The "Gun Culture" is NOT the problem

In the spirit of civility yes, I take your point. I think I understand the rights-based view. Regardless of what anyone thinks, the US Sup Ct has interpreted th 2nd Amendment and that's it. Following from that I'm sure reasonable people could come to an understanding of what is possible and desirable. There are extreme views on both sides of the divide and, as usual, extreme views are only helpful in setting boundaries for discussion.

I think it was in another thread that someone made the good point that CCW holders are very responsible people. I wonder if the sort of checks and balances that apply to CCW could be, with reasonable adjustment, be used a model for all other firearms. I stress, reasonable adjustment, I understand the difference between a long weapon and a handgun in terms of mobility of carriage, concealment, primary use and so on.

- - - Updated - - -

Fair point, if there's little or no enforcement it makes any law moot. Over time it leads to desuetude.

 

Fifty different states, fifty different standards for going about acquiring a concealed carry permit. Which standard should be selected for the national model, when the primary reason for differing standards is simply to disqualify as many out of state permits as possible? Should the "good cause" standard be applied so anyone who cannot prove that they have a legitimate need for a firearm, can be denied legal ownership of a firearm?

 

Well for starters we could start enforcing background checks that actually work.

Possibly age restrictions on CCWs, as much of the gun violence starts leveling out around 25 or so. Apparently in this age range it's the #1 cause of death for African Americans, who are twice as likely to commit or be a victim of said gun violence.

Start prosecuting gun crimes. Put them in jail where they belong.

"Good Cause" is anything but. It is a method of punishing all for the lowest common denominator. The state government does not have the right to impose MY right of owning a gun, unless I present some clear and present danger to other citizens. It is a procedural method that attempts a blanket gun ban. Case in point, the New Jersey woman that was stabbed to death. She had a clear and present need to defend herself, and was denied. Regardless of that denial being implicit or explicit does not matter. Applying for a CCW and waiting 6 months or more when your life is in danger NOW is, in my opinion, gross negligence on the states behalf.

"Good Cause" is even more egregious when you consider that the police are not required to protect you, and this has been upheld by the supreme court (well, except in 2 specific circumstances).

Those of us that have been honorably discharged from the military are in many ways more qualified than the police to have guns as well. I can run around engaging enemies of my country but I can't be trusted with a handgun to protect my family? Not to mention insurgent threats of violence against our service members and their families here on our home soil.

Additionally, would it not make good sense to have our prior and current military members that can and will protect us against terrorism out there and armed against these foreign threats?

 

That is correct. So the NRA's statement to "support any reasonable step to fix America’s broken mental health system without intruding on the constitutional rights of Americans" rings hollow to me.

 

The same way they benefit from drug laws and parking meters, i.e., job security and high pay.

 

Of course it would, conspiracy theorists never need any facts to go on.

 

Perhaps their statement rings hollow with you, because you have gone on record to state how you favor the use of violence in response to being disrespected by others.

 

Thats because you have no clue what the NRA does for firearm safety and competency instruction, and advocating for medical records reporting to NICS. They have been in congress advocating for mental health system revamping. They are one of the loudest advocates for fixing our revolving door justice system. In their membership publications they continually ask members to write their congressmen to ask them to support an overhaul of our mental health system.
It rings hollow because you don't know enough about them. You only know of the slandering of the organization from the anti gun contingency.
It is only in the NRA's best interest to do the best they can to stop gun violence. They know they are a target after every high profile shooting.

 

Not denying it. But when somebody disrespects me, I hit 'em in the nose. I don't reach inside my truck and come back out with a gun.

 

The NRA can lobby congress until everybody in the country has four 155mm howitzers but they can't get anything done in congress to overhaul the mental health system? C'mon, man.

 

Why have a national model?

 

So that we have interstate reciprocity.

 

Big words!!!!! For those who don't know what "interstate reciprocity" is, it means that you can qualify in one State that has agreements with other States, and you're automatically qualified to carry there as well. Even with Arizona (closest to me), where AZ. residents enjoy "Constitutional carry" (no permit required), residents from other States have to have the reciprocity qualification if they want to carry concealed there.
Ideally, we'd have Constitutional carry across the Nation, with no need for the "Mother May I" card.

 

Rocks, knives, axes, swords, arrows were taken to before the arquebus. I'm not making the arguement that legislation restricting guns would decrease violent crime. Disarming the population and emboldening the criminals? Flawed logic. Criminals are part of the population, There is surely enough fever for guns for among the population to go about these so called dirty means buying a gun. You fail to see this issue as constituted in a nation-state level decison. If one wishes to kill another they might do it with their fists, a brick on the ground, a shard of glass. Looking back at the brutal brawls of antiquity, the bloodlust hasn't gone anywhere. But one man, not an army, cohort, or squad has the power, sane or not, to slaughter with extreme speed. Person to person violence is not going anywhere.

But what do we see now? This same championed method of protection makes death a well oiled machine. Would you honestly argue that it is just to allow a device capable of killing a dozen or so people, at range, within several seconds for protection? A traveler on the roads of rome carried only a sword. If he were robbed, he may draw it and risk a fight to the death if neither the robber nor victim backed down. Would you honestly argue that you are now unsafe because these criminals have a gun and you don't? If you were approched at gunpoint, and asked to drop your wallet and walk away, you have a pistol in your waistband. Would you risk your life on the draw or walk away? Now make the arguement that the robber has a knife and you have a gun. Pull it, the robber runs away. A situation like this invalidates your claim of emoldening the criminals and disarming the population. Either person could have a gun, and the criminal could obtain it as well as you could. You make the arugment that the "Average Joe" would be less safe if guns are restricted. You are both human and are in the same country. If it is made more difficult for a law abiding citizen to obtain a gun, perhaps stricter critera for purchasing a gun, that does not mean that person now cannot obtain a gun and is therefore defenseless to the rapists and criminals. Superior armament is only luck in these situations. Perhaps you both pull out knives? Chances are neither of you are going to fight to the death.

One thing is absolutlely certain, that the maintenance of the status quo will offer no reduction in violence of any kind. We must at least bring about a genuine inquiry into the root causes of the issue. For example a vast majority of public outcry is because of mass shootings. Look at the arguments being made. Other comparable western countries do not experience that number of mass shootings the United States does. Surely citing some numbers from who knows where offers no arguement against what I said previously.


I beleive it's equally nonsensical to say that "guns are bad and we should just ban them." and I do not beleive gun culture is the problem.

Last but not least, perhaps I could have saved myself the typing and started with this.

You make a poor case against gun control. It is absolutley fine to disagree and present and arugument but doing so with baseless statistics with absolutely no credibility won't go far.

You have an microsoft excel spreadsheet with some numbers from what organization or person?

 

I only use data from the various nations official crime reports and crime databases.

All my numbers for the USA come from the FBI Uniform Crime Reports https://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/crimestats

All my numbers for Australia come from the Australia Bureau of Statistics Crime Reports http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/4530.0

The AUS site is not user friendly, nothing like the transparency of the FBI UCR, but then again AUS isn't so thrilled at advertising its failed gun ban policy.


Your argument fails completely, your claim in red is easily refuted from the FBI UCR data which shows homicide and violent crime of all kinds has dropped >50% since 1992. See FBI UCR table 1.

Starting in the late 1980's the various states began relaxing their gun control regulations, making concealed carry "shall issue" and passing the castle doctrine and self-defense laws. Over the same period, gun ownership has increased. More guns, less gun control, and less crime. The opposite of Australia.

 

I don't need no steenkin' statistics. Back when I used to wander around in the Nevada outback armed only with cameras, people used to shoot at me. These days, I carry Glocks and/or AR-15's with me, and everyone is a sweetie pie.

 

Criminals that threaten me or my family will gladly be removed from the population. If a criminal who has a gun knows for a fact you have no guns in your house, is he or she (equal opportunity criminality) not emboldened?

As for killing, yeah you can do it with anything, but what does a 90lb woman do when a 240lb 6'3" guy tries to rape her if she doesn't have access to a gun?

Ironically, some of the states with pro-gun laws have some weird anti-knife laws, and vice versa.

Yes. Isn't that obvious?

It depends, since my life is already in danger. There are those who are going to kill you anyway, despite giving up the goods.

If someone threatens me or my family with a knife, he won't be walking anywhere anymore if I can help it.

Again, who is a criminal more likely to attack: someone he KNOWS doesn't have a gun, or someone who MIGHT be armed?

See this is where I have the biggest issue with gun control logic-deficit tryhards . Why would you make it more difficult, but still possible, for a law abiding citizen ( you know, a person who doesn't run around killing and raping people) to obtain a gun? How is that a positive thing in any way? Law abiding citizens are law abiding. You don't seem concerned that the criminal has a weapon, or focused on ways to keep them out of the hands of criminals. "Lets make it harder for guys that use their guns responsibly! That'll fix things!" Hilarious.

Chances are I will fight to the death, especially if my family is there. I've done it in other countries fighting for our government, I'd damn sure do it for my family.

Maybe you should start looking at criminals as the problem and not law abiding citizens with guns as the problem. That might get you started.

Maybe if you want less mass shootings you have armed, trained professionals in schools and other "gun-free" target areas. That or you could continue with letting criminals know no one there is armed (see the recurring theme?) so they can just walk around at their leisure and shoot unarmed children and adults. At least until the gun carrying police enter said "gun-free" zone (is that authorized? should cops responding to emergencies at a school shooting be able to take their guns in there? sounds dangerous for the kids maybe we should pass a law about that?) I'd volunteer to help protect my children and the children of my community, and I am sure there are many other parents out there that would do the same. Alas, we can't bring our guns to do that. We can only wait for kids to be shot, and then call people with guns to eventually get there and end it.

It ends with a gun either way. Why not have the friendly guns on the spot instead of 20 minutes away? Its absolutely absurd.

There is no gun culture. There are responsible citizens of the United States of America that are tired of the criminals that threaten our way of life, and the blow hard, do nothing, anti-logic way of thinking, know-nothing bureaucrats.

You should have saved yourself typing all that. Take your argument, flip it 180 degrees, and then it makes more sense.

 

Regardless of what the extent of your actions are, you are committing the criminal act of assault and battery. Under such circumstances, in most states, it is legal for your victim to shoot you in response in their own defense. They have no way of knowing that you do not intend to continue assaulting them.

If you do not wish to be shot, do not commit a violent crime against another.

Look no further than the VA scandal.

 

Laws were meant to be changed. In fact, in our most beloved sport, football, they already have. Disrespecting an opponent (taunting, dancing, excessive celebration, etc,) can get you a 15-yard penalty, ejection from a game, fines and possible suspension. People are waking up to the fact that the gun culture has resulted in an uncivilized society by encouraging mouthy pipsqueaks to pull out their guns.

 

Whatever mouthy pipsqueaks you are talking about are breaking the law by carrying without a license. They are criminals before they even pull out their gun. Licensed carriers are notoriously law abiding. Rarely are they arrested. Please don't confuse the two.

 

Ah I understand now. I've known people like you.

You're basically a bully that likes to intimidate and assault people, and your anti-gun stance is entirely based on your desire not to get drilled by someone physically smaller than you.

Reading several posts by you easily paints you as someone who just wants to keep pushing people around without fear of reprisal.

 

Maybe. Maybe not. Should I ask to see their license?

 

Thats just it..... you don't see the firearm of the legally licensed carrier...
With 11 million of them in the US, you are near a licensed CCW more often then you know.

 

If they are under twenty one years of age, then there are no circumstances under which they could legally carry a concealed firearm.

And if such is the case, then you have shown how you are incapable of being the more responsible individual, as you have demonstrated how you feel compelled to engage in physical violence, in response to being told something that you do not like.

 

But shouldn't it be that different regions with different needs or approaches to the use/ownership of firearms be permitted to sort out their own laws? What might be appropriate it Montana might not be appropriate in Pennsylvania - and vice versa. If there's one standard I'm not sure if it would work. I mean if there is going to be a needs-based approach then it should be acknowledged that needs apply in different ways in different regions.