As with the death penalty, when emotion removed from gun debate....

[HardWorkingDem]

It really baffles me how logic does not automatically win out.

When it comes to the the death penalty, the just desserts part of my brain is all for it, but when it comes to the logic aspect - the cost, the existence of error (Hell, Illinois alone shows error reasons alone is enough to abolish it - 13 on death row shown to be innocent in the last few years), how it does not deter and so on, logically prove changes to it must be made. Just like the gun control debate.

I am a firm believer the framers intended citizens to be able to possess firearms. I once read an essay that broke down the meaning of the wording used in the 2nd Amendment and how it applied to times back then that convinced me of this, but when you look at the logic aspect of this, I recognize we need more effective restraints and regulations.

The amount of accidental children's deaths each year alone scream for some sort of measure to be made. On top of that, more creative laws need to be created to deal with cases where criminal courts can't deal with criminals possessing firearms (many prosecutors want the slam dunk case and to deal with this, communities could enact civil remedies to deal with so many cases that could then be dealt with at 51 percent of proof versus beyond a reasonable doubt for criminal cases).

Sadly, emotions based in false claims on both sides render common sense solutions to be developed.

[Zoeisright]

1. It's impossible to be unemotional about all the Americans guns have killed.

And you can have all the fucking muskets you want. The framers never intended for citizens to own guns that can kill 30 people in 2 seconds.

[RSillsbee]

3. And you are more than welcome to participate in DU

So long as you do so w/ a Gutenberg press

[PavePusher]

4. ...or quill pen and inkpot on parchment.... n/t

[rl6214]

9. And you can have all the fucking quill pens and typesets

you want because I know the framers never envisioned computers and the internet that can be used to spread lies and vile bigotry they way it does.

[Atypical Liberal]

11. What the framers intended.

The framers never intended for citizens to own guns that can kill 30 people in 2 seconds.

Please tell us what you think the founders did intend with the second amendment.

[Glassunion]

13. I still want to see the gun that can kill 30 people in 2 seconds.

I'm thinking some form of Howitzer.

[Atypical Liberal]

16. No...

No, I really want to hear what the poster thinks the intent of the founders really was concerning the second amendment. They were quick to offer an opinion of what they did not intend, so let's hear what they think the founders did intend.

[RSillsbee]

21. Not even a howitzer can do it

You have to see the target, get a grid, call it in , FDC has to come up w/ a solution , then you gotta wake up the gun bunnies, call the mission ,load and fire the base piece to adjust fire, then you fire the battery

Takes waaaaaay longer than 2 seconds

[Glassunion]

22. K... How about if all 30 crammed in a phonebooth? What then?

[RSillsbee]

23. Still takes longer than 2 seconds to load the piece

When an HE round for a M110A2 detonates it takes out every thing in a 90 meter circle but it still takes longrer than 2 seconds to get it there

[Glassunion]

41. Oh well... I still wish to see this mysterious gun of which he spoke.

[RSillsbee]

53. Maybe it's the Navy's new Laser gun ? NT

[one-eyed fat man]

54. You need a real gun and the right ammo.

Canister is the stuff! 25 pounds worth of 13 grain flechettes every time we pulled the trigger on 90mm tank gun. Much more reliable than beehive. Simple and good at close range, under 400 meters. At ranges under 200 meters you don't get bodies so much as you do clumps of blood, guts and hair everywhere.

Unlike artillery, tanks are direct fire, we look them in the eye when we shoot at them. Calling in 8 inch was nice, even after the FDC called, "Shot, over" it was often 10 to 20 seconds before radio said, "Splash, over" to alert us to look for the impact to adjust.

I appreciated indirect fires. Still do. There really is no good reason to shoot at anyone who doesn't already know where you are if you can use the radio and get someone else to shoot them for you. Observing a well-executed "Time on Target" where every tube within range fires rounds at staggered intervals so the HE all arrives at one time is a pure joy!

[Starboard Tack]

28. You're right so don't let them chase you away

[one-eyed fat man]

64. You are flat wrong.

These are re-enactors firing a Revolutionary War cannon. Until 1934, anyone in the United States could own a cannon completely free of any Federal law or regulation.



This is grapeshot. It was loaded into cannon to fire at charging infantry at close range. It was also used aboard ship for close range broadsides to clear the decks and to try and de-mast the opposing vessel. Napoleon found it useful for crowd control. He ordered a young cavalry officer, Joachim Murat, to use cannon to disperse a mob of protestors on 5 October 1795—One thousand four hundred royalists died, and the rest fled. He had cleared the streets with "a whiff of grapeshot", according to the 19th century historian Thomas Carlyle in The French Revolution: A History



This is canister shot. Basically a can of musket balls fired from cannon turning it into a giant shotgun. In relation to grapeshot, it is a variation on a theme and survives to this day in modern form in tank gun ammunition. It is still most useful on crowds of people at close range. I will personally attest to its effectiveness.

As far as your inane claim the Founding Fathers could not envision such a thing, John Hancock's name and influence did not end with his signature on the Declaration of Independence. He was a shipowner and all his merchant ships were armed with cannon. He had more than a passing familiarity with cannon, grapeshot and what they were capable of doing.



Rare Cannon Returns to Minuteman Park

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[spin]

6. The arguments that those who support RKBA use incorporate logic, facts and statistics ...

while the "brainy" arguments that those who oppose firearms use are filled with emotion, misinformation and fear.

That's why we win.

[Hoyt]

10. What "statistics" indicate guns in public/society are good. Not talking about what they do for you.

I get that -- sad as it may be. But, they aren't good for society. Every tactical weapon gunners buy today will mean more guns that we have to deal with down the road.

[Atypical Liberal]

15. What statistics indicate guns in the public/society are bad?

What "statistics" indicate guns in public/society are good.

There are tons of things available for purchase in the United States that could be considered to serve no practical good for society. Boats. RVs. Corvettes.

But we allow them because we don't require that people only buy things that are inherently useful or good. As long as it doesn't cause undue harm, people are free to do as they will.

When it comes to firearms, the same rules apply. We don't have to demonstrate that they are good for society. We only have to demonstrate that they aren't harmful to society. And the vast majority of firearm owners are never involved in firearm crime.

[AtheistCrusader]

17. How about Department of Justice compiled statistics on defensive gun uses per year?

60,000+ lawful uses. That's 60 THOUSAND cases where the exercise of lethal force (even if no one was shot/killed, which rarely happens) was justified.

Take deaths. About 25-28k per year (and declining). Now, remove suicides, which can be accomplished by all sorts of means. (In Japan, where firearms ownership is rare exception, they have a higher suicide rate. The tool does not cause the issue, our lack of mental health care has far more to do with it)

Suddenly you have 9-11,000 homicides, against 60,000 lawful self defense cases.

That's a lot of people.

[rl6214]

19. Every gun bought today is "tactical"

is doesn't matter what sort of 'bling' you think the guns are marketed with.

[spin]

20. "More guns that we have to deal with down the road" ...

You sound like you plan to eventually ban and confiscate all firearms.

Firearms are neither good or bad. They are inanimate objects. People use firearms for either good or bad.

[rrneck]

24. What statistics indicate they're bad? nt

[Hoyt]

29. I doubt many folks would disagree we'd be better off without any guns. Well, you guys who need them

to function in society might disagree. Why don't you try living like the other 300 Million plus in this country, who don't need a friggin gun in their pants to feel dressed for the occasion?

[rrneck]

30. Ah.

More sanctimonious bullshit. I knew you wouldn't be able to come with anything.

[cleanhippie]

52. Why the fuck must you ALWAYS resort to insults, Hoyt? What the fuck is your problem?

[oneshooter]

61. Because insults are a sign that he is loosing the argument.

So now he is skeerd that he will lose. It is a emotional reflex often displayed by 8-10yr olds.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[beevul]

63. I disagree.

"Because insults are a sign that he is loosing the argument."

I disagree, albeit minorly.

Insults are a sign that hes lost the argument, he just doesn't know it yet, the message just hasn't reached the brain yet.

[PavePusher]

5. "The amount of accidental children's deaths each year alone scream for some sort of measure..."

Speaking of emotion over logic....

You really should look up the actual numbers before making such pronouncements. We'd save more lives making harsher regulations (and enforcing them) over swimming pools.

[HardWorkingDem]

32. A clarification.......should have been accidental deaths....not just child...

But I'll tell you this - in my career, I have seen too many children and young people accidentally killed with firearms. And this is in person after the fact. It's too much.

And ONE child is too many. When we have a country where we have many, many people - as the US DOES have - something else needs to be tried.

[PavePusher]

49. Accidental gun deaths are quite low on the list put out by the CDC.

And they have been trending downwards for years.

What profession do you work in that you see so many? And where?

What do you propose we do to improve that trend?

[hack89]

7. So logically, if gun violence and accidents are at historic lows

and falling steadily, doesn't that mean our present laws are achieving what you desire?

Gun's are not even in the top 10 for cause of death for kids. It is about 12th. It is not very common.

http://www.statisticstop10.com/Causes_of_Death_Kids.html

[HardWorkingDem]

39. I'm kind of surprised at the cavalier attitude here regarding children...

While in another reply I admitted I should have used accidental deaths and not just children, I am still surprised at the "ho hum" attitude when it comes to children killed by firearms in the US. To me, one is too many. And I don't know what people think "common" is here, but I've seen and dealt with too many children shot and killed by firearms to be so cavalier about it.

As for crime and violence, it is a cyclical thing in the US. It dips and rises. On top of that, some places are worse than others.

And our present laws are failing us because too many offenders are not dealt with.

[pipoman]

42. I am surprised by the cavalier attitude

of those oh so concerned about "the children" regarding accidental drownings in private swimming pools. Accidental drownings in private swimming pools happen over 10 times more frequently, long term disability due to swimming pools dwarfs those of firearms. I once simply suggested requiring locking fences around private pools in an attempt to reduce these accidents. I contend the reduction could easily be in excess of the total number of childhood firearms accidents total. Oh the cries of the swimming pool activists.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x307454

Where is your concern for this far more glaring problem? Yeah, I know you really don't give a shit about child accidents, only another a gun regulation activist..

[PavePusher]

50. You hit on the biggest part of the problem with your last sentence.

Lets work on the criminals first, and see where that gets us, before placing additional burdens on non-criminals.

[Euromutt]

80. I never buy the "even one death is too many" claim

In practice, "one death is too many" only where it concerns items or activities of which it would not inconvenience the speaker if it were more tightly restricted or even prohibited altogether. We lose several thousand children every year to motor vehicle collisions, but very few people want motor vehicles (in particular their own) more tightly restricted. Not many mountain climbers who advocate that mountain climbing should be outlawed rather than have one minor be killed in a climbing accident. Not many boat owners who support outlawing their boats rather than have one more child drown as a result of a boating accident. Etc. etc.

[slackmaster]

8. Accidental shooting deaths of children are rare and have been declining for a long time

They're in the neighborhood of one per million per year.

If you are interested in doing a little research, here's a good source of real numbers:

http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/fatal.html

[HardWorkingDem]

33. I do not call about 1 per year per 100,000 population "rare"...

Where I am at we have at least one per year for an approximate population of 100k. I don't think that is rare. To me, one child is too many.

[pipoman]

43. Uh...

Of coarse you have absolutely no stats to back up your ficticious stat because your stat is fiction made up in your own mind. The actual stats are available from the CDC if you really want them...I'll help you out here... according to the CDC the 2007 rate was .1/100k....that is 1/1 million. Pesky facts and all that... :eyes:

[HardWorkingDem]

55. Um.....

I can tell you for a fact, where I am at we have approximately one death per year for a population of over 100,000 of youths being killed by firearms. This does not include murders. For us, it is not 1 per million per year. It is more frequent. Which anyone with statistics will tell you, is possible due to statistical criteria. Have you seen a child shot in the head by a 45 cal bullet? A young person shot in the chest by a shotgun? Another child shot in the head by a revolver? I have.

I went back and made a clarification on my original OP.

Still, the number of child deaths is too many if it is one or ten million and is actually beside my original point, which I will clarify for you again:

Guns are here, they are staying, so people should realize it and we should do what we can to reduce the carnage of guns without infringing upon the rights of citizens and in a way to punish the ILLEGAL aspects of gun use as harshly as possible.

Is that clear enough for you?

[pipoman]

59. But purple

children pulled from swimming pools which happens 10 times more frequently are a-ok? How about mangled children from atv accidents which happens 6 times more frequently? Do you also advocate some sort of 'no tolerance' prosecution of their parents for their negligence? Child gun accidents have been declining for 30 years, it's moving in the right direction...swimming pool accidents, otoh, have remained static on a ratio of number per 1000 pools and have increased from a population ratio..

[HardWorkingDem]

65. Apples and oranges.....

The subject is not pools, cracks in sidewalks or uneven stairs. So I'm not going to waste time comparing apples to oranges.

[pipoman]

66. Exactly as I thought

your hatred of guns is the topic here, not your desire to help the children. The children are only another feeble attempt to try to appeal to people's emotions on this issue. Someone who truly gave a shit about effecting childhood mortality would spend their time advocating policies which would has the likelihood of effecting the greatest numbers of cases of childhood mortality. Zealots trying to push an agenda make up statistics, avoid facts, and say stupid shit like, "if it saves one child.....".

[HardWorkingDem]

68. You deserve this reply....you tried to draw first blood so you deserve it...

You don't know me personally, so how can you draw an idiotic conclusion like you do, I do not know.

The topic is about GUNS. Not pools or other hazards. If you want to ramble about that, then start your own fucking thread/OP.

Now, just to open your eyes a bit (but I doubt you give a shit in your safe, keyboard world)...

So far this year has been good, but in the last year here are some of the cases I personally worked on:

Three children shot in arms, legs and chest on separate occasions on drive by's; one shot in the head; the year before, a case where a five year old shot a four year old with a 45 by accident; also, another child shot; the year before, accidental shooting of a child in the head;

I can't tell you the number of instances over the years of cases I've worked on where either children have been shot by accident or criminally. A cousin in one shooting another while fiddling with a shotgun; a friend here, when the parents were away and they got out the family gun; then the times when people were playing with firearms - a sort of accidental Russian Roulette.

Now, these don't even include all of the outright day to day criminal incidents.

As for my "hatred" of guns and not a sincere desire to protect children: kiss my ass.

This is not about "zealotry" but instead the fact that gun ownership is a legal right in this country, but on the other hand, this country has a fondness for violence and the issue should be, as a country how do we protect legal rights and people at the same time. THAT is the point of this thread.

Evidently you can't read and comprehend very well.

Oh, and how about you telling me about any time you've stood and watched the autopsy of a child with a bullet hole through the head and stare at how the child just looks asleep because the bones of the skull are still pliable and sometimes don't allow for the creation of massive damage.

So yes, ONE child is too many.

[pipoman]

69. I can only judge based on your comments here...

You have not offered a single solitary suggestion for accomplishing your impossible task.

Maybe you are in the wrong line of work if you cannot separate anecdote from statistics. We as a society should never legislate limitations to civil liberties based on anecdote, only based on statistics. As individuals we should sometimes act based on anecdote..example would be maintaining fire insurance even though the chances of needing it are very slight, if we do need it and don't have it the effect could be disastrous.

It is completely impossible to shelter children from accidental mortality. All are sad and ugly. Is an accidental shooting any sadder than an atv accident, a drowning, a sports accident, an auto accident, a horse bucking accident, a fall from a tree house, a bicycling accident, etc.? IMO, no. All are equally sad and most are equally preventable if all the stars were properly aligned. Do we as a society accept risk, and understand the inevitability of injuries and fatalities, in return for freedom to do these things? Yes, I believe we do. I don't want to live in a society without these activities. I have kids and would be devastated if they had died accidentally in childhood, I did and still do understand the risk we all accept for living in a free society. Do we mitigate the risk when possible? Obviously. Can we mitigate the risk entirely as you suggest (even 1 child is too many)? Pie in the sky silliness.

[HardWorkingDem]

70. You are taking one piece of the puzzle and...

using that to disregard the entire thing issue in the OP (which you also entirely misinterpret and draw incorrect assumptions from).

My point in using children was that area alone, regardless of how many children are injured and killed, should be enough for the American people to declare we have an issue with guns that needs to be dealt with and that area alone should be a stark reminder of more needs to be done.

Now, throw in all other aspects of gun injuries, violence, cost and other issue and you might start to grasp the issue in its entirety. US News and World Report did an excellent piece some years ago that described the cost of gun injuries and deaths regarding emergency care and follow up care and treatment.

And is it a fantasy to expect there never to be another child death or injury, realistically yes, but the goal should be to work toward that, even if it will not happen.

As for solutions...that is another goal of the OP - to get creative ideas and suggestions and debate and discussion.

But what happens? People like you answer and throw out insults and diatribes.

Frankly, I wish I lived in your world where obviously you are able to ignore reality.

[pipoman]

71. There are no more creative ideas

or non-infringing laws which will help. Everyone here hates the vile NRA yet they are the only real purveyors of actual firearms safety for all ages and skill levels. Do you at least acknowledge that there has been pretty constant downward trend in firearms accidents nationwide for nearly 40 years?

My point is that week in and week out those of us who have been coming to this forum for a long time hear the same shit week after week. Yet absolutely never hear, anywhere on this board, cries for restrictions, punishments, or even safety programs to address far more common killers in society. Why is that? Through some very simple restrictions on dangerous activities and products which don't have any civil liberties issues multiple times more children could be saved....still crickets. again. This issue isn't about the children, it is about a perception by some that the risk associated with right to keep and bear arms is too great, but the risk associated with private swimming pools, ATVs, sports activities, and a whole host of far more dangerous (non civil liberties protected) activities is acceptable..truth is, in fact, stranger than fiction.

[HardWorkingDem]

72. And you accused me of using baseless points....

If any one thing has had an impact upon firearm related injuries and deaths, it has been the advancement of emergency care and follow up. I do not know the number of "accidental" firearm incidents per year, nor the trend, nor do I really care.

Again, that is not the point of my OP. The point is about how do you deal with the two issues,find a solution and balance the two.

And what do I get? A confusion and avoidance of the issue by people like you that want to hang on to their firearm fantasies by throwing in the old "swimming pools are more dangerous" claims.


THAT is a separate issue. Start your own OP if you want to discuss the evils of pools.

It was not my choice, but this OP was moved here by the moderators.

Lastly, and why do you think people here at DU complain about the rigidness of the gun crowd? Well, it's because of the inflexibility and unreasonably attitudes of the gun crowd.

For example, we know where the majority of criminals get firearms and one large bloc of them are through straw purchases and other areas where a person legally obtains a firearm and then illegally passes the firearm onto the criminal. So what has the NRA and other groups done? Fought like hell to do something about these avenues.

We also know that a large amount of firearms end up in the hands of criminals through a small network of gun dealers because of sales practices. What has the NRA and gun advocates done? Fought like hell when measures have been taken to deal with this issue.

Things like this go on and on. Including the battle over the tracking of firearms through the ATF and the requesting a better recording of where firearms come from.

(Now one off topic I'd really like to see discussed is what people like you and the NRA would say if you knew that some law enforcement friendly ammunition/gun sellers supply information to local law enforcement when "undesirables" make large or unusual purchases regarding ammunition and firearms. I imagine your hero Wayne Lapierre's head would explode).

[pipoman]

73. And there we have it

just like every other 'reasonable restriction' advocate. Those who ask for 'reasonable restrictions' either don't understand existing restrictions or choose to pretend they don't already exist. "Reasonable restrictions' sometimes referred to as 'compromise' is almost never either. There is no compromise with gun controllers. Compromise requires give and take, controllers only wish to take, then when met with resistance proclaim refusal to accept 'reasonable restrictions'. If not for the "rigidness" of the pro civil liberties people regardless the liberty, the police like you would strip those liberties, systematically, for the good of society or, dare I say, 'the children'.

You're right, criminals get guns from criminals. What does the stellar law enforcement do about it? Nothing, that's what. NICS checks are in place across the US. People are denied sales by NICS daily. Why are none of these attempted purchases prosecuted or even investigated?

The ATF is responsible for retrieving firearms expeditiously from persons prohibited by the GCA from possessing firearms. We found that although the ATF normally has been able to retrieve the firearms eventually, the retrievals were not always timely. We also found that ATF special agents did not sufficiently document retrievals or provide assurance that a prohibited person no longer had access to the firearm.

Since 1998, the ATF has made progress in screening standard denial cases referred by the FBI. However, we found that the Brady Operations Branch and the ATF division offices were still referring standard denial cases to the ATF field offices that lacked prosecutorial merit, thereby increasing the workload of already overburdened field investigators and delaying the investigation of prosecutable cases. Cases without prosecutorial merit were being referred due to the lack of sufficient USAO prosecutorial guidelines, inadequate screening by some ATF divisions, inadequate communication, and insufficient training and guidance.

The Brady Operations Branch was using broad guidelines synthesized from jurisdiction-specific guidelines prepared by multiple USAOs. As a result, ATF division office personnel were required to perform additional screening using more specific individual USAO guidelines in order to determine whether a case merited investigation. Further, we found that the ATF had not allocated sufficient resources to the Brady Operations Branch to enable it to fully execute its responsibilities. Insufficient staffing resulted in extensive NICS case backlogs, which delayed the referral process and affected the timeliness of investigations. Also, the ATF had not provided funds for technological modifications of its case tracking and referral system to improve the operational efficiency of the Brady Operations Branch.

Our review also found that few NICS cases are prosecuted. During CYs 2002 and 2003, only 154 (less than 1 percent) of the 120,000 persons who were denied during the NICS background check were prosecuted. Historically, USAOs have been unsuccessful in achieving convictions in many of these cases and consequently have been unwilling to expend their limited resources on prosecuting most NICS cases.

http://www.justice.gov/oig/reports/ATF/e0406/exec.htm

Law enforcement always wants more laws, more laws, redundant? who cares, just give us more laws which we will not enforce or the prosecutors will bargain away or judges will wrist slap.

Now here you are proclaiming those of us who advocate for liberal interpretation of a civil liberty "inflexible and unreasonable' yet you refuse to state exactly what your proposed legislation or solution is. Why is that? Surely you have something on your mind. Spit it out already.

If you don't already know you should, the NRA has supported nearly every 'reasonable restriction' on the books. The Brady Bill? They supported. NICS, they supported. Stiffening of requirements for reporting by states to NICS, they support. 1986 closure of the NFA registry? They supported. The 1934 NFA? They supported. They, nor I, nor most civil libertarians believe restrictions which are redundant or are effective on law abiding and demonstrably ineffective at promoting safety or deterring criminals are reasonable.

What is the last crime committed with a firearm which the selling dealer and original buyer was not known within a very short time. The Tiahart Amendment keeps busy body cops who have no business investigating from crusading. The BATFE still can access these records as can local and state law enforcement if they are actually working on a criminal case. Further nobody gives a shit about your snitches. If you wish to entice dealers to violate the trust of their customers whilst playing federal agent wannabe, help yourself...this is why the Tiahart amendment isn't going anywhere.

Oh, and there are many things more dangerous and cause more accidental childhood deaths and injuries. I know you don't care about those kids, only the ones whose sad stories will help you advance your fantasies of stripping rights from people for the children..

[HardWorkingDem]

74. Man, you just won't quit, will you.....

Oh, here's some of your lovable NRA junk...


http://factcheck.org/elections-2008/nra_targets_obama.html


And I love how you dance around things with more crap and keep bringing up off-topic crap over and over and over again.

For the last time - if you want to talk about swimming pools and things like that, start your own OP.

Also, why don't you at least have the courtesy to quit making up shit about my posts and opinions. Grow the fuck up, will you?

And as for all your bullshit NRA claims, over the years I've had a full stomach of bullshit spouted by Wayne LaPierre. I have seen him on television plenty of times spouting off about bullshit the NRA is against (straw purchases and lax gun show bullshit and rogue gun dealers).

But I'm sure if you contact them maybe they will pay you a stipend for your harking for them and their talking points.

[pipoman]

75. Yet no disputing their support for reasonable firearms regulation

even though to listen to some in this forum they are handing guns out to released prisoners..

Are you ever going to tell us what "reasonable restrictions" you believe would help your crusade?

[PavePusher]

76. You still don't seem to have answered any questions....

Do you have any specific proposals to better ensure fewer accidents and fewer guns procured by criminals?

[HardWorkingDem]

77. And this is one reason why I threw this out there....to get ideas............

What you ask has turned into the sort of the roadblock I've brought up and tried to elicit responses to. There are things that can be done, but many throw up fear mongering to prevent them from ever being effective. And the reason I brought it up is because I don't have all the answers, but emotions and fabrications are used to stop any discussion of what can be done.

First, as a country we have to agree we have an issue with violence and our apparent low view of this problem. There seems to be this detached feeling toward it if a person is fortune enough not to deal with it.

But there are things that can be done.

For example, in the US, how do you turn a perceived, non-winnable criminal case into something that can assist society at large? Though such remedies may be unpopular, there are ways to do such a thing. For example, many areas impound vehicles for DUIs, drugs, firearms and no DLs. Strangely, the impound fee for these vehicles is usually the same. My view is that firearms in these vehicles is more serious than drugs or no DL,so the fee should be higher.

Another thing is to force legislatures and prosecutors to take a more valued based look at criminal offenses. By this I mean, take more account into offenses that have a more personal impact on them (a sort of quit prosecuting the slam dunk property crimes over the more serious crimes against persons).

Then, we have to identify the real culprits of how criminals get their hands on guns and deal with that issue. This could be dealt with the ending of straw purchases, gun marts where it can be shown their firearms are ending up in the hands of criminals for some reason and the better tracking of firearms and more stringent regulations in the selling and passing along of firearms (now, to satisfy the fantasy filled fearful gun owner who claims the govt will know where to go when it decides to confiscate guns, this information could be blocked by law or something along those lines and allow a court order to obtain such information).

Another issue would be to enforce violations of purchasing regulations. Hammer the girlfriend or boyfriend that goes in and buys a gun for a person that is legally unable to possess one - but how can you hammer that person if you can't determine who the person is?

Sadly, when it comes to prosecution of these issues it comes down to geographic issues and supply and demand. Sometimes if it is a smaller jurisdiction with fewer demands on available resources, then these cases are more attractive than those areas where high crime is present and huge demands are placed upon limited and available resources.

[friendly_iconoclast]

78. About those allegedly "fantasy filled fearful gun owner(s)" of yours...

(now, to satisfy the fantasy filled fearful gun owner who claims the govt will know where to go when it decides to confiscate guns, this information could be blocked by law or something along those lines and allow a court order to obtain such information).

Since there has been at least two gun confiscations from registered owners in the recent past, I'd hardly call worrying about same

a 'fantasy'- or worrying about extralegal collection of information by government, for that matter.

[HardWorkingDem]

81. What are the details of the confisctations? And 2?!?!?

I'm sorry, but there is something confusing about how some of the gun owners here only read the half of a statement that they want to read (at the end I bring up the possible acquiring of a court order).

Next, with a Supreme Court and apparently a large number of the populace now leaning toward the belief the framers intended American citizens the right to own firearms, I find the belief of a running wild government kicking in doors and confiscating guns in an Orwellian nightmare a fabrication of the mind.

[friendly_iconoclast]

82. "Fabrication"? Please educate yourself before you presume to lecture others:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=398190









It would appear that denial is not only a river in Egypt...

[HardWorkingDem]

83. Correct me if I misunderstand....

The documents you posted appear to be stating people mistakenly were allowed to purchase and register prohibited firearms in California?

Is that the gist of those two documents? That one is telling people they should not have been allowed to purchase and register the particular firearms and since the person did, then now they are ordered to turn them over?

If so, that is entirely different from my meaning.

[PavePusher]

79. I agree with most of your post.

I would personally deregulate all drugs (except antibiotics) except for purity, labeling and mild taxation, much as the rules for alcohol. This would end the reason for the current deadly black market, and reduce "crime" levels by anywhere from 40-75%, depending on which estimates you like. (Can't remember my source for that, I'll try to hunt it up.) Punish violent crime and behavior with sentances that actually get served, in unpleasent, demanding conditions. (Tents in the desert are good enough for troops, they're more than good enough for prisoners... The only thing Arpaio has done right, IMHO.) Get some kind of handle on unregulated immigration.

Let's see how well that works before giving then Government any more entry into the lives of non-criminal Citizens.

[NewMoonTherian]

62. We can certainly agree there.

"Guns are here, they are staying, so people should realize it and we should do what we can to reduce the carnage of guns without infringing upon the rights of citizens and in a way to punish the ILLEGAL aspects of gun use as harshly as possible."

I want to work toward that goal too. So let's discuss how to accomplish it. That's where we start to diverge, because the overwhelming majority of gun control measures proposed do infringe on the rights of citizens. Our rights are already infringed upon, and have been since at least 1934. At the same time we make our children safer from gun accidents(and pool accidents, and atv accidents, and etcetera ad infinitum), I want to work to remedy that injustice as well.

[slackmaster]

48. It's more like one per one million for children (under age 15). Many kinds of accidents are far...

...more common. More than 10 times as many kids drown as die of accidental gunshot wound. More than 30 children die in motor vehicle accidents for every child who is accidentally shot dead. More children die of accidental poisoning than from accidental gunshot wounds.

http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/fatal.html

More children would be saved by giving free swimming lessons to poor kids than would any conceivable kind of gun law.

I've always advocated teaching basic firearm safety in public schools.

[Atypical Liberal]

12. Wow!

Wow, I clicked on this thread expecting a pro-firearm freedom thread. Because when you remove emotion from the argument and look at the facts, it's clear that the vast majority of firearm owners aren't involved in crimes.

But then we have:

The amount of accidental children's deaths each year alone scream for some sort of measure to be made. On top of that, more creative laws need to be created to deal with cases where criminal courts can't deal with criminals possessing firearms (many prosecutors want the slam dunk case and to deal with this, communities could enact civil remedies to deal with so many cases that could then be dealt with at 51 percent of proof versus beyond a reasonable doubt for criminal cases).

Firearm ownership is at a record high, yet accidental deaths from firearms are at record lows. Violent crime in general is also on the decline.

You're right - we really do need to strip emotion out of this debate and look at the facts.

[HardWorkingDem]

35. Why is it that...

any discussions like this end up with people taking the knee jerk reaction of your views?

Where did I make any argument for the infringement upon LEGAL gun owners?

As for violent crime in American, it waxes and wanes for a variety of reasons and will continue to do so.

But my main point was that the prevailing Supreme Court has issued the interpretation that Americans have the right to own firearms, so how can we as a nation do the best we can to protect citizens and that ONE child killed by a firearm is too many and there is always more to we can do or try to do.

But no where did I advocate the infringement upon the right of LEGAL gun owners, nor intend to.

[Atypical Liberal]

45. Why it is.

Why is it that...any discussions like this end up with people taking the knee jerk reaction of your views?

Because 99.999% of the time, whenever someone "scream(s) for some sort of measure to be made" it affects law-abiding citizens. Especially when it is "for the children".

Where did I make any argument for the infringement upon LEGAL gun owners?

In fact, you did not make any substantive suggestion at all, other than to suggest that "some sort of measure" should be made, using the canard of the number of accidental deaths of children as a plea to emotion to support the idea that "some sort of measure" should be made.

If your position is that firearm restrictions should not affect law-abiding citizens, then that's great! But if you didn't know that blanket calls for unspecified gun control on behalf of children is a veritably ancient siren call for gun-control advocates looking to restrict firearm rights for everyone, then you must be new to the debate on the issue.

[one-eyed fat man]

14. Propaganda and "framing" the issue.

http://library.thinkquest.org/17067/media/closet.mov

The plot of the PSA is as follows:

A child opens a closet door and looks at the top shelf. He drags a chair to the front of the closet and stacks books and boxes on the seat. He climbs up and reaches for a gun on the top shelf.

MICHAEL DOUGLAS (voice over):

If you think your kids aren't old enough to find your handgun, think again.

The child turns the gun around, pointing it at his face. We hear a SHOT and we see a graphic with the following statistic: "10 children are killed by a handgun every day." The Cease Fire logo and web page address appear.

http://library.thinkquest.org/17067/influence/nfdecon1.html

This PSA is effective because it gives the impression that almost 4000 toddlers are killed in gun accidents. In truth, the 5 to 9 age group, (the age of the child shown in the PSA) is 14 per year! So how can you explain a discrepancy of 26,000%? If you include everyone under age 23 as a child, and you include homicides, suicides, legal intervention then there are a whole bunch of "dead kids!"

There's a reason they show one of the "14 kids" and not one of the other 3700....

[AtheistCrusader]

18. Cognitive dissonance.

It really baffles me how logic does not automatically win out.
Complains about appeals to emotion.


The amount of accidental children's deaths each year alone scream for some sort of measure to be made.
Makes fact free appeal to emotion.

[petronius]

25. What do you mean by "more creative laws"? I don't want to put words in your mouth,

but it sounds as though you're wanting to do an end-run around the justice system, and create a new class of crimes (and criminals) without the safeguards, burdens of proof, and rights built in to the current system. That sounds like a really bad (and dangerous) idea to me...

[HardWorkingDem]

34. Criminal vs civil issues/remedies....

We have to look at ALL areas to do something about gun violence.

One area to explore would be to create civil penalties severe enough to deter people from illegally carrying firearms. For example, a current method to deter behavior is through the impounding of vehicles for criminal offenses.

Often times if prosecutors do not believe a criminal conviction could be obtained, then criminal charges will not be chased. So other methods could be tried to deter people from illegally carrying firearms by use of a higher civil (fine) penalty.

Where I am from if a person is stopped in a vehicle and an illegal firearm is found in the vehicle, the vehicle will be impounded and held until a fee is paid (the debate over this issue is another debate). So one way to deal with this is to increase the fee so it is so high that people driving vehicles will be a little bit more careful about what they allow in their vehicles or what they carry in their vehicles.

Or maybe higher civil fines for people caught ILLEGALLY carrying firearms near a school or playground. But we have to get creative and more open minded, especially if the Supreme Court agrees with the prevailing interpretation of firearm possession.

I guess I should have prefaced the creative part with ways that do not violate the US Constitution.

[petronius]

36. I'm not a lawyer, but I think you're mixing up civil and criminal law

When government is bringing the charges/suit, accusing someone of wrongdoing, I'd say that's by definition a criminal case. I'm very leery of weakening protections in order to achieve some goal, or redefining punishments to avoid judicial oversight.

We certainly hear of situations where police have confiscated property without trial, but I've never viewed that as anything other than an abuse of the law...

[HardWorkingDem]

37. Civil cases require prepoderance of proof (51%)/Criminal beyond reasonable doubt...

What I'm getting at is this - say you have a instance where a prosecutor does not feel he or she can win a criminal firearm case against a suspect because the burden of proof for a criminal case is much higher than that of a civil remedy.

For example, say grandson is driving grandma's car and when stopped, the police find a handgun under the driver seat and grandson says the firearm is not his and grandma is called and says it certainly is not hers. Then, there are no fingerprints on the gun. A prosecutor might not feel confident in winning a criminal case, so another remedy could be if a city or jurisdiction drafts an ordinance for such a matter and it calls for a civil penalty (fine). In cases like this if the civil penalty (fine) is cost prohibitive it may deter behavior.

Many cities nationwide are going the vehicle impound route for things like DUI, drugs, firearms and prostitution. Ours is one of them, but to me, the illegal carrying of firearms should take precedence.

[petronius]

40. I get what you're saying, and I really don't like the idea. The notion tha a city would be

given the power to say "well, we can't make the criminal case, so we'll just rename it a civil issue and slap on a penalty" is very troubling to me. I'm aware that some places use extra-judicial, pre-trial confiscation as a tool (usually in drug cases), and I'm very unhappy that they get away with it to the extent that they do.

I'm much in favor of preserving all the protections of the law - if something should be a crime then make it so, but make the state prove guilt and no punishment until they do...

[Atypical Liberal]

46. Sounds like you are asking for increased penalties.

Sounds like you are calling for increased penalties for people who commit crimes with guns. I don't have a problem with that.

[Logical]

26. I understand what you are saying but the gun battle is a lost cause.......

there are too many handguns in the country and you can't take them away from people.

Maybe 10 million NEW handguns are sold a year.

So the dems need to stop this battle as it is costing us votes I think.

I actually took a class to get my CCW three weeks ago because the criminals have handguns. So I might as well have one also.

I doubt I will carry it much but want the option if I need it.

I am not a gun-nut or a NRA fan. But think honest citizens should have the right to have guns if the crooks do.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[HardWorkingDem]

31. Why, fellow DU MEMBERS, why?!?

I am almost sorry for even starting this thread.

Why is that a supposed group of supposed like-minded people are unable to have a discussion without it falling into insults, diatribes and bullshit!

Why is that some people here have a problem politely discussing comples things without it turning in to things like this?

[HardWorkingDem]

38. "complex things" not comples....nt..

nt...

[pipoman]

44. Why on this one civil liberties issue

is it OK for liberals to advocate for conservative interpretation of an enumerated civil liberty? Why do you not see the hypocrisy of this position?

[slackmaster]

47. Some people are so emotionally wrapped up in the issue they lose their decorum

;-)

[PavePusher]

51. Huh?

The only person in this thread who was disparaging was an anti-rights person, and even he was rather milder than his normal self. What comments are you refering to?

[HardWorkingDem]

56. There are a bunch through this thread.......

It's just the entire atmosphere around here anymore. People can't seem to make a point without tossing in insults or rude language. People no longer seem to have the ability to state they disagree and here's why.

This place just seems to be spiraling down into a big mess of arguments and bitterness.

[PavePusher]

58. Point them out, please.

Either I'm on weak coffee this morning, or I'm working with a mental blind spot...,.

[pipoman]

60. You may not realize

that all of your 'points' in this thread are actually part of a larger meme which we, who frequent this forum, have answered for the last many years. Your cries something be done because even one child is too many are almost satirical in tone. You have yet to answer why the concern over this childhood risk when there are at least 15 other, far more common, risks which actually have relatively simple measures which could reduce childhood deaths and injury by multiples over the annual gun related accidental numbers?

[benEzra]

57. I'd be interested in specific proposals

but given the way asset forfeiture has been ridiculously abused in drug cases, I think it would be an exceedingly bad idea to make that particular practice more widespread, or to lower the burden of proof in gun-related cases. If prosecutors didn't spend so much time putting the nonviolent away for minor victimless crimes, maybe they could focus more on the serious stuff.

There's also the question of whether someone willing to commit multiple Federal and state felonies punishable by years in prison (e.g., a criminal illegally carrying a gun) is going to be deterred by the prospect of a fine that he will ignore anyway. As a rule, most petty criminals don't have all that many assets to seize, they don't care about their credit rating, and so on.

Finally, most current gun control proposals on the table (bans on modern-looking rifles, 19th century magazine capacity limits, restricting carry licensure to the wealthy and/or ruling class) are aimed squarely at the law-abiding. The fact that such ban proposals usually involve much handwaving about "gun violence" and "the children" probably accounts for the somewhat skeptical responses upthread.

[Taitertots]

67. The number of accidental child gun deaths is very low

The number of gun homicides is low and trending down. All gun violence is fairly low and trending down. What reason could there be for implementing more gun laws?

What is common sense? No guns for felons, the mentally unfit, people kicked out of the military, and domestic abusers. Determine who can buy guns by having an FBI database that gun dealers use to check buyers. Very strict regulations on automatic rifles, assault rifles, short rifles, sawed off shotguns, canons, missles.... We already do that.