| |
sunny 5
StuckOnPeas
PeaNut 472,024
June 2010
Posts: 2,076
Layouts: 0
 |  Posted: 1/24/2013 6:41:05 PM
nstead, the drop is just the latest in a national and local five-year decrease in violent crime: San Francisco's annual homicide averages have nearly halved since 2004. And according to the San Francisco Chronicle,
more recent results
San Francisco extended a three-year run of historically low homicide totals in 2011, a decline that defies easy explanation as it stretches through tough economic times.
The city experienced a spike in killings from 2004 to 2008, with an average of 93 a year. But the past three years have ended with homicide counts on a level last seen in the 1960s: 45 victims in 2009, 48 in 2010 and 50 last year.
San Francisco also saw a 6 percent drop in total violent crime last year - homicides, assaults, robberies and rapes.
sex offenders can't live within a certain distance from schools/parks, etc. and many of them live in sf because there is cheap housing not near schools..
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Through-hard-times-S-F-killings-at-historic-lows-2441692.php#ixzz2IwXpnFGG
| |
|
desertpea
StuckOnPeas
PeaNut 359,474
January 2008
Posts: 2,243
Layouts: 41
Loc: Moving!
 | Posted: 1/24/2013 6:44:52 PM
Providing you have no criminal record, it's pretty darn easy to get a gun in a lot of States. Florida doesn't require anything but your being over 18, have no criminal record, and wait 72 hrs before getting the gun ONLY if it's a hand gun. There is no waiting period for any other type of gun. Florida gun dealers are not required to be licensed by the State either.
Not every state is the same. I can CCW in Florida, and Florida people can CCW in Nevada.
But when people think buying a gun is the same thing as walking into CVS and buying a pack of Skittles, and base their arguments around that, it is a terrible debate about a very real issue dealing with mentally ill people going on shooting sprees.
I have no problem with further regulation that if someone fails a background check, that they get a visit from the police, for example. I am convinced this whole thing really should be a mental illness discussion.
But law abiding people shouldn't be treated like criminals and have their guns that they obtained legally and responsibly cared for taken away from them by force. I will never support that.
| |
|
Nightowl scrapper
Intl Assoc of Epic Length Posters - USA Chapter
PeaNut 103,889
August 2003
Posts: 24,787
Layouts: 0
Loc: Colorado
 | Posted: 1/24/2013 6:47:15 PM
San Francisco extended a three-year run of historically low homicide totals in 2011, a decline that defies easy explanation as it stretches through tough economic times.
The city experienced a spike in killings from 2004 to 2008, with an average of 93 a year. But the past three years have ended with homicide counts on a level last seen in the 1960s: 45 victims in 2009, 48 in 2010 and 50 last year.
San Francisco also saw a 6 percent drop in total violent crime last year - homicides, assaults, robberies and rapes.
Well, if we're trying to talk in context of gun laws, how do any of these statistics correlate to gun laws? Were they more liberal in 2004, then restrictive in 2008? The statistics are irrelevant to a discussion of gun laws unless somehow the crime rates relate to changes in gun laws. Otherwise, more investigation is needed to determine what truly impacts the crime rates.
You can't just say "hey, we have restrictive gun laws and our crime was high then dropped" and not analyze it in light of whether gun laws actually had any impact on the rise or drop in crime.
Your own article doesn't even mention gun laws. It does talk about some focused policing techniques. So your assumption that the crime rate in SF is all due to your fabulously restrictive gun laws is not supported by your source. |
"Until you put a thought into words, clearly and precisely, it is not a thought at all. It is a kind of fog rolling around inside the skull."
| |
|
|
desertpea
StuckOnPeas
PeaNut 359,474
January 2008
Posts: 2,243
Layouts: 41
Loc: Moving!
| Posted: 1/24/2013 7:11:45 PM
SF has extremely high gun crime rates and extremely restrictive gun laws in place.
They even tried to ban guns completely in 2005 with Prop H, and it got overturned by the courts.
Gun crime doubled in the past ten years. Actually, the whole Bay Area is one big crime pool.
| |
|
leftturnonly
Will trade mosquitoes for cookies.
PeaNut 416,788
March 2009
Posts: 19,583
Layouts: 0
Loc: Living in Kim's Perfect World, again.
 | Posted: 1/25/2013 12:46:19 AM
I have no problem with further regulation that if someone fails a background check, that they get a visit from the police, for example.
Sometimes, applicants actually do get that visit from law enforcement.
Florida doesn't require anything but your being over 18, have no criminal record, and wait 72 hrs before getting the gun ONLY if it's a hand gun. There is no waiting period for any other type of gun. Florida gun dealers are not required to be licensed by the State either.
This is misleading. Gun dealers in Florida still need to have a Federal Firearms License (FFL), and gun purchasers not only must fill out ATF form 4473 (Firearms Transaction Record), they still must have a background check done by NICS as per the Brady Law for all firearms purchases and/or alternate permits for handguns and long guns from these dealers.
There are 14 questions on this form, and lying on it is a felony offense that can be punished with up to five years in prison plus fines.
Buying a firearm from a dealer is not the same as walking in and buying a pair of flip flops, no matter if they can both be bought at the same store at the same time on the same bill of sale.
Is it still too easy? That's a matter up for discussion, but it is not as easy as you make it out to be.
|
If PC is the way to get to Heaven, I'm going straight to Hell.
| |
|
|
leftturnonly
Will trade mosquitoes for cookies.
PeaNut 416,788
March 2009
Posts: 19,583
Layouts: 0
Loc: Living in Kim's Perfect World, again.
| Posted: 1/25/2013 1:07:29 AM
This is a nation that prides itself on innocent until proven guilty.
Once someone has passed all the requirements that both their state and the federal government has made, they have the right to legally purchase a firearm and ammo.
We are not a nation that goes the "what if?" route. Criminals must be proven guilty. If we start down the road of "What if this person *flips*?" then we are substantially changing our fundamental character as a nation.
There has always been an inherent probability that some would get too much benefit of the doubt through this national philosophy of innocent until proven guilty, but we have chosen this way anyway.
This is a hard subject for all of us. Innocent until proven guilty is a hard philosophy to live by, even if the subject is gun ownership.
|
If PC is the way to get to Heaven, I'm going straight to Hell.
| |
|
|
I-95
It's all just nonsense anyway!
PeaNut 97,456
July 2003
Posts: 19,547
Layouts: 0
Loc: California, NY & Orlando
| Posted: 1/25/2013 4:11:52 AM
This is misleading. Gun dealers in Florida still need to have a Federal Firearms License (FFL), and gun purchasers not only must fill out ATF form 4473 (Firearms Transaction Record), they still must have a background check done by NICS as per the Brady Law for all firearms purchases and/or alternate permits for handguns and long guns from these dealers.
There are 14 questions on this form, and lying on it is a felony offense that can be punished with up to five years in prison plus fines.
And how often is somebody actually charged with lying on that questionnaire?
I did say they needed to go through a background check, but if you have no criminal history, that's not a problem. Nor is answering 14 questions, that takes all of about 5 minutes.
Buying a firearm from a dealer is not the same as walking in and buying a pair of flip flops, no matter if they can both be bought at the same store at the same time on the same bill of sale.
Is it still too easy? That's a matter up for discussion, but it is not as easy as you make it out to be.
Actually, in Florida, it IS that easy. It's even easier if you go to a gun show, where nobody asks any questions. | |
|
I-95
It's all just nonsense anyway!
PeaNut 97,456
July 2003
Posts: 19,547
Layouts: 0
Loc: California, NY & Orlando
| Posted: 1/25/2013 4:26:23 AM
This is a nation that prides itself on innocent until proven guilty.
Once someone has passed all the requirements that both their state and the federal government has made, they have the right to legally purchase a firearm and ammo.
We are not a nation that goes the "what if?" route. Criminals must be proven guilty. If we start down the road of "What if this person *flips*?" then we are substantially changing our fundamental character as a nation.
There has always been an inherent probability that some would get too much benefit of the doubt through this national philosophy of innocent until proven guilty, but we have chosen this way anyway.
This is a hard subject for all of us. Innocent until proven guilty is a hard philosophy to live by, even if the subject is gun ownership.
Yes, it is a difficult subject, and each side seems to have an answer for every argument the opposition brings up.
There's no way to answer the 'what if' question. I know people who can present as perfectly normal, but I wouldn't want a gun in their hands of any reason...but they'd pass a background check and a mental health questionnaire. The Sandy Hook shooter could have purchased guns legally, if he'd been willing to wait for the 3 days required by law. He wasn't.
I would guess that most DV homicides are committed by people who have no trouble passing background checks or mental health questionnaires, and purchased their guns legally. Since there's no way of telling who's going to flip, we have to come up with another method of control for weapons purchases. Whatever it is, it will undoubtedly upset the pro-gun folks, but I don't recall the Constitution saying it had to be easy for someone to own a gun, just that we had the right to bear arms. | |
|
lynlam
Don'tcha wish your girlfriend had spurs like mine?
PeaNut 46,248
August 2002
Posts: 6,377
Layouts: 41
Loc: Ohio
 | Posted: 1/25/2013 6:39:46 AM
"Actually, in Florida, it IS that easy. It's even easier if you go to a gun show, where nobody asks any questions."
-------------
The "gun show loophole" is a misnomer. There is no such thing. Most if not all of the people who rent tables at shows are actual FFL dealers, bringing their inventory to sell and they are still bound by the same ATF rules as they are when they are selling in their shops. They still fill out the forms, check id's and run the NICS check. Now if I as a private gun owner wish to sell my M1 Garand, I can take it there and sell it to a dealer, or yes, maybe another Joe Schmo who is walking around looking for one. In that case, it is a private sale, person to person and no dealer or NICS involved. But that is not a gun show loophole. I can sell my gun to any other person as long as I know they are a resident of my state at anytime.
And in all actuality, less than 1% of all guns used in crimes are purchased at gun shows. So why are we demonizing yet another segement of people who are doing absolutely nothing wrong? |
 
"We demand entire freedom of action and then expect the government in some miraculous way to save us from the consequences of our own acts... Self-government means self-reliance." Calvin Coolidge
Lynlam, the second-tier Pea, paid (except it appears she is not) political shill. | |
|
|
lynlam
Don'tcha wish your girlfriend had spurs like mine?
PeaNut 46,248
August 2002
Posts: 6,377
Layouts: 41
Loc: Ohio
| |
PeaCeaRyder
BucketHead
PeaNut 411,442
February 2009
Posts: 687
Layouts: 0
| Posted: 1/25/2013 7:46:31 AM
So why are we demonizing yet another segement of people who are doing absolutely nothing wrong?
Because they are easier to target than the actual criminals...which is why laws affect the law-abiding citizen more than they do the criminals. As long as there are people who have no respect for the law and their fellow citizens, there is going to be crime. I think the focus should be on the perpretrators, not the weapons. |
| Today is the tomorrow you worried about yesterday. | |
|
|
obliolait
BucketHead
PeaNut 550,788
April 2012
Posts: 856
Layouts: 0
 | Posted: 1/25/2013 7:57:15 AM
Because they are easier to target than the actual criminals...which is why laws affect the law-abiding citizen more than they do the criminals. As long as there are people who have no respect for the law and their fellow citizens, there is going to be crime. I think the focus should be on the perpretrators, not the weapons.
That's ridiculous considering the amount of money spent on law enforcement in relation to that spent on promoting gun control. The proliferation of guns and gun culture in the United States contributes to its high violent crime rate and it is intellectually valid to open a dialog on their effect and control. Meanwhile, the proposed measures are mild and target weapons that are frequently used in mass murders. | |
|
I-95
It's all just nonsense anyway!
PeaNut 97,456
July 2003
Posts: 19,547
Layouts: 0
Loc: California, NY & Orlando
| Posted: 1/25/2013 8:13:10 AM
And in all actuality, less than 1% of all guns used in crimes are purchased at gun shows. So why are we demonizing yet another segement of people who are doing absolutely nothing wrong?
I'm not demonizing anyone. I'm just looking for solutions to what the majority of people think is a problem. Why do you believe we're out to get you, or your guns?
I can't speak for any other State, but in Florida I don't need to be a registered gun seller to get a booth at a gun show, and Florida doesn't require a private seller to anything, not even write up a bill of sale. And how do you know that less than 1% of guns purchases at gun shows are used in a crime? That's not a snarky question, but how would anyone have complete records for that?
Guns are not something to be feared when you actually use your head, you dimwit.
I realize you weren't directing this at me, but I just wanted to say, I agree with you. Guns in the hands of people who respect them, know how to use them, and don't think they are an alternative to conversation. No one needs to fear that. I do fear people who think violence is the first line of defense though....anybody who peppers their conversation with 'I'm gonna kick his ass' or 'I'm going to take him down', is not someone I want to have easy access to weapons...while I'm anywhere around them...and here in the South, you hear those words a LOT!!! | |
|
PeaCeaRyder
BucketHead
PeaNut 411,442
February 2009
Posts: 687
Layouts: 0
| Posted: 1/25/2013 8:14:36 AM
Meanwhile, the proposed measures are mild and target weapons that are frequently used in mass murders.
"Frequently used" are the key words here. My point is that the focus should be on the ones who are committing the crimes, not on the weapons they use. You could ban all the guns in the country and criminals will still find a way to obtain them. The only people who would be out are those who abide by the law. |
| Today is the tomorrow you worried about yesterday. | |
|
|
obliolait
BucketHead
PeaNut 550,788
April 2012
Posts: 856
Layouts: 0
| Posted: 1/25/2013 9:12:38 AM
"Frequently used" are the key words here. My point is that the focus should be on the ones who are committing the crimes, not on the weapons they use. You could ban all the guns in the country and criminals will still find a way to obtain them. The only people who would be out are those who abide by the law.
We do focus on criminals you fool. In case you haven't noticed, our courts are backlogged and our prisons are overwrought with the condemned. We are capable of taking more than a single course of action. Claiming that we should "focus" on those that commit crimes is stating non-sense, you blithering buffoon. | |
|
I-95
It's all just nonsense anyway!
PeaNut 97,456
July 2003
Posts: 19,547
Layouts: 0
Loc: California, NY & Orlando
| Posted: 1/25/2013 10:48:53 AM
You could ban all the guns in the country and criminals will still find a way to obtain them. The only people who would be out are those who abide by the law.
Some criminals would still get them. However, there are a lot of homicides committed because there was a gun handy. There are a lot of suicides that might not have happened if a gun hadn't been close by. There are a lot of accidents that happen which might not have happened, if there hadn't been a gun left laying around. Yes, murders will still be committed by other means, people will still commit suicide by other means, but many lives would not have ended, if a gun had not be there right at the moment the person lost their mind and pulled the trigger... and all of those people were likely legal gun owners.
Obliolait....try being nicer. You can say all the same things without the name calling. | |
|
PeaCeaRyder
BucketHead
PeaNut 411,442
February 2009
Posts: 687
Layouts: 0
| Posted: 1/25/2013 11:03:58 AM
oblio, nastiness becomes no pea but since that seems to be your MO, I'll just say this:
When something like this happens, most of the hoopla surrounds gun control - more laws (rather than enforcing the ones we currently have); more talk of bans and more red tape for the responsible citizen to endure. Still, all that does not address the criminals and the mentally ill who are committing these crimes. I don't care how much gun control you have, there will always be a way for the criminals to obtain guns, just like liquor was obtainable for those who wanted it during prohibition. All it did was increase crime rather than curtail it. The answer is not more prisons or more asylums. Our society is sick; it's a moral and spiritual problem that is not going to go away even if you banned all the weapons in existence. I know no one wants to hear it so I'll say no more on the subject. Carry on. |
| Today is the tomorrow you worried about yesterday. | |
|
|
maddiesmum
PeaNut
PeaNut 574,034
December 2012
Posts: 365
Layouts: 0
| Posted: 1/25/2013 11:06:38 AM
None of your damn business where my guns are. But I will tell you that my kids are both crack shots and knowledgeable about their firearms. They both own several. And my youngest is going to take up the sport of Cowboy mounted shooting too. Guns are not something to be feared when you actually use your head, you dimwit
What about their friends and any other children that visit your house? Can they access them? | |
|
ePEAcenter
BucketHead
PeaNut 364,981
February 2008
Posts: 639
Layouts: 2
Loc: Texas Hill Country
| Posted: 1/25/2013 11:12:51 AM
there should be strict storage regulations i.e., in a safe. I don't suggest that homes should be inspected, but the owner should be culpable if their gun is stolen and used in a crime. This goes for transporting the gun as well - it should be in a locked box in the trunk of the car. No one should be permitted to carry a concealed or visible firearm within a town or city's limits. There should also be a registry of firearms to which the police are privy. The background check for sale of guns should not happen at the point of purchase, but during a stringent licensing process. Some kind of biometric identification should be used a the point of purchase. Gun shows should be outlawed.
1. If I own a weapon for home defense, I would be stupid to have it unloaded and locked in a safe. In such a condition it would clearly be unable to serve the purpose I purchased it for. An unloaded weapon is about as useful for self defense as a brick.
2. Why in hell should a legal gun owner be culpable in any way for the actions of a criminal who stole the gun from his house? Would you like all victims of crime to be culpable for what happens to their stolen goods. Since most cars used in drive-by gang shootings are stolen, I assume you want the victims of those crimes to be held responsible for the actions of the criminals, correct? Positively asinine.
| |
|
Krazyscrapper
StuckOnPeas
PeaNut 131,612
February 2004
Posts: 2,061
Layouts: 0
Loc: Sonoma County
| Posted: 1/25/2013 12:59:49 PM
None of your damn business where my guns are. But I will tell you that my kids are both crack shots and knowledgeable about their firearms. They both own several. And my youngest is going to take up the sport of Cowboy mounted shooting too. Guns are not something to be feared when you actually use your head, you dimwit.
Would you like to address the idiots that are considered "responsible law abiding gun owners" who leave their guns out and their kids get a hold of them and end up shooting themselves, their sibling, or playmates?
Its clear that idiots are allowed to own guns and until one can determine if this "responsible law abiding gun owner" is indeed a responsible gun owner then yes, guns are to be feared. Because you never know what catagory the gun owner falls into when they are holding a gun and that is a problem.
| |
|
lynlam
Don'tcha wish your girlfriend had spurs like mine?
PeaNut 46,248
August 2002
Posts: 6,377
Layouts: 41
Loc: Ohio
| Posted: 1/26/2013 7:14:46 AM
"What about their friends and any other children that visit your house? Can they access them?"
-------------
Yes. I leave them on the coffee table. 
(That was sarcasm, in case you miss it) |
"We demand entire freedom of action and then expect the government in some miraculous way to save us from the consequences of our own acts... Self-government means self-reliance." Calvin Coolidge
Lynlam, the second-tier Pea, paid (except it appears she is not) political shill. | |
|
|
lynlam
Don'tcha wish your girlfriend had spurs like mine?
PeaNut 46,248
August 2002
Posts: 6,377
Layouts: 41
Loc: Ohio
| |
leftturnonly
Will trade mosquitoes for cookies.
PeaNut 416,788
March 2009
Posts: 19,583
Layouts: 0
Loc: Living in Kim's Perfect World, again.
| Posted: 1/27/2013 2:04:28 AM
I-95, it's late and I'm not sure what thread it was on now, but I wanted to take a moment here to answer you about who checks the answers on the ATF form.
Right now, to my knowledge, no one does unless there's a specific need.
Who's fault is that? This is a federal agency.
So, my question to those who are demanding more laws is pretty much this...... If we can't handle the laws we already have, WTH makes you think even more laws are going to be the answer?
I'm still waiting to find out what Feinstein has to say about the specifics in her multiple bans that make those weapons so much more dangerous than others. That's a serious question, and one I think those defending her should be able to discuss.
|
If PC is the way to get to Heaven, I'm going straight to Hell.
| |
|
|
I-95
It's all just nonsense anyway!
PeaNut 97,456
July 2003
Posts: 19,547
Layouts: 0
Loc: California, NY & Orlando
| Posted: 1/27/2013 2:23:17 AM
I-95, it's late and I'm not sure what thread it was on now, but I wanted to take a moment here to answer you about who checks the answers on the ATF form.
Right now, to my knowledge, no one does unless there's a specific need.
Who's fault is that? This is a federal agency.
So, my question to those who are demanding more laws is pretty much this...... If we can't handle the laws we already have, WTH makes you think even more laws are going to be the answer?
Thank you. It is as I suspected. So the questions actually have no real purpose, other than to make it look like someone is taking a responsible stand.
I agree with you, I'd like to see the laws that are already in place enforced before we jump into writing more laws that will likely be ignored also.
I am not crazy about a flurry of laws being rushed in to place after a tragedy. Look what we got out of 9/11...the Patriot's Act, which I consider to be the biggest thief of our personal freedoms than anything that has ever been dumped on us in the wake of a tragedy. I do not support that kind of law making. I'm not sure what will work, but we simply can't continue to ignore what is a real National tragedy...all the individuals who die from a bullet, one at a time. | |
|
leftturnonly
Will trade mosquitoes for cookies.
PeaNut 416,788
March 2009
Posts: 19,583
Layouts: 0
Loc: Living in Kim's Perfect World, again.
| Posted: 1/27/2013 2:34:59 AM
So the questions actually have no real purpose, other than to make it look like someone is taking a responsible stand.
The dealers that comply with the law and go through this paperwork are doing something responsible.
People are turned down everyday at this point, and these forms are kept indefinitely. ATF is very particular about how they are stored.
Could more be done? By the federal agency who's form is required by law? That might be a much more reasonable thing to focus on than some of the other things I've heard recently.
|
If PC is the way to get to Heaven, I'm going straight to Hell.
| |
|
|
Ursula Schneider
BucketHead
PeaNut 97,497
July 2003
Posts: 993
Layouts: 94
Loc: Southeastern Arizona
| Posted: 1/27/2013 2:37:30 AM
I don't believe regulations are the answer to the murder issues we've seen on the increase. Mexico is an example of that. A citizen can't own a gun yet gun murders are rampant. When gun ownership becomes illegal or too highly regulated the only people with guns are the government and the bad guys.
The average citizen is left defenseless. Many have fought and died for our right to bear arms. It makes me sad how willing we are to sign that away.
The problem is not guns, it's people. To assume we can control the murderous rage of sick people by removing access to one type of weapon in a world where the design of weapons seems to be an underground past time is short sighted. |
|
|
I-95
It's all just nonsense anyway!
PeaNut 97,456
July 2003
Posts: 19,547
Layouts: 0
Loc: California, NY & Orlando
| Posted: 1/27/2013 4:38:29 AM
Many have fought and died for our right to bear arms. It makes me sad how willing we are to sign that away.
I'm not sure anyone fought and died specifically to protect our right to bear arms, but if you've been reading these threads, nobody is suggesting that anyone 'sign away their rights to bear arms'. If this makes you sad, you must have been devastated when the Government took away a whole lot more of your freedoms with the Patriot's Act.
But let's not compare Mexico with the United States. Mexico is a third world country, we are not. | |
|
justalittletike
AncestralPea
PeaNut 434,313
August 2009
Posts: 4,497
Layouts: 26
 | Posted: 1/27/2013 4:53:53 AM
I don't think it will matter. No matter what the choice those that want to will find the option or choose something else like a knife. |
|
|
lynlam
Don'tcha wish your girlfriend had spurs like mine?
PeaNut 46,248
August 2002
Posts: 6,377
Layouts: 41
Loc: Ohio
| |
I-95
It's all just nonsense anyway!
PeaNut 97,456
July 2003
Posts: 19,547
Layouts: 0
Loc: California, NY & Orlando
| Posted: 1/27/2013 6:41:01 AM
True. But do we have any idea what kind of nightmare bureaucracy it would take to check everyone of those forms for truthful answers?
Uploaded with iPhone client
Yes. And since one of them is something like 'Have you ever been admitted to a mental hospital/institution?' Is that an automatic denial? There are many reasons one can have been on a psychiatric ward at a hospital. 30 years ago a drunk driver ran a red light and smashed into me. One of the injuries I sustained was a frontal lobe brain injury (bruised brain) After seeing a neurologist, I was referred to a psychiatrist. In order to do the necessary testing and modify meds, I was placed on a psychiatric unit for observation and testing. Was I crazy then? No. Am I now? No, but the honest answer to that question on the form would be 'yes'.
During my stay there I met a couple of women who were there for psychiatric care. One whose husband had run off with all the money and his secretary, leaving his distraught wife suicidal. The other was a young mother who had lost her only child in a house fire. Neither of these women were insane, they'd each had a traumatic experience for which they got help, and recovered...would they be denied? And if we lied and said no, how would anybody check 30 year old hospital records, which are private anyway.
There's no question that almost anything proposed is a can of worms, but somewhere in there is a compromise. | |
|
tamhugh
Ancient Ancestor of Pea
PeaNut 12,875
March 2001
Posts: 7,890
Layouts: 11
 | Posted: 1/27/2013 8:27:00 AM
None of your damn business where my guns are. But I will tell you that my kids are both crack shots and knowledgeable about their firearms. They both own several.
My parents could have written this about my brother. He had certificates all over his wall from Boy Scout camps, etc on rifle safety and marksmanship. He took all the classes they could find before he was allowed to hunt. And then he accidently shot himself in a hunting accident. He lived, he was lucky. No one else was injured. But he was permanently injured, physically and mentally. So, don't be too confident about your children's abilities. Accidents happen. | |
|
Judie in Oz
PEAing Upside Down
PeaNut 12,503
March 2001
Posts: 7,220
Layouts: 44
Loc: Down Under
| Posted: 1/27/2013 8:56:48 AM
Judie | |
|
Mrs_Tyler
Sorting Laundry
PeaNut 197,836
March 2005
Posts: 24,079
Layouts: 246
Loc: Enjoying the humid continental climate zone.
 | Posted: 1/27/2013 9:27:22 AM
Judie, millions of Americans have grown up with the right to bear arms. | |
|
Krazyscrapper
StuckOnPeas
PeaNut 131,612
February 2004
Posts: 2,061
Layouts: 0
Loc: Sonoma County
| Posted: 1/27/2013 11:37:39 AM
I will say the same thing I said on the other thread. There are stupid people everywhere. It's the nature of HUMANITY to be prone to making stupid decisions. How do you propose to determine ahead of time who will make stupid decisions and who won't?
We have laws to punish all the stupid people. But you just can't legislate stupid away. And taking the rights away, either directly or thru tighter and tighter regulations, of every single law abiding citizen, is not the answer.
And that is the problem isn't it. When a stranger is around you with a gun you have no idea what kind of person he/she is and what they are going to do with the gun do you?
"We have laws to punish the all the stupid people". Hmm that isn't going to help me much if I'm dead by the actions of the stupid gun owner now is it? The laws aren't helping the parents of the 20 children killed in Sandy Hook are they?
Here is how I see it. The gun group doesn't want any meaningful limitations on gun ownership. I don't want any guns around at all with a few exceptions.
However I'm open to compromise as long we find a way to start taking guns off the streets and out of the hands of "idiots".
What I would like to see is a national gun registry to follow the gun from the time its manufactured/imported until its destroyed. I don't know for sure but I suspect a lot of legal guns end up becoming illegal guns because of the lack of responsibility on thr part of the original gun owner. Maybe if a gun owner knew they would be held responsible for any crime used by a gun registered to them they may be a little more careful on what they do with their gun or guns.
I also think all gun laws should be federal so the same laws apply to all the states equally. A perfect example of why I think this is Chicago. Guns are banned in the city but not outside and I don't believe people are checked for guns before they enter Chicago so of course that law was going to fail. I'm not saying all guns should be banned but this is why gun laws should be federal so the same set of laws apply to everyone.
As much as I like to see this done its not going to happen the NRA is just too strong and too paranoid. I just wish someting would get done because I'm tried of reading about gun deaths with illegal and legal guns. | |
|
ePEAcenter
BucketHead
PeaNut 364,981
February 2008
Posts: 639
Layouts: 2
Loc: Texas Hill Country
| Posted: 1/27/2013 1:02:40 PM
I don't know for sure but I suspect a lot of legal guns end up becoming illegal guns because of the lack of responsibility on thr part of the original gun owner. Maybe if a gun owner knew they would be held responsible for any crime used by a gun registered to them they may be a little more careful on what they do with their gun or guns.
So I'm sure you feel the same way about your car. If your car is stolen out of your driveway, you should be held responsible for the crimes committed with that car by the thieves. Also fertilizer, of course. If someone steals fertilizer out of your garden shed and uses it to make an explosive device you are fine to be held legally responsible for the deaths of all victims. Heck, how about that old thermometer. You are fine to be held legally responsible for the mercury contained in that thermometer which is more than sufficient to poison a victim? This could go on all day...
I'm for laws that punish actual criminals.
| |
|
Maizie
* Happy Camper *
PeaNut 223,117
September 2005
Posts: 16,350
Layouts: 22
Loc: Heffalump Hollow
 | Posted: 1/27/2013 1:16:47 PM
I guess I just don't see a NEED for them.
The folks I know who are so pro-gun are also quiet extreme in their thinking... that is what scares me, there is underlying hatred there that is more obvious as the days go by. Do we have the right? Sure. Is it necessary... not really. |
|
|
Maizie
* Happy Camper *
PeaNut 223,117
September 2005
Posts: 16,350
Layouts: 22
Loc: Heffalump Hollow
| Posted: 1/27/2013 1:25:43 PM
I guess I just don't see a NEED for them.
The folks I know who are so pro-gun are also quiet extreme in their thinking... that is what scares me, there is underlying hatred there that is more obvious as the days go by. Do we have the right? Sure. Is it necessary... not really. |
|
|
ePEAcenter
BucketHead
PeaNut 364,981
February 2008
Posts: 639
Layouts: 2
Loc: Texas Hill Country
| Posted: 1/27/2013 1:37:16 PM
there is underlying hatred there
That is a shockingly offensive perspective.
You do realize that legal gun owners are far less likely to commit a crime or behave violently than the remainder of society right? | |
|
I-95
It's all just nonsense anyway!
PeaNut 97,456
July 2003
Posts: 19,547
Layouts: 0
Loc: California, NY & Orlando
| Posted: 1/27/2013 4:42:34 PM
You do realize that legal gun owners are far less likely to commit a crime or behave violently than the remainder of society right?
How do you figure that? And based on what...the ratio between legal gun owners who never commit a crime v criminals and street thugs v people who don't own guns at all v legal gun owners who do commit crimes? I wanna see those stats. | |
|
Krazyscrapper
StuckOnPeas
PeaNut 131,612
February 2004
Posts: 2,061
Layouts: 0
Loc: Sonoma County
| Posted: 1/27/2013 6:22:11 PM
So I'm sure you feel the same way about your car. If your car is stolen out of your driveway, you should be held responsible for the crimes committed with that car by the thieves. Also fertilizer, of course. If someone steals fertilizer out of your garden shed and uses it to make an explosive device you are fine to be held legally responsible for the deaths of all victims. Heck, how about that old thermometer. You are fine to be held legally responsible for the mercury contained in that thermometer which is more than sufficient to poison a victim? This could go on all day...
The arguement is old. Why shouldn't guns be tracked during their life? I would think a law abiding responsible gun owner would have a problem with this.
Problem with a lot of gun owners they want the guns but not the responsibility that goes with gun ownership. Lets be clear here, guns were invented for one thing and one thing only and that is to kill. You can put whatever spin you want on it but you can't change the facts. | |
|
leftturnonly
Will trade mosquitoes for cookies.
PeaNut 416,788
March 2009
Posts: 19,583
Layouts: 0
Loc: Living in Kim's Perfect World, again.
| Posted: 1/27/2013 10:49:48 PM
True. But do we have any idea what kind of nightmare bureaucracy it would take to check everyone of those forms for truthful answers?
Yeah, I do.
The question that I-95 referred to that deals with mental health uses legally specific terms regarding diagnosis/assessment of mental competence and refers to being judged in a court or otherwise forcibly committed to a mental institution. Voluntarily seeking mental counseling, either outpatient or inpatient, does not necessitate a "Yes" answer on the ATF form. (Which would end the process of sale of firearm at that point.)
(This question was changed because of the VA Tech shooter.)
Question 12f, ATF Form 4473
Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective (which includes having been adjudicated incompetent to manage your own affairs) or have you ever been committed to a mental institution?
Your answer would be "No", I-95.
|
If PC is the way to get to Heaven, I'm going straight to Hell.
| |
|
|
stampcrazychick
PeaFixture
PeaNut 328,112
July 2007
Posts: 3,114
Layouts: 0
Loc: Utah
| Posted: 1/28/2013 8:45:49 AM
I'm against any kind of a gun ban.
I'm also against any additional regulations on guns. | |
|
ePEAcenter
BucketHead
PeaNut 364,981
February 2008
Posts: 639
Layouts: 2
Loc: Texas Hill Country
| Posted: 1/28/2013 11:50:19 AM
How do you figure that? And based on what...the ratio between legal gun owners who never commit a crime v criminals and street thugs v people who don't own guns at all v legal gun owners who do commit crimes? I wanna see those stats.
Sure.
This (totally partisan but none the less accurate) analysis of data presented in a NYT article about North Carolina breaks it right down for you.
web page | |
|
leftturnonly
Will trade mosquitoes for cookies.
PeaNut 416,788
March 2009
Posts: 19,583
Layouts: 0
Loc: Living in Kim's Perfect World, again.
| Posted: 1/28/2013 12:26:08 PM
I am so glad you've been on these threads, ePEAcenter. 
These results are consistent with the people I know who have a concealed carry handgun license. Note that I said that they have a license to cc. Most people who have a license (around here) do not carry even though they are legally allowed to.
From ePEAcenter's link....
According to the data, concealed carry permit holders in North Carolina are five times less likely to kill someone than the average citizen.
According to the data concealed carry permit holders are 5.48 times less likely to commit a violent crime with a firearm than the average citizen.
According to the data concealed carry permit holders are 6.6 times less likely to be involved with drunk driving than the average citizen.
This comment that was left on the Times' article sums up a lot of the problems we're having. Many of those wanting more regulations or bans are not evaluating the hard evidence honestly, and that's a true problem that will only continue to divide us.
There are always bad apples in the group as we all know. Thanks for basing the story around N.C. and creating unneeded attention to a process that has worked for YEARS. Cutting edge "Times". Wonder why there wasn't any mention of the cases of lives SAVED by CCW'ers and how other states rank in comparison, along with those who have much looser laws? Very sloppy story in my opinion since there was very little content, no statistics to back it, and very loose references and their details. I have seen better reporting in high school publications. Doubt this comment will get published but to those who read it it's amazing how poor quality this story was written and what it lacked.
The original story was a negative one about those with Concealed Carry in NC, but the facts that The Times based their article on told a completely different story.
|
If PC is the way to get to Heaven, I'm going straight to Hell.
| |
|
|
Enough
PeaNut
PeaNut 553,030
April 2012
Posts: 483
Layouts: 0
| Posted: 1/28/2013 2:48:02 PM
So I'm sure you feel the same way about your car. If your car is stolen out of your driveway, you should be held responsible for the crimes committed with that car by the thieves. Also fertilizer, of course. If someone steals fertilizer out of your garden shed and uses it to make an explosive device you are fine to be held legally responsible for the deaths of all victims. Heck, how about that old thermometer. You are fine to be held legally responsible for the mercury contained in that thermometer which is more than sufficient to poison a victim? This could go on all day...
The arguement is old.
Can you explain why you feel that a gun owner should be held responsible for a crime committed by someone else who stole their property just because it's a gun, but you shouldn't be held accountable for a crime committed with your stolen property? | |
|
I-95
It's all just nonsense anyway!
PeaNut 97,456
July 2003
Posts: 19,547
Layouts: 0
Loc: California, NY & Orlando
| Posted: 1/28/2013 3:16:03 PM
Your answer would be "No", I-95.
Thank you
I have never personally purchased a gun, but DH has, and he has a C & C (not sure why, I have never known him to carry, ever, in the 25 years we've been married!
Sure.
This (totally partisan but none the less accurate) analysis of data presented in a NYT article about North Carolina breaks it right down for you.
Thank you for linking the article. I found it quite interesting. I do, naturally  , have a small problem with it. It only compares legally authorized C & C permit holders with the rest of the population, all thrown in together. There is no comparison between regular gun owners, street thugs and gang bangers, and those who own no weapons at all (but committed their homicides with knives, strangulation, or some other means)
I do believe that C & C owners probably are a more responsible group of gun owners. They have gone to the trouble of purchasing a weapon, and taking a class, putting in some time at a shooting range etc. That involves a commitment, and probably a higher level of responsibility than the average Joe who just goes into Wal-Mart, fills out his questionnaire, submits to a background check, and rides off into the sunset with his new toy.
It doesn't address the rest of the gun owning population at all. | |
|
I-95
It's all just nonsense anyway!
PeaNut 97,456
July 2003
Posts: 19,547
Layouts: 0
Loc: California, NY & Orlando
| Posted: 1/28/2013 3:39:15 PM
Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective (which includes having been adjudicated incompetent to manage your own affairs) or have you ever been committed to a mental institution?
Mmm, now I'm disturbed about that wording. According to that phrasing of the question, the Sandy Hook killer would have qualified to buy the weapons he used. And a whole bunch of other seriously disturbed people can legally buy weapons too.
It is next to impossible, these days to get someone involuntarily committed to a psychiatric unit. Since both my children are profoundly autistic, and unable to make the usual decisions one would expect of an adult, when they turned 18, we applied to the court to have them adjudicated as mentally defective, and placed in our guardianship. The process was very stringent. It cost $7,000 for each child, in legal fees. I have forgotten how much in additional court order psychiatric exams, tons of paperwork. We had to make full financial disclosures (to prove we weren't doing this just to get our hands on their trust funds!!) and we are required to report, once a year, to the court, how we have handled their affairs. A huge number of families, with adult children who SHOULD be thusly adjudicated, simply can't afford the financial cost, nor do they have the desire to put themselves through the process.... and that makes a lot of people who should never own a gun, in a perfectly legal position to own one. Not good. | |
|
leftturnonly
Will trade mosquitoes for cookies.
PeaNut 416,788
March 2009
Posts: 19,583
Layouts: 0
Loc: Living in Kim's Perfect World, again.
| Posted: 1/28/2013 4:19:06 PM
Understanding and treating mental health is the new frontier.
The recent rise in autism throughout the spectrum and the acknowledgement that people have different ways of paying attention have made a lot of ideas that worked previously completely outdated.
The involuntary commitment clause mentioned is not just from family, it's also more specifically for those who have gone through the court system. That makes sense on this form.
I do believe that C & C owners probably are a more responsible group of gun owners. They have gone to the trouble of purchasing a weapon, and taking a class, putting in some time at a shooting range etc. That involves a commitment, and probably a higher level of responsibility than the average Joe who just goes into Wal-Mart, fills out his questionnaire, submits to a background check, and rides off into the sunset with his new toy.
I was totally with you up until you walked into WalMart. Concealed handgun licensed individuals shop at WalMart, too.
Also, I think this is another very misunderstood way of purchasing firearms. In this small area I live in, the vast majority of people who purchase firearms and ammo from these retailers are hunters and/or veterans. Only a few WalMarts sell long guns (they only sell handguns in Alaska) and they are especially attentive to following the law. There are other retailers (not as large as WM) that sell firearms as well, and ATF may drop in unannounced at any time on any dealer to check on compliance. It's too big a market and they are too obvious to not take the laws extremely seriously.
Think about it. Who's more likely to comply with all the federal, state and local laws? A little gunshop who may go out of business after a few years, or a huge retailer with a national market?
|
If PC is the way to get to Heaven, I'm going straight to Hell.
| |
|
|
