Interesting info Terry. One thing I'm curious about: You reference 65K folks being gunshot per year, but the chart you posted shows that number moving up to 32k. Is your reference from a different year?
Without validating Scott, my first guess would be that accidentals and suicides may account for the diff....I will go back and take a look when I get a chance.
Terry, We agree on many things but this is where we part ways. I have had the experience to work with Europeans for 30 years and have visited several times. They have no concept of "a right to bear arms", those few that own a gun have "always" been very controlled by the central authority. This goes back generations to the point where it is the fabric of society. - To my knowledge there is no other country that has written into their constitution the right to bear arms. Add to that the previous 230 years of acceptance in America to bear arms as citizens. There are no other examples in the world that come close to this. Yes other countries have citizens with firearms but no understanding, experience or right to ownership without the government being heavily involved. Most of western Europe has the local police force lock up the guns owned by the public and you apply to check it out and give the reason why. - I totally disagree that because of our right to bear arms we will become scorned, abandoned and lose our standing with other countries, this just will never happen in any foreseeable future. - You have ignored the fact that anything associated with a governing central authority in this country is a disaster of ineptitude. Why would this be any different. What would keep it from expanding into our lives in other forms. Knives, baseball bats (The FBI's #1 rated murder weapon) and other such dangers will eventually be monitored in the pursuit of safety to the populace. I just don't see it ever ending, it can't because we both understand those gainfully employed by such agencies will not let it. I do not have any issues with our country going back to pre-1990 control of clips and tighter restrictions of "true" assault rifles. I am convinced if this country is not careful in its walk to reel in firearms and institutes laws demanding registration of of all guns starting with grandfathered guns we will experience carnage not seen since the 1860's. I consider myself a moderate in gun ideology but the idea of the authority's demanding I register in detail every gun I own so I can be placed into a system of control is nauseating and will not be doing. What of the millions of gun owners whose views are beyond my moderate views, what do you think their thoughts will be??
Terry, one other thought on government control... What would your thoughts be if due to the huge market losses and through loss in property values, the government now demands to register and approve every application to buy or sell stock and every person has to apply to the government to start their mortgage application. I know this is not a direct comparison. But when the government disarms its citizens, it is free to carry out anything it wants. This is one of the reasons our founding fathers left Europe.
Tom, the hypothetical that you pose is not all that much different than the way it is today! That said, if our capital markets - currently the envy of the world - became so terribly bad that they were a distant last by multiple standard deviations among all developed nations and began to threaten the general welfare of the people, I would be supportive to effecting meaningful change. At present, our gun laws are clearly not the envy of the world and in my view do threaten the general welfare of the people and I am supportive of meaningful change to resolve the problem. Nothing I have offered speaks to disarming qualified citizens and I would not support any policy with that intent. I would be supportive of removing firearms from the hands of those that threaten the general welfare and therefore unworthy of the responsibility. Far from being disarmed, even in western Europe which has stricter regs than what I would likely propose, there are still tens of millions of firearms in the hands of private citizens. Ralph, I am unfamiliar with each and every country in western Europe so I can't speak to them all and would be curious in hearing specifically which countries you are speaking about that only allow weapons to be kept with the police. I do have close friends in the UK and have visited them on numerous occasions. I know from my own personal experience that private citizens are permitted to possess firearms in their homes in the UK. There is a ban on short-barreled handguns, but rifles, shotguns and long-barreled handguns are permitted in ones home with a license and appropriate storage. We've gone to his gun locker, pulled out his guns, grabbed some ammo and gone out on his property and shot.....hunting and shooting remain quite popular in the UK. It is not because of our right to bear arms....it is because of our culture of violence and the fact that we have a murder rate that dwarfs all other developed nations......the two are not synonymous. Again, we also have written into our constitution the right to free speech and the right of peaceable assembly, but in order to promote the general welfare of the people, those rights may not be exercised without reasonable restrictions to protect the public interest. In my view the overwhelming weight of the evidence clearly indicates that unrestricted exercise of our second amendment rights is inconsistent with the promotion of the general welfare of the people and in the interest of the public at large, reasonable restrictions must be put in place.
The last time the 2nd amendment was unrestricted was before the ATF came into existence. The only unrestricted path presently is through our government (see fast and furious) and through illegal sources... Oh, my, that sounds redundant. You know that every legally obtained modern firearm purchase is subject to background check through the ATF. The ATF is approving every legal purchase of every modern firearm. What is missing from the ATF background check that you would like added?
The info that I have seen suggests that is not true Tom....it is my understanding that only weapons purchased from FFL holders are subject to background checks. Weapons purchased in private transactions or from "private dealers"or non-FFL dealers, for example at gunshows, are not subject to background checks. Until we mandate background checks and registration for all weapon sales and/or transfers and the means to monitor, we can never put forth the necessary oversight in keeping weapons away from those unworthy of their possession. I would support mandating a background check and registration for ALL weapons and their sales and/or transfers.
Ah... the gun show loophole... I would have to agree that should be closed. However, it is a very small percentage of sales in every gun show I have been to. I have never dealt with (can't say there are none) a booth at a gun show that was not an FFL holder. I have seen people carrying around used guns and I have seen one or two private transactions at the shows. People are afraid, for the most part, to sell without going through an FFL. If I sell you a gun, for it to be a legal transaction, you have to be a resident of the state of Texas. Now, I must keep a bill of sale in case that firearm is used in a crime. There is ATF paperwork where I originally purchased it. The ATF comes after me as the owner. I have to show proof that I made a legal face to face with an individual and provide them with contact information for that individual. Most people don't want that responsibility and book keeping.
We are agreed.....an excerpt from some of the data that I have seen would suggest that while not a majority of transactions, the number of firearms obtained through such means could be in excess of 600,000 weapons per year. We cannot be serious about keeping firearms out of the hands of those that would mean to do harm so long as this "loophole" exists
For those who believe that we don't need guns to protect ourselves from the government... The Battle of Athens <iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/U5ut6yPrObw?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0"></iframe>
Disagree. This is disingenuous. I concede that you have been shotgun hunting in England and seen your buddy's shotgun and thus may know more about it than I. You quote the absolute figure of guns in England and state that as an argument to my statement that England is largely an unarmed society. I believe you are using a big sounding number that is misleading. http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list That comes out to 6 guns per 100 people. Well down on any list of countries. From what I can read on England they include airguns (I'm not sure about that but they do include them as listed in their crime reports). Why? because the only pistol shooting that you can do in England is with airguns or muzzle loading guns. All guns with barrels longer than 30 cm, or total gun length of 60 cm are completely banned. That is nearly 2 feet in length for those of us who graduated from public schools. Those are your so-called "long barreled handguns" Handguns are completely banned as you and I know them. Shotgun ownership is indeed tightly controlled, as is the magazine size for them (2) and the shot size (special permit for large size shot...basically anything other than bird shot). To own a rifle you have to PROVE need for ownership (the law states "genuine reason"...love that term "genuine"...for each .22...every five years for each weapon. They don't have to prove that you shouldn't own a gun...you have to prove your need. Of course personal protection is specifically not allowed as a "genuine reason". Character references are required (2 of them). You do not just file a request, but must have a face to face with the Firearms Liason Officer. The police inspect your home and gun cabinet as part of the permitting process. Private gun transactions of any kind are not merely controlled or registered...they are prohibited. You suggest the decrease in firearms related homicides in the US is due to better medical care...really? All violent crime is going down in the US, including homicide. Violent crime in England is going up, including homicide by firearm. Homicide rates were low in England BEFORE the gun laws were past, yet they are going up. http://www.saf.org/journal/16/guncontrolinengland.pdf http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323777204578195470446855466.html Even this guy, dismissive of US gun owners, admits it. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/9446474/UK-gun-owners.html Hell, their Olympian Pistol Shooters can't even find a place to practice. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/01/sports/olympics/handgun-ban-after-1996-mass-shooting-hampers-british-olympian-georgina-geikie.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 Terry, I respect your opinions that laws need to be tightened in particular private gun sales without background checks and large capacity magazines. I have my own reservations about whether those things are the root of the problem or whether they would solve anything but that doesn't matter. I'm pretty much done with this topic because my dander gets up when (2 or 3 times) you have referenced my comments about England. I think I was right. If you consider England not to be "disarmed" because they have their air rifles, bird shot shotguns, sporting clay ranges, controlled .22's for pest control (with proof of need), and occasional ability to shoot "the big one" (a .308...really?) on a tightly controlled range, then that is your prerogative but I cannot agree with you. If you support tight registration at the government's whim, coming out to your home, deciding whether or not you can own a single shot .22 that is also your prerogative but I wish you'd come out and say so and not rebuke me for "not wanting to be England"...I DON'T WANT TO BE! Sorry to run on so long...point is I respect your opinion but you are holding England up as an example to emulate while at the same time, I believe, incorrect about the true nature of what they have done. They are a disarmed society...with an increasing crime rate.
Not my intent to rebuke you at all, just to state simply that I disagree with your statement. A society with millions of weapons in the hands of its citizens doesn't qualify for my definition of unarmed. Clearly it does to you....we will agree to disagree. No big deal fyi, 30 cm is less that a foot in length, not "nearly 2 feet". I understand that you don't want to be England, nor do I. I reference them simply because of my experiences over there and there is some degree of familiarity with their system. Deer hunting (or stalking as they call it) is a very popular sport in the UK. Rifles, incl large calibers, higher capacity shotguns, more robust ammo are indeed available with a license (FAC) and all weapons do require a purpose....acceptable purposes include hunting and target shooting - doesn't seem to be an unreasonable burden to me. No question it can be a cumbersome process, but licensing is no big deal to me.....my car and pets require a license. A small price to pay to help improve a massive societal problem in my view. I understand that others disagree Perhaps their model is not ideal for us, but it is clear in my view that we need more stringent requirements and a more effective system than we have at present because our results are abysmal. My opinion is that there are worse things in the world than requiring gun owners to be qualified and licensed and weapons registered and one of those worse things is to be the overwhelming world leader in the rate at which we slaughter our young. I fully understand and accept that others have a different view. Yes, one can make the point that violent crime rates are decreasing but the absolute levels in our case remain woefully and tragically inadequate and not remotely close to the standards that the world's greatest society should aspire. Perhaps we have progressed from neanderthal to cro-magnon but we are still loping around in the jungle......we have a societal obligation to do better than that in my view I fully understand and accept that others believe strongly that the increase in regulation and "loss" of personal freedoms - as they see it - is not worth the young lives and costs to society that would be saved.....I simply disagree
And it sounds like you want to be England. The last time I said that you accused me f speaking for you. :?:
Sorry Stu, I don't know how I can be more clear......but you are certainly free to interpret the above in any way that fits your agenda so long as accuracy is not an objective. If you are interested in being accurate, the above should stand on its own Assuming you agree that we have a problem, I'm very interested to hear your views on any possible solutions. If you don't agree that we have a problem, then that would explain the resistance
Stu, the article you reference in making the claim about crime rates in the UK is ten years old.....here is the most recent data I could find. http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jul/14/crime-statistics-england-wales
Terry, my brother, I'm pretty much done here. I have done everything I can to be objective. That one article was older but was just posted because of some of the points it made. I also posted this one...from the Telegraph. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/7922755/England-has-worse-crime-rate-than-the-US-says-Civitas-study.html If you want to make this into a battle of wits and quips about the other guy's posts I will clearly lose. I ain't that sharp. If I was that fricking sharp I'd probably claim to have the answer. I don't. Nor do I buy into this "culture of violence" stuff. Europe and other parts of this world have much worse cultures of violence than we do. What we are going through now is, I believe, a breakdown in the fabric in our society fostered by our increasingly liberal policies. Crack down on law abiding citizens but foster illegals and criminals. We have created these shithole areas where most of the gun deaths occur in your statistics, and particular weapons have nothing to do with it. All I have basically done is take issue with your assertion that England is not a disarmed society. They are. Maybe becoming England would solve our homicide rate. I do not think so. I can respect that opinion but you won't even own up to it after trumpeting England, England, England. I am done here...maybe for a while on Skybox, too. I am not one to cut and run but I am on vacation and have had a bad couple of days and don't like getting into all this **** with someone I consider a friend. I'm surprised that this particular point is just you and me because I believe it is so transparent, but it is what it is.