidents between July 1, 1994 and June 30, 1998. The majority of these incidents were homicides and involved the use of firearms. The total number of events has decreased steadily since the 1992-1993 school year. However, the total number of multiple victim events appears to have increased. During the past three school years, August 1995 through June 1998, there were an average of five multiple victims events per year. This is compared to an average of one multiple victim event per year in the three years from August 1992 through July 1995. Thus, while the total number of events of school associated violent deaths have decreased, the total number of multiple-victim events appears to have increased. Data collection ended with the completion of the 1997-1998 academic year.

Source: http://www.cdc.gov/od/oc/media/fact/violence.htm

I am male, 29, from Virginia, and an Administration of Justice Graduate(so I guess there goes my opinion).

This is a very controversial and heated topic and I dont think that we'll come to a workable solution for years to come. My proposition might be a bit off the wall, but here goes. The only gliche is the fact that all Americans are given the right to bear arms as written in the U.S. Constitution. I think that firearms should be only operated in special circumstances by law enforcement and the military. Eventually what I think should happen is that guns should be phased out by law enforcement like how Canada has their Mounties. In states like West Virginia, Law Enforcement and the National Guard should be vested with the responsibility of animal control. If they dont have the resources the Governor or the local Goverment could Deputize certin citizens to help with that function. This might sound severe but I think that owning a firearm should be a felony or something that carries significant time in jail. With those that obtain firearms illegally I think that those people should receive tougher sentences. I would even be for bringing back public hangings for those that participate in multiple murders and sell illegal firearms and contraband to youth. However, I think the military should be the only ones given free reign on firearms because they have the responsibility of protecting national security.

Kevin

[This message has been edited by Miami1839 (edited April 04, 2001).]

"The power to disarm a people is the power to enslave them."--Thomas Jefferson

Billy Optimist, you are interested in the topic, but appear to be a 'ringer' with your historical quote. You, as many people, gun owners as well, do support some gun control. You do mention 'that some should be harder to get than other.' Could you go into more detail please? What guns? What restrictions? Maybe more like the restrictions that are in place now to legally own machine guns, landmines, handgrenades, and short barrelled shotguns? The second question I have is one on background checks. How intrusive could they be? Should private mental health records come under control of the federal govt (FBI NICS background check system) for the purpose of these investigations? Since gun ownership is a right rather than a privledge, is there a problem with not being innocent until proven guilty by making the buyer prove innocence prior to making a firearm purchase? How would it be different than requiring a voter to be familiar with the issues before voting or doing a background check before being allowed to register to vote or make a speech?

Lil_G, sorry I don't mean to offend. I gave out personal info and filled out my profile here much more completely than I see others do. Is there justification for the paranoia? If you have not met people who have introduced themselves to you via computer BB's you may be missing out. I am meeting 50 posters from other boards I go to this Sunday in Tulsa, Ok. I have met people from the BB's all over Indiana, Texas, Oklahoma, Kentucky, Tenneessee, and Missouri in the last 4 years. All those people have guns as well. That was just curiosity. Now for your comments.

You state, 'There is a correlation with guns and violent crime.' I will say that that may appear to be so, but no causal relationship can be shown where guns 'cause' people to act in a violent manner. The gun is an inanimate mechanical object, much like a car, neither are the cause of a behavior. As an example I ask that you look to our prison system. Nowhere in within the walls of any U.S. Federal or state prison are there any firearms. Not even on the guards. Yet if you look at the behavior of the people incarcerated you will find it to be EXTREMELY violent. If, as you state, there is a correlation, how do you explain the violence in prisons where there is a lack of firearms? Where is the correlation you speak of?

You state, 'The US homicide rate is by far the highest of any first-world country.' Why do you only include first world countries? Are not people of all countries humans with the same capacity of logic, intelligence, and emotion? If you leave out part of the populations I suspect that you do so due to the cultural differences of those populations. This is precisely the problem we face in the U.S. Our culture is far different than that of any other nation on Earth. The settlement of the land was the result of violent campaigns against native americans, the declaration of the U.S. as an independent country resulted in a war with England, another was fought with them in 1812, fifty years later we were killing each other in the bloodiest time in our history. I do not mention other lesser known wars and battles as occurred at the Alamo. These don't even get us out of the 1800's. I will say it is a cultural issue for us and we are a violent people.

Japan does have a relatively low crime rate, but again, look at their culture. Very restricted, based on tradition. Look also to their population, no ethnic diversity. They look like they all came from the same mold and act the way their society molded them. I would like to point out that for an amazing lack of firearms, a bit more easy to enforce a ban for an island nation, their suicide rate is more than double that of the U.S. They have a few more suicides, but one-half of our population with no guns. I believe that you will also find Switzerland extremely low as well yet all men over the age of 21 have a full auto assault rifle (SIG 550's but they have recently upgraded) in the home provided by the government. If the Swiss society were prone to violence, it would be easy to act on it with the widespread availability of military weapons by the average male citizen.

Responding to you comment about the accessibility of firearms doing more harm than good, it falls on deaf ears here. Twice in 1989 (Jan and Nov) I used a handgun to save myself from becoming a mugging vicitm in New Orleans and prevented my girlfriend from being abducted by five men from a Ft Worth gas station. In neither instance was it necessary to shoot, but without the firearm I and my girlfriend would have become victims. As part of your studies I recommend 'More Guns, Less Crime' by John Lott, the Wright-Rossi report which I am sure is part of your courses already, and all writings by criminologist Gary Kleck of Florida State University.

Nick, you are correct that kids don't shoot kids at school in other countries, but in China it was a soldier that shot up a school. The thing is that it didn't happen here either when I was in school. Prior to 1968 you could mail order guns delivered to your door. When I was nine years old, 1966, I would ride my bicycle about one-half mile to the 7-11 (a convienience store) and by ammunition for my rifle. In the mid-1970's I would take guns to school, they stayed in the car, so my friends and I could go shoot after classes. In rural areas it was not uncommon for kids to leave their guns in their lockers or principals office so they could hunt after school. With that easy availability of guns and ammunition by children, there was no problem. Now there is a problem and guns are more restricted than ever. I say that it isn't the guns, something else changed.

mgdzkm433, I am impressed and no offense intended, but your posts make me question your claim of being 23 years old. You hit the actual drop in the number of school shootings that has been occurring, but due to media coverage we are more aware of it. You are correct that gun deaths would drop if guns were banned, but then auto accidents deaths would drop if we banned cars and drunk driving deaths would drop if we reinstituted prohibition. Your hunting reference brought back the memory of two counties in Pa. a few years ago. The city folk want to live in the country, but somehow hope to take city values with them. Enough moved to pass a ban on deer hunting in the two counties. After three years of wildly increasing auto/deer accidents they wised up and allowed hunting to continue. I would like to point out that although I do not hunt, I am a shooter, I fully support hunting programs and the benefit to wildlife conservation that those who do hunt provide. I appreciate the independent source supporting your statements as well.

Miami1839, to bad that pesty old Constitution gets in the way http://www.greekchat.com/forums/ubb/wink.gif You may be surprised, but your 'solution' is not that off the wall. There are more than a few people who think as you do. Fortunately we have the writings of the founding fathers, as Billy Optimist was so kind to point out, that would prevent what you propose. Does it not bother you that only the police and military would have guns? What you propose is what is found in a 'police state', a facist form of government, or a dictatorship. I do not understand being guilty of a felony for simply owning something yet not misusing it. It would be like proposing that we cut out our tongues to prevent us from yelling 'Fire.' in a theater or arrest someone for driving a car because they might commit a hit and run. That theory could be used in many instances to prevent crime, but I don't happen to agree with it.

For some reason my signature line is not showing and I feel it especially important here:
"Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle is always a vice." Thomas Paine

"Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

"If ye love wealth better than liberty...May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." Samuel Adams

"Arms in the hands of citizens [may] be used at individual discretion...in private self-defense..." John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of the Government of the USA, 471 (1788)

"On every question of construction (of the constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823,


[This message has been edited by Jeff OTMG (edited April 05, 2001).]

Man you write a lot. Consiceity (sp?) is a virtue, ya know http://www.greekchat.com/forums/ubb/wink.gif But yeah, there is a very good reason for lack of personal information in members profiles. Look around at some of the other threads to find out why. I think I'm gonna let someone else handle that this time. The guns I think should be harder get? Well, I think that if someone was a documented sociopath, then I just can't see the logic in him being allowed to walk around with an AK-47. I don't think backgrounds checks are "proving innocence." You have to be checked out when you vote right? And if your a felon, you lose that right. So if you are convicted of a felony, then no more guns. Landmines? I don't know. There can't be too many legitement uses for a landmine. Talking about trapping a bear! You have to read all of Amendement 2 though, not just the part you like. It says to keep and bear arms....(I forget the middle part)...well organized militia. Now, what does well organized militia mean? It could mean the armed forces. I don't think it means those guys up in Michigan. It could also reffer to myself. After all, there's only one of me! How much more organised could you get?

[This message has been edited by Billy Optimist (edited April 05, 2001).]

mgdzkm433, I am impressed and no offense intended, but your posts make me question your claim of being 23 years old.

Why thank you! LOL I knew what you meant http://www.greekchat.com/forums/ubb/wink.gif

You are correct that gun deaths would drop if guns were banned, but then auto accidents deaths would drop if we banned cars and drunk driving deaths would drop if we reinstituted prohibition.

It remindes me when Attorney General Janet Reno (not sure if I have the right person, but I THINK I do), when asked if pot were to become legal if there would be a drop in crime. DUH! Of course there would be! I was stating the obvious, and like you said, we could do so much to prevent crime, but at the expense of every American that DOESN'T commit a crime.

On another note, I couldn't seem to find the resource on CNN that gave the gun laws in each state. I'm sure there is SOMEWHERE on the web that has this info though.

Basically, when talking about gun control or a ban on guns, we are faced with a serious 'control' issue of our own. Do we want the government to have a say in our freedoms, or do we want to chance encounter with a offender? I personally would want to take my chances. I feel better knowing I have the freedom to own a firearm--and perhaps if I do come in contact with an offender, I'll have a chance to defend myself. I've also got to look at it from the aspect of being a woman. Before you said that most women support gun control--which is true I am sure--but I'd like to inject THIS woman's perspective. I know how to handle and shoot a gun. I was taught at age 4. I personally feel safer, myself, owning a gun and being a woman. If a man were to break into my home and attempt to rape me, I stand a much better chance with a gun than I do without. And personally, I'd rather be shot and killed in the process than have a man rape me.

Jeff,

I know my opinion seems a little bizzare to say the least, but I think we really need to make an impact on crime and our culture. You make a good point about other countries and what crime is like with their societies. We should definitely learn or think about incorporating some of their ideas. Even though our societies do have different systems of government and cultures. Granted guns are probably not the issue here but guns are the means to an outcome. I'm not hard and fast about captial punishment when someone just possesses a firearm, but I am for jail time if someone does illegally obtain a firearm. Plus if they were to fire a firearm then there should be more sanctions and jail time. Assuming that firearms were taken from the people, which would probably never happen. I do see your point with the police state with the federal and local government. I've been over that in Criminal Justice courses that I've taken. I just see it as a loose loose situation if you let everyone have access to firearms. Whatever benefits there might be because if you eliminate all firearms then you take care of the responsible citizens and the troublemakers. Firearms are probably not the source of causation but it definitely is a means.

If Guns were eliminated in society, would the U.S. populace be subject to any lack of freedoms?

Yes. They would. We've had guns in this country since the beginning. Taking them away, IMHO, would be a great injustice to every american who owns one--and taking away the freedom they have to use it for whatever purpose they see fit.

The freedom to provide for your family. As I pointed out before, in many rural and poor states people do still rely on hunting as a source for food. The freedom of hunting as a 'sport'. The freedom to protect their home as they see fit. The freedom of collecting them. Taking guns away would take away every freedom they are used for.

I don't see disarming all of america as a solution to the 'crime' problem. You're not just punishing the criminals, you're punishing every american who owns one for purposes aside from crimes. Those people, as I suggested above, that hunt to supply food for their family will go on welfare and then we'll be complaining about supporting them--or they starve. Because I see it first hand, maybe I've just got the mindframe that starving a family is just as much of a crime as murder.

Criminals are criminals because they DON'T FOLLOW the law. Taking the right to bear arms out of the hands of citizens will not stop these people from obtaining guns.

25, female, from a large metro. Not an advocate of hunting, don't own a gun, but the Constitution gives ME the right to make that choice.

Criminals are criminals because they DON'T FOLLOW the law. Taking the right to bear arms out of the hands of citizens will not stop these people from obtaining guns.

25, female, from a large metro. Not an advocate of hunting, don't own a gun, but the Constitution gives ME the right to make that choice.

Criminals are criminals because they DON'T FOLLOW the law. Taking the right to bear arms out of the hands of citizens will not stop these people from obtaining guns.

25, female, from a large metro. Not an advocate of hunting, don't own a gun, but the Constitution gives ME the right to make that choice.

Mikki,

I see where your coming from and why firearms are needed by responsible citizens. However everyone should remember to use them responsibly. I just think that at some point that right might be comprised because of the problems we are facing with them. Something has to be done about it. I think for those criminals that "dont follow the law" should be put in jail for life or even public execution. Hey, look at all the network stations and what makes the 5 oclock news. I'm sure that executing troublemakers on live t.v. that have used firearms in violent crimes would definitely gain ratings and put out a message. Enough is Enough. We need to set example for those criminals in our country that use firearms for illegal purposes. Granted "law abiding citizens" shouldnt have to comprimise their right to bear arms, but what are we going to do about these kids that shoot up multiple people?



[This message has been edited by Miami1839 (edited April 05, 2001).]

[This message has been edited by Miami1839 (edited April 05, 2001).]

What are we going to do about the kids who are going to watch live exicutions on tv?

You're only replacing violence with violence.

What are we going to do about those kids shooting multiple people?

Why don't we start with education on guns? Why don't we work on family values, why don't we work on placing more emphasis on spotting troubled teens? Why don't we crack down in our schools on kids teasing each other?

Taking firearms away isn't solving the problem. The problem is deeper than that. Why don't we work on getting rid of the ANGER the kids have? The gun didn't cause the kid to shoot anyone, their anger did that--you take away the gun--and you'll still have an angry kid--and they will STILL lash out, whether it's with a knife, a bomb, a 'illegal gun', starting a fire . . . The fact is, we'll still be turning out a kid into the world/society that has issues.

Schools have rule after rule about where kids can park, what time to be in class, if they can talk in class, what to wear . . . but we don't have or enforce rules that require the students to respect each other. Why don't we start with that? Most of these kids going in and shooting people are outcasts--kids who feel left out, ridiculed--THERE is the problem!

Kevin, I don't think public executions of troublemakers is a step in the right direction. I just think that yeah, you do, and SHOULD ALWAYS have the right to own a gun. Just like you SHOULD ALWAYS have the right to drive a car, and the right to vote. If you mess up, you lose those rights. You need a licence to drive, you should need to take a test before owning a gun. http://www.greekchat.com/forums/ubb/smile.gif

Billy O, I guess I do get a little long winded. Sometimes I need to so that I may fully explain my position and I am responding to each point from each person. After all, I don't want anyone to feel left out. http://www.greekchat.com/forums/ubb/smile.gif I assume you guys have had your share of trouble here from some trolls, that explains the lack of profile info. I don't need to know why, just sorry it happened. I agree with your comment on sociopaths. Loonies with guns bother me as well. The problem is that many people consider medical records, particularly mental health records, private. The information is a doctor/patient privledge. As a result most people object to the federal govt. (FBI) establishing a database of mental health records. Even the ACLU opposes this. Do you think that it is acceptable to limit privacy in some areas that could effect hundreds of thousands of people to help insure the safety of the rest of the population? The law prohibiting convicted felons from possessing firearms is a federal law and it has been upheld as a reasonable restriction, as the prohibition on felons voting or the restriction on free speech disallowing one to yell 'Fire.' in a theater. I do have a problem with a background check being too intrusive, but believe that they do serve a purpose. The weapons, land mines, are considered Class III weapons, specifically a mine or other exploding ordnance or launcher (anything over .50 caliber) is considered a 'destructive device' (DD) under the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA '34) and is restricted in the same way as machine guns. Legal to own according to the federal govt, but about 15 or 20 states do have some state law restricting possession of some items. Generally the people who own the DD weapons are very high end military armament collectors. Remember that few things we buy require us 'need' them. We buy things because we 'want' them. I don't 'need' to drive a BMW, but I 'want' a BMW. You ask about what the militia is. I can only offer you the legal definition contained within U.S. Code and the Supreme Court ruling of U.S. v. Miller (1939):

U.S. Code, Title 10, Section 311:
Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.

This can be found at: <A HREF="http://www4.law.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/htm_hl?DB=uscode10&STEMMER=en&WORDS=militia+&COLOU R=Red&STYLE=s&URL=/uscode/10/311.html#muscat_highlighter_first_match" TARGET=_blank>http://www4.law.corn ell.edu/cgi-bin/htm_hl?DB=uscode10&STEMMER=en&WORDS=militia+&COLOU R=Red&STYLE=s&
URL=/uscode/10/311.html#muscat_highlighter_first_match</A>

As far as the Supreme Court, here is a portion of their ruling:

The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

Found at: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...=307&invol=174

You are correct, as I would guess that you are not active duty military, you are a member of the militia. The key thing to remember when people claim the militia mentioned in the Constitution is the National Guard is that the Constitution was ratified in around 1789 and the National Guard did not exist until the early 1900's, over 100 years later.

[This message has been edited by Jeff OTMG (edited April 05, 2001).]

mgdzkm433, here is a link to most state statute. It is geared toward people wanting to carry concealed or transporting firearms across state lines. Most if not all of the states pages actually have links to the state home pages with firearms laws.
http://www.packing.org/

I must say it is refreshing to see a 23 year old female so vigorously defend a freedom. Many people today would surrender some freedom for a feeling of more security. We have seen this in England, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand in the last 5-10 years. The U.S. has a history of being rebellious though.

Wait a minute - wouldn't you agree that personal freedom ends where it limits the freedom of others?

I think uncontrolled guns truely limit the freedom of all those who prefer living in a slightly (caution! - understatement) safer environment.

And the argument of hunting is invalid in so far as it would certainly no problem to pass a bill and hand out hunting licenses to people that prove responsible use and knowledge of the respective weapons.
And if you are caught drunk driving or committing a fellony, you show a lack of responsibility and your hunting license/license to own a weapon is revoked. Just that simple.

I would rather have that limitation than having to be scared about children being shot at school because of an over abundance of weapons .....

Well said, Matthew.

Miami1839, I am glad that we agree that there may be other things that we could look at to solve the problem and I agree that guns are often the means to the outcome, though the criminal will use whatever they can to get the upper hand as the Wright-Rossi report found in interviews with over 1500 incarcerated felons. I am from Texas so that should tell you how I feel about capital punsihment. It was once suggested that since 85% of all crime is committed by repeat offenders, if all repeat offenders were executed crime would drop 85%. I believe that is not necessarily a bad idea and would be worth exploring. I totally agree with you on crimes committed with firearms and criminals obtaining or possessing firearms illegally. The NRA Crimestrike program, dubbed Exile by cities that have adopted it, has been more effective in reducing crime than any gun control law has by targeting criminal misuse of firearms. I do agree that there should be some restrictions, but maybe not to the extent that you would like to see. The thing that I disagree with you on is when you say, 'if you eliminate all firearms then you take care of the responsible citizens and the troublemakers.' That is not exactly true. If guns are banned and people must turn them in, the only ones turning them in will be the law abiding citizen. The criminal, by definition, does not follow the laws, hence the term 'criminal'.

OOPS! I didn't see the reply from finest_alum before writing mine, sorry about that. Let me just say, 'Yes, what she said!'

[This message has been edited by Jeff OTMG (edited April 05, 2001).]

Yes you're right, I don't think the mafia would say 'well guns are illegal now, time to stop using them'. But is that a feasible aim of gun control legislation? Aren't we trying to prevent the accidental use of guns that kill eachother? I can't remember the exact statistic but doesn't it say guns are more likely to be used against a family member than an intruder?

Mikki you mention that guns are needed as a method for survival in some parts. Okay, that means that those who need guns would be more willing to do the extra effort to get the guns because they need them. Here in Canada, they've added stricter laws to acquire and maintain guns. You need to show a license just to buy ammo. The average user who would otherwise have a gun would then not what to go through this to have his gun that he or she may rarely if ever use.
Thus, a lot of the accidental injuries caused by firearms such as road rage or some school shootings would be reduced. Guns would be much tougher to get a hold of, maybe by that time the instant aggression of getting cut-off in traffic or losing a fight would prevent someone getting killed.

Lil_G, sure glad you like the response. You responded to my post, it is only fair that futher explain myself so you have no questions. I appreciate you taking the time to address my questions as well. Agian, I don't excuse Columbia, Brazil, or any other country. Each has people of a different culture and that culture is solely responsible for the way people behave, good or bad. Your reference to Germany is an excellent point. Two things that you must realize about gun control in Germany though. They most stringent gun control was passed in 1936 when Hitler was in power. He could not have armed people opposing his ideas. This information is deatiled on the website of the Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO), I believe that the link is www.jpfo.org So before the U.S. entry into WWII Germany already had strict gun control in place and enforced by Nazi's. After WWII the Allied powers oversaw that Germany would not have access to many weapons for fear of a repeat of the post WWI build up of arms. As an additional point Sen Thomas Dodd (D-Ct) and father of current Sen Christopher Dodd (D-Ct) asked the National Archives for an English translation of the German gun laws back in 1967. This translation of the Nazi law was the basis for our Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA '68). To directly address your question, 'If Guns were eliminated in society, would the U.S. populace be subject to any lack of freedoms?' I must say that, beyond the loss of the right to be free to own guns, I don't know. It would depend on many things and the only way to find out would be to try it and if it didn't go well it would be too late to go back. To your last point about the British. I happen to have some friends who are British, some came to the U.S. and are looking forward to citizenship since the UK passed the sweeping gun control laws a few years ago. Since that time, Sept '97 I believe, handguns have been completely illegal yet they are recording a record number of firearm deaths and injuries. These are primarily due to the increased activity of Jamaican Posse drug gangs. If you can get drugs into a country you can get guns in and Great Britain is easier to police being an island nation like Japan. It is so bad that the bobbies may start carrying guns. They didn't have to in the past, but that was then and this is now: http://uk.news.yahoo.com/001023/79/amxti.html

You really think road rage is "accidental use of a gun?" I have to disagree.

Violent people will be violent with or without guns.

I fully agree that something needs to be done about truly accidental shootings (such as with a young child) but the answer to that is for parents; educate your child, lock your gun up where the child CANNOT get to it, or get rid of it while your children are small enough not to understand how dangerous it is.

Irresponsible use of a gun by a few, however, should not eliminate the right of the responsible. That is like saying "well, people die from drunk driving so no one should be allowed to drive anymore, because cars are the problem" The car isn't the problem, it's the driver.

Miami1839, the hard line against criminals is a hard sell. I am not saying I disagree with you at all, it would work, but it would never happen so, unfortunately, it is not a solution. Something does need to be done, even with accidental deaths due to firearm at an all time low. I attended a forum at Butler University in Indianapolis, In last Sept. The panel was 14 people running for state and local elected offices. One of the students asked outright what would they do about people killing people with guns if they were elected. Nothing can be done. It is already against the law to kill someone. You don't need a law beyond that. The point is that no legislation is going to solve the problem. What does work is if individuals get involved. I teach a gun safety program in an inner city public school. There are 500 students from K-5 that are learning to not touch a gun if they see one without proper training. If you want something done you have to do it yourself. I have seen great things from young people involved in mentoring programs. The problem with violence is that it is a cultural issue, for the person to develop a sense of right and wrong someone must give them direction and tell them the difference. Mentoring programs have been successful in doing this and I highly recommend people get involved if they are really interested in making changes in peoples lives.

Billy O, you say, people 'SHOULD ALWAYS have the right to own a gun. Just like you SHOULD ALWAYS have the right to drive a car, and the right to vote. If you mess up, you lose those rights.' Only a point of clarification here. Owning a gun and voting are rights, driving a car is a privledge. A fine but significant difference. A right is something that you are born with, a privledge is something that must be earned. That is why it is okay to license drivers, but not gun owners. To license gun owners would be like requiring a journalist to pass a test before their work could be published, which would mean that none of the rest of us could ever get a letter to the editor of the newspaper published.

matthewg, welcome to the discussion. To respond to you I can only reassert a couple of quotes from the founding fathers:

"Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

"On every question of construction (of the constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823,

What you suggest is so that others would 'feel' safer. Remember that we live in a republic, not a democracy. A democracy is where 2 wolves and sheep are going to vote on what to have for dinner, a republic is the same thing only the sheep has a gun. In other words a democracy works for the majority so that the most people can get what they want, but only until it begins to infringe on the rights of the minority.

Lil_G, I know your last post was not directed at me, but I wanted to jump in here. You mention the 'more likely to be used against the family' stat. That is actually 43 times more likely, but was from a study done by Kellerman in 1986(?) comparing the gun death rate between Seattle, Wa. and Vancouver, B.C. There were a number of problems with that 'study'. First, it was funded by Handgun Control Inc. and Kellerman's conclusions were made before the study was ever conducted or he would not have gotten the money to do it. Kellerman used the wrong statistical model when he presented it in an attempt to make his numbers look better. Fortunately he did include the raw data in his study and we found that he had classified the families by risk level. If you looked only at the 'low risk' households the presence of a firearm was actually around 1.3 times more likely to be used for the benefit of the family, but Kellerman included the 'low risk' families and those figures were so skewed the other way that by lumping 'high' and 'low' risk factor families together he was able to get the '43 times more likely' figure. What he really did was prove that his criteria for evaluating the risk factor was what determined the danger and misuse of firearms in the home. You may rest knowing that the total number of accidental gun deaths and the rate of accidental gun deaths is at its' lowest point ever in the U.S. There were about 1200 accidental gun deaths in 1999 (maybe 1998) for a population of nearly 270 million people. The rate was highest in the 1920's where we had a much lower population and higher number of deaths. It has been in steady decline. Education has been the key with reducing the number of accidental gun deaths just as selt belt education and drunk driving programs have had an impact on reducing vehicular deaths. I want to point out that in your road rage example that the availability of firearms has nothing to do with it. This was a common cry in Texas in 1994 when Texas was going to pass their concealed carry legislation. Since then over 200,000 Texans, myself included, have obtained permits which allow us to legally carry a concealed handgun and there have been no shoot outs over fender benders. Now a person was killed by a permit holder in Dallas after an accident when the truck driver began to beat on the guy he hit. The person in the car, in lawful self defense, shot and killed the truck driver. We knew it would be okay because many states have had concealed carry for years, like here in Indiana, and it has not caused a problem. I fully understand your concern, many before you have had the same concerns, but it just doesn't happen.

Jeff, where are you in Indiana? I'm in Terre Haute. I've been around guns all of my life. When I was young, my dad kept his guns on a gun rack in his bedroom. I NEVER touched them, because I respected them, and feared if he found out that he would be VERY MAD!

In reply to your post, and Lil_G's post, didn't you know that 37% of statistics are made up??? http://www.greekchat.com/forums/ubb/smile.gif

I know if the government ever decides to collect guns, I "won't" have any. http://www.greekchat.com/forums/ubb/smile.gif

------------------
Steve Corbin
Lambda Chi Alpha
Theta Kappa Chapter
Rose-Hulman Inst. of Tech.

And the Republic???

I am sorry, but if you use your sheep/wolf picture you have got a school of sheep and one little wolf that has a gun going after the sheep.....

The point in gun restriction laws is that it might restrict the rights of some people - I agree on that one - but it promotes safety for the unprotected majority!!!!

And now you decide what is worth more: a single life saved or reasonably applied restrictions.....

And please don't argue with cites from the dark ages of the war for independence. Things have changed quite a bit since then and people have a lot less common sense than in these days.

Jeff,

Wow you are very educated on this matter, are you a professor who lectures this material at a university? http://www.greekchat.com/forums/ubb/smile.gif

Kind of a weird coincidence happened tonight while I was watching an old episode of SNL.

Phil Hartman and his wife were about to go out for the night when his wife stated her concerns that their son (played by fred savage, who's probably only 12 or 13) might find the father's gun and start playing with it. Phil convinced her it was alright because the gun was hidden behind a stack of playboys and the bullets were in the liqour cabinet - and that kevin wouldn't go in either of those places http://www.greekchat.com/forums/ubb/wink.gif
Well he obviously gets the gun, loads it and starts playing around to find his father standing at the doorway. Kevin then pulls the gun on Phil and begins to negotiate, how there are gonna be a few changes in the household. While Kevin has the gun pointed at phil the wife (blond chick forget her name) comes home and pulls another gun on kevin. They then send him to his room like no big deal.
The moral of the story is about firearm education being told by kevin neilon in the epilogue (sp?). As he's talking he gets startled by Phil and pulls the gun on him which happens again less than a minute later by Julia (?) which causes him to drop the gun and setting it off. It was pretty funny, espicially considering how we're discussing this right now.

Anyways, this thread alone is taking up too much of my time that i should instead be doing for schoolwork. It seems like there's only a small crop of us greeks trying to prove you wrong, where's everyone else?

But there is one more thing I will challenge you on. Do you honestly believe severe punishments serve as a detterence to crime? I really don't think it does. Crime is vital to the progression of society, it will always be around.

- Nick

Corbin Dallas, my current client has me working in Indianapolis. My father was an FBI agent for 21 years, about 3 years spent as a firearms instructor (9 years Air Force OSI before the Bureau) and his gun would come off the belt loaded and sit openly on top of the dresser. I could touch it, but there were rules to be followed. I used the same approach of removing the mystique of firearms with my son as he grew up, now 23 and hopes to be a police officer soon. This was necessary as I own just under 100 firearms and some are kept loaded.

matthewg,
I am sorry, but if you use your sheep/wolf picture you have got a school of sheep and one little wolf that has a gun going after the sheep. Right, and as happened in San Diego recently an armed individual stopped him. The guy happened to be an off duty cop as well, but that was not the case in Pearl, Ms where the shooter was apprehended by the school Vice Principal who had a mod 1911 in .45 ACP in his car which he retrieved and held the wimpering coward at gun point until the police arrived. Out of curiosity, why do you suppose that police officers don't get mugged? Do you think it is because of the shiney badge or the nice uniform? I will tell you it is the gun they carry.

"The point in gun restriction laws is that it might restrict the rights of some people - I agree on that one - but it promotes safety for the unprotected majority!!!!"
Obviously some restrictions are permitted. The problem lies in what is 'reasonable'. I would bet that my definition of reasonable is different from yours. The unprotected majority are unprotected by choice. The Supreme Court has ruled that the police have no obligation to protect you the individual, but serve to protect the community as a whole. As a result you cannot sue the police for not protecting you if they don't show up or show up late when you call them. I have made a choice to provide for my own protection and not to rely on others. If you chose to put your safety into the hands of others that is you decision to make, but do not attempt to restrict my rights to conform to your beliefs.

"And now you decide what is worth more: a single life saved or reasonably applied restrictions." I think that having saved my life once and my girlfriends on another occaision, both while actually violating some well meaning restrictions, makes my decision easy. Who is to say what life is worth more? Why is someone who chose not to carry a means with which to defend themselves more important than me?

I don't understand the comment about the cities from the dark ages, sorry. I don't think people in general have less common sense, I think some people have less common sense, but as your statement suggests, the attitude and personality of the people are the problem not the gun itself. I do agree that things have changed, but firearms are still a superb choice for self defense as they have been since 1776. They are THE most effective method, probably why police carry them. A firearm is the only thing that one of the young ladies here would be able to effectively employ against someone of my size. I am 6', tall 220 pounds, have a 46" chest, 34" waist, and 17" biceps. A 5'3", 110 pound, female even with a bat would not stand much of a chance against me. With a gun it would be another story.

Lil_g, thank you for the compliment, but I do not teach at a university level. I have been a gun rights advocate for over 20 years and have debated gun rights for much of that time. I have appeared on television in editorial rebuttals and wrote the original version of the concealed carry legislation for the State of Oklahoma back in the 1980's, though they did not pass a version until arond 1994 after I had left the state. The internet has been a great resource in providing information on the topic and making that information available to everyone who is interested. That may account for the small turn out on the topic. We may have many lurkers and few posters. I did ask in my original post that emotional arguments be excluded and that was for a reason. You cannot imagine how hateful some of the anti-gun groups can be. I attended a protest rally against the Million Mom March in May 2000 held on the mall in Washington, D.C. By the way I was there and they only had 45,000 people at the peak and 30,000 when I went by. If you check for turnout from the U.S. Park Service you will see 800,000, come to find out the Park Service now uses figures submitted by the organizations rather than counts done from aireal photos, hence the wide discrepancy. Anyway, a couple of our people went over to check them out and when the 'mean mommies' realized that there were spys amoung them our people were encircled, spit on, and kicked until park police came in to rescue them. As a result when our group of 4,000 marched past the mean mommies to a park next to the U.S. Capital we had police protection the whole way and the police had their backs to us, the gun people. During the march I was called a Nazi by two screamming mommies. It took them off guard when I started laughing and walked over to them to explain that the Nazi's only wanted the police, military, and party elites to own guns, that I wasn't the Nazi, THEY WERE. I was laughing the whole time and continued on my march with my little picket sign while they stood the quietly with their mouths open.

As far as the SNL skit goes I am sure it was amusing, but many gun owners cringe when we see guns portrayed in such a way. I found it offensive when a gun dealer had a commercial on TV in Huntsville, Al and they swung the shotgun so it was pointing right at the camera. Misuse of firearms is the problem and exposing people, especially children, to things like that sends the wrong message.

Nick, you don't have to spend all your time on this thread, just pop in every once and awhile when it is active to see what is going on. I leave for Tulsa tomorrow and won't be checking in on Sat at all.

As far as you question regarding punishment as a deterence I can only say that I don't know. I have not studied the subject beyond knowing that the crime rate in the U.S. has been on a steady decline since 1992 and that the incarceration rate has doubled. So whether it is a deterence or the fact that people who commit crimes are being locked away, I do not know. I do know that according to demographics that we are due a rise in crime between 2004 and 2010, due to the high number of 15 year olds. Don't know how it is related, but that is what they tell me. There was a retired Chicago PD detective on the Phil Donahue show. The show was about the death penalty. He didn't say much for the entire show, when Phil asked him directly his opinion he stated, 'I don't have a bunch of fancy degrees and I haven't studied human behavior, but I know that when I arrest someone and they get the death penalty, I never end up arresting them again.'

Never again, huh? Gee, thats good, cuz I thought it was like in that movie "Schocker." http://www.greekchat.com/forums/ubb/rolleyes.gif The death penalaty is not an effective deterent. We've executed lots of people over the years, we still have murders. We either need to change our crime/prison system so that it can bring people back into mainstream society, or just kill everyone in there because there are way too many of them.

Hahahahahahha ahhh jezz...but seriously, rehabilitation is the least important of the four main purposes of the justic system in the view of the general public. I think it's getting more worse now as private prisons are replacing public institutions. These corporations are making money off human bodies, while taxpayers are happy they are paying less (or will be) for the prison system in the united states.
One of my profs suggested that now is a really good time to invest in these private firms (e.g. Wackenhut), especially because crime rates rise in lower economic periods.