The "Gun Culture" is NOT the problem

When was the last time we heard of ANY gun crime being committed by a gun enthusiast?
The stats are widely available to show that CCW holders almost never commit a crime of any kind. I have never ever read an account where a bad guy was using his own hand loaded ammo in the commission of a crime. Have you ever heard of a customized Kimber .45 being used by the legal owner to hold up a convenience store? No. And you won't.
Those of us who know and understand our rights are responsible for them.
Those who abuse their rights in other ways, or in every way, are the problem. These problem people are identifiable, by their pattern of problematic behavior. If you really want to address the problem of violence in our culture, concentrate on violent people, and leave me and my guns alone

 

The behavior of law abiding gun owners must be regulated in order to stop the bad guys from obtaining guns. Who do you think criminals obtain their guns from? They obtain them from people who are allowed by law to own guns whether they be private citizens or licensed dealers. Virginia used to be a primary source of guns used in crime in northeastern cities such Boston and NYC. Gun traffickers used to take advantage of Virginia's lax gun laws by buying guns in bulk from gun stores in Virginia. Then Virginia passed a one handgun a month law which made it much less profitable for gun traffickers to buy guns in Virginia. The number of guns from Virginia used in out of state crimes plummeted. Gun control must focus on legal gun owners in order to be effective.

 

that is idiotic. straw purchases are already illegal. you all pretend you want to stop criminals but when we read the stuff you want as laws its pretty obvious your primary goal is banning good people from owning guns. I don't even believe its ignorance any more-its a deliberate goal of banning legal gun ownership that you all want.

everytime someone buys more than ONE HANDGUN IN 5 business days from the same store, the ATF is required to get a report.
that law is more than sufficient to stop what you claimed was happening in VA. but the ATF didn't do its job

 

Now you just wait a minute, mister. Are you trying to tell me that the laws we have now would be more than enough to deal with the criminal element of society? Do you seriously expect me to believe that it would be easier, and less expensive to enforce our existing laws to deal with the 0.04% of the population that break them than it would be to impose unconstitutional laws on the 40% who are legal and law abiding gun owners?

 

You don't present and empirical evidence for your arguement. Gun culture is not the problem. You cannot and will not prevent all gun violence, however if weapons are made less available, which is possible, you may reduce gun violence. Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. In your broad and factless statements you may also commit that it's to defend yourself. So feverent in your belief in the right to bear arms, you look past any cultural causes for gun violence, or anything beyond the defense of your personal right to bear arms. It might seem I assume too much, but it's less fallacious claiming "CCW holders never commit a crime of any kind."

 

It might be an idea to concentrate on the causes of crime - including armed crime.

Fair point though, about responsible gun owners I mean. Do you think it would be useful to find a way to sort out the responsible ones from the complete idiots?

 

Fair enough, now describe how that would look, then we could apply it to all the other idiotic people misusing other rights, eh?

 

What you describe is already illegal. In fact it is a felony. There is no need for further regulation, as something that is already illegal cannot be regulated any further.

And yet the state of Virginia did not experience similar crime levels to the state of New York.

That is akin to saying that if doctors continue to prescribe medicine to patients who are not sick, then sick patients will cease to be sick.

 

The idea of laws in the first place is to do just that. I think Turtle Dude is spot on with his criticism of the justice system. If it were being run as it was intended, we would be filtering out the real bad actors, and landing them in prison for effective periods. Instead, plea bargains defeat everything.
That still leaves some of the mass shooters though. This Roof kid in S.C. had no record. Some of the others gave us warning, and it wasn't acted upon. If the focus of the "progressives" would come off of trying to end gun ownership, and move to fighting criminals, we could get somewhere.

 

I have a Kimber, the Stainless II. Nice gun. Not customized, but maybe a new set of grips soon.

I also have a Glock 21 for home protection, not quite the 41 Roof had but close enough.

That being said, in response to your question, Dylann Roof used his own gun.

That being said, how is a "gun enthusiast" defined? By someone who owns guns? Shoots them regularly? By quantity of guns? Type of guns?

 

I gave 2 examples: One has to be pretty enthusiastic to hand load his own ammo. The guy who spends the time to determine what constitutes better quality, and spends the money to have it is also more of an enthusiast than the guy who just gets what his buddy has. Your examples are pretty good, but if a guy just has some guns and doesn't practice often, he may or may not be in my camp.
Your Glock 21 is an interesting gun to land on. It was the subject of the torture test that pretty much got the whole torture test thing going. After all that the guy put it through, he still used it in competition. The 41 isn't all that much different. I have the 17 and the 17L, which are the 9mm equivalents of those two. The 17L gets me 50 fps more velocity with my defense hand load, but accuracy between the two is a draw. The 17 works just fine with 33 round magazines, and the 17L does not.
With that in mind, the 17 would be the choice for more sustained fire. That makes a point that pertains to this thread. The crazy people generally don't know much about their guns. They don't think things through, or they wouldn't do what they do.

 

I don't care for the longer versions.

 

You wouldn't have reason to. The long slide Glocks began as part of the effort to get 9x19 into the "major" power category in competition. For me, I got the 17L because I spend a lot of time out in the desert, and I wanted something as close to a carbine as I could get, without having to carry a long arm.

 

There's the problem. Rights. To deny someone a right is - as it should be - difficult. The police need probable cause or a warrant to deprive someone of their right to liberty or to enter a house without being invited. To incarcerate an individual the state has to prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt all the while following due process. To remove from a person their right to own/use a firearm is also going to be difficult, but it can start with a background check.

 

My take, "gun culture" is more than likely not the problem, but it definitely compounds the problem.
Lemme expound on this with some observations....

1. Gun culture prevents open dialogue on gun control initiatives. I'm sure there are countless posts on here exclaiming "They want to take our guns" or calling others "gun-grabbers" when the topic comes up. It's the same ridiculousness as being called a "racist" when discussing black issues or a "bigot" when discussing homosexual issues.

2. Gun culture desensitizes people to the fact that a person is carrying a tool that can end another's life. In other words walking around with CCW on waist or handbag is normal practice and doesn't raise eyebrows. So an individual can walk around with a bulge on their waist or a family member sees them picking it up before leaving the house and the reaction is "meh". Never mind that gun could probably be the next mass shooting spectacle OR could very well save your life. Bottom line: the gun isn't treated with the level of respect that should be shown to a tool that can end a life.

3. Gun culture lends itself to creating hostile environments. By this I mean, introducing a gun into a situation, whether it be legal or illegal, heightens the awareness in confrontations. I don't need to look further than the countless police videos on http://www.liveleak.com/ to make my point. Police approach with traffic stops with hand on hip for christ sakes, a gun may or may not be there; said gun may or may not be legal..... but the fact that you live in a country where everyone, everywhere at every time could be packing doesn't lend itself to resting easy when one wrong judgement call could mean your last day on duty. Better safe than sorry eh?

I'm sure I could think of more if I put my mind to it.... but these seem to strike me for now.
And after all that... I still haven't gotten to what the problem really is....

I'll take a gamble and say that there are some whackos and sickos in this world that I wouldn't lose sleep over if they ceased to exist.
Guns just change the status quo on what they're able to do...

 

First, removing guns from society probably will reduce gun related homicides - but it will not reduce violent crime. The best case is Australia which implemented very strict gun control (banning many firearms) in 1996 - crime went up. At the peak in 2002, murder was up 16% above the preban level. Firearm homicide was down, but total murder increased. The following comes from the Australian Bureau of Statistics Crime Reports (click on it to see a bigger image):


Last year AUS's homicide rate was 1.9, which is well below the pre-ban rate, but other violent crime is still well above the pre-ban rate. So AUS saved 2 people from homicide at the expense of 100's more rapes, brutal assaults, and robberies. Removing firearms simply disarms the population and emboldens the criminals.

After Sandy Hook, obama commissioned a report on gun violence, “Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence,” June 2013. You don't hear much about the study because it wasn't the "guns are bad" tome obama hoped for - it was the opposite. It found:
-armed people are less likely to be injured by an attacker
-armed people are injured less severely by an attacker than unarmed people
-people use a firearm defensively between 500,000 to 3 Million times a year, compared to at most 300,000 criminal uses of a firearm.
-guns bought at gun shows are rarely used in crimes
-the major source of guns for criminal use are street purchases, the black market, gangs, drug dealers.


On concealed carry, its hard to determine solid numbers for the crime rate of the concealed carry population. When Florida went to "shall issue" in 1987, the state tracked crime data by concealed carry holders but stopped years ago because concealed carry holders were so law abiding it was decided it was a waste of money. Florida has the highest number of carry holders in the nation, and last year revoked or suspended about 502 permits.

 

OK so we already have background checks on new purchases and we don't on private sales of which the reasons for and against have be discussed extensively. My question then is, should we have background checks on other rights? I mean if we are going to honestly respect right.

 

Let's take an honest look at the opposite of your comment, gun culture doesn't prevent open dialogue, gun control proponents do. I'm sure there are many comments here exclaiming that gun rights people are willing to allow people to die just because they want to own guns, or gun owners feel more macho because they carry, or that it's the victims fault they died.

Gun culture sensitizes people to the fact that they have an equalizer and do not have to be a victim, it is treated with great respect as gun owners know all to well the capability of this equalizing tool. People who bother to get a CCW will not likely be using it in the next mass shooting spectacle, this is the hyperbole of the anti-gun supporters and part and parcel of why the gun culture no longer believes the "reasonable gun restriction people" actually want reasonable gun laws. More importantly the gun culture wants to know how much more illegal the criminal use of or the criminal obtaining of a weapon the anti-gun movement wants. The gun culture wants to know when the anti gun movement will first start enforcing laws already on the books and going after the person who commits the crimes and not attempting to pass laws affecting law abiding citizens.

The gun culture has proof that introducing a gun into a situation saves lives, stops crimes and is a great equalizer to the attacks of the strong on the weak. If it is hostile it is because of the act of the criminal. How about the anti gun culture punish the criminals for introducing hostilities into an interaction? I have seen many videos and stories of people stopping bad guys at http://concealednation.org/ to make my point. Bad guys approach victims with guns drawn all the time for christs sake...that god some have the common sense to carry an equalizer so they don't become a statistic. The cops around here don't approach cars with their hands on their gun. They treat every stop as if a gun was in the car and until warranted they do business as normal. Heck several Highway patrolman here in my area are glad citizens can carry. More hyperbole from the "reasonable gun laws people"

I know I can add a lot more, answering you was easy and you displayed the exact reasons why there is no reasonable discussion.

Now you got it right...there are whackos and sickos and the rest of the story is...the cops won't be there when you need them. They investigate and they solve or don't solve far more crimes than they prevent....they just can't be everywhere. Guns are an equaling tool, nothing more!

 

And yet there are politicians who base their platform on calling for stricter and stricter firearm regulations.

If you wish to have an open dialogue regarding firearm control laws, the discussion must first start with how prosecutors do not pursue firearm-related offenses if the person being charged already has a criminal record. Instead all firearm-related charges will be dropped as a plea deal is offered to expedite a conviction on lesser charges.

And those that do not handle firearms with respect or responsibility tend to be those who are legally incapable of owning or otherwise possessing a firearm to begin with.

They could just as easily be killed by being stabbed by the driver with a hidden knife. One quick thrust to the inner thigh would be all it takes to sever the femoral artery, ensuring death in as little as sixty seconds, if not less.

And specifically what is the status quo that you see?

 

Swimming in deep waters here, but I'll make an attempt

You would be on to something here.... had it not been for the 2nd amendment which is continuously touted as the foundation of current gun culture. How can there be an opposite when gun control initiatives are up against centuries old scribblings which gun culture stubbornly holds on to in the 21st century? What you succeeded in doing was create a strawman in an effort to divert attention away from the wall of close-mindness of deeply entrenched gun culture.

I like how you use equalizing tool instead of killing tool. Just who is gun culture so eager to "equalize" with? Could it perhaps be another American; better yet another American with one of these protective equalizing tools?

All things being equal,it should always be a case where rigorous scrutiny, due process and convincing fees are levied on potential applicants of concealable firearms. I would imagine too that it should always be a case where only those that treat a firearm with respect go through this process as they fully understand the implications of this equalizing tool. All of this seemingly going well up until the point that same person who went through all these checks just up and gives the gun as a present; or a guy buys a gun off somebody in the pack of a van in a parking lot; because "meh, its just a gun, makes a nice present" - that's the type of complacency fostered by gun culture and not respect of respect for a killing tool.

A fundamental re-thinking of how gun control is deployed would be needed in order to bring about any enforcement of laws. But I can't see any forseeable discussion taking place in that direction if the American gun culture continues to promote easy access to firearms and unyielding stance on gun ownership.

You'll get no argument from me that introducing a gun in situations can save lives; so long as you "equalize" against another American first, right?

And at what point in time did I insert criminal in my original post?
Aren't criminals the people that commit a crime, get caught by police, go to jail and all that jazz?
If so, what do you call them up until the point before they commit a crime? Wouldn't they be Americans with these protective equalizing tools that you seem to go on about? Doesn't that make them no different from the rest of the gun culture crowd?

Of course bad guys come ready to do bad things. Some realistic gun control initiatives would go a long way in keeping guns in the hands of responsible gun owners and attempt to limit access to potential criminals.And I would appreciate that if someone is there to equalize, then that person would be a responsible gun owner and not a homicide for another day.

Once again you come with a strawman to divert from the point that life would be much simpler if cops didn't need to worry that their next traffic stop or domestic dispute would be their last; all because of the prevalence of firearms that dramatically affect the status quo.

And yet again you are proof why there can be no reasonable discussion.
Because you are already closed off to the possibility that reasonable discussion exists.
Instead, you would rather blindly defend gun culture and absolve it of any hand in how America's gun crime stacks up with other developed countries.

And I hope you realize that your equaling tool is the same politically correct nonsense that progressives try to spew when talking about their issues. Call a spade, a spade.... its a killing tool

 

why don't you stop beating around the bush and tell us what sort of "reasonable control initiatives you want to impose on our nation

 

Well friend, all I can do is beat around the bush . Since I haven't spent my free time drafting up gun control initiatives. I'm here trying to point out that gun control initiatives are needed; however the gun culture observed in America acts as a massive wall to getting there.

Other developed nations appear on the surface to have models that are worth examining. Of course, they don't have the same type of gun culture.

 

Perhaps if the side seeking to prohibit the ownership of firearms would stop being so extreme, there could be open discussion. Instead they refuse anything except extremes, making any discussion unwarranted.

Speaking purely from a constitutional standpoint, imagine of the debate of over whether or not the first amendment should protect speech than many find offensive, for whatever reason. How much open debate do you believe would be present under such circumstances, when there are those who are finding racism in new words every day?

Do you refer to the models that dictate how self defense is not a legitimate reason to own a firearm? Or models that require firearm owners to store their property in centralized secure facilities rather than their own homes? Or the models that forced firearm owners to surrender property previously classified as legal, under threat of prison for noncompliance?

 

Perhaps. If people stopped being so extreme about things, maybe some sensible dialogue can be had. But take note, gun culture is also being difficult by debating from an extreme standpoint; e.g. you are insinuating that only extreme initiatives are being put on the table by the control lobby.
I refer again to my previous post where there are multiple instances of "gun-grabbers", "people who take your guns want to control you" and that sort of rhetoric being thrown around.

You make a good point about the constitutional perspective. Indeed, with all the race issues, and PC mumbo jumbo that keeps being thrown about; the debate on freedom of speech is more active than it's ever been. Dare I say, at least there is a debate.... the vibe I am getting from gun culture is an unwillingness to even approach the debating platform

I refer to models that have
1. strong border control on firearms entering a country
2. Rigorous due process to obtain firearms; thus weeding out wannabee criminals
3. Ingrain respect for firearms as killing tools and not an equalizing tool as the PC brigade on here would have us believe.
4. Economy which is not heavily vested on getting as many firearms on the streets as can be manufactured.

Maybe I'm referring to a particular country model. Maybe I'm citing what would be an ideal scenario. Fact of the matter is, current gun culture opposes all of the above.

 

1. Second amendment supporters are for stronger border controls. Drugs, guns and Illegal aliens should not be able to walk into this country uncontested.
2. Anyone who is a felon or has been adjudicated as mentally ill cannot pass background checks from gun dealers.
3. Firearms were first invented as a tool to protect and defend against oncoming attackers. That hasn't changed. Just because there are those out there that choose to use a firearm as an offensive tool does not take away from the fact that its primary purpose is to defend. It allows a 98lb woman to be on a more equal footing with a 250lb man that wants to do her harm.
4. Every newly manufactured firearm sold in gun stores, is sold to persons that are legally allowed to own a firearm. Second Amendment supporters believe that anyone that is legally allowed to own a firearm should be able to if they desire.