Why

Kevin,

Just being a realist. There's not much more that I have to say that hasn't been said.

Best,

Gordon

PS: Another fact about my State that you didn't mention at the end of your Post No. 36. Per a recent NPR analysis, Wyoming has the highest, gun related suicide rate in the Country. I'm aware of three individuals that I've known / worked with in Jackson that have committed suicide with a gun. And that's in our small community with a population of 20,000.

Are guns a "problem" (your words) in Wyoming? You be the judge.

Kevin said:

Was the "cricket" purchased in such a manner that this background check law would have prevented this death? From what I have read, it doesn't appear it would have. In fact, would this background check have prevented the Sandy Hook, Columbine or the Aurora massacres? Again, the answer is no. The VA Tech shooter should have already been prevented by the background check already in place, but his mental health record wasn't properly coded in the database. The mass shootings almost always involve someone with mental health issues, but I don't think this law adequately addressed this issue, if at all. Of course, while receiving a majority of the press, most gun violence doesn't stem from these mass shootings. Most gun violence is an urban, inner city problem related to gangs and drugs. Are these criminals going to go to the local sporting goods store to submit themselves to background checks before purchasing weapons from one another? I don't think so. You also have the stupidity factor, which these parents who gave a 5 year old a gun to keep in his possession would fit under. So this law, if it had passed, wouldn't have put a 'dent' in our current gun violence. Neither would an 'assault' weapons ban. So then what? Do we start going further down the line until like in Britain, we start having discussions on which kitchen knives we are allowed to own? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4581871.stm

Click to expand...

Gun background checks are just the low bearing fruit for our elected officials. It's mainly a reactionary measure taken after the terrible tragedy that took place in CT. Pretty much anytime some national tragedy takes place (banking/housing failure, mass shooting, environmental disaster, etc) Congress is always chasing the issue and promoting 'fixes' after the fact.

As Kevin, and many others, have pointed out. These insane acts of violence have way more to do with the shooters' mental health and relationships with their parents and other people within the community. With respect to the Columbine massacre, the two shooters were known as 'black sheep' who felt that they had very little to live for.

To answer your question more directly Gordon: it's anyone's guess why the NRA is against background checks. Even if we have the most strict gun ownership laws in the world...what do we do about the firearms already out there?

I don't think Americans are willing to answer the serious questions posed above. Instead we'd rather avoid the issue and point to statistics or how our rights are being trampled on.

Gordon Gray said:

Kevin,

Just being a realist. There's not much more that I have to say that hasn't been said.

Best,

Gordon

PS: Another fact about my State that you didn't mention at the end of your Post No. 36. Per a recent NPR analysis, Wyoming has the highest, gun related suicide rate in the Country. I'm aware of three individuals that I've known / worked with in Jackson that have committed suicide with a gun. And that's in our small community with a population of 20,000.

Are guns a "problem" (your words) in Wyoming? You be the judge.

Click to expand...

Yes, suicide is quite often something done in a moment of grief or despair, and if a gun is not available, the person might not have committed suicide or perhaps would have chosen a method that has a better chance of failing. But because it is often done in the moment, again, this bill on background checks would do very little to prevent these. And while certainly sad and a big source of pain on surviving family members and friends, a person shooting themselves in the head is done by their own free will.

My point, isn't to say that there can be no further gun laws or restrictions. But I would hope before we quickly place more laws and regulations upon those of us that are sane, law abiding, and have some commonsense in our treatment of firearms, that we pass a bill that will make a corresponding difference in the death rate. In my opinion, this bill wouldn't have achieved that goal. Perhaps a background check coupled with better mental health restrictions and perhaps easier gang/criminal related enforcement? That might have a chance of reducing death by firearms. But to do those things correctly, you'll have to tamper with more than just the 2nd amendment, and for many, they have a problem with that.

There are no easy answers, but discussion is always good.

Kevin,

I totally agree with the above.

But I'm not going to waste your time or mine (or others) by repeating points that have already been made.

Trust you understand and agree.

Gordon

Some Light Bedtime Reading _ Successfully Controlling Guns

InterMechanico said:

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

Click to expand...

Unless in my reading, I skipped something, under the "Contention over the effects of the law" it spoke almost exclusively of evidence that it has done very little. But it is 'wikipedia' that you linked too, not sure how reliable that is as a source. But, I'll admit, there has been a reduction in gun related deaths in Australia, however, there has also been a reduction, within that same time frame, here in the US. Here are figures just released a few days ago. http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/201...-past-20-years-justice-dept-report-finds?lite What isn't often discussed, in the figures on Australia after the gun ban, is that violent assaults and rape appear to have increased after the gun ban. But correlation does not imply causation, and this would go for homicide rates going down or other crimes increasing.

Gun homicides, violence down sharply in past 20 years

Looking back 50 years, a Pew Research Center study found U.S. gun homicides rose in the 1960s, gained in the 1970s, peaked in the 1980s and the early 1990s, and then plunged and leveled out the past 20 years.

"Despite national attention to the issue of firearm violence, most Americans are unaware that gun crime is lower today than it was two decades ago," the researchers say......

The new study found U.S. firearm homicides peaked in 1993 at 7.0 deaths per 100,000 people. But by 2010, the rate was 49% lower, and firearm-related violence -- assaults, robberies, sex crimes -- was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993, the study found.

Those drops parallel an overall decline in violent non-fatal crime, with or without a gun, the study said.

In fact, gun-related homicide rates in the late 2000s were "equal to those not seen since the early 1960s," the study found.

Click to expand...

http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/08/us/study-gun-homicide/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Kevin,

What's your take on the "Liberator" within the context of the Second Amendment?

Respectfully,

Gordon

How about an armed march on DC with loaded firearms on the 4th of July.


J

Gordon Gray said:

Kevin,

What's your take on the "Liberator" within the context of the Second Amendment?

Respectfully,

Gordon

Click to expand...

There is already a law on the books to handle guns undetectable by metal detectors, so I'm not really sure what loophole allows this gun to be legal, but honestly I have only recently heard about it.

No marksman, hunter, or anyone who feels the desire for home defense, is going to want to use a plastic gun. Outside of someone being curious, I can only see someone wanting one for criminal purposes, so I don't think the 2nd amendment needs to extend to plastic guns. The problem, as I see it, is anyone wanting one, to say sneak onto an airplane or into a court room, isn't going to care if it is legal or not. So you can ban it, but now how do you stop it?

Kevin,

Dare I say change the "culture" of this Country's attitude / obsession regarding gun ownership.

Gordon

Gordon Gray said:

Kevin,

Dare I say change the "culture" of this Country's attitude / obsession regarding gun ownership.

Gordon

Click to expand...

Here Here...

Gordon Gray said:

Kevin,

Dare I say change the "culture" of this Country's attitude / obsession regarding gun ownership.

Gordon

Click to expand...

Hi Gordon,

You'll get no argument out of me that culture has a role. But part of that gun culture is created by movies, TV, music and video games. I just watched Django the other day and saw about 40-50 people (my best estimate) get blown away in pretty graphic detail. Why heck, after that movie I had an itch to go out and pop a few bad guys. But is the liberal establishment open to placing further restrictions upon the first amendment? Will they go for placing restrictions upon Hollywood that might not only impact Hollywood's revenue, but the money that HW gives to democrats? No one would ever be able to convince me that young males become more desensitized by the amount of violence they are exposed too, especially anti-social kids that are perhaps already more prone towards violence.

The above link provided by RUR states that most people have the belief that firearm crime is increasing. With all the media coverage over every gun death, it is little wonder? Were the media to start reporting every kid drowning in a pool this summer, would it make it easier to make the case that swimming pools are a grave danger that needs further regulation? There's about 4 times as many kids accidently drowned each year as compared to those involved in accidental gun deaths such as the one in Kentucky, but they stay as local news because there is no agenda against swimming pools. Is there really a difference between an idiot leaving a child around a loaded weapon and one leaving a child unwatched by a pool? A dead child is a dead child. However, I can bet you that there are people with kids who would never let them go to a house where a responsible gun owner, such as myself lives, however, they wouldn't think twice in letting there kid go to the neighbors who have a swimming pool. Why is that?

In the end, we are really talking about people being responsible. If there are no criminals, mental illness or idiots, then we are not even having this discussion about guns. Unfortunately, a few bad apples can ruin the looks of the entire tree. It's much like the arguments you hear about certain breeds of dogs. We have always had Dobermans, and as a result, I had a hard time finding home insurance and pay more than I should. Our dogs have always been obedient and overly friendly, but some people don't raise them correctly, and of course rightly or wrongly, I pay for their stupidity.

Good post Kevin, I concur !

Gun murder rates are dropping, which on the surface seems to indicate the problem is getting better, but try factoring the real numbers into your equation. Gun deaths in the USA seem to average 25 000 per year, 8-9000 of which are intentional killings. How does that compare to other 1st world countries?

Gun murder rates are dropping, which on the surface seems to indicate the problem is getting better, but try factoring the real numbers into your equation. Gun deaths in the USA seem to average 25 000 per year, 8-9000 of which are intentional killings.

Click to expand...

The problem, and it is a problem, doesn't seem to be getting better, it is getting better.

InterMechanico said:

How does that compare to other 1st world countries?

Click to expand...

Aye, there's the rub. The US compares very unfavorably with any 1st world country, with 5-10X gun homicides on a per capita basis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate or you can go to the UN study source info http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/homicide.html (click on Homicide by Firearms for the download).

Sorry, RUR, that was the point I was trying to articulate. It is getting better but from an astronomically high starting point. Thank you for elaborating.

Kevin,

Good post and I agree that all your points, within their context, are valid.

But Ken's (RUR) stat about the US versus other 1st world countries (gun homicides per capita) clearly reinforces / substantiates the "culture" aspect of this issue.

I don't think the US has, per se, more crazy, irresponsible, mentally ill folks than most other 1st world countries.

Gordon

PS: I also agree that "responsible" gun owners (like you, Dave, and many others) are taking a bad rap on this problem.

User211 said:

I believe you are really quite English in your viewpoint, Gordon.

That's a complement, BTW.

TBH I think the US attitude to guns is idiotic. Pathetic, even. Though I appreciate many US citizens realise it.

Click to expand...

I'm embarrassed to be a US citizen sometimes, especially over gun control. (I'm more for gun elimination...one can find pre-killed food in the grocery store.) However, it's not entirely the US as whole that's to blame since 90% at least support background checks. It's the monumental a$$holes in the NRA and Congress (probably some redundancy there!) that is the real problem. Just how many more children have to die before we take serious action? I think automatic weapons should come with a KKPSC rating: Kids Killed Per Second Capacity. Maybe that would make a few think before they buy.

Guitarist said:

I'm embarrassed to be a US citizen sometimes, ...

Click to expand...

Well, at least you don't have Perry for a governor.

slowGEEZR said:

Well, at least you don't have Perry for a governor.

Click to expand...

True. I have Jerry Brown...no real shame yet! (And I just bet he can name all of the government agencies!)