Is the right to bear arms outdated.

[Chris]

The really sad thing is that there are sooooo manyyyyyy folks out there that jump on the bandwagon when there is a tragic incident which allows their political leaders to capitalize and furthers their agenda - yeah, capitalize on the deaths of children; good job Obama that'll get you a thumbs up from Hollywood and the rest of your constituents. Fact is, he's been waiting for this moment for 4 years. Sad.

Idiots (politicians).

Hey, no getting that crap past me. Really? You think the President has been waiting all these years and is now happy he has the opportunity to push anti-gun legislation because of the murder of those children? You know that is BS. Guys like you would blame Obama if you got hit by lightning. No politicians have wanted to address this issue until recently.......democrat or republican. It is not a smart career move, but enough is enough and it is obvious that some changes are coming. It would be great if this was not necessary, but these tragedies have forced rational voices to speak a little louder than usual.

How could we ever disarm this country? Its not going to happen. 5 yrs from now you guys are still going to be hunting, going to the range, protecting your homes and families like a bunch or rent-a-cops. And its your right to do so! You do have a better chance of shooting yourself than being a hero though. Jim! Where's the stats for that? Thats not my department.

Collectively, as gun owners you do have to assume some responsibility for the current state of affairs. I believe you need to be more proactive in defending your 2nd Ammendment rights. Instead you are only reacting to the backlash of loose regulations and irresponsible gun ownership. If you had voluntarily taken steps to properly care for your weapons then you would not be under such scrutiny. You are the passionate ones that cannot live without these weapons. Show us you have it under control and maybe you will get some room to breathe.

If people send their first grader to school and learn that they are not coming home because they were shot 11 times with a "hunting" rifle........ then they are going to question why someone had access to that weapon.

Most of the posters on this thread need to quit the futile fight to preserve the status quo. Its time for compromise and we need constructive input. Its the lack of effort on your part and on the part of organizations like the NRA that are unexceptable. Certainly, we can do better than this.

 

[Jim Craik]

Chris,

Very well thought out post, thanks!

As for the statistics, there is alot of conflicting and downright false data out there.

I found that the often quoted by the left, Arthur Kellermann and Donald Reay report that said that having a firearm in the home, you are "43 times more likely to be killed or a family member killed" is not true.

That report is bullshit, his data was exagerated, missleading and should not be believed.

I do believe the following to be true

1. Gun ownership is intrinsically dangerous—particularly to children and abused spouses in the household.

2. People who own guns for personal protection are the least likely to practice safe gun ownership. They are the least likely to store their guns locked up, their ammo locked up and the guns and ammo stored separately.

3. In a case control study—comparing gun owners to non-gun owners—gun owners were more likely to be shot fatally (intentionally or unintentionally) than non-gun owners.

4. Guns in the home for personal protection were frequently used to threaten or intimidate other family members. This most often was done by a male gun-owning family member, to a female member of the household. This family-on-family threatening of gun violence occurred roughly ten times more often than the gun being used to threaten or intimidate an intruder.

5. Fear drives gun ownership for protection. Being a Southerner and male also increases the odds that one will carry a gun for 'protection.'

6. From a systematic review, How Well Does The Handgun Protect You and Your Family:

 

[Larry L.]

Most of the posters on this thread need to quit the futile fight to preserve the status quo.

The "fight" is all about preserving our rights under the 2nd Amend...not preserving "the status quo".

Its time for compromise...

The kind of "compromise" you want (namely: the 'pro gun' people caving in on all fronts) would require changing or repealing the 2nd Amendment. Good luck with that...

Its the lack of effort on your part and on the part of organizations like the NRA that are unexceptable.

...'only "unacceptable" to those of you who are on the 'ban-the-guns' bandwagon, sir. The effort on your side's part to date has consisted soley of trying to get more restrictions placed on the rights of law abiding people...you don't aim your proposed gun laws at criminals and loons. They are, and always have been, where the focus should be. (I proposed a few new 'gun laws' aimed at perps who commit crimes with guns several posts back. But no amount of gun laws will ever prevent gun crimes. Why? Because morality cannot be legislated. That's why.)

 

[Danimal W]

Here's news footage from 1992 of Mr. Craik's inherently good people acting as such during the Rodney King riots.


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgCiC6qTtjs]LA Riots - Armed store owners deter rioters - YouTube[/ame]

 

[craig]

I'll be the first here to say that I think Obama is putting himself in a very dangerous position with this executive order on gun control..
I believe there are lots and lots of people that will see this as a serious attack on the 2nd amendment...

 

[Larry L.]

Rep. Stockman (TX) is already rattling the impeachment saber (or 'sabre' if you prefer) over all this "exec order" gun law business.

 

[Chris]

Interesting that you and your family may actually be safer without a gun in your house then with one. Thanks, Jim.

Here is another study that weighs the dangers and benefits of having a firearm in the home.
Guns in homes can increase risk of death and firearm-related violence

 

[Chris]

So what are these 19 executive orders that Biden has presented to Obama? We will have to see what happens, but I found some info below.

As Politico reports, "the executive actions could include giving the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention authority to conduct national research on guns, more aggressive enforcement of existing gun laws and pushing for wider sharing of existing gun databases among federal and state agencies, members of Congress in the meeting said. 'It was all focusing on enforcing existing law, administering things like improving the background database, things like that that do not involve a change in the law but enforcing and making sure that the present law is administered as well as possible,' said Rep. Bobby Scott (D-Va.).

Sounds reasonable to me so far.

Also, Obama is low on the list of Presidents who often issued executive orders.
Obama: Fewest Executive Orders in Over 100 Years -- Daily Intelligencer

 

[Danimal W]

Well Mr. Craik,

There's nothing forcing you two to own guns, that's your right and decision. Not a single gun owner is forcing you to own a gun...But yet antigun people want to force their decision on gun owners.

 

[Chris]

Dan,

I have no interest in taking away your right to have a firearm. I have expressed my opinions about owning one, but those are just personal opinions. I want you to have the choice to own one, even if its not a choice I would make for myself.

I do think we need to take a closer look at gun owners everytime they make a purchase. Its just such a huge responsibility to own one and there are alot of unqualified owners out there. Local police departments should be notified when a citizen in their zip code attempts to make a purchase. Maybe they could search for any records/red flags using the prospective buyer's address. This could be a nice addition to the tougher background checks that are on the horizon.

Of course we have to take away private sales and gun show sales with no background check. Its amazing that this was ever allowed. We also may have to introduce penalties to venues that allow unauthorized sales while hosting a gun show. Maybe the sale of weapons at a show isn't needed at all.

Training programs and safety campaigns should be developed to educate on both the benefits and dangers of owning a firearm. I know some already exist, but are they effective? The proper care and storage of firearms is probably more important than knowing how to use one. Maybe we can't force someone to lock up their weapon but at least we can try to show them why it is a good idea. I know this sounds dangerous to those who feel they need their gun accessible for protection but I have a solution. I will come to your house and help you build a moat around your property.

 

[Danimal W]

Chris,

Please accept my apology, edited previous post to reflect.

I agree that when owner isn't home, firearms should be secured. Mine are. When I'm home, well....one is very handy but to any observer, not visible.

Daily routine, before leaving house (unless I will be carrying when legal), item is locked up and when I get home, item is removed from safe.

Do I expect trouble, no.... But that night in the convertible proved the point that while I have every reason to abide by the laws, there are others who do not.

I don't expect my house to catch on fire, but I keep a charged (loaded) fire extinguisher handy too.

I also don't drink and drive because it's illegal and dangerous. Let's look at a late antigun Senator Kennedy. He was a staunch antigun senator but when he committed manslaughter with booze and his car, he didn't face any consequences.

I would love if criminals were actually prosecuted and imprisoned as the laws state, but with our revolving door prison system, it does little to deter crime.

 

[Larry L.]

Interesting that you and your family may actually be safer without a gun in your house then with one. Thanks, Jim.

Here is another study that weighs the dangers and benefits of having a firearm in the home.
Guns in homes can increase risk of death and firearm-related violence

All the studies in the world don't alter the fact that a few days ago a mom in rural Georgia(?) who HAD a gun in her house was able to successfully defend herself and her kids with it. SHE definitely WOULD NOT have been "safer" w/o it, and given the circumstances surrounding that event, no SANE person could possibly argue otherwise. She and her kids may in fact have ended up dead were it not for that firearm.

'It's far better to have a gun and not need it than need a gun and not have one.' I don't recall who originally coined that little gem, but, he was spot on.

 

[craig]

Interesting that you and your family may actually be safer without a gun in your house then with one. Thanks, Jim.

Here is another study that weighs the dangers and benefits of having a firearm in the home.
Guns in homes can increase risk of death and firearm-related violence

Chris Do you have any Idea how many innocent babies, children and or adults that have died or are going to die due to being infected by HIV..why don't you get out there and preach the evils of that dangerous and risky lifestyle.....I mean its very obvious of the high risk involved.
I wonder if craik has any numbers that we could use as a starting point..

 

[craig]

Danimal that reminds me of an old bumper sticker "Ted Kennedy's car killed more people than my gun" hahaha sooo true

 

[Jim Craik]

You sure use odd analogies.

Yes Craig, HIV is bad, just like guns, it kills thousands and thousands. Yes, if I could rid the world of these horrible killers.

So Craig, if you could, would you rid the world of these horrible killers?

 

[craig]

Well Jim seeing most HIV is caused by gay lifestyle and we all know these guys will never stop shooting each other, we have no other choice but take their guns by executive order:thumbsup:

 

[Danimal W]

And Mr Craik,

I'd like to apologize to you...to apologize for preventing myself from becoming s victim. I know that you would prefer that I wasn't armed so therefore I would have been a victim of evil doers, perhaps even murdered. I'm sorry to be a disappointment to you by me being still alive.

BTW, I'm the next kidney donor for my brother when he needs his next transplant (transplants do not last forever)... So I'd also like to apologize that I'm still alive thereby most likey extending my brother's life as well. How selfish of me to think our lives should been prolonged.

 

[Chris]

All the studies in the world don't alter the fact that a few days ago a mom in rural Georgia(?) who HAD a gun in her house was able to successfully defend herself and her kids with it. SHE definitely WOULD NOT have been "safer" w/o it, and given the circumstances surrounding that event, no SANE person could possibly argue otherwise. She and her kids may in fact have ended up dead were it not for that firearm.

Larry,
I am happy that family in Georgia is safe. We do not know where she had her weapon stored. It may have been locked up. She had plenty of time to access it. Reports are the crook rang the doorbell several times before going back to his truck to get a crowbar. He was looking for an empty house. If he had seen or heard that anyone was inside, he may have just left without incident. If you are looking to murder a family, you probably do not ring the doorbell.

Craig,
HIV is very treatable now. Much more than it has been in the past. It can be managed with prescription drugs. I don't think you can do that with a gunshot wound to the head.

 

[Chris]

I would love if criminals were actually prosecuted and imprisoned as the laws state, but with our revolving door prison system, it does little to deter crime.

Dan brings up an interesting point. Its impossible to imprison everyone with bad intentions. Does rehabilitation work? Alot of tax dollars are spent trying to do so. What are at the root of the crimes? Its seems alot are drug related crimes, just trying to get their next fix. Probably hard to hold down a job when you are high all the time. If we could do a better job keeping people off drugs, we would have alot more empty prison cells to house some of the dangerous mentally ill that we currently do not have a place for.

Unfortunately, mass shooters usually never get the chance to experience our prison system. Just the one guy in Colorado?

I am not sure how the rest of the country is but every other town up here has an old state hospital that is now closed. If these were full at one time, then where did all the patients go? I guess you can not just medicate some people and hope for the best.

 

[Danimal W]

Md's Attorney General admitted today that roughly 80% of the murder suspects for the gun related murders last year had prior criminal convictions. Anyone convicted of a crime punishable by more than a year (doesn't mean they served more than a year) are FEDERALLY prohibited from possessing a firearm (a prohibited person). Possessing means holding (or owning).

Under ALREADY ESTABLISHED FEDERAL LAWS, a prohibited person in possession of a firearm is guilty of a felony punishable by up to 10years in prison. Any prohibited person in possession of a firearm may receive 15 years MINIMUM without parole if they have three prior violent crime convictions. These are separate from charges originating from the crime committed while in possession of a firearm.

These FEDERAL charges are also in addition to any STATE charges for crimes committed

Am I the only person who is pissed off that these are not being enforced????

People may counter with the overcrowding of prisons...

My rebuttal to that is hogwash. And here's why.

The brave enlisted men of the U.S. Navy who honorably and willingly VOLUNTEER for submarine duty, have to hot rack. When they are on duty, another crew member is in that rack sleeping.

So if our submariners can hot rack, than we can put more than 2 bunks in a prison cell. I am not suggesting hot racking, but why isn't there 6 bunks per cell. Prison isn't supposed to be a vacation where they have all of this free time out of their cells with FREE (tax payer paid for) cable TV, access to free education. Sorry but it seems like convicts should not have it easier than their victims. Afterall their victims (if not dead) have to pay for cable TV if they want it.