Another school shooting

[wolf]

Spexx, I'm trying to figure out the best way to respond to you. First off, I think you're confusing some things that I said with things that Maggie said.

I actually don't think there is a need for any type of firearms 'licensing' or 'permit'. Both imply that I don't have a right to keep and bear arms. I think that the model for the way things should be is what's commonly called "Vermont Carry". In Vermont and Alaska you can carry a firearm concealed. You don't need a permission slip from the state government telling you that you can do so. I would like to see this in all 50 U.S. states. I would like to be able to cross the borders of other states without having to check a book to see what I have to do next to be legal in that state ... secured in the trunk, disassembled, in a locked container, ammunition in a separate locked container, doesn't do me much good when I make a wrong turn in Camden.

As I stated before, I would like to see criminals actually treated as criminals, going to jail, with sentence extensions for committing crimes with guns. Parollees and Probationers should go back to jail with a sentence extension if they are found to be in possession of a firearm, give a hot urine, or violate their probation/parole in some other way.

Background checks/instacheck is okay ... criminals should not be buying guns from legal dealers, but the records of those checks are supposed to be destroyed. Registration is the first step on the road to confiscation, as we have learned from the British and the Australians.

[tw]

Originally Posted by wolf

The movie gunslinger hairtrigger shoot a varmint fer lookin' atcha funny Old West is, as far as I know, the stuff of Hollywood fantasy, although, based on recent news reports, that's what owners of illegal firearms are doing in our urban settings.

Guns were almost non-existent in the old west. This for numerous reasons. Some obvious ones. First, guns were manufactured in only two places in America - Harper's Ferry VA and Springfield MA. Hunting parties traveled in large numbers so that among twenty might be three guns. Furthermore, those hunting parties had to carefully arrange who would shoot and who would withhold fire - so that a loaded gun always remained.

Second, a gun cost something like two years salary. Most could not afford a gun. The wild west gunslinger was extremely rare. Few had guns. Therefore violent murders were few. In fact most murders were among the rich because only the rich had guns.

Along comes something called a civil war. Early armies were equipped with European weapons because America had so few. But the civil war meant massive gun manufacturing AND so many guns. After the war, soldiers returned home with their weapons. Next ten years were the most violent. America had never seen so many violent murders – if I remember on the order of tens of times higher. Violent murder rate increased with more guns. That fact was and is not just in America. The same trend is repeated in most every country.

Does not matter that another country may have 1.8 times more guns per person and less violent deaths. The fact is that when numbers of guns increase in any country, the violent death rate also increases.

Reality - more guns mean increased murder rates. No way around that reality.

Originally Posted by tw

Along comes something called a civil war. Early armies were equipped with European weapons because America had so few. But the civil war meant massive gun manufacturing AND so many guns. After the war, soldiers returned home with their weapons. Next ten years were the most violent. America had never seen so many violent murders – if I remember on the order of tens of times higher.

On this one, I gotta disagree with you, tw. Sure the 10 years or so after the Civil War were more violent. That's because alot of people were, in effect, still fighting it. To this day, in areas of the deep South, people are STILL mistrustful of Northerners. You're right about the "wild West," though. Most of the violence out here was perpetuated against Native Americans who then retaliated in turn.

Originally Posted by tw

Does not matter that another country may have 1.8 times more guns per person and less violent deaths. The fact is that when numbers of guns increase in any country, the violent death rate also increases.

Could you give us a cite for this, please?

[tw]

Originally Posted by marichiko

On this one, I gotta disagree with you, tw. Sure the 10 years or so after the Civil War were more violent. That's because alot of people were, in effect, still fighting it.

The charts and data were posted many years ago. Older dwellers may confirm those trends.

Charted were gun ownership and violent deaths. A major peak occured in the post civil war decade. Another peak coincided with increased gun ownership during prohibition.

If more guns means safer streets, then why did sharp increases in murders occur when gun ownership increased? According to claims made here by others, then more guns should mean decreased violent deaths. That trend was not only demonstrated in America. Same trend was demonstrated in other nations.

Also noted was why murder in old west towns such as Tombstone were so low. These cattle towns required all to surrender weapons before entering. In that time, most murders were in big cities where the rich had more guns and where more guns were carried in public.

[wolf]

Originally Posted by tw

Charted were gun ownership and violent deaths. A major peak occured in the post civil war decade. Another peak coincided with increased gun ownership during prohibition.

If more guns means safer streets, then why did sharp increases in murders occur when gun ownership increased?

I, for one, would like to see those numbers, along with other crime statistics at the same time ... was this an urban effect, or was it also seen in rural areas. Were the perpetrator and victim, as is often the case today, both engaging in other illegal activities?

[morethanpretty]

Originally Posted by tw

Charted were gun ownership and violent deaths. A major peak occured in the post civil war decade. Another peak coincided with increased gun ownership during prohibition.

If more guns means safer streets, then why did sharp increases in murders occur when gun ownership increased? According to claims made here by others, then more guns should mean decreased violent deaths. That trend was not only demonstrated in America. Same trend was demonstrated in other nations.

But the events during these times were the main reason that there was an increase in violent deaths. During the Reconstruction, there was great animosity towards the Radical Republicans, and all northerners really. Its still there in the south to some extent. The former confederates had been defeated, but they didn't want to be conquered. They rebelled against the north. The KKK was began to repel the Radical Republicans, and those were their main target. After Reconstruction the violence started to end, the north was no longer constantly agitating the former Confederate states, and those states had gained back much of the freedom they had lost because of their defeat.
During prohibition the amount of illegal activity increased because people all over the country were rebelling against the prohibition law. The mafia was profiting greatly by smuggling in booze and were fighting over territory.
There is normally a reason that violent crime increases, and it is not the availabilty of guns that makes people violent. They must feel a need or want for a gun, they plan on using it and therefore seek out aquiring one, either legally or illegally. If they plan on using the gun for an illegal activity they will most likely aquire the gun through illegal means, harder for the weapon to be traced back to them.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by tw

Guns were almost non-existent in the old west. This for numerous reasons. Some obvious ones. First, guns were manufactured in only two places in America - Harper's Ferry VA and Springfield MA. Hunting parties traveled in large numbers so that among twenty might be three guns. Furthermore, those hunting parties had to carefully arrange who would shoot and who would withhold fire - so that a loaded gun always remained.

Absolutely, positively, not true. Everyone is the west had a gun....at least every man and many of the women. For that matter most everyone in the east, that didn't live in one of the cities, did too.

Not everyone had a handgun, because they were expensive and not all that accurate, reliable or useful. The long gun, however, was essential for obtaining food and not becoming food. People were further from the top of the food chain then.
Oh, and those pesky heathens that lived there first.

Harper's Ferry, VA and Springfield, MA were military ordinance, although during the war, people like Mr Colt in Hartford, Ct, lent a hand. That's when manufacturing of interchangeable parts, field repairable, cheap(er), and with that wonderful invention the metallic cartridge, came about.

Ever hear of the Pennsylvania Rifle, the Kentucky Rifle? These guns were made by blacksmiths by the tens of thousands. Blacksmiths that proved adept at making guns were in much demand and turned to gunsmithing exclusively. They also commanded more money but most of the other blacksmiths still made guns in their spare time between horseshoeing and utensil building.

After the war, was a period of "how ya gonna keep 'em down on the farm". Young men that had a taste of travel and adventure. Before that most people never went more than 50 miles from home in there whole lives unless they were emigrating for some reason. Sure, most of the soldiers just wanted to go home, but many, particularly in the South, had no home to go to, and others had reasons they didn't want to or couldn't go home. More people on the move, repeating weapons and hard feelings, are a recipe for conflict.


A couple people claimed making handguns is difficult. Not so. Making accurate, reliable, high caliber guns, yes. But in my basement, with rudimentary tools, I can turn out a substantial number of single action revolvers that look good enough and work well enough to commit a crime, hold up a person or 7-11, as long as you didn't get into a shootout with the cops or an armed citizen. We're not talking Dirty Harry's magnum, .22, .32 or .38 will do.
If somebody sticks a gun in your face are you going to demand to see the machining marks?....ask to see the heat treat record for the barrel?
Don't forget that most crimes committed with a gun, no shots are fired. Despite the YouTube clips of clerks opening a can of whoopass on armed robbers, most people acquiesce.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Absolutely, positively, not true.

Oh, but tw said it; it's "reality". ;-)

[warch]

More guns= more gun deaths. Guns that shoot more = more things are efficiently killed.

Ask your local Emergency room personnel. Accidents happen. Guns make killing efficient and easy.

Would gun control have impacted the Amish girl murders? no.

Would it have spared the life of the Wisconsin principal. Maybe.

As Spex points out you gun owners are too idealistic. get real. Its about gun sales,volume, not personal or public safety. If your theory is so sound, why dont we solve the Iraq crisis through manditory arming? That would make them much more polite.

[Elspode]

That would be redundant as most of them are already armed.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by warch

More guns= more gun deaths.

More matches = more house fires? More crowbars = more burglaries? More ski masks = more bank holdups

The majority of legal defensive gun uses do not involve "gun deaths", gunshot wounds, or even discharging the weapon.

Read Gun Facts, and then Lott's "More Guns, Less Crime".

[morethanpretty]

Many of you seem to argue that stricter gun control laws would cut down on the amount of violent crime. And I do agree with this. But I do not thing that it will solve any of the real problems that we have with violent crime. Most violent criminals come from places that have poor education systems, and little economic stability. Almost half of the violent criminals (not necessarily gun users) released from prison will return within 3 years, 1/3 of the non-violent criminals. This shows that our system of punishment is not working. Our country needs to concentrate on socially benificial programs (and I'm not talking welfare) so that the cause of crime and criminal behavior can be treated. This will prevent people from wanting to commit a crime, not just prevent them from being able too.

[Happy Monkey]

What thread?

[warch]

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/socia...ess_10-06.html

[Griff]

Originally Posted by warch

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/socia...ess_10-06.html

The freedom contained in Jesus' teaching of forgiveness, wrote the German philosopher Hannah Arendt, is the freedom from vengeance, which includes both doer and sufferer in the relentless automatism of the action process, which by itself need never come to an end.

Strong stuff.