Yes Dave, it's time to raise the issue again

[timm]

Kevin,

I would be in favor of some type of system that would test drivers for alcohol content before being able to drive.

Just as I'm in favor of making it unlawful for any person to use a cell phone, in any manner, while driving.

Both laws would help prevent folks from driving impaired, and risking other innocent peoples lives, by their actions.

Gordon

PS: And I'm also in favor of eliminating the sale, possession and use of assault weapons to anyone (except for military and law enforcement personnel) whose sole purpose is to discharge numerous bullets in a very short period of time and kill innocent people as witnessed by the ever increasing tragic incidents that have occurred in this country over the years.

Is there a way we can just outlaw 'stupid'? I say put in an IQ test before anyone can purchase weapons or drive a car.... any death as mentioned above is a tragic one.... I don't see the point in assault weapons either... The gun-slingers out there (yes, I do own shotguns)... will always point to the domino theory on this...'they took our assault weapons... what's NEXT???' ... ah boy....

 

[Rich]

Rich, as a 'legal beagle' do you believe that the judicial system in this country does an adequate job with respect to gun violence ?

Honestly, Dave, even as a former prosecutor, I don't feel near qualified to adequately answer that question. But I think the judicial system is the last place to look in order to deal with this problem, because they are involved after the fact. Prosecuting some crazy or some idiot for a stupid decision after the fact is going to have minimal impact on future behavior of others. The supply of guns and ammo is too great, the monitoring of who purchases them and how many they purchase and for what purposes is pitifully inadequate, and there is simply no easy way to keep the guns out of the hands of criminals, crazies, and idiots. As long as we have relatively uncontrolled ownership of guns in this country, we will never prevent many gun deaths. But what we can do is minimize the availability of guns with no reasonable purpose (assault-style rifles) as well as large capacity magazines. Someone who has to change clips every ten rounds is probably going to do less damage in a mass shooting than someone who has a hundred round magazine. There is no reasonable purpose for allowing large capacity magazines, in my opinion. How many people die each year from machine guns? Almost none, because they aren't available for sale.

 

[Gordon Gray]

I know this will never happen but wouldn't it be nice a legislator from the House and Senate, with support of the NRA, to sponsor a bill with Rich's recommendations.

And require background checks (similar to what's currently in place for retail sales) for folks that buy guns at gun shows.

Talk about giving the NRA credibility, in the eyes of folks like me, and doing a real service to this Country.

Sure Gordon, dream on.

GG

PS: To those who attend guns shows, I assume it's possible to buy an AK47, or similar weapon at such events, without a question being asked.

 

[timm]

Here is 'the thing'... ( i hate that saying....).... Statistically speaking - I wonder what % of the population in the US has been injured or killed by an automatic weapon. Even if you throw in the thugs that had an automatic weapon in their hand as they were being shot.... The reason I bring it up - is because when the percentages are so low - I think it becomes something that is difficult to enforce or legislate.... I am not saying I am for automatic weapons... Just that to pass laws - does not mean that the law is effective or good for the general public...

Secondly, it is never anybody that is of right mind that tries something like this... They are all pschologically impaired. To me, this is a social problem... Our current govenment likes to take things like this on... So, how about throwing some money at psychological clinics to help people deal with their problems in a better way? Taking the guns away could help (again for a very small statistical sample)... but this person is going to figure out how to make bombs with fertilizer...

As Rich said, the judicial system is at the end of the line - when it is too late.... the gun is one step up from that -still too late....and helping out a desperate person in psychological need is one step above that....and if you can and are willing to go there - then you have truly helped society.

 

[Kevin]

By that logic, you should remove from the DUI death statistics any of the drunks themselves that are killed by their own actions. Of the 10,839 people who died in alcohol-impaired-driving crashes in 2009, 7,281 (67%) were drivers with a BAC of .08 or higher. [Source] The remaining fatalities consisted of 2,891 (27%) motor vehicle occupants and 667 (6%) nonoccupants. So the percentage of people who are killed by drunk drivers is less than a third of overall DUI fatalities. Two-thirds of the fatalities are the drunk drivers themselves. If you want to make the comparison, then compare apples to apples. I'm betting when you do that comparison, you will find that the number of innocent people killed in the US each year by guns is much higher than the number of innocent people killed each year by drunk driving.

But I am not even sure what the subjective concept of "innocence" has to do with this argument. Deaths are deaths. And I hope we as a society would like to prevent the senseless death of a decent person who happens to be an alcoholic just as much as we would like to prevent the needless death of a poor stupid teenager who has turned to a gang to find acceptance. It should give us serious pause that the gun murder rate in the U.S. is almost 20 times higher than the next 22 richest and most populous nations combined. Something is wrong with this picture. I do agree with your conclusion that we should have some reasonable regulations in place to protect our citizens from gun violence, as well as drunk driving.

I don't think it is possible to make an apples to apples comparison, and it wasn't really my attempt to do so. I'll add you another, if your are an 'adult' that gets into a vehicle with a drunk driver, in my opinion you are still culpable to your death as well, even as a passenger. I guess my larger point was this. Everytime there is a shooting, such as recently with the Chiefs player, everyone starts stating the statics of gun deaths. It sounds really bad, and is really bad. But over half of gun related deaths are suicide. Looking at just homicides, a large majority are gang related. http://extranosalley.com/?p=29375 Deaths, to you, might be deaths. But I consider a death to one of my friends or family members, or any other law abiding citizen for that matter, to be more tragic than the death of a criminal. How many criminals, before they shot and killed someone, has a rap sheet that perhaps should have them already in jail?

So, in my opinion, I still think I have a legitimate point. Whenever someone gets shot, there is a rush of people who point the fingers at guns and the regulations that surround firearms. Someone gets killed by a drunk driver, and we more often rightly point our fingers at the drunken idiot. No gun has ever killed a person, to my knowledge, without some form of human error or malice. You mentioned the gun murder rate in other countries vs ours. Can't there be other factors that might contribute towards those numbers, apart from just our access to firearms? How prevelant are gangs in those other countries? Is MS 13 sneaking across the border of Germany? How much does our high consumption of drugs and alcohol make a difference? A large percentage of homicides involves drinking. How about the glorification of violence by Hollywood, our music and gaming industries? Not sure of the answers, but they are all things to consider.

But like I said, no one will get an argument out of me for sensible gun regulations that will help. I guess I just wonder how much of an improvement you can make, when what you are really trying to regulate is idiots and criminals.

 

[Gordon Gray]

I found an interesting website "GunPolicy.org" based in Sydney, Australia.

Assuming this site has cred, there are voluminous statistics on guns, etc. for many countries in the world.

I'll cite four sets of numbers circa 2009 or 2010. First is Switzerland, which allows for private gun ownership and ranks third in the world in the population "rate" of ownership. See 3) below. Second is the USA, which rates first in the world in the population "rate" of ownership.

1) Number of annual gun homicides. 40 / 9146

2) Homicides per 100,000 people. 0.52 / 2.98

3) Number of private guns owned per 100 people. 45.7 / 88.8

4) Total estimated number of guns in private ownership. 3,400,000 / 270,000,000

Statistics are interesting because one can draw their own conclusions depending on ones perspective. I'm not going to read anything into the above numbers but, suffice to say, they are somewhat "eye opening".

GG

PS: 8 million / 309 million (rounded to nearest million)

 

[timm]

I found an interesting website "GunPolicy.org" based in Sydney, Australia.

Assuming this site has cred, there are voluminous statistics on guns, etc. for many countries in the world.

I'll cite four sets of numbers circa 2009 or 2010. First is Switzerland, which allows for private gun ownership and ranks third in the world in the population "rate" of ownership. Second is the USA, which rates first in the world in the population "rate" of ownership.

Number of annual gun homicides. 40 / 9146

Homicides per 100,000 people. 0.52 / 2.98

Number of private guns owned per 100 people. 45.7 / 88.8

Total estimated number of guns in private ownership. 3,400,000 / 270,000,000

Statistics are interesting because one can draw their own conclusions depending on ones perspective. I'm not going to read anything into the above numbers but, suffice to say, they are somewhat "eye opening".

GG

PS: 8 million / 309 million

that is interesting... why the rate in ownership increase... hmmm - what has got people so frightened in Switzerland - terrorist activity around Europe possibly? Or is this a crackdown on licensing guns? In other words, they were always there - they just weren't accounted for...

One other note: according to number of homicides -- it is .17% (.52/2.98)... but homicides associated to guns was .004% (40/9146)...am I reading that right? seems like I'm screwing that up....

 

[Kevin]

It appears as though Switzerlands militarly service is part of the answer. Young men in Switzerland are required to receive military training, and are required to keep a weapon at home. They don't have a full time national military. You can always read that in two ways. I'm guessing they don't just allow just anyone to take the gun home, so perhaps a careful background check is done? But for those who do take them home, apparently the guns don't make much of a temptation to settle every argument that may come along, as sort of suggested by Costas. I'm guessing a mixture of the two or perhaps other reasons as well. Also, how does crime and violence in Switzerland compare even when a gun isn't a part of the equation?

 

[Kevin]

There is no reasonable purpose for allowing large capacity magazines, in my opinion. How many people die each year from machine guns? Almost none, because they aren't available for sale.

Not disputing that large capacity magazines don't have a purpose, but there is another way of viewing your machine gun example. If yellow vehicles were outlawed, there would be almost no accidents involving yellow vehicles. But would it actually decrease the number of accidents a year, or would people just purchase a different colored vehicle, and the accident rate would stay the same?

 

[Kevin]

that is interesting... why the rate in ownership increase... hmmm - what has got people so frightened in Switzerland - terrorist activity around Europe possibly? Or is this a crackdown on licensing guns? In other words, they were always there - they just weren't accounted for...

One other note: according to number of homicides -- it is .17% (.52/2.98)... but homicides associated to guns was .004% (40/9146)...am I reading that right? seems like I'm screwing that up....

Unless I'm the one viewing it wrong, or I'm understanding you wrong, I think you are looking at those stats and you're thinking it is comparing Switzerland, to itself, at later date. But the first numbers in the line are for Switzerland and the second set of numbers are for the US. Not sure if I explained that well.

 

[Gordon Gray]

timm,

Remember that the two numbers in the same sentence are Swiss versus USA. Must compare like to like, not across.

To check 1) and 2) Swiss, divide 8,000,000 by 100,000 and multiply by 0.52. Result 41.6 annual gun homicides.

To check 3) and 4) against total Swiss population, divide 8,000,000 by 100 times 45.7. Result 3.65M guns.

Good grab Kevin. Results impacted by the Swiss "militia" and their right to retain gun ownership after service completed.

GG

PS: Also, one set of stats was taken in Switzerland in 2009 and the other in the USA in 2010, or vice versa.

 

[timm]

timm,

Remember that the two numbers in the same sentence are Swiss versus USA. Must compare like to like, not across.

To check 1) and 2) Swiss, divide 8,000,000 by 100,000 and multiply by 0.52. Result 41.6 annual gun homicides.

To check 3) and 4) against total Swiss population, divide 8,000,000 by 100 times 45.7. Result 3.65M guns.

Good grab Kevin. Results impacted by the Swiss "militia" and their right to retain gun ownership after service completed.

GG

PS: Also, one set of stats was taken in Switzerland in 2009 and the other in the USA in 2010, or vice versa.

ah that's what I get!! thanks....

 

[Rich]

Not disputing that large capacity magazines don't have a purpose, but there is another way of viewing your machine gun example. If yellow vehicles were outlawed, there would be almost no accidents involving yellow vehicles. But would it actually decrease the number of accidents a year, or would people just purchase a different colored vehicle, and the accident rate would stay the same?

You can kill a lot of people faster with a large capacity magazine than with a smaller one, regardless of color. Granted, this would not help prevent most shootings. It would just reduce the number of dead in planned mass homicides which seem to be growing more and more common these days. I think you are on to something about the required Swiss militia training. If we required all young men in the U.S. to undergo similar training, it just might instill a little more knowledge of and respect for firearms, and perhaps more discipline and respect for life in general.

 

[twich54]

You can kill a lot of people faster with a large capacity magazine than with a smaller one, regardless of color.

agreed Rich, as that POS murderer knew when he entered that theatre in Aurora months back.....you remeber the one, where NO concealed carry was allowed. Don't think for one minute that wasn't part of his plan. While I haven't followed the case since, I assume his defense will plead 'insane'.....if so the only thing 'insane' is that we allow scum like that to eat up our tax dollars !!!!

 

[Kevin]

You can kill a lot of people faster with a large capacity magazine than with a smaller one, regardless of color. Granted, this would not help prevent most shootings. It would just reduce the number of dead in planned mass homicides which seem to be growing more and more common these days. I think you are on to something about the required Swiss militia training. If we required all young men in the U.S. to undergo similar training, it just might instill a little more knowledge of and respect for firearms, and perhaps more discipline and respect for life in general.

You're correct, the larger magazines are the only issue for reducing mass homicides. Assault weapons are still semi-automatic, so a person can still only shoot as fast as their finger can pull the trigger. I was trying to find figures on mass shootings which listed the types of weapons used, but there doesn't appear to be many figures kept on this. Perhaps someone else can find them. Here are two of the better links I found. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-...gs-invo_b_808603.html#s223212&title=Stockton_ http://www.newsmax.com/US/mass-shootings-us-colorado/2012/07/20/id/445971
The first is on high capacity magazines, and it appears as though most of the crimes are commited using handguns with 15 capacity clips. Not a big jump over 10, but they also used more than one clip. The second is a larger list of the major mass shootings in about a 10 year period. While perhaps sensational, there isn't a great number of the higher death shootings. It appears to me, that ending high capacity clips alone won't do much. Not many of the shootings involve someone firing into a large crowd in a quick manner, as in Aurora. A good number involve going room to room in building, or as in VA tech even building to building. Even if a high capacity clips are used in that type of situation, if not available, I'm pretty sure the results would still have been close to the same with just a regular handgun. I'm not sure, but in a country where there are almost 10,000 homicides on average a year, we seem to be talking about a very small percentage of deaths saved by limiting magazine capacity.

If you make the argument, that any lives saved, are worth it, I would tend to agree. After all, there seems to be no redeeming social value for the high capacity clips. But I also look at it this way. Some might not see any redeeming value for vehicles that can go faster than say, 80 mph. I don't think there are any public l roads in the US where you can go faster than that- legally. Most certainly, I believe figures will show that far more lives would be saved doing this over limiting gun clips to 10 rounds. Someone may say they have a lot of fun going to the track on the weekends and seeing what their vehicle can do. But I have also seen people on youtube having fun blasting a row of pumpkins with their AK-47. What other things can we make illegal, that will save a few lives, that don't appear to have any social value to the majority? Cigarettes? Are we starting to tread upon a slippery slope?

I just figure, once we limit the clip capacity, perhaps even add more control on background checks etc, that in the end it will have a very small effect on the number of deaths. Then what happens? Do the anti-gun folks then go after any semi-automatic weapons? Is military training the answer, as you suggested? Very well could be, the vast majority of people I know from the military are all good citizens. But it didn't help Lee Harvey Oswald, Timothy Mcveigh, Sirhan Sirhan, or the Fort Hood Shooter, and those are just the ones I can think of quickly. I saw a quote in one article that "violence is as American as apple pie". I'm afraid that is too true. The USA even produces far more serial killers than any other country, and I don't think they use assault rifles.

 

[slowGEEZR]

Some might not see any redeeming value for vehicles that can go faster than say, 80 mph. I don't think there are any public l roads in the US where you can go faster than that- legally.

We have 85 mph as our top speed on public roads, down here in Texas.

 

[Kevin]

We have 85 mph as our top speed on public roads, down here in Texas.

I think Josh Brent might have thought it was higher than that. He was in a 45mph zone, but from what I have read, his car flipped at least once and skidded 900ft. It will be interesting to hear how fast they estimate he was going.

 

[slowGEEZR]

Yeah, driving while intoxicated is very dangerous, whatever the posted speed limit.

 

[Kevin]

Yeah, driving while intoxicated is very dangerous, whatever the posted speed limit.

As bad as the situation is, at least it didn't involve another vehicle. That guy has a heavy burden to carry for the rest of his life. I can't imagine. For the price of a taxi, they're both alive today.

 

[Gordon Gray]

Kevin,

Thank you for your participation.

Regarding your last post, I have a very hard time accepting the "creep" theory. That is, once one starts to regulate, you will open the door to further regulations. Given the current political environment, the likelihood of this occurring is next to nil.

In my view the NRA, along with their ardent supporters, do themselves more harm than good by accepting this as a reality and not being pro-active to eliminate the availability of assault weapons / accessories to the general public.

Gordon