Guns and Gun Control

[Jeff OTMG]

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.

[Billy Optimist]

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.

[Lil_G]

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.

[mgdzkm433]

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).

[mgdzkm433]

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

[Miami1839]

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).]

[Billy Optimist]

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

[Jeff OTMG]

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?

[Jeff OTMG]

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.

[Jeff OTMG]

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.

[Jeff OTMG]

Miami1839, to bad that pesty old Constitution gets in the way 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).]

[Billy Optimist]

Man you write a lot. Consiceity (sp?) is a virtue, ya know 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]

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

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.

[Miami1839]

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.

[mgdzkm433]

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.