Guns and Gun Control

[Jeff OTMG]

newbie, thanks for the link, I will check it out. You have taken a proven position. Retribution or incarceration is effective. The crime rate in the U.S. has been dropping since 1992, but we have also locked up more criminals than at anytime in history. We have built more prisons, pack prisoners into the prisons we already have, and inacted '3 strikes and you're out' legislation. Locking up criminals and removing them from society does reduce crime since 85% of all crime is committed by repeat offenders. I would still like to see why you think gun control is an answer when the areas with he most strict gun control laws are also areas of the highest crime rates. L.A., D.C., Chicago, Detroit, and NYC compared to Phoenix, Salt Lake City, Oklahoma City, Austin, and Little Rock. I just don't see guns as a 'cause'.

[Jeff OTMG]

AKA_Monet, my interest lies in the fact that I am a 43 year old white male from Texas who hasn't been to college in 20 years. Reviewing this board I found a number of young, educated, females, from the east and west coasts. Exactly the type of people that I don't have contact with on a daily basis. This curiousity began when I attended a forum at Butler University in Indianapolis, In last Sept. and was surprised at the lack of knowledge of the history of the U.S. Constitution and the U.S. in general displayed by university students. This was of great concern to me. They were not the least bit interested in the 'whys' and 'hows' of anything, more of a tell me how it is and let's move on attitude. Seems that they didn't care at all. The problem with this is the absence of a thought process and the students are taking whatever the professors tell them at face value and without question. It is no surprise to me to find that people are perfectly willing to then trample on rights that they do not understand. To give law enforcement wide leeway in enforcement of search and seizure for drugs is finally meeting some resistance, but if those same law enforcement groups are going after guns people say that is okay. Diane Feinstein has even advocated troops going door to door to seize firearms, but by her own admission only if she thought that she could get away with it. That attitude scares me.

Please forgive my ignorance of black issues. The issues affecting blacks interest me because I know so little of black culture. I attended a private school and the high school had 1000 students of which only 4 where black. As a consultant I work with few black people, though the ones that I have worked with in the private sector have been VERY good. My only regular contact is with a young lady that I have dated some over the last year. She is a 26 year old Purdue graduate that works for my current client. We don't work together, but see each other in the company work out room. I have learned much from her. In fact I just learned about a month ago that ALL black people have curly hair. She never did until recently and she explained to me that she has always used a hair straightener or relaxer to keep it from curling. I am 43 and never knew that. Learn something new every day.

[DBPM04]

Jeff--actually that Utah fact is a little misleading becuase utah as so few people killed...only like 10 or less were teenagers....I don't have the link to the study becuase it was info sent to me by my organization...but here is some interesting stuff to ponder
"It shouldn't take a Columbine, a Jonesboro or an inner-city drive-by shooting to make us realize that American children are more at risk from firearms than the children of any other industrialized nation. In one year, firearms killed no children in Japan, 19 in Great Britain, 57 in Germany, 109 in France, 153 in Canada, and 5,285 in the United States."
"Guns do kill people, especially when wielded by children. More than 800 Americans, young and old, die each year from guns shot by children under the age of 19." http://www.silentmarch.org/index.htm

------------------
Smile Pep Charm Style that's what we have...but most of all you'll love our laugh (whooaa)

[Corbin Dallas]

Originally posted by DBPM04:
"Guns do kill people, especially when wielded by children. More than 800 Americans, young and old, die each year from guns shot by children under the age of 19." http://www.silentmarch.org/index.htm

How many of those 800 are killed intentionally or by accident? If it's by accident, then education is the problem. How many of those gun deaths are with guns that are illegaly owned anyway? Just curious

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

[KSig RC]

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.

Billy's absolutely correct (i didn't want to get involved here . . . eh) - according to statistical studies, the death penalty is a non-factor in crime rates on a state-by-state level - whether or not that is extensible to a nationwide penalty is open to debate, but the obvious conclusion . . . apparently criminals don't think of that particular penalty during premeditation (if any exists).

Also, crime in general has dropped over many many years, although violent crime among young people has increased - i don't think you can address this problem by simply removing or altering the legal right to own guns. Endemic crime in the US is not based solely on any one law or how well it is followed; violent crime especially can be linked to various historical, socioeconomic, and educational factors. How to address these? Probably no way I can list here . . . a problem for those smarter than I.

[Jeff OTMG]

Originally posted by KSig RC:
Also, crime in general has dropped over many many years, although violent crime among young people has increased.

I am in almost complete agreement with you with the exception of this quote. Try this: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4845a1.htm
You will find a table near the bottom, about the third table down, with deaths by age bracket and these are dropping for young people as well.

The amazing thing to me is that although the CDC reports show a drop in gun deaths from 1993-1999 and there were over 12 million more guns in the hands of private citizens, some people still insist that guns are the 'cause' of gun related deaths. If there are 12 million plus more firearms in the population, an increase of roughly 5%, and guns in the population are the cause of gun related deaths (as they claim), then there should be at least a 5% increase in the firearm related death rate for the same time frame, showing a direct correlation. IT DIDN'T HAPPEN! Fact is that the number of firearms in the U.S. society goes up every year, yet the firearm related deaths fluctuate widely and amoung whites has actually seen a steady decline for 20 years.

[Jeff OTMG]

Originally posted by DBPM04:
In one year, firearms killed no children in Japan, 19 in Great Britain, 57 in Germany, 109 in France, 153 in Canada, and 5,285 in the United States... More than 800 Americans, young and old, die each year from guns shot by children under the age of 19."

This is misleading in a number of ways:

First, there are about 11,000 TOTAL firearm related deaths in the U.S. excluding suicides. Therefore they must be including suicide deaths in their figure. We know from looking at the suicide rates in Japan that firearms do NOT have a causal effect on suicide. Japan has a greater number of suicides than the U.S. and half the population giving them a suicide rate of more than double that of the U.S.

Second, the figure also includes 'children' who are in fact adults in an attempt to pad the number and play on emotion. Note that the CDC identifies children in a category of ages 0-14 in the study found at: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4845a1.htm and show only 630 firearm deaths in 1997, far fewer than the 5285 stated. The next CDC category is 15-24 years old. The higher death count from this group is needed by certain organizations to bump up their claims of 'children' being killed, so they 'borrow' some numbers from this more adult group. The intent is to associate the higher figure with the term 'children'. This is an attempt to put the emotional image in the mind of people who do not question what they read into thinking that the babies we see in diaper commercials on TV (children) are being killed with guns when in fact it isn't happening. In Texas an adult is 17, 18 year olds are allowed to vote and to be sent off to die in wars everywhere in the U.S. Hardly children. These 'children' that they count are also frequently in 'high risk' groups, such as being members of gangs or involved in drug activities. (This was shown as THE SINGLE MAJOR factor in firearm related deaths by the Kellerman study back in 1986. Kellerman was trying to prove a casual effect of firearms, but with the raw data that he did provide it showed that 'high risk behavior' was the actual causal effect.) As a result we see a higher incidence of firearm related death in the 14-19 year olds than in the 0-14 year olds. This tells us again that guns have no causal effect. If it did we would see a even impact across all age groups to adulthood as we would see with something like an anthrax virus infection or the effect from radioactive fallout. To see the cause we would need to look at a study of, parental influence in the home, economic standing, criminal background, drug involvement, and general 'high risk' behavior.

Third, the statement neatly tip-toes around countries that do not fit such as Israel and Switzerland. Both countries have higher rates of private firearm ownership than the U.S. yet have lower firearm related child deaths and lower firearm related child death rates. It also does not mention those countries with lower private gun ownership rates yet have more firearm deaths, the masacre of refugees in, I think, Ruwanda a few years ago comes immediately to mind.

Fourth, using the logic in that statement we could also say that we have a much higher number of deaths of children in the U.S. due to automobile accidents. The U.S. a higher number of deaths due to drowning in swimming pools. Why is that? It is because the U.S. has 275 million people, a larger population than any country mentioned. We also have more automobiles, more highways, more streets, drive further due to spread out urban areas, and have more privately owned swimming pools. It is a case of you couldn't die of a heart attack if you didn't have a heart. Sure we could do away with all the deaths that doctors and hospitals cause (a much higher rate than gun related) by doing away with them, but the benefit of having them outweighs the risks. Same with cars and swimming pools. We accept a certain death rate for the convienience of having them. The misuse of roughly 260,000,000 guns in the U.S. equate to about 10,000 NON-justifiable homicides and accidental deaths in the U.S. (.00384%) versus the lawful 2,500,000 to 3,000,000 uses each year to prevent a crime and a multitude of lawful uses daily for shooting, hunting, and competition purposes. As I stated in an earlier posting I personally accounted for two of those self defense uses in 1989.


[This message has been edited by Jeff OTMG (edited April 18, 2001).]

[DBPM04]

as someone who has felt the pain of a sucide that was done with a gun...guns do (in my personal opinion) lead to sucides. I wish i could find the site....but children in homes with guns are like 3-4x as likely to committ sucides

------------------
pass that old silver goblet with the Phi Mu upon it and we'll all have another round of *cheer* cuz it's not for knowledge that we came to college but to have fun while we're here!

[Billy Optimist]

More women than men commit suicide, or at least try to, but men are more sucessful. Men are more likely to use guns or jump off buildings, where as women are more likely to take some pills, and call their best friend.

[tcsparky]

I am 31, teach high school, and grew up in Arkansas. When I was growing up, it was a rite of passage (for both sexes) to receive his/her first personal weapon (usually a
4-10 shotgun) and be allowed to go hunting with the grown-ups. Until 12 years old, children went hunting with the adults on special teaching trips. The goal was not to bring in game but to learn how to hunt and how to handle oneself when armed. We had guns in eveyr household I visited. They were never secured or locked up. AND WE NEVER PLAYED WITH THEM. Why not? We were taught that we should not play with guns. They were not toys. We never aimed guns at people. It was dangerous. Sure, we had guns in the trunks of cars and behind the seats of the trucks at school. Why? People went hunting before and after school. Did we ever use them to shoot people at school? NO. Why not? Because that is stupid.
Yes, we played cowboys and Indians. With toy guns and water pistols. We knew the difference.
Why should people own guns now? Food. Defense. And because it is our second amendment right. If we do not exercise our rights, then just like an arm or leg that is not exercised, it will atrophy and become useless.
I teach in a high school. Am I afraid? Yes indeed. Not all of these kids believe in the sanctity of human life. What bothers me the most? That by law I am required to be completely and utterly defenseless while on school property. I have NO method of defending myself or my students in case of emergency. My military training with weapons will be useless. And we (my students and myself) will be dead.

People who will shoot up a school do not stop to consider that taking a gun on school property is illegal. 1-5 years in jail in some places. They are planning on murder. Life sentence. One small little law about taking weapons onto school grounds doesn't deter them.

For those who advocate registration- When the government decides to go collect all of the newly "illegal" firearms, the registration list will be a confiscation list. Those who were law abiding and registered will be defenseless. Those "criminals" who failed to register their weapons will still have protection. Historically, in countries where only the military had guns, only the military (and its military-supported government)and its supporters had rights, food, clothing, education, ......

Just something to think about.

[This message has been edited by tcsparky (edited April 21, 2001).]

[Jeff OTMG]

tcsparky, reading what you wrote reminded me of the recent 60 Minutes broadcast. From the transcript of an interview done by Bradley with the parents of victims at Columbine:

Ms. FLEMING: There was no one in that school that had a gun other than the two killers. And no one pursued them. No one tried to engage them.

Unlike the Vice Principal in Pearl, Ms who was able to stop the school shooting there after retrieving his pistol from his car or more recently the first shooting at the school outside San Diego where a person carrying a concealed firearm was at the school and was able to prevent the kid from shooting more people.

The other thing that we should point out is that should gun registration pass, convicted felons are NOT required by that law to register their guns, only the law abiding must comply. You think that sounds strange? The problem is that it is illegal for a convicted felon to possess a firearm. If he were to go in and register his gun it would be in violation of of his constitutional right to protection from self incrimination. That is why if a felon buys a gun from a dealer and fills out a 4473 form it is not admissible as evidence. As a result, only the people who may legally have guns would be required to register them and supposedly that isn't who they are going after.

Miami1839, you must be quite comfortable when you are working in a correctional facility. It must me the safest place in the world since there are no guns anywhere. I bet you never watch your back. Stay safe.

[Billy Optimist]

Originally posted by tcsparky:

For those who advocate registration- When the government decides to go collect all of the newly "illegal" firearms, the registration list will be a confiscation list. Those who were law abiding and registered will be defenseless. Those "criminals" who failed to register their weapons will still have protection. Historically, in countries where only the military had guns, only the military (and its military-supported government)and its supporters had rights, food, clothing, education, ......

Just something to think about.

[This message has been edited by tcsparky (edited April 21, 2001).]

If the government ever out laws ALL guns, which is highly unlikey, they will not have the power to take yours if you bought them before that law was made. Thats in the constitution too. Its known as the "ex post facto" claus. I only advocate registration of high power guns. And I think it should be done on the distributors level. That means, the manufactures and distributiors keep tabs on how many are made, and if the number that is sold doesn't match up, then we know they got into the wrong hand.

[Miami1839]

Jeff,

Its a job I used to have and dont have the slightest desire to work in the profession or CJ field again. However I do have much respect for those that work in locked facilities over thoses that work on the roads. I think "safe" is a relative term. Like sometimes a stolen pencil in the wrong hands can mean life or death for a juvenile correctional officer. I had back up whenever I needed it with a radio and plenty of cameras. Basically, my main tools were my pen, paper, and my voice. I did have to always watch my back and I felt that the support in my facility was lacking so I left after 3 months. I definitely learned and took a lot from that job and gained a lot of insight of what it feels like to clock in and clock out of a locked environment. Its not like the felons are the only ones locked up. Anyways, yeah, it was a safer environment in some ways I guess compared to schools. Now, I'm in a job ten times better than that and pay is way better too.

Kevin

[Miami1839]

Billy, I have to disagree with your facts on suicide. I'm not sure if thats actually true. Last year when I went through juvenile correctional officer training we had a clinical psychologist(heads the diagnostic unit for all incoming juveniles who have been adjudicated in the state system) who gave us a lecture. She claimed with proof that there are less attempts for girls than there are for boys. She added that girls tend to be more successful. At least thats how I remember it. Of course I'm talking more in terms of Virginia. They definitely dont pay teachers enough. My mom is a teacher and definitely has it more rough than when I was a juvenile correctional officer I think. Its even bad here in Virginia for juvenile correctional officers because they are keeping older kids until they are 20 and half that corrupt the younger ones. Plus we had no firearms or spray of any kind. So I was up against(supervising independently) the roughest kids in Virginia (18-25 kids). Though at least my environment was more controlled than a school setting. My mom is a first grade teacher and she has no choice when she gets 2 or 3 emotionally disturbed kids who throw chairs or whatever. Often times she has to deal with them for 6 months or so until the administration decides to move them to a specialized setting. Schools definitely are different then when I was in high school in the late eighties.

Kevin

[This message has been edited by Miami1839 (edited April 21, 2001).]

[Jeff OTMG]

Miami1839, intended as a joke. I hear people say how safe it would be if there were no guns and it always reminds me of inside the walls of a prison where there are no guns. Sure still seems to be a lot of violence though. So, guns do not equal violence. Violence is a personality trait. I couldn't work in a lock down prison. WAY to violent and dangerous, even if it were kids.

A friend of mine sent this to me, I got a kick out of it:

1. Banning guns works, which is why New York, DC, and Chicago cops need guns.
2. Washington DC's low murder rate of 69 per 100,000 is due to strict gun control, and Indianapolis' high murder rate of 9 per 100,000 is due to the lack of gun control.
3. Statistics showing high murder rates justify gun control but statistics showing increasing murder rates after gun control are "just statistics."
4. The Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban, both of which went into effect in 1994 are responsible for the decrease in violent crime rates, which have been declining since 1991.
5. We must get rid of guns because a deranged lunatic may go on a shooting spree at any time and anyone who would own a gun out of fear of such a lunatic is paranoid.
6. The more helpless you are the safer you are from criminals.
7. An intruder will be incapacitated by tear gas or oven spray, but if shot with a .357 Magnum will get angry and kill you.
8. A woman raped and strangled is morally superior to a woman with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet.
9. When confronted by violent criminals, you should "put up no defense --give them what they want, or run" (Handgun Control Inc. Chairman Pete Shields, Guns Don't Die - People Do, 1981, p. 125).
10. The New England Journal of Medicine is filled with expert advice about guns; just like Guns and Ammo has some excellent treatises on heart surgery.
11. One should consult an automotive engineer for safer seatbelts, a civil engineer for a better bridge, a surgeon for internal medicine, a computer programmer for hard drive problems, and Sarah Brady for firearms expertise.
12. The 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1787, refers to the National Guard, which was created 130 years later, in 1917.
13. The National Guard, federally funded, with bases on federal land, using federally-owned weapons vehicles buildings and uniforms, punishing trespassers under federal law, is a “state” militia.
14. These phrases; ”…right of the people peaceably to assemble," "…right of the people to be secure in their homes," "…enumerations herein of certain rights shall not be construed to disparage others retained by the people," and "The powers not delegated herein are reserved to the states respectively, and to the people…" all refer to individuals, but "…the right of the people to keep and bear arms…" refers to the state.
15. “The Constitution is strong and will never change.” But we should ban and seize all guns thereby violating the 2nd, 4th, and 5th Amendments to that Constitution.
16. Rifles and handguns aren't necessary to national defense! Of course, the army has hundreds of thousands of them.
17. Private citizens shouldn't have handguns, because they aren’t “military weapons”, but private citizens shouldn't have "assault rifles,” because they are military weapons.
18. In spite of waiting periods, background checks, fingerprinting, government forms, etc., guns today are too readily available, which is responsible for recent school shootings. In the 1940’s, 1950’s and 1960’s, anyone could buy guns at hardware stores, army surplus stores, gas stations, variety stores, Sears mail order, no waiting, no background check, no fingerprints, no government forms and there were no school shootings.
19. The NRA's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign about kids handling guns is propaganda, but the anti-gun lobby's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign is responsible social activity.
20. Guns are so complex that special training is necessary to use them properly, and so simple to use that they make murder easy.
20. Guns are so complex that special training is necessary to use them properly, and so simple to use that they make murder easy.
21. A handgun, with up to 4 controls, is far too complex for the typical adult to learn to use, as opposed to an automobile that only has 20.
22. Women are just as intelligent and capable as men but a woman with a gun is "an accident waiting to happen" and gun makers' advertisements aimed at women are "preying on their fears."
23. Ordinary people in the presence of guns turn into slaughtering butchers but revert to normal when the weapon is removed.
24. Guns cause violence, which is why there are so many mass killings at gun shows.
25. A majority of the population supports gun control, just like a majority of the population supported owning slaves.
26. Any self-loading small arm can legitimately be considered to be a "weapon of mass destruction" or an "assault weapon."
27. Most people can't be trusted, so we should have laws against guns, which most people will abide by because they can be trusted.
28. The right of Internet pornographers to exist cannot be questioned because it is constitutionally protected by the Bill of Rights, but the use of handguns for self defense is not really protected by the Bill of Rights.
29. Free speech entitles one to own newspapers, transmitters, computers, and typewriters, but self-defense only justifies bare hands.
30. The ACLU is good because it defends parts of the Constitution, and the NRA is bad, because it defends parts of the Constitution.
31. Charlton Heston, a movie actor as president of the NRA is a cheap lunatic who should be ignored, but Michael Douglas, a movie actor as a representative of Handgun Control, Inc. is an ambassador for peace who is entitled to an audience at the UN arms control summit.
32. Police operate with backup within groups, which is why they need larger capacity pistol magazines than do "civilians" who must face criminals alone and therefore need less ammunition.
33. We should ban "Saturday Night Specials" and other inexpensive guns because it's not fair that poor people have access to guns too.
34. Police officers have some special Jedi-like mastery over handguns that private citizens can never hope to obtain.
35. Private citizens don't need a gun for self-protection because the police are there to protect them even though the Supreme Court says the police are not responsible for their protection.
36. Citizens don't need to carry a gun for personal protection but police chiefs, who are desk-bound administrators who work in a building filled with cops, need a gun.
37. "Assault weapons" have no purpose other than to kill large numbers of people. The police need assault weapons. You do not.
38. When Microsoft pressures its distributors to give Microsoft preferential promotion, that's bad; but when the Federal government pressures cities to buy guns only from Smith & Wesson, that's good.
39. Trigger locks do not interfere with the ability to use a gun for defensive purposes, which is why you see police officers with one on their duty weapon.
40. Handgun Control, Inc., says they want to "keep guns out of the wrong hands.” Guess what? You have the wrong hands.