West Seattle Blog...

WSB Forum » Open Discussion

(39 posts)

Where did he get the gun?

Started 9 months ago by DBP
Latest reply from kootchman

DBP
Member Profile

I was thinking about what would be the appropriate punishment for the shiit-bird who murdered Sweetheart Marie Failautusi at a White Center bus stop last week. According to the police report, the shiit-bird was angry because Sweetheart wouldn't give him a cigarette. So he shot her.

Way to go, shiit-bird! Ending someone over a lousy cigarette! How about when you get to Hell — which you certainly will — the Devil welcomes you with a nice hot one? Right up the tuchus.

Over and over again.
Forever.

That would be poetic justice for shiit-bird, wouldn't it?
Unfortunately, it won't bring Sweetheart back.

Nothing will bring Sweetheart back.

You know what might keep the next Sweetheart from getting killed, though?

—A national gun registry.

With a gun registry, every gun in the U.S. would have to be registered. And every time a gun was manufactured or bought or sold (or stolen), that would also have to be registered. That way, whenever a crime was committed with a gun, the chain of custody could be traced, right back to the manufacturer.

Gun registry laws are feaasible and have been implemented successfully in other countries. In this country, we lack only the political will to get it done.

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_registration.html

Yes, some people will see gun registry as an infringement of their "right" to be as heavily and conveniently armed as they wanna be. And I'll admit, there is the convenience issue . . .

On the other hand, there's Sweetheart.
Or rather, there WAS Sweetheart.

In her name, I say it's high time we got serious about gun control and implemented a national gun registry.

How say you?

Posted 9 months ago #
clark5080
Member Profile

Guarantee you he didn't get it at the local gun shop so how would a registry have stopped him?

Posted 9 months ago #
DBP
Member Profile

Guarantee you he didn't get it at the local gun shop so how would a registry have stopped him?

Glad you asked, clark.

In the case in question, the punk might have stolen the gun, gotten it from a Wal-Mart, a gun-show dealer on the other side of the country, or perhaps a friend. He may have owned it legally, or illegaly. In any of these scenarios, however, the gun would have been traceable, and that's the key thing.

A registry is no guarantee against gun crime. Rather, it is a deterrent. Registries don't make it impossible for punks to get their hands on guns; they just make it harder. They also provide a DISincentive for those supplying the guns, since they can be severely penalized.

Posted 9 months ago #
JimmyG
Member Profile

Please explain how a gun registry would have stopped this murder? Because your wish for a gun registry wouldn't have.

Criminals don't give a hoot that the gun they have can be traced back to the manufacturer, they don't care it can be traced to the last legal owner.

They care merely that they have a piece, a piece that gives them street cred.

Your efforts would be better spent attempting to stop the culture that encourages teens to emulate the thug life.

Her killer (and the thousands in this area like him) don't value anyone's life. In their world, life is cheap and expendable and has zero to do with a gun being registered or traceable.

Posted 9 months ago #
JimmyG
Member Profile

As to your deterrent argument, do you REALLY think a person who values life so little as to shoot a woman on a public street in the head over a perceived insult is going to be deterred by the fact the gun he's carrying is registered and/or traceable?

Posted 9 months ago #
metrognome
Member Profile

Cheryl Wheeler's "If It Were Up To Me"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_S5CabGWsv4

Interestingly, Garth Brooks recorded this song ... and left out the part about 'the guns'.

Posted 9 months ago #
BigPhil
Member Profile

I'll chime in to add that all of the guns manufactured before your dream day of a registry will not be on said registry, leaving hundreds of millions of guns no 'traceability' you desire.

Likewise, I'm not sure how you think the registry is going to link itself to the gun. By serial number? It's trivial to dremel off the serial number and voila, your 'registered' gun is no longer registered.

Posted 9 months ago #
Bostonman
Member Profile

Registries are only applicable to lawbidding citizens. Criminals are crimanals for a reason and they don't care what laws they break if they will commit a crime. If they ever enacted a law that required me to register my firearms then I would hide them and tell them I sold them years ago.

Posted 9 months ago #
365Stairs
Member Profile

Gun...knives...sticks...stones...
It's never about the weapons used...its the hands attached to them...

Random...or premeditated...

Evil is as evil does...

Even the law abiding gun owners will balk at any proposed registry - because then...that registry would have to be created... maintained...tracked...Law abiding owner sells weapon, fills out proper paperwork or even goes "online" in a secure encrypted site...sends to state or federal agency (sound horns now)...state or federal agency monitors activities closely and files paperwork...neglecting to update the weapon to new owner...new owner uses gun maliciously...gets caught...trace back paperwork on file...old owner faces charges of accessory...all bad news...

Posted 9 months ago #
Ken
Member Profile

I am a hard core Liberal Democrat. And I and millions of other Democrats have owned and used guns as the tools they are for generations.

Tax bullets if you like. Use the money to try and change the "no snitch" stupidity in some of the vulnerable populations but don't expect a gun registry to either work or be popular outside of white urban populations.

Those of us who are from rural states understand this issue and as Democrats (or socialist, liberals or progressives) we should give up on any prohibitions that turn good citizens into felons while not effecting those with a felonious bent in the first place. We have seen the results of those "wars" and should steer clear of another.

Boston had one of the most restrictive gun laws on the planet when I was a cab driver there. I had a bulletproof partition in my cab as did all the rest. Every time I was robbed it was with a gun. All I had was the electric door locks and the wire to a small teargas canister under the seat. :)
The cops could have charged me with the tear gas but they always laughed there a$$ off instead when I delivered the "robber" to the station.
I still got robbed a few times by those smart enough to get out of the cab first...

However a tax on bullets seems progressive to me. Those without the motivation to load their own will be unpracticed and those who want to keep one at home (safely stashed in a high place) will not be badly inconvenienced.

Posted 9 months ago #
Ken
Member Profile

365Stairs:
I just got a notice of a ticket with huge penalty fee for a car I sold over a year ago. The report of sale was filed online and I made copies, but that has not fazed the City bureaucracy. When the car was towed, the tow company was able to look up the Report of sale a few months ago, but for the city, I have to fax a copy. Many people would not have made copies of the online forms.

The idea that a gun registry would run any smoother is laughable to those of us who have ever worked with a database used by entry level clerks.

Posted 9 months ago #
DBP
Member Profile

Hmmm. Scratch a West Seattle "hard core Liberal Democrat," find a redneck . . .

I kid, I kid. But I must say the general response to my proposal surprises me. Sometimes I forget that this is the Far West we're living in here. The "frontier" as it were. ;-)

Of course we know that the ass-wype who killed Sweetheart doesn't give a crap about gun laws. That is NOT the point. I refer you back to the title of this post: Where did he get the gun?

THAT is the point.

Was it at all difficult for Ass-wype to get his hands on that gun? Or was it easy?

And if it was easy, WHY was it easy?

Suppose Ass-wype bought the gun from an unscrupulous gun-show dealer who shouldn't have sold it to him in the first place. With a registry,* we could go back and bust that dealer. In the future, said gun-show dealer will be much less likely to cut corners when checking a buyer's criminal record, making it that much harder for future Ass-wypes to get hold of those guns.

Or suppose Ass-wype got the gun from a friend, who owned it legally. With a registry, now we can go back and penalize the friend for transferring the gun illegally, without updating the registry.

My point is, guns are too easy to get. They're just too damned easy. Make 'em harder to get, you cut down gun crime accordingly. You don't eliminate it, but you do cut it down.

JimmyG said:

Your efforts would be better spent attempting to stop the culture that encourages teens to emulate the thug life.

No doubt, this is about culture, too, Jimmy. And I do work to change the culture of violence and thuggery, wherever it rears its nasty head, whether that be on my own street corner or in the halls of the Pentagon. But it doesn't have to be an either/or choice with guns, you know, because we can do both. We can work to discourage thuggery AND make guns harder for criminals to get. Why not?

—Or are you one of those gun enthusiasts who won't give an inch no matter what? (See also: NRA talking points.)

***************************************************************************************

*It has to be a NATIONAL registry. A handful of local registries won't work, for obvious reasons. And needless to say, it should be run by well-trained people . . .

But these are all straw-man arguments as far as I'm concerned. Databases are a proven technology. Ken, you should know that better than anyone.

Posted 9 months ago #
Bostonman
Member Profile

Well I am one of those who won't give an inch no matter what. I have been a law abidding gun ownder since 18 and my father and grand father before me. I will not give an inch or suuport further legislation because someone shot someone else and got the gun illegally. The gun laws are already strict. If you live in states like New Youk, California or Illinois then its like living in another country.

Posted 9 months ago #
JimmyG
Member Profile

A registry still won't stop the murders OP, it won't even slow them down.

And be honest, you aren't talking about just a registry, you're also wanting gun owners to be charged with a crime if their gun falls into the wrong hands. So instead of a registry why not work (as has been tried before in WA) to have a law passed about keeping guns locked up. Because without those laws behind a registry, a registry by itself does nothing.

And should those laws come into effect, they would be nothing more than an after the fact reactive criminal charge and won't stop the bloodshed.

I AM a gun enthusiast OP, and I'm not ashamed to say it. I'm a legal concealed carry gun enthusiast who packs a handgun every day as I go about my business here in West Seattle. I have legally carried for over 25 years. And I'm a female. And get this, I vote Democrat, probably 98% of the time. And I'm very socially liberal.

The funny thing is, most anti-gun folks don't want to know about those in my demographic, because it doesn't fit with their stereotype of NRA gun nuts. I am your neighbor, the one you wave at each day as we pass on the sidewalk on our way to work. There are a bunch of us just like me, and we know the realities of what a gun registry wouldn't do.

If all my guns were registered with Uncle Sam it would have absolutely zero impact on stopping the violence being perpetrated by criminals with guns.

Posted 9 months ago #
datamuse
Member Profile

Charging a gun dealer because someone buys a gun from him and then shoots someone with it makes about as much sense to me as charging a car salesman because someone buys a car and then runs over someone with it. What are you going to charge him with, anyway?

Posted 9 months ago #
ItsForrest
Member Profile

Setting aside any political bias one way or another, the problem with trying to implement some sort of gun control is a simple math problem. There are too many guns already out there to find, take away or keep track of.

I have heard estimates that there are as many as three or more guns for every person in the country. Citizens owning guns has been the norm here for so long there is no way to know just how many guns are out there. The only way to track them down and register them would be a house-to-house search of the entire country. Even with that, millions of guns would never be found.

There simply is no real way to gain control over all the guns in this country at this point in time or within a reasonable enough time period that more problems would not be created, permanently or in the interim. So, for those espousing gun control, set aside the idealism and think realistically.

From where we stand right now, how would we start removing guns from the populace? It would start with easy goals. The easiest way to show progress would be to get a list of legally owned and registered guns and take them away from responsible owners. Now what do you have?

Perhaps tighter controls on ammunition would be a more achievable path. But would this simply create a new black market and make ammo as easy to buy as pot or meth? Many thousands of people have equipment for loading and reloading ammo and even if gunpowder was made illegal, it is not difficult to make.

We also must pay attention to what has happened in other countries that have instituted strict gun control programs such as Canada and Australia. In the short term they have created new problems. This sounds terribly cliche but by taking away the guns that could be found, they simply made it so criminals had far more guns that law abiding citizens. This created in some areas a spike in armed home invasions. Yes, the criminals knew that citizens had no defense.

So, would there be less violent crime without guns?

Note that, as a whole, people are more afraid of knives than guns.

All I'm saying here is think before that knee starts jerking.

Posted 9 months ago #
2 Much Whine
Member Profile

Forrest, isn't that a little like saying that everybody has fingerprints, there are SO MANY fingerprints out there that we could never hope to get them all so we shouldn't have a national fingerprint registry? Also, where did you get the evidence that more people are afraid of knives than guns? I have knives in my kitchen, garage, tackle box. Lots of knives. Not afraid to pick one up and filet a fish or slice a tomato. If I found a knife in the street it would not frighten me because I know where the blade is and ca, see whether it will do harm to me. A gun on the other hand can be loaded or unloaded and has a far bigger impact in my opinion. But then again, I don't keep guns in my kitchen or under my pillow like some folks do.

Posted 9 months ago #
ItsForrest
Member Profile

First off, please read the last line of my post. Here, I'll post it again:
All I'm saying here is think before that knee starts jerking.

A few minutes of thought will save a lot of time. I didn't post references because the main point of my whole post was to encourage people to think things through before blindly regurgitating rhetoric and spewing the knee-jerk response of "there ought to be a law". Want references? Google 'em. Please prove me wrong! If you go to the trouble to prove me wrong, you've learned something and I've succeeded.

As far as fingerprints go, Think for a minute. Only people who have been arrested or processed for some reason have fingerprints on file anywhere so even that database has limited utility. I for one have not been fingerprinted. Have you? But that's not the point I'm trying to make either.

Do fingerprints prevent crime or just help solve crimes? Generally you have to already have committed a crime before your prints are on file. So that crime certainly wasn't prevented. Will a gun registry prevent crimes?

Tracking new guns in a database will only ever register a portion of all guns so its usefulness would be limited. If a gun is used in a crime, is it put back in circulation after it's logged or is it destroyed after it does its time in an evidence box? Old guns, black-market guns with filed numbers, stolen guns, etc. will fall through the cracks. How many of those kinds of guns are the ones used for violent crimes? Will a gun database prevent a crime? Does this make it useless? maybe, maybe not. Does it mean I don't think it will do any good so it shouldn't be instituted? That is the question.

I'm just posing questions. Guns have been piling up for hundreds of years now. We don't even know how many are out there, how can we keep track of them? Why not think about it and prove that a gun database does do any good at all before spending millions of our tax dollars and devoting infrastructure to potentially worthless programs.

I will restate the knives vs. guns statement. An attacker with a knife is generally more scary or intimidating than an attacker with a gun. Or, people are more afraid of an attacker with a knife than an attacker with a gun.
see:
http://pistolcraft.org/wp/archives/64
http://jyte.com/cl/in-entertainment-media-knives-are-much-scarier-than-guns
http://thetruthaboutguns.com/2011/08/roy-hill/self-defense-tip-do-the-tueller-drill/

A gun is a tool. By and of itself it's not dangerous. If I see a gun on the ground, I don't fear it. That's just silly. It's not going to jump up by itself and shoot me any more than a rock on the ground is going to jump up and smash me in the forehead. Are you scared of rocks? Hell, knives are dangerous! Ladders are even more dangerous! Do you have ladders in your home? I've handled plenty of guns and never injured myself but have certainly cut myself more than once with knives. Guns and knives are both tools and subject to misuse.
And don't get me started on cars. Over 40,000 people every year are killed with cars in our country. Thousands of those people weren't even in the cars. When will the madness stop? Where are our priorities in saving lives?

Perhaps if you did have a gun in your home you would take the time to understand them better and not have an irrational fear of guns.

Want more? Google and learn. Question the rhetoric.

Posted 9 months ago #
Bostonman
Member Profile

I love the Tueller drill. Our CCW class took a different approach. We placed a "bad guy" the equivalient distance of 15 yards or across a street. The "good guy" stood hands at his sides. The bad guy at his discretion would start to run towards the good guy and pretent to stab him and the good guy needed to get his pretend gun out of his concealed carry holster and deliver 2 rounds to the kill zone.

Not one person in the class could do it. Its an eye opening experience and gives you some good knowledge on just how usefull a concealed weapon really is.

Posted 9 months ago #
kootchman
Member Profile

15 yards? Sorry Bostonman... I'll take that bet... like all good skills, ya gotta work at it... practice, practice, practice. I carry and conceal when I go to the ATM, bank, or convenience store..or ride public transit. Situational awareness.and how you carry.. most folks are too startled..which in a way is reassuring.. but those are the deadly 4 places. Course, under Operation Fast and Furious.... whew...those weapons were heavy shit.... and funny thing... sold to KNOWN drug narco traffickers...enforcers... by our very own Justice Department... How about baby steps.... like stop ATF agents from putting automatic assault weapons in the hands of drug cartels..in the United States, from registered gun dealers,...bty all the guns were registered....they tracked the serial numbers right back to the dead border agent, and at least five crimes in California. It would be nice if the feds didn't sell armor piercing velocity weaponry to illegal aliens, narco traffickers, ... the Mexican Police would appreciate it too. As to a gun on the street... treat them all AS LOADED....until you clear them personally.

Posted 9 months ago #
2 Much Whine
Member Profile

Kootch, I feel very fortunate that my brain does not work the way yours does. I have NEVER felt the need to carry a weapon to protect myself. I've made it 50+ years without an incident (knock on wood). Mostly I maintain situational awareness and don't put myself in harm's way. I do not walk the world in fear.

Posted 9 months ago #
JoB
Member Profile

Kootch..

to be honest..
i fear more for my safety when in the company of friends who carry than in the company of the weaponless
we aren't counting on our guns to get us out of trouble..

doubling the people with guns in any incident only increases the number of bullets flying exponentially
the same idiots who think firing a gun is a good idea think gun battles are cool...

..not so much for the innocent bystanders.

unlike 2MuchWhine i have been in situations where my personal safety was threatened...
and i still think my chances of surviving are better unarmed.

Posted 9 months ago #
DBP
Member Profile

And be honest, you aren't talking about just a registry, you're also wanting gun owners to be charged with a crime if their gun falls into the wrong hands.

—No. I'm not talking about charging people with a crime if their gun "falls" into the wrong hands. I'm talking about charging them with a crime if they PUT their gun INTO the wrong hands.

With a registry, any time you sell or give a gun to someone, that transaction has to be registered. That way, if you sell or give a gun to

1) A minor
2) A criminal
3) A mentally ill person

–then you can be held accountable for it. Does anyone have an objection to that? If you do, please just step forward now and say: "I think I should be able to sell or give a gun to anyone I want to, regardless of whether they're entitled to have one or not."

ItsForrest has raised some valid issues here. I'll address them in a moment.

2Much: Thank you for your support! It was getting lonely in here.

Now this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIpLd0WQKCY

Posted 9 months ago #
Bostonman
Member Profile

You see Kootch the big problem is you are talking about a lot of people in their early 20's who don't have 20 years of live fire practice. 15 yards isn't far at all. I can cover 45 feet in about 6 seconds maybe less. In that time you need to unbuckle the holster and put 2 rounds on a 12 by 12 target. Keep in mind most people carry concealed behind there back or around the ankle, not sidearm.

I have carried for a long time and never needed it either but there is a good saying that sums it up.

Its better to have a gun and not need it than to need a gun and not have it.

Posted 9 months ago #
Bostonman
Member Profile

DP are you talking about a specific state? In Washington you can't legally transfer a firearm without a licensed FLL registering the sale. Every state is different, in Oregon I once sold a handgun to an Oregon resident which is legal without an FLL. If I go to another state and buy a gun they won't let me take it home to Washington. It needs to be shipped to an FLL where they will record the sale.

I have issue with your criteria for prosecuting someone. What if the person was not diagnosed as mentally ill? Are they supposed to carry around a card or something? Do you have a list of criteria to determine if they are mentally ill? All subjective and things that subjective should not be written into the law. We already have laws against felons and minors buying firearms. If they obtain them its illegally.

Posted 9 months ago #
DBP
Member Profile

Bostonman: Props to you and everyone else for keeping it polite . . .

To answer your question, I'm not talking about a state-by-state deal. I'm talking about a simple national registry that would be shared by all branches of law enforcement. I imagine that this would be similar to what has already been set up under the Brady Bill provisions, only more stringent, more comprehensive, and with stiffer penalties for violaters.

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

Let's say you want to buy a handgun off your friend. Under my proposed system, before you could do that, you'd have to apply for a "buy license" and present your bona fides to law enforcement — just like you do now if you want to get a concealed weapons permit.

Felons and minors would be right out of course. Law enforcement would then use their records to decide if you meet the criteria for "mentally ill," but I think this usually means you have been committed to a psych ward.

Anyway, with your buy license in hand, you and your friend complete the handgun sale, it is registered in the national registry, and you go about your business.

If your gun is stolen down the road, you'd have to report that. Then cops could keep a lookout for it and trace it more easily if it's used to commit a crime.

**************************************************************************************

On the issue of whether this could actually work, here's an interesting tidbit from the Wiki article cited above:

From 1994 through 2008, 1.8 million attempted firearm purchases were blocked by the Brady background check system. For checks done by the Federal Bureau of Investigation in 2008, felons accounted for 56 percent of denials and fugitives from justice accounted for 13 percent of denials.

So . . . does anybody here still want to argue that background checks and databases don't work to keep guns out of the hands of criminals? If so, I've got 1.8 million arguments to refute you . . .

Posted 9 months ago #
365Stairs
Member Profile

Sorry to have to do this DBP...but I have one argument Backgrounds and databases didn't work...it's in your OP...and they won't given all the unknown weaponry not sold by commercial entities...

Posted 9 months ago #
DBP
Member Profile

No worries, 365.

Unless the gun used in Sweetheart's murder was a home-made weapon, it could easily have been tracked, from the date of manufacture up to right now.

Yes, serial numbers can be filed off. But there are other means of tagging guns that are harder to defeat. And there's always ballistic analysis.

True, registering existing handguns would be difficult, but penalties could be imposed for owning an unregistered handgun, and those penalties could magnified for those unregistered gun owners whose guns were used in a crime.

Again, it all comes down to the problem of guns being just too easy to get in this country.

What are we doing about that problem? Not enough.

Posted 9 months ago #
Bostonman
Member Profile

Honestly DP I can't do that now. If I go to sell a gun to my friend and don't register it with an FLL I will be a future felon myself. Even is he isn't a felon and doesn't use it in a crime. ATF will come knocking at my door if they ever find out.

That is where we get into law abiding versus law breaking. See, even in Oregon where it was legal to sell a handgun between 2 residents I still photocopied the drivers license and had all his information and went to a friends gun shop to record the transaction. Even though not required by law. The sheer number of firearms that are around this country compared to the number of incidents tell me that statistically the majority of people are doing something similar.

Posted 9 months ago #
Bostonman
Member Profile

There are already penalties for everything you discuss including filing off a serial number. Even ballistical analysis is easy to fool. I can easily swap out a barrel on any one of my firearms. The point in the end is nothing will stop a criminal from doing what they intend on doing.

Trust me, if there was a way to keep guns out of all the hands of bad guys without penalizing the good guys I would be for it. But it doesn't exist.

Posted 9 months ago #
JoB
Member Profile

Bostonman...

what i don't understand is why people think that having guns without restrictions is more important than public safety..

you have to actually pass both a written and a practical test to drive a vehicle...

why shouldn't you have to do the same for a gun?
responsible owners would have no difficulty passing the tests.

Posted 9 months ago #
ItsForrest
Member Profile

I see the problem being that there are too many guns out there to easily control. That is to say, poorly conceived plans have the potential to give illegal gun owners/users the upper hand.

I do think that guns need to be controlled and regulated. If there were not so many guns already in the hands of the public, we would likely be a much safer country if handguns were outright banned from public ownership.

Taking control away from the states and implementing a national gun registry seems simple on the surface. What would it really take in terms of government action, legislative and logistic, to make it happen? Would it require a constitutional amendment?

JoB, you bring up driver's testing and such. That, in my mind and statistically, a far bigger problem than gun violence. Want to save lives? Make it harder, require more training to get a driver's license and increase/enforce penalties for irresponsible car use.

Accidental deaths, typical last 10 years;
Cars: 40,000,
Guns: 700.

Gun deaths 2004;
Homicide: 11,624 / 39% of All Fatalities
Suicide: 16,750 / 57% of All Fatalities
Unintentional Death (Accidental): 649 / 2% of All Fatalities

Note that these are statistics from random googling. They vary a lot depending on where you find them.

If you could work on a single problem, what would save the most lives?

Posted 9 months ago #
DBP
Member Profile

Bostonman said:

. . . nothing will stop a criminal from doing what they intend on doing.

– I'm not focused on the dedicated-criminal types. I'm focused on the punks, the jealous boyfriends, the angry losers . . . the people for whom shooting someone is a crime of opportunity. (No gun, no shoot.)

. . . if there was a way to keep guns out of ALL [emphasis added] the hands of bad guys without penalizing the good guys I would be for it.

Again, I'm not talking about trying to save society from every last bad guy . . . That's a really a diversionary argument.

Plus, I don't see how a gun registry or other gun control measures contstitute "penalizing the good guys." You must have meant "inconveniencing" – right? Well, if it comes to that, I think I'd have to say, Yes, I'm willing to inconvenience gun owners a little, if it will save the lives of a few thousand Americans every year.

– What? Only 700 lives a year? Well, shucks. I guess I'm still gonna have to go with the gun control. Inconvenience and all.

(I'll speak to ItsForrest's question in a separate post.)

Posted 9 months ago #
Bostonman
Member Profile

JoB, my right to bear arms is in the constitution. My right to drive isn't.

Posted 9 months ago #
DBP
Member Profile

ItsForrest, it's likely that some states would balk at a national gun registry, using the Second Amendment as their righteous sword. However, the Constitution's "commerce clause" [Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3] might come into play here, too. Under that clause, Congress could penalize any state that didn't agree to abide by a national gun code in the same way it once penalized states that once refused to raise the drinking age to 21: by denying them federal highway funding.

That's kind of bully tactics, though. Strictly a last resort.

****************************************************************************************

Q: If I could work on just one problem, where could I save the most lives per hour of invested time?

A: As Mark Twain noted, most people die in bed, so I'm working on a device that lets people sleep on their feet.

But seriously . . . let's compare kumquats with kumquats. Ask yourself: What are the relative challenges of preventing car deaths and preventing gun deaths? Are they really the same?

If thousands of car deaths could be prevented by doing something as simple as requiring car buyers to pass a background check, then yes, maybe my time would be better spent on that. But car deaths are actually caused by a variety of dissimilar factors, many of which (bad weather, high speed limits) are not amenable to easy treatment.

Your query is a valid one, though, and it made me think. But right now, I still feel that we'd maker a bigger impact, per hour of time invested, by working on gun safety than working on car safety.

Bostonman: you've raised some excellent points, especially as regards the difficulty of changing the status quo.

JoB, you too. Good karma.

Posted 9 months ago #
JoB
Member Profile

Bostonman...

that is true..
though one has to wonder if the right to drive would have been in the constitution if it had ever been an issue...

but that still doesn't mean that you shouldn't have to take a real test to become a gun owner...

a concealed carry permit is way too easy to get.

Posted 9 months ago #
JoB
Member Profile

ItsForrest...
can't we do both?

Posted 9 months ago #
Halyn
Member Profile

JoB, A concealed carry permit is not that easy to get. I have a fairly high level government background investigation/clearance, and I still had to be fingerprinted and submit to another background check to be issued my permit. Any criminal or mental health issues would have been caught by that check. I didn't just walk in, sign my name, and walk out with the right to carry a hidden weapon. I would'nt object to seeing some kind of basic firearms safety/skills test connected to the process, but that's just because I'm confident I can pass it. Also, I'd be frightened too if I were hanging around people who carry so clumsily that you know they're carrying--their shooting skills probably aren't any better.
I've been in life threatening situations as well. Once I didn't have the gun, once I did. Guess which one didn't result in a brutal assault on my person. Hint: It wasn't the time I was unarmed.
I do practice situational awareness, and since that second incident, have never put myself in a dangerous situation, being older and wiser now. I would mention, however, that even situational awareness will not prevent a very sneaky stalker from finding you.
As to crimes of opportunity, people get killed pretty frequently by bottles, rocks and bare hands. Rocks are the murder weapon so often that cops have been known to write BFR on reports-big f---ing rock as murder weapon. Also, with 20 dollars in cash I can walk out of Home Depot with three or four deadly weapons, and yet no one suggests that my hammer or fire ax be registered or restricted in any way.

But you know what? If there was a registry, I would dutifully register all of my guns. I'm a law-abiding citizen, even when I don't agree with the law or think it makes particular sense. I have owned guns for nearly 20 years, and have never fired a shot in anger or defense. Thankfully, and I hope mightily that I never will. But I would register, if required. The guy who breaks into a pawnshop and steals a gun, or buys one in a back alley deal, or even legally in a state that doesn't require registry, won't. And no registry in the world will stop someone who really wants to shoot someone from doing so.

And I know, founding father arguments are pointless, because everyone firmly believes that the fathers would be on their side, but I do think it's interesting that they came from a country with a habit of outlawing firearms in the territories that they owned or conquered, yet chose to guarantee the right to bear arms in the country they built from scratch. For just one argument against the government having sole control over firearms, see Scotland, post 1743.

Posted 9 months ago #
kootchman
Member Profile

There was an Admiral in the Japanese Navy..Yamamoto... you might remember him as the planner of Pearl Harbor. He was also at one time, a student at Harvard. During war planning., he was adement, NEVER invade the USA.. given the experience of the Japanese Army (battle tested in China) superior weaponry, and our defense posture at the time... a west coast invasion and/or attack was actively considered, they would have rolled up our military in weeks. As a Harvard student..he recognized unlike Japan which had a docile, submissive, UNARMED population... the USA citizenry was better armed then the US Military .... and would decimate the Imperial Army in a protracted continental campaign... it was he stated.. unlike Manchuria... when the Japanese Fleet did attack the Aluetians,.. he was livid, and refused to re-supply the attacking force, forcing the withdrawal of the attacking forces.. THAT is why we have a second amendment Ms. JoB...the statement that people who think guns are good also think gun battles are good is pure rhetorical nonsense...no gun battle is a good one.. PS Messer Bostonman... I carry in a fitted, tensioned, Fackers jacket...with teflon thread lining..no unstrapping, unbuckling, and no front sight aperture to get hung up ...it is purely a close range, defensive weapon. Low velocity large mass rounds..That punk would have used a knife, club, whatever was at hand... I am a law abiding citizen..most of the time..we are at odds over ganja..and I regret the alcohol and driving indiscretions of my youth.... I have registered weapons...and unregistered. I will not obey any law that requires me to register the ones that are not....period. You cannot "file" off serial numbers... unless you really get deep into the metal...a "dremel" won't do it.. the stamping impact "crystallizes" the metal matrix... you can raise it and trace it.

Posted 9 months ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.

All contents copyright 2012, A Drink of Water and a Story Interactive. Here's how to contact us.
No photo reuse without permission.
Entries and comments feeds. ^Top^