Kennesaw Georgia, the solution to gun violence.

[Bill Cravener]

To taking all vehicles away? I’m sure that you have noticed the number of incompetent drivers that we have, many of whom would be incompetent even if they were not driving with one hand on the bottom of the wheel and a cell phone in the other.

Ok, if we are going to use that tired old argument in comparing guns to cars why do states actively try to do something about death and injury from vehicles but do little to nothing about regulating gun ownership and the death and injuries they cause?

We ban cell phone use while driving; it’s against the law to drive a vehicle while using a cell phone here in PA and Ohio. No problem enacting that law. We have harsh penalties for drunk driving even if you don't hurt anyone. No problem. Required registration of any vehicle on the road. No problem. Required vehicle safety checks or yearly inspections. No problem there. Required insurance and taxes for owning a vehicle. No problem. Education programs about the dangers of drunk or distracted driving. No problem. Drivers training and required exams to be a licensed driver. No problem.

But talk of any restriction on the ownership of a gun and the gun lovers scream “Hell No!” One other difference between a vehicle and a gun, one is designed for transportation the other is designed to do but one thing, and that is to kill!

[mywan]

But talk of any restriction on the ownership of a gun and the gun lovers scream “Hell No!” One other difference between a vehicle and a gun, one is designed for transportation the other is designed to do but one thing, and that is to kill!

Ok, let's forget the effectively facetious implication that no such regulations exist, have existed, and have evolved over time in both directions, and talk about the specifics of these restrictions. What specific set of regulations would you like? We've had more extensive bans on assault weapons, which you previously mentioned, in the past. It didn't get us out of these kinds of murders. These kinds of killing sprees are nothing new. At one time we just didn't hear too much about such events unless they were relatively close nearby. What kind of evidence can you bring to the table to support the notion it would make us, even a little, safer? Pictures of kids posing with guns and labeling gun owners hicks doesn't qualify. How much safer, using real numbers, can you expect any such regulations you might have in mind to make us?

How do you address the fact that the national average gun death rate has almost no bearing on any individuals risk of being shot? For instance, the average law abiding citizen only has a risk of about 1.5 per 100,000 people. Live in the inner cities that risk skyrockets. Partake in the dealings of those predisposed to those activities that engender violence and it skyrockets again over that second group. Average it all together and you get an awful sounding number that means nothing to anybody. Certain activities impose risk factors some people that put the risk factor closer to 1 per 100 within that group. Meaningfully addressing street gang issues could be thousands of times more effective at reducing these numbers without ever even mentioning guns.

So if you have any particular regulations you want addressed fine. But merely complaining about the lack of debate on some undefined set of regulations is in fact facetious, and rightfully gives opponents the impression that it is NOT regulations being argued for, but the outright outlawing of guns. In fact, historically gun control lobby got a head start exactly because people were not at all adverse to some reasonable regulations. Only  the particular regulations chosen where not even chosen by the control lobby. They were chosen by others to appease the control lobby. Only the gun control lobby was never happy. Either because some citizens were still allowed to own guns or the penalties weren't extreme enough. Don't know really because these arguments never center around any particular regulations, only that no amount regulations are enough. Hence today you are seeing a public backlash from this facetious notion that we want no regulations whatsoever.

So unless you will state the following in clear terms you are not even arguing in good faith: What specific restrictions, or regulations that define them, would be sufficient to resolve your issues with the lack of regulations? Note: This is not about 'some' particular regulation you would like to see extended now, this is asking what limits to such regulations would you find acceptable? It's a whole different beast when you start thinking in terms of limits.

[mywan]

Here are the kind of numbers that really NEED to be thought about (fully referenced):
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

* A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 0.5% of households had members who had used a gun for defense during a situation in which they thought someone "almost certainly would have been killed" if they "had not used a gun for protection." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 162,000 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."[12]
[...]
* A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 3.5% of households had members who had used a gun "for self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 1,029,615 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."[19]

And this:

* A 1982 survey of male felons in 11 state prisons dispersed across the U.S. found:[21]
 
• 34% had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"
• 40% had decided not to commit a crime because they "knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun"
• 69% personally knew other criminals who had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"[22]
[...]
* A 2002 U.S. Justice Department study of 272,111 felons released from state prisons in 1994 found that within three years of their release:
 
• at least 67.5% had been arrested for committing a new offense
• at least 21.6% had been arrested for committing a new violent offense
• these former inmates had been charged with committing at least 2,871 new homicides, 2,444 new rapes, 3,151 other new sexual assaults, 2,362 new kidnappings, 21,245 new robberies, 54,604 new assaults, and 13,854 other new violent crimes[31]

Now given that:

* Roughly 16,272 murders were committed in the United States during 2008

and considering:

* A 2002 U.S. Justice Department study of 272,111 felons released from state prisons in 1994 found that within three years of their release:
 
• at least 67.5% had been arrested for committing a new offense
• at least 21.6% had been arrested for committing a new violent offense
• these former inmates had been charged with committing at least 2,871 new homicides, 2,444 new rapes, 3,151 other new sexual assaults, 2,362 new kidnappings, 21,245 new robberies, 54,604 new assaults, and 13,854 other new violent crimes[31]

We have a rough estimate that 17 to 18% of murders are committed by people let out of prison in just the last 3 years. How many more of those murders, that went unresolved or got innocent people convicted, are this same group of people responsible for?

* Of 1,662 murders committed in New York City during 2003-2005, more than 90% were committed by people with criminal records.[32]

Yet the gun control lobby pushes any incidence involving any gun into one big pile of numbers, just like police grouping every traffic accident into their numbers to argue how much risk they face from criminals, as if that's at all meaningful. Talk specific gun control issues if you wish, I'm all ears. But don't be trying to feed me BS pretending it's an argument. Statistics is a wonderful tool that can often even provide causation. Yet any given statistic only defines correlation, which is NOT causation. Grouping unrelated crap, like kids posing with guns, is just flat out facetious.

[Ryan]

We ban cell phone use while driving; it’s against the law to drive a vehicle while using a cell phone here in PA and Ohio.

Where do you get your facts on Ohio?  They're wrong...

http://handsfreeinfo.com/ohio-cell-phone-laws-legislation

The new law isn't even in effect yet.  It doesn't go into effect until August 30.

For those that don't want to follow the link, texting is banned for adults, but it is only a secondary offense, meaning a person can't be stopped solely for texting; there has to be a primary violation.  Texting for drivers under the age of 18 is a primary offense.

The city of Beachwood has a tougher law.  All cell phone and laptop use is a primary offense.  Their law has already gone into effect.

[mywan]

These cell phone laws will save a lot more lives than (almost) any gun law ever has. Obviously going back to legal guns duels would qualify as more counterproductive.

[Bill Cravener]

Guns do not fall out of the sky into the hands of criminals; too often crime guns come from gun dealers in states that stubbornly refuse to enact common sense lifesaving gun laws. Every day guns flow out of states with weak gun laws which then too often end up victimizing families in states that are doing their best to protect their residents. It is quite clear to anyone with a brain that states with the weakest gun laws are the exporters of death and injury. ATF data, available on its website, provides information on the source states of US crime guns by state. Their data shows that states with weak gun laws have a crime gun export rate nine times higher than states with strong gun laws.

Statistics show that states with higher gun ownership and weak gun laws lead the nation in gun deaths rates per 100,000 people. For example Louisiana, Alabama, Alaska, Mississippi and Nevada have household gun ownership rates from 31.5 percent to 60.6 percent and gun death rates of 16.5 per 100,000 to 19.5 per 100,000. In comparison states with low gun ownership rates and strong gun laws such as Hawaii, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jersey and New York, with household gun ownership rates from 9.7 percent to 18.1 percent have gun death rates of 2.8 per 100,000 to 5.2 per 100,000.

The fact is stronger gun laws do save lives!

But gun lovers will continue to cling to their guns like a six year old does to a Teddy Bear, all the while spouting silly platitudes such as "guns don't kill people" or "criminals will get a gun regardless" or “cars kill more people then guns” while more and more innocent people are murdered by gun wielding maniacs. They will continue to worship the gun as their lord and savior and continue willingly to sacrifice tens of thousands of innocent American lives at the altar of their holy temple.

[mywan]

Guns do not fall out of the sky into the hands of criminals;

Drugs don't fall out of the sky in the hands of criminals either. The fact that these drugs are entirely outlawed hasn't slowed the drugs in the hands of criminals one iota. What gives?

Their data shows that states with weak gun laws have a crime gun export rate nine times higher than states with strong gun laws.

Well naturally. Companies move were they have the cheapest operating cost too, just like I buy my gas where it's cheapest. In way way is that evidence of causality? It would be delusional to think that just by tightening up equally in all states the criminals will suddenly go, bummer, no more guns. No, they take over the manufacture and distribution for themselves!

Statistics show that states with higher gun ownership and weak gun laws lead the nation in gun deaths rates per 100,000 people. For example Louisiana, Alabama, Alaska, Mississippi and Nevada have household gun ownership rates from 31.5 percent to 60.6 percent and gun death rates of 16.5 per 100,000 to 19.5 per 100,000.

Perhaps you didn't read my spill above about correlation verses causation, or perhaps it just doesn't suit your needs to think through. Where is your evidence that it's not the crime rate that drives the gun ownership, rather than the gun ownership driving the crime? How many of these gun deaths are purely defensive against the crime criminals? How many are accidental? How many are gang related? You are just grouping, by your own terminology, "gun deaths" in one big pot irrespective of causal factors.

In comparison states with low gun ownership rates and strong gun laws such as Hawaii, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jersey and New York, with household gun ownership rates from 9.7 percent to 18.1 percent have gun death rates of 2.8 per 100,000 to 5.2 per 100,000.

And what are the legal differences here? Rhode Island is a must issue state, where no qualified individual may be denied a permit to carry a concealed weapon. Connecticut is effectively the same way. The rest share a "may issue" status with with many listed in your high crime group. Alabama, from your first list, is a may issue state. In fact there is no correlation between the legal status of guns and these states.

Why did you cherry pick these particular states anyway? I can explain why, as these states are sorted for the explicit purpose of said argument. Sad that even cherry picked states fail to show correlations between gun laws, as opposed to ownership, but it's the best they could jury rig the argument.

The fact is stronger gun laws do save lives!

If you would only look at the evidence it would be obvious you have one of those theory dependent facts... How can you claim a fact when you are arguing gun laws, then used cherry picked numbers to show correlations with gun ownership without mentioning how the correlation completely fails against gun "laws"? I mean for real!!!
Since you apparently will not go read yourself, check these out:
Source: http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

But gun lovers will continue to cling to their guns like a six year old does to a Teddy Bear, all the while spouting silly platitudes such as "guns don't kill people" or "criminals will get a gun regardless" or “cars kill more people then guns” while more and more innocent people are murdered by gun wielding maniacs. They will continue to worship the gun as their lord and savior and continue willingly to sacrifice tens of thousands of innocent American lives at the altar of their holy temple.

Now there you go with the same BS without ever even bothering to hand wave my objections and request. I don't own a gun and it's highly unlikely that I ever will, but this kind of BS is.. uhh.. BS.

It didn't take bullets to fill your bucket full of holes.

[mywan]

The fact is stronger gun laws do save lives!

I got something else to say about this claim. Let's forget causation and only worry about whether even the correlation is real. If the correlation was real there would be no need to hand pick 4 or 5 states to pit against another few states in making a failed attempt at a correlation. Establishing a correlation would be mathematically trivial.

Let's look at another correlation that is very real, but likely has very little to do with causation. Those same high gun death states you mention are also the most religious states. The low gun death states are the least religious. Unlike your failed correlation, this correlation is completely stable going from city to city, county to county, state to state, and nation to nation. No cherry picking is needed as it's a mathematical triviality to demonstrate at every scale. Yet the variables are too many and too complex for any intellectually honest person to claim religiosity is a causal mechanism. Yet here are are with a FAILED correlation, yet you still want to trumpet it as a "fact". It's total BS is what it is...

[MichaelW]

Ok, if we are going to use that tired old argument in comparing guns to cars why do states actively try to do something about death and injury from vehicles but do little to nothing about regulating gun ownership and the death and injuries they cause?

I presented an obvious example of a commonplace machine that is involved in more preventable injuries and deaths than guns are. Instead of going after guns and the smaller number of injuries and deaths associated with them, why aren’t you campaigning to force the states to enact more effective vehicle laws?

[Bill Cravener]

why aren’t you campaigning to force the states to enact more effective vehicle laws?

I have Michael and did my part in getting PA's new law against text messaging while driving which was approved by Gov. Tom Corbett on November 2011 and took effect back March 8, 2012. What I hoped for was a full ban on any use of a cell phone while operating a vehicle especially after I myself on my motorcycle was creamed by a teenager who was on a cell phone. PA has very strict driving laws. PennDOT maintains a driving record for every licensed driver in Pennsylvania. Points are added to a driving record when a driver is found guilty of driving violations. When any driving record reaches 11 or more points the driver's license will automatically be suspended up to a year.

*

For all those who would rather do something to stop the proliferation of assault weapons and excessive collections of ammunitions here in the US (that is instead of hugging that Teddy Bear you love so much) go to the link below and sign the "Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence" petition. Help stop the senseless killings!

http://www.bradycampaign.org/

[Gunther]

For all those who would rather do something to stop the proliferation of assault weapons and excessive collections of ammunitions here in the US (that is instead of hugging that Teddy Bear you love so much) go to the link below and sign the "Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence" petition. Help stop the senseless killings!

http://www.bradycampaign.org/

I'm not an American and living in Berlin, Germany. We haven't such awful gun shootings here, because we've very hard restrictions for the possession of firearms. I like the "Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence" and would sign immediately.

Gunther

[npnw]

I believe in the right to bear arms. However, I don't understand the need for 30 round clips to protect your family or go hunting?

Assault weapons, and clips larger than 10 rounds should be banned. I know the argument is the criminals will always get it. Well that would be good, then we could tell criminals from honest citizens. Hey, that guy has 10 30 round clips.... I think he's a criminal.  No... he just shoots squirrels ... and dogs... and birds... and vehicles with people using their cell phones 

Of course at our house we have weapons with belt fed ammunition 

Seriously,  I don't see the need for large clips, and full auto weapons.

By the way, we had a guy who shot several people for being on his lawn. He chased them down the alley and shot them.

He was nuts.  The cops visit him regularly. 

It would have been hard for anyone to stop the guy in the theater since he had bulletproof vest, and face protection.  Unless they had automatic weapons, with teflon rounds to pierce the body armor, there is little anyone could have done armed against this guy. He prepared for this for 2 months or more.  That's the problem when you have a determined lunatic, unless you catch him before hand. Which they might have done if they had a database that tracked all the weapons. I mean come on everyone needs to buy what 5 guns in a month. That would have been a red flag especially the amount of firepower. Assault rifle, two automatic pistols, 12 gauge rifle? I think... with extended clips, plus 6000 rounds of ammo.

[MichaelW]

It would have been hard for anyone to stop the guy in the theater since he had bulletproof vest, and face protection.  Unless they had automatic weapons, with teflon rounds to pierce the body armor, there is little anyone could have done armed against this guy.

Assuming that you were using a handgun with some reasonable stopping power, even shooting him in the vest would have interrupted what he was doing, and shooting him in the face would have stopped him. And the teflon-coated bullet stuff is a myth.

[npnw]

Whatever the bullet proof pierceing ammo was. I don't remember if it was teflon, or what.

They had guys dressed in the bullet proof armor, and the cops had to fire several thousand rounds of 5.56 and they hit one in the eye, and the other killed himself if I remember right.  It was a big shoot out in California. the cops ended up going to a gun store and getting the M16 rifles to fire back at the bank robbers.  At the time they had 38 or 9 millimeter pistols, shotguns, but no heavy weapons. 

I've never owned the ammo that pierces the ballistics vests so don't know if its true or not.

I like the old M1 30-06 armor pierceing rounds, but kinda hard to conceal that 

Someone made the comment that if you did fire at him you would have made yourself a target.  I agree with that statement. Of course if it gets your family and other people out safe it would be worth it... I just don't know how it would have worked out. 

[npnw]

Covered head to toe in body armor,

http://www.mcdonoughvoice.com/featured/x442229567/Batman-and-the-death-of-make-believe

http://www.safeguardarmor.com/tacpro-tactical/

Here is the Bank Robbery article

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