yes... people with conceal and carry permits tend to be responsible gun owners.
quite different from people who buy guns off the street.

the only thing strict gun laws might prevent are crimes of passion
say you walk in on your wife sleeping with another man...
but even then... knifes axes chainsaws pencils baseball bats etc. could be used.
(joke) and even then they should never be able to outlaw all guns.


[Edited on April 18, 2007 at 8:29 AM. Reason : .]

4/18/2007 8:28:29 AM

Quote :

"The FBI's Crime in the United States estimated that 66% of the 16,137 murders in 2004 were committed with firearms. According to the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) in 2005, 477,040 victims of violent crimes stated that they faced an offender with a firearm"

That's all well and good, but the article you quoted was comparing new york city to the entire UK, not the US. My question was, how many homicides in NYC in 2006 were from firearms?

Furthermore, comparing the homicide rates of NYC to the entirety of england is awfully misleading don't you think?

4/18/2007 8:29:52 AM

Quote :

"Furthermore, comparing the homicide rates of NYC to the entirety of england is awfully misleading don't you think?"

No, that was the implicit point. Having ten times as many murders in just one US city than the entire country of England. Thats pretty damning.

4/18/2007 9:50:08 AM

ther is no way that there could be that much murder


guns are illegal in NYC

4/18/2007 10:49:28 AM

From the British home office.

http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/Page40.asp

Quote :

"There were a total of 765 homicide offences recorded in 2005/06, a decrease of twelve per cent compared to the previous year. The figure of 765 includes 52 homicide victims of the 7 July London bombings."

For england and wales.

From Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ENGLAND

Quote :

"Population - 2006 estimate 50,690,000"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wales

Quote :

"Population - 2005 estimate 2,958,600"

That's a murder rate of 1.4 per 100,000.

From the FBI UCR

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_01.html

USA Murder rate for 2005 was 5.6 per 100,000

If 66% of those murders are gun related, then 34% are not gun related. That 34% is still 1.9 per 100,000. The fraction of our murders that don't involve guns is still higher than the entire English/Welsh murder rate. Unless you are prepared to contend that the availability of guns to law abiding citizens causes them to go crazy and stab, bludgeon, strangle and poison each other to death, I think its clear that our problem is that we have a lot of motherfuckers trying to kill each other, not guns per se.

4/18/2007 11:26:58 AM

How is the gun law going to change the VT event? the guns were bought legally. The only step to follow is to ban all guns from people. Then try to prevent the criminals from having them. What would you like seen done? what laws would you like put in place? everyone says stricter gun laws are needed but no one gives suggestions.

4/18/2007 11:28:13 AM

its not going to change anything...its already happened

4/18/2007 12:32:09 PM

Quote :

"How would stricter laws have helped anything? Even if they were to impose the DEATH PENALTY for anyone caught with a gun on campus, these people would have still been killed.... That would not have prevented this situation as the killer was obviously off his rocker and knew the consequences of his actions."

exactly

4/18/2007 12:53:39 PM

I don't see any particular need for handguns in todays society. People can still have their right to bear arms and protect themselves with long guns. Our founding fathers could have never imagined that a technological development would occur that would allow a small, easily hidden device could inflict so much death and destruction with so little oversight and permitting standards. We are like a third world country in relation to our small arms proliferation.

4/18/2007 12:57:05 PM

Quote :

"How would stricter laws have helped anything? Even if they were to impose the DEATH PENALTY for anyone caught with a gun on campus, these people would have still been killed.... That would not have prevented this situation as the killer was obviously off his rocker and knew the consequences of his actions."

exactly

4/18/2007 12:57:32 PM

Quote :

" don't see any particular need for handguns in todays society. People can still have their right to bear arms and protect themselves with long guns. Our founding fathers could have never imagined that a technological development would occur that would allow a small, easily hidden device could inflict so much death and destruction with so little oversight and permitting standards. We are like a third world country in relation to our small arms proliferation."

get it through your head that we can't get rid of guns... of any type

why are you ok with disarming women, old people, and poor people, and anyone for that matter that carry handguns everyday to protect themselves from people that DON'T CARE ABOUT THE LAWS ALREADY IN PLACE


so you think women should carry a rifle every time they go out to jog or out at night

I'm sure the sight of seeing people carrying a rifle will go over just fine

on second thought, maybe you're not this thick headed... you're just trolling

[Edited on April 18, 2007 at 1:11 PM. Reason : or is a handgun ban just a gradual start for what you really want?]

4/18/2007 1:10:40 PM

I've thought about this topic for a couple days now, and listened to different viewpoints and I have decided my stance.

I think it makes total sense to have at least some people in positions to make a difference armed. This might have ended in the dorm with 1 life had the RA been armed.

I'm not too comfortable with a lot of college kids (age regardless) having easy access to carry concealed, though, if it can be shown that very rigorous licensing procedures and background checks keep the people with bad judgment (ie, perfectly good kids like most of us making dumb decision under the influence or in a pissed off fit at a party) from getting this access, I'd be all for it.

4/18/2007 1:18:38 PM

^I agree, I'm not down with a bunch of kids in the dorms getting drunk and playing with a gun and killing themselves. But let the faculty that are qualified and opt to do so bring a CCW. They are going to be responsible and can be registered with the school so if there is any question they can have it on record that they are permitted to bring one on campus. Arming the entire campus is somewhat extreme though.

4/18/2007 1:24:47 PM

Maybe I am trolling a little, but the argument people make for handguns are the same argument people made against banning machine guns in the past. The fact is that handguns make the use of lethal force convenient and the ban of automatic weapons was a societal statement that said we do not accept the premise of self defense as being a legitimate argument in lieu of the dangers presented to society.

And if we can't stop the proliferation of handguns, than we need a much higher screening and psychological evaluation than "I just turned 21 and I haven't done any crimes yet". Perhaps a standard and fees such as done for the Class 3 Weapons permit would be sufficient. And for god sakes, can we at least get rid of these Davis .25's and Intratec weapons that are useless for anything but holding up convenience stores?

4/18/2007 1:28:01 PM

Quote :

"we at least get rid of these Davis .25's and Intratec weapons that are useless for anything but holding up convenience stores?"

first how do you "get rid of" guns that are already out there

and why is a cheap .25 pistol useless for anything but "holding up convenience stores"?

4/18/2007 1:42:06 PM

Quote :

"than we need a much higher screening and psychological evaluation"

won't fly...

4/18/2007 1:42:32 PM

Quote :

"Perhaps a standard and fees such as done for the Class 3 Weapons permit would be sufficient. And for god sakes, can we at least get rid of these Davis .25's and Intratec weapons"

I see that you believe poor people shouldn't have access to the means for defense.

Just curious, what besides your personal bigotry against gun owners leads you to conclude that existing permitting standards are too lax?

Quote :

"North Caorlina reports 0.2% of their 263,102 holders had their license revoked in the 10 years since they have adopted the law — a lower proportion than the crime rate among North Carolina police officers. .Revocation of license is for any criminal conviction, and need not involve an illegal firearm usage. Revocations typically arise from DUI"

4/18/2007 1:46:43 PM

so what other constitutional amendments do we need to drastically alter for the modern day soft society that we live in?

4/18/2007 1:50:05 PM

Quote :

"get it through your head that we can't get rid of guns... of any type why are you ok with disarming women, old people, and poor people, and anyone for that matter that carry handguns everyday to protect themselves from people that DON'T CARE ABOUT THE LAWS ALREADY IN PLACE"

Quote :

"Maybe I am trolling a little, but the argument people make for handguns are the same argument people made against banning machine guns in the past. The fact is that handguns make the use of lethal force convenient and the ban of automatic weapons was a societal statement that said we do not accept the premise of self defense as being a legitimate argument in lieu of the dangers presented to society. And if we can't stop the proliferation of handguns, than we need a much higher screening and psychological evaluation than "I just turned 21 and I haven't done any crimes yet". Perhaps a standard and fees such as done for the Class 3 Weapons permit would be sufficient. And for god sakes, can we at least get rid of these Davis .25's and Intratec weapons that are useless for anything but holding up convenience stores?"

why do you not get it, so not only do you want to prevent women and old people from being assaulted, you also don't want poor people and people of lesser means to afford protection, for some folks the only protection they can afford is a cheap handgun, but thats better than nothing.



I'm sorry, but you're wrong here

I mean, in your utopia the only people that can have a gun are hunters and rich people

I thought you liberals were chamions of women, the poor, and the downtrodden... so which is it?

or does the gun debate conflict with your "compassionate liberal" ideals


it's a serious question, it seems as if you cared about womens rights and the rights of the poor and helpless you would allow them the protection that they are afforded by the constitution

4/18/2007 1:52:01 PM

machine guns aren't banned btw....

you just need a government issued stamp to sell/transfer ownership of one...

and the government has yet to issue a single one

4/18/2007 1:57:57 PM

I guess I would be considered a liberal b/c I vote democratic, but from talking to friends and such I have found that on the issue of gun control there are two issues at present

1) They are uneducated, and for the most part only think in terms of less guns = less violence = good
2) Since they don't own or shoot a gun, nobody should need to own or shoot a gun. But then again, should we ban cars that can do 100mph just because you don't like something with fast pickup?

4/18/2007 1:59:44 PM

"By the people, for the people"

what happened to that?

4/18/2007 2:00:02 PM

^^^thats not entirely correct, but close


in 1934 the govt made it mandatory to purchase a $200 (yes, 200 in 1934) stamp on all transactions with a machine gun, suppressor, or short barrelled weapon...

which was nothing but FDR giving work to ATF agents who were bored when prohibition ended


which was even worsened by the 1968 gca

some of our greatest military leaders blame those two pieces of legislation for ruining small arms development in this country... before these laws were inacted, the best military rifles invented were invented by individuals, rather than corporations

[Edited on April 18, 2007 at 2:02 PM. Reason : ....]

4/18/2007 2:00:13 PM

^?i'm pretty sure several private owners have the required permits, ive seen it on tv, mus tbe tru!

also, there are very few instances of true machine guns being used in public attacks, which is prob a combination of lack of availability, not easy to carry, etc etc duh

[Edited on April 18, 2007 at 2:02 PM. Reason : not counting ^]

4/18/2007 2:01:55 PM

along with half of the rest of the Constitution

10th Amendment? HAHA!

4/18/2007 2:01:59 PM

I think its counterintuitive that the solution to easy access to guns is more guns. The vast majority of gun related crime in this country is shown to be from improperly purchased or stolen guns.We have created an incredibly violent nation because political forces have allowed our public will to to be subjugated to special interests and the massive industrial production and importation of weapons continues daily, many of which will be stolen and used in the commission of crimes.

This massive arms race is a consequence of us failing to enact policy. We have to buy guns to protect ourselves from criminals armed with guns that we allowed them to acquire. The answer to guns is not more guns, it is less.

4/18/2007 2:05:27 PM

Quote :

"i'm pretty sure several private owners have the required permits, ive seen it on tv, mus tbe tru! also, there are very few instances of true machine guns being used in public attacks, which is prob a combination of lack of availability, not easy to carry, etc etc duh"

many private owners have class III licenses, I know more than a handful of people in this county alone that have class III licenses and pay the $200 transfer stamp on a regular basis


hollywood villified the "tommy gun" creating an outrage against a weapon that was not used often at all in crimes...

most machine guns of the day were "bring backs" from veterans... veterans that were suddenly made criminals by politicians

4/18/2007 2:05:39 PM

Quote :

"I guess I would be considered a liberal b/c I vote democratic, but from talking to friends and such I have found that on the issue of gun control there are two issues at present 1) They are uneducated, and for the most part only think in terms of less guns = less violence = good 2) Since they don't own or shoot a gun, nobody should need to own or shoot a gun. But then again, should we ban cars that can do 100mph just because you don't like something with fast pickup?"

exactly. i have yet to find a single anti-gun person who was well-versed on both firearms themselves and the issues surrounding them. actually, i don't think i've encountered one who knew jack shit about either.

Quote :

"machine guns aren't banned btw.... you just need a government issued stamp to sell/transfer ownership of one... and the government has yet to issue a single one "

no, they've issued plenty of Class IIIs. There is a couple hundred dollar fee associated with it, and a very extensive background check...but the real reason you don't see more machine guns is that they are prohibitively expensive. Look on gunsamerica.com or gunbroker.com and look at the full auto stuff. it's outrageous...like $10-15k or more, lots of times.

4/18/2007 2:05:53 PM

you can't sniff most auto or select fire weapons for less than 6 or 7k usually and an M16 can run 20k


obviously this is what the criminals try to buy when they need a gun

4/18/2007 2:07:34 PM

^ yeah, i've never seen one for less than that...the big name stuff like M-16s, etc, go for stratospheric prices. highly collectable stuff like a thompson, BAR, etc, are completely out of sight.

Quote :

"also, there are very few instances of true machine guns being used in public attacks, which is prob a combination of lack of availability, not easy to carry, etc etc duh"

yeah, it's basically a nonexistant problem. there's been what, one incident in the last 70 years or something like that?? i don't remember for sure...it's practically zero.

some of them are easy to carry, and they're all available and pretty easy to find for sale...but there's a paper trail a mile long, an extensive background check required, and again, they are fucking expensive. most violent criminals aren't rolling in money.

4/18/2007 2:14:40 PM

Quote :

"I don't see any particular need for handguns in todays society. People can still have their right to bear arms and protect themselves with long guns. Our founding fathers could have never imagined that a technological development would occur that would allow a small, easily hidden device could inflict so much death and destruction with so little oversight and permitting standards. We are like a third world country in relation to our small arms proliferation."

Our founding fathers were alive when pistols were around. They were about as effective in terms of dealing death and destruction as the rifles at the time (i.e. single shot, non rifled barrels). There is no reason to believe that they could not have imagined, anticipated or hoped that guns would become more efficient and deadlier. And this was in a time where the idea of a person having to get a license to purchase a gun, much less use or carry it, was laughable. Remember this was a society in which duels occurred between gentlemen. If anything, they probably couldn't imagine a world were one would have to prove to the government that one was responsible before they would be allowed to own a gun. Of course, even that is laughable, as it's obvious they could imagine it, hence the 2nd amendment.

Quote :

"The answer to guns is not more guns, it is less."

The problem is not guns. The problem is criminals. A gun is a tool.

[Edited on April 18, 2007 at 2:19 PM. Reason : asdf]

4/18/2007 2:16:54 PM

^^yep

it all goes back to this

Quote :

"i have yet to find a single anti-gun person who was well-versed on both firearms themselves and the issues surrounding them. actually, i don't think i've encountered one who knew jack shit about either."

I've yet to meet or talk to a gun grabber that knows a damn thing about guns, or the laws surrounding them...

I usually try to learn everything I can about something I hate

^ yeah, there is a reason that GUNS are the only actual OBJECT in there...

[Edited on April 18, 2007 at 2:19 PM. Reason : ..]

4/18/2007 2:17:40 PM

yall think when Jack the Ripper was on his murderous rampage in England that there were people saying the only way to stop him was to ban all knives and cutting instruments?

4/18/2007 2:22:57 PM

From august of last year:

http://www.roanoke.com/editorials/commentary/wb/80510

4/18/2007 2:27:17 PM

^

4/18/2007 2:30:14 PM

^^^


/message_topic.aspx?topic=472928


Even though it got locked. Maybe it was more Chit Chat material but still.. That was the point I was making.. Lets ban knives!!!11 They kill people too!!!!111

[Edited on April 18, 2007 at 2:31 PM. Reason : ^]

4/18/2007 2:30:59 PM

^ You laugh, but the UK, having already banned guns and seeing a rise in knife crime, is considering such an idea.

4/18/2007 2:33:04 PM

Quote :

"The problem is not guns. The problem is criminals. A gun is a tool."

Then you must be implying that we are a society of criminals, since we statistically have a much higher rate of crime than all other Western countries.

4/18/2007 3:14:19 PM

why do you avoid this

Quote :

" why are you ok with disarming women, old people, and poor people, and anyone for that matter that carry handguns everyday to protect themselves from people that DON'T CARE ABOUT THE LAWS ALREADY IN PLACE"

4/18/2007 3:15:25 PM

^^There are a lot of criminals out there...good thing we have the 2nd amendment so we can protect ourselves from the criminal element of society

4/18/2007 3:41:00 PM

You are ignoring the crux of my post. Since we have statistically much higher violent crime committed with handguns than any other Western country, then proliferation of handgun violence is a direct causal factor of the crime we are trying to prevent. Either we have significantly different social characteristics that make us criminals at much, much higher rates.... or handguns have been enabling and even causing the crime we wish to avoid so much.

4/18/2007 4:01:30 PM

Quote :

"why are you ok with disarming women, old people, and poor people, and anyone for that matter that carry handguns everyday to protect themselves from people that DON'T CARE ABOUT THE LAWS ALREADY IN PLACE"

4/18/2007 4:06:48 PM

Quote :

"why are you ok with disarming women, old people, and poor people, and anyone for that matter that carry handguns everyday to protect themselves from people that DON'T CARE ABOUT THE LAWS ALREADY IN PLACE"

It doesn't matter. If we can't prevent people from not obeying laws about misusing lethal weapons, then we need to prevent them from getting the weapons in the first place. Is this practical? Not really, with the amount of guns already in country. But addressing handgun violence is easier to address than the issue of gross wealth inequality that creates crime.



[Edited on April 18, 2007 at 4:07 PM. Reason : .]

4/18/2007 4:06:50 PM

finally, its mentioned!

http://www.cnn.com/video/partners/clickability/index.html?url=/video/us/2007/04/17/koch.wrong.accused.cnn

4/18/2007 4:07:22 PM

it does matter


you want to ban handguns which would effectively prevent the people I mentioned from protecting themselves


the criminals don't care, you've already proven that with your NYC firearm stats

4/18/2007 4:08:21 PM

my mom is a great example of an anti gun liberal who knows nothing about guns or the statistics involved. she, like so many other liberals, sees guns as inherently evil and bad.

4/18/2007 4:14:25 PM

Well, it might be overtly idealistic and probably impractical at this point... but my statements are more a statement about causation than a solution. I still think that we would have much less violent crime if handguns never existed.

4/18/2007 4:18:56 PM

ok, I agree with you there


but we can't rid ourselves of them


it would be nice if we got rid of cancer and aids too

4/18/2007 4:21:24 PM

God damn man, now I see why the conservatives here get so up in arms about you liberal posters.

Quote :

"I still think that we would have much less violent crime if handguns never existed."

Wake up. Stop living in your dream world. Reality is brutal, but you'd be better served to deal with it rather than try to legislate it in attempt to create the dream you think you live in.

4/18/2007 4:22:44 PM

Quote :

"my mom is a great example of an anti gun liberal who knows nothing about guns or the statistics involved. she, like so many other liberals, sees guns as inherently evil and bad."

I've been a Republican before and I know how uninformed and dismissive you probably are of anything else in your limited, unfounded world view. Just the fact that in your post you try to become sort of champion against liberals and assert some sort moral superiority shows that you have absolutely no idea why you believe what you do.

PS-this is in reference to the poster not all Republicans in general

[Edited on April 18, 2007 at 4:27 PM. Reason : .]

4/18/2007 4:25:44 PM