Guns and Gun Control

[Jeff OTMG]

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.

[Jeff OTMG]

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.

[Jeff OTMG]

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.

[Corbin Dallas]

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???

I know if the government ever decides to collect guns, I "won't" have any.

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

[matthewg]

Originally posted by Jeff OTMG:

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.

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.

[Lil_G]

Jeff,

Wow you are very educated on this matter, are you a professor who lectures this material at a university?

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
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

[Jeff OTMG]

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.

[Jeff OTMG]

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.'

[Billy Optimist]

Originally posted by Jeff OTMG:
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." 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.

[Lil_G]

Originally posted by Billy Optimist:

Never again, huh? Gee, thats good, cuz I thought it was like in that movie "Schocker." 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.

[Miami1839]

Wow. Look at all this. LOL

Mikki, I agree with you on some things but not necessarily on others. I worked as a psychiatric counselor with at risk youth for 2 years and I agree with you on the stand point that the majority of the problem is the angry kids. where are the parents? Which is another thing I'd like to bring up. From my experience many of these low income one parent families are the ones that have the highest risk of producing these angry kids. Of course any kid has the potential of becoming a perpretrator if he doesnt have a proper amount of support from various levels. So, yes, I agree Education and Prevention is something our country needs to make a top priority. Another thing. Look at the military families. If I ever got in trouble as a kid you could be rest assured that my Dad would hear about it from his CO. What I think is their is a lack of parenting and accountability on the part of the parents. There should be more intervention on the part of the local governments and the schools to see that parents do their job and if they dont then someone needs to step in before its too late.

As for public executions. why did we get rid of public hangings anyway? I could see how you would think it would be violent but look at the message its sending to everyone. I think theres lots of violence on t.v., rap(songs that recruit gang members), violent movies, etc. It might be quite a shock, but I think it would be something worth a try. You could always send your child to their room or give them something to do. Maybe that doesnt sound realistic but what I'm trying to say is we really need to take a stand and make a change. One that sticks and doesnt fall after 4 years of a presidential admnistration.

One idea I have which would probably only apply to those in high school but why not target those high risk kids in families and direct them in some kind of career mentoring/coop program. Just as you suggest Jeff. I think that would be pretty effective. I know from experience that is a useful tool. I'm not sure if it would ever happen but what about 1 year of required service in either the Conservation Corp. or in the U.S. Military upon H.S. graduation.

Jeff, Thanks for the kind words, yeah, I worked at a maximum juvenile correctional facility here in Virginia for a few months. I never had a firearm, because of state law and for obvious reasons relating to Virginia Juvenile Justice Law. The juveniles in our system that are incarcerated for felonies are kept until they are 20 and a half. Most from my experience were gang affiliated and had that street sense so that when they go into the facility they are at home. It really blows you away. Then they go through the rehabilitation program and get all the avenues of support. Then when their done the state releases them. Thats if they havent tacked more time on while inside. When they leave they have nothing. They go right back to where they came from and a lot of them go back to their high risk families if they have them. The ones in gangs, which are most of them end up being major targets when they leave the system. So as far as those kids that have served time I'm not really sure what the solution is. Most of those kids were more focused on modeling the adult criminals and basically play lip service. So my opinion of those incarcerated isnt very optimistic but then there is a small percentage that does make it to the outside and serve a productive life.

Originally posted by mgdzkm433:
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!

[Lil_G]

Well shut my mouth, I was not expecting that detailed and informative response

I used the reference to first world nations because they have relatively equal stability and living standards. It's not fair to include Columbia and it's war on drugs as a means for comparing homicide rates. Neither is it realistic to use countries in the Bulkans that have not gone more than 50 years without a war in their entire history.

Yes, your reference to Swizterland and Japan does perhaps suggest that a correlation with violence is endemic to the cultural history of a society. The United States was founded on violence, and has moulded it's identity around military strength. But could the same not be said for Germany, for example? Here's a nation that has always maintained strong nationalism and also has a very detailed history of wars and violence, yet the importance of guns is inconsequential.

Yes the quote from Billy and your reference to it was an important example for the need for guns 200+ years ago, but is it still valid in the 21st Century? If Guns were eliminated in society, would the U.S. populace be subject to any lack of freedoms? I look to England as another example here, Bobbies do not even carry guns, they don't have to.



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

[mgdzkm433]

geez--guess I need to get the internet hooked up at home!

Ok--where to begin? LOL

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

yes--you take away guns, you limit the freedom of every gun bearing American--limiting their personal freedom. I know that's not what you meant--but it goes both ways and freedoms will be 'limited' regardless. Driving my car limits the freedom of others right to clean air, smoking a cigarette does the same . . . the argument can hold true for an abundance of things.

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

I never said anything about uncontrolled guns. I said I don't believe in banning guns, and I don't agree with extremely tough gun laws--but the way things are now--I think it's fine. Things are controlled to a point, but being OVER-controlling is 'limits the freedom of all those who prefer to live with a gun in their home.'

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

And I would rather not have to pay for the mistakes of others and their irrisponsibility by the government limiting MY freedoms.

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.

We're only 'masking' the problem, creating a temporary 'out' when we make 'tougher' laws and attempt to 'ban' guns. People who 'kill' because of road rage or lose a fight have BIGGER problems and taking a gun away won't solve those problems. We need to get to the root of the problem, not 'quick fix' it. LIFE is a risk--there will ALWAY be people out there with problems, but I don't think making things tougher on everyone is the answer.

I think theres lots of violence on t.v., rap(songs that recruit gang members), violent movies, etc.

Yes, You're right about that--there IS lots of violence on TV. Mostly fiction though, and that allots for something. I think that some of it affects children, but for the most part, they understand the difference between real and unreal. There's lots of talk about banning cartoons (looney tunes) because of supposed violence (walking off cliffs, blowing things up)--but for the most part people understand that these things don't really happen. But when you put a REAL execution on TV--what are you supposed to tell your kids? That it's not real? Sure, we can do that--but then your message is lost. It reminds me when I was little and I would see a dead animal on the side of the road--my mother would tell me that it was just sleeping. Why? Because kids don't understand death and shouldn't have to at such an early age.

You could always send your child to their room or give them something to do. Maybe that doesnt sound realistic

Sorry, no, it doesnt sound realistic. I agree with you when you mentioned the decline in family values--lack of parenting. When I worked for an after-school program and summer program for the YMCA 2 years ago--I saw it SO MUCH. The reason I say the above ISN'T realistic is because we need to attack the family values part before we can trust people to 'send their kids to another room'.

but what I'm trying to say is we really need to take a stand and make a change. One that sticks and doesnt fall after 4 years of a presidential admnistration.

I am not in disagreement with that. I'm not trying to send the US back in time to where everyone carries a gun and we shoot each other in the street. I'M FOR certain gun 'laws' such as background checks. I just feel that BANNING guns or OVER-restrictions is the wrong approch. It's a way to 'quick fix' our real problems.

Limiting the freedoms of the majority to maske the problems of a few is not a realistic approch. IMHO.

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.

young AND female--I've always defied the norms though

[matthewg]

Originally posted by Jeff OTMG:

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.

But it would not have been a problem if the kid would not have had a gun in the first place! Where did he get it from? It certainly did not drop from a truck! I think that is the problem.
Over and out - permanently. You won't convince me and I won't convince you. So I don't see a point in further aguing over it.

[AXO Alum]

Originally posted by Corbin Dallas:
didn't you know that 37% of statistics are made up???

Nuh-uhh, Corbin....its 61% of statistics that are made up on the spot!