[séamuis]

What you said was "we should be questioning our gun laws just as much as we should be questioning these laws that allow 'people hunting'." I can't find any other way to interpret that.
If you think that law abiding citizens should be allowed to carry guns, then what gun laws do you think should be questioned?

I said I think they should be questioned. period. but what I didn't sate was that I think we should immediately move to abolish them and try to rid the gun from society for its betterment. I certainly didn't try to lay any blanket blame on gun owners because of one incident. your retort seemed to state the assumption that my view was that. if I was unclear I apologize for the confusion. I just think we should in fact be stepping back, looking at the bigger picture as a society and questioning the guns role and importance in this country for personal defense. this is bigger than an isolated incident or a particular persons views on the use of guns, or a specific sates foolish laws for self defense.

[Blue]

but your viewpoint and decisions may not be the norm in the country, and I think that may be reason for concern. you are an intelligent and respectable person who clearly would make rational decisions in a rough situation, but how many people out there who are legal gun owners are just like you? clearly zimmerman isn't.

The irony is that we have enough former police in the slammer to open up a special wing in Raiford. We had a local Sgt on the Sheriff's office that headed up the local financial crimes unite arrested and fired last month for stealing $50,000 and an antique rifle from and elderly gentleman. The City of Crestview had the leader of their s.w.a.t. team arrested for racketeering after an indictment from a Grand Jury and they also recommended he be fired. However, I don't think disbanding the police agencies is the solution to police corruption anymore than extreme gun control measures are going to solve problems with cases like the Martin/Zimmerman one.

There will still be the shoutouts like we have had at 3 of the Circle K's in Tallahassee where all the individuals involved weren't even legally able to get CCW. In most cases, the charges that took them down were weapons violations that got the minimum sentences of 20 years.

[Parallax]

but how many people out there who are legal gun owners are just like you?

Honestly, I would say the vast majority of them. The number of gun crimes committed by permit holders is extremely low. The irresponsible users generally aren't responsible enough to bother getting a permit, or don't qualify for one due to past transgressions.

[séamuis]

The irony is that we have enough former police in the slammer to open up a special wing in Raiford. We had a local Sgt on the Sheriff's office that headed up the local financial crimes unite arrested and fired last month for stealing $50,000 and an antique rifle from and elderly gentleman. The City of Crestview had the leader of their s.w.a.t. team arrested for racketeering after an indictment from a Grand Jury and they also recommended he be fired. However, I don't think disbanding the police agencies is the solution to police corruption anymore than extreme gun control measures are going to solve problems with cases like the Martin/Zimmerman one.

There will still be the shoutouts like we have had at 3 of the Circle K's in Tallahassee where all the individuals involved weren't even legally able to get CCW. In most cases, the charges that took them down were weapons violations that got the minimum sentences of 20 years.

but this isn't looking at the problem form the big picture, its not addressing the acceptance of guns in our culture its only addressing the difference between legal and not legal ownership. i get the idea I'm arguing a doomed point of view here, but my point is that we ought to be addressing the bigger issues. worrying about who was legal and who wasn't when they pulled the trigger is of little relevance in the big picture of a nation that looks at personal firearms as a viable tool for everyday use. wether that be a defense by a law abiding citizen or a criminal. its a problem that is bigger than an overzealous neighborhood watch or a person trying to protect himself or his family, or a thief robbing a convince store. the acceptance of guns (which heavily includes the legal carry and use of them) plays huge role in the choice of both legal and illegal choice and use of firearms. legal and illegal go hand in hand. there is no seperating them as two distinct and separate things in the big picture. they both play to the same situations. but everyone seems to want to argue that legal carry and use is somehow very different. from a societal standpoint, I don't see that to be the case.

[les3547]

[I]Crime in TorontoStupid Canadians, trying to ban handguns. We should be arming ourselves to get crime under control.

Before anyone whines about the different social conditions in Canada and the US, I would remind you that our countries have very similar histories. There's no one to blame for your high crime rates and exploded prison populations except yourselves.

The issue is more complicated than you portray it. If gun ownership causes people to use them for violence, then why doesn't that principle apply to the Swiss, for example?

[In Switzerland] the gun crime rate is so low that statistics are not even kept. The country has a population of six million, but there are estimated to be at least two million publicly-owned firearms, including about 600,000 automatic rifles and 500,000 pistols.

In addition to the government-provided arms, there are few restrictions on buying weapons. Some cantons restrict the carrying of firearms - others do not. The government even sells off surplus weaponry to the general public when new equipment is introduced.

Guns and shooting are popular national pastimes. More than 200,000 Swiss attend national annual marksmanship competitions. But despite the wide ownership and availability of guns, violent crime is extremely rare. There are only minimal controls at public buildings and politicians rarely have police protection.

It's not gun ownership per se. If the Swiss had an angry population, then guns (or any lethal weapon) make venting that anger more dangerous. Also, if the population is ignorant and untrained, that also can contribute to improper gun use. Finally, if a state actually promotes a shoot-first or use-a-gun-at-the-slightest-sign-trouble culture, and even has a powerful organization (NRA) to lobby in congress for maintaining such attitudes, then again it is more likely that guns will be used wrongly.

You say "our countries have very similar histories," but that is not true. We partly share a common heritage, but after that we have developed very differently. The list is long, from different types of government and our commitment to military might to the amount of immigration America allowed and encouraged. But one difference that is particularly significant to crime is what slavery and our civil war did to a significant part of our culture. The blacks, as a whole, have never recovered from that atrocity, and the South has never gotten over it either. There is tremendous anger, shame, suspicion, and hopelessness stemming from it. Furthermore, all that negativity has become woven into the fabric of our society to the point that we have disassociated (in our minds) the centuries of slavery, Jim Crow, and hidden racism from the crime rates we now suffer.

To make matters worse, every budget crisis has meant a cut to education, and the worst hit are poor communities where education is most needed. Rather than make sure all communities have exactly the same quality of education, the same funds, the same commitment to excellence (as, say, Norway does), only money talks. This contributes greatly to people not being able to get out of poverty, which makes it more likely people will turn to crime, be angry, do drugs, etc.

On top of all that, in government we have a party that mostly wants to continue with the status quo, who thinks a rich 1% is the way to go, that health care for the less privileged is a luxury, that crime is to be solved with tougher enforcement and more prisons, and who believe once in prison it’s fine if inmates live like animals . . . all this too increases frustration and despair on both sides.

We at last get back to the issue of gun ownership, which it seems you want to blame for violent crime, and it seems you’d ban gun ownership as a solution. But that solution leaves law-abiding citizens in the US at the mercy of armed criminals (which you admit there are a great many of in the US). I am for gun control that begins with stopping illegal gun sales and keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. Here is an experiment I cited in another thread that underscores the fact that less than 1% of gun crimes are committed by legal gun owners :

"Contrary to what the gun lobby would have you believe, there is abundant evidence that enforcing gun control laws reduces the gun homicide rate.

One of the most remarkable examples was a 1992-93 Kansas City experiment by the National Institute of Justice. There, police officers in a large section of the inner city agreed to work overtime to remove illegal guns from the streets. During these overtime shifts, they were given no other responsibilities but to search for and confiscate illegal weapons. This heightened enforcement (of existing gun laws) lasted 29 weeks. The study compared the crime rate during this period to the prior 29 weeks; it also compared the "target area" with a "comparison area" which experienced no changes in its normal police duties. The population of the target area was almost entirely nonwhite and had a crime rate 20 times the national average.

The results were dramatic. Seizures of illegal guns in the target area climbed 65 percent above normal, while they actually declined somewhat in the comparison area. Meanwhile, gun crimes declined 49 percent in the target area. Drive-by shootings fell from 7 to 1 in the time periods compared. The rates for other types of crime did not change, but -- most significantly -- there appeared to be no spillover of crime from the target area into surrounding areas."

While I am for gun control, my voice doesn’t stand up well to the NRA and their lobby, or against those in congress interpreting the 2nd Amendment they way they do, or state legislators passing laws that let everybody carry concealed weapons and stand their ground. For most of my life I only owned a gun for target shooting (which I still enjoy), but the state of crime here, the reduction in police services, the nasty reality of home invasions, and the fact that criminals have lots of guns finally convinced me to better prepare for the worst.

My point has been that solving gun crimes is more complicated than simply banning guns. We need to get guns out of the hands of criminals first and stop illegal gun sales; but even more importantly, we need to deal with the inequalities and lack of opportunity that lead to violent crime.

[metaglypto]

only money talks

I would like to interject this thought as a part of the issue as well:

Walter Williams was interviewed for The Wall Street Journal and talked about the research he conducted that led him to conclude that it’s the government welfare state that killed the black family, not slavery or racism.

Even in the antebellum era, when slaves often weren’t permitted to wed, most black children lived with a biological mother and father. During Reconstruction and up until the 1940s, 75% to 85% of black children lived in two-parent families. Today, more than 70% of black children are born to single women. “The welfare state has done to black Americans what slavery couldn’t do, what Jim Crow couldn’t do, what the harshest racism couldn’t do,” Mr. Williams says. “And that is to destroy the black family.”


Walter Williams: It’s the Welfare State that Killed the Black Family | The Lonely Conservative

[Blue]

but this isn't looking at the problem form the big picture, its not addressing the acceptance of guns in our culture its only addressing the difference between legal and not legal ownership. i get the idea I'm arguing a doomed point of view here, but my point is that we ought to be addressing the bigger issues. worrying about who was legal and who wasn't when they pulled the trigger is of little relevance in the big picture of a nation that looks at personal firearms as a viable tool for everyday use. wether that be a defense by a law abiding citizen or a criminal. its a problem that is bigger than an overzealous neighborhood watch or a person trying to protect himself or his family, or a thief robbing a convince store. the acceptance of guns (which heavily includes the legal carry and use of them) plays huge role in the choice of both legal and illegal choice and use of firearms. legal and illegal go hand in hand. there is no seperating them as two distinct and separate things in the big picture. they both play to the same situations. but everyone seems to want to argue that legal carry and use is somehow very different. from a societal standpoint, I don't see that to be the case.

Weapons are weapons. 67% of the cases involve firearms. Florida doesn't issue a specific firearm permit. It is a concealed carry weapons permit. Anything other than a folding pocket knife under 4" blade is a concealed weapon. There have been several "stand your ground" type cases that involved knives and other weapons including one that involved an ice pick. Legal and illegal is separate under the law. People that carry legally aren't carrying them to use for illegal purposes.

[Blue]

The issue is more complicated than you portray it. If gun ownership causes people to use them for violence, then why doesn't that principle apply to the Swiss, for example?




It's not gun ownership per se. If the Swiss had an angry population, then guns (or any lethal weapon) make venting that anger more dangerous. Also, if the population is ignorant and untrained, that also can contribute to improper gun use. Finally, if a state actually promotes a shoot-first or use-a-gun-at-the-slightest-sign-trouble culture, and even has a powerful organization (NRA) to lobby in congress for maintaining such attitudes, then again it is more likely that guns will be used wrongly.

You say "our countries have very similar histories," but that is not true. We partly share a common heritage, but after that we have developed very differently. The list is long, from different types of government and our commitment to military might to the amount of immigration America allowed and encouraged. But one difference that is particularly significant to crime is what slavery and our civil war did to a significant part of our culture. The blacks, as a whole, have never recovered from that atrocity, and the South has never gotten over it either. There is tremendous anger, shame, suspicion, and hopelessness stemming from it. Furthermore, all that negativity has become woven into the fabric of our society to the point that we have disassociated (in our minds) the centuries of slavery, Jim Crow, and hidden racism from the crime rates we now suffer.

To make matters worse, every budget crisis has meant a cut to education, and the worst hit are poor communities where education is most needed. Rather than make sure all communities have exactly the same quality of education, the same funds, the same commitment to excellence (as, say, Norway does), only money talks. This contributes greatly to people not being able to get out of poverty, which makes it more likely people will turn to crime, be angry, do drugs, etc.

On top of all that, in government we have a party that mostly wants to continue with the status quo, who thinks a rich 1% is the way to go, that health care for the less privileged is a luxury, that crime is to be solved with tougher enforcement and more prisons, and who believe once in prison it’s fine if inmates live like animals . . . all this too increases frustration and despair on both sides.

We at last get back to the issue of gun ownership, which it seems you want to blame for violent crime, and it seems you’d ban gun ownership as a solution. But that solution leaves law-abiding citizens in the US at the mercy of armed criminals (which you admit there are a great many of in the US). I am for gun control that begins with stopping illegal gun sales and keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. Here is an experiment I cited in another thread that underscores the fact that less than 1% of gun crimes are committed by legal gun owners :



While I am for gun control, my voice doesn’t stand up well to the NRA and their lobby, or against those in congress interpreting the 2nd Amendment they way they do, or state legislators passing laws that let everybody carry concealed weapons and stand their ground. For most of my life I only owned a gun for target shooting (which I still enjoy), but the state of crime here, the reduction in police services, the nasty reality of home invasions, and the fact that criminals have lots of guns finally convinced me to better prepare for the worst.

My point has been that solving gun crimes is more complicated than simply banning guns. We need to get guns out of the hands of criminals first and stop illegal gun sales; but even more importantly, we need to deal with the inequalities and lack of opportunity that lead to violent crime.

The NRA membership is made up of individual gun owners. It is no more wrong for them to have lobbies than Hand Gun Control Incorporated to have lobbies. The "shoot first" is a myth perpetuated by groups like HGCI. Most of the media in the U.S. lean strongly for the gun control lobby as does much of Hollywood.

[GeneV]

Only a small percentage of people in Florida that have a concealed carry actually get into trouble. Florida keeps statistics on that is the only state to do so. It is very rare for 2 people with a concealed carry to get into an argument like that. In the rare event when they do, they usually know each other and that is a whole different ball game.

I'm curious what statistics FL has on people "getting into trouble" with concealed permits. I would not expect it to be a huge number. However, we are in an area where the consequences are grave so a lesser number is tolerable. Florida's murder rate is about 6 per 100,000 (.006%), all "violent" crime regardless of any degree of seriousness, 546 per 100,0000 (.5%), so in general, deadly crime against which people are protecting themselves is a pretty small percentage.

I'm not really worried as much about two people with permits meeting, but with the fear that every person (armed or not) whose hand is near his belt might be going for a gun, thus prompting a deadly response.

[audiobomber]

I think he should have compared you guys with Montana, Washington, and Maine. He wasn't saying you guys had too few to count. However, we have a much larger populations and the various states have their own nuances.

Stats from comparably sized cities should be fair to compare.

[audiobomber]

Hi Les. I know less about the Swiss than I do about Americans. I think Canada should be a much better comparator due to similarities in culture, wealth, history, geography etc.

You say "our countries have very similar histories," but that is not true. We partly share a common heritage, but after that we have developed very differently. The list is long, from different types of government and our commitment to military might to the amount of immigration America allowed and encouraged. But one difference that is particularly significant to crime is what slavery and our civil war did to a significant part of our culture.

I was trying to point out that you are the authors of your current misfortunes. Americans decided to hang onto slavery long after other civilized countries, Americans started the Civil War. There seem to be so many mistakes in your history that Canada has not followed, including all the senseless wars over ideology and oil, poorly controlled financial institutions, wide open gun ownership, inefficient health care, etc.

We at last get back to the issue of gun ownership, which it seems you want to blame for violent crime, and it seems you’d ban gun ownership as a solution. But that solution leaves law-abiding citizens in the US at the mercy of armed criminals (which you admit there are a great many of in the US). I am for gun control that begins with stopping illegal gun sales and keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. Here is an experiment I cited in another thread that underscores the fact that less than 1% of gun crimes are committed by legal gun owners

With so many guns available, it makes sense that more criminals will be armed, so citizens want more guns, which makes guns more available. It's a vicious circle.

[GeneV]

Exactly! You can't shoot, stab etc anyone over property. Nor can you harm them once they run away from your residence, business or car.

That is not the way it has played out here.

[Parallax]

Florida's murder rate is about 6 per 100,000, so in general, deadly crime against which people are protecting themselves is a pretty small percentage.

In 1987 there were 12,023,000 in Florida, and 1371 murders. That's a murder rate of 11.425 per 100,000; nearly double what it is now. Rapes were 50 per 100,000; in 2010 they were 28 per 100,000.
The reason that 1987 is significant here, is that 1987 is when Florida's Right to Carry law went into effect. As I stated above, these laws were the response to crime and Florida has experienced what all states that have passed such laws have experienced. A reduction in all violent crime.
Yeah, I know. The statistics are meaningless. If murders had doubled since 1987, the stats would have been dispositve evidence that murders had increased because of the law; but the fact that they went down is totally unrelated.

[les3547]

The NRA membership is made up of individual gun owners. It is no more wrong for them to have lobbies than Hand Gun Control Incorporated to have lobbies. The "shoot first" is a myth perpetuated by groups like HGCI. Most of the media in the U.S. lean strongly for the gun control lobby as does much of Hollywood.

I wasn't criticizing lobbies (though I would love to see them all kicked out), I was criticizing some of the extreme positions against gun control the NRA leadership pushes for. We'll have to agree to disagree about whether "shoot first" among a significant number of gun owners is just a myth. Attitudes I've overheard at the firing range, even here in California, have been disturbing.

[Parallax]

Attitudes I've overheard at the firing range, even here in California, have been disturbing.

Les, I grew up in the S.F. Bay Area. The last place I lived in CA was Marin County. I find attitudes in California regarding virtually EVERYTHING disturbing!