1st Gun Experience

[pgg]

pgg, can you tell me the strengths of this article as you see them? I'm a pretty avid fan of the Atlantic, but this article struck me as mostly philosophical and fairly unconvincing. The two main facts I saw were: 1) the estimate that guns are used in 108,000 - 2.45 million crime prevention incidents per year, and 2) In GB, 45% of home invasions happen when someone is in the house vs. 11%(?) in the US. (I think it was 11%...).

It is a philosophical article; this very issue is a philosophical one. How much liberty can we, or should we, trade for safety. At what point does that promised safety turn out to be illusory?

It addresses the practical impossibility of purging guns from the United States. Is there a point to passing new laws banning certain types of guns, if there is no way to gather up the ones already in circulation? Shouldn't we pass laws that can work, instead of laws that make some people feel good?

It points out that even the Brady group concedes that their side has lost the total gun ban debate.

It acknowledges that the dramatic (and dramatic is an understatement) expansion of concealed-carry rights over the last 20 years absolutely has NOT resulted in the US reverting to a wild-west atmosphere with blood running in the streets over parking space disputes. It exposes how empty and silly these dire prognostications always are.

The interview with Gilchrist (about the effects of Ohio's CCW law) showed just how ignorant the typical anti-gun, anti-carry person is with regard to the ACTUAL effects of shall-issue CCW laws. He seized on anecdotes and admitted ignorance, but kept his strong opinion anyway. This is classic behavior from rigid gun-control advocates, further illustrated by this quote:

Dave Kopel, the research director of the libertarian-leaning Independence Institute, in Denver, posits that opposition to gun ownership is ideological, not rational. “I use gay marriage as an analogue,” he said. “Some people say they are against gay marriage because they think it leads to worse outcomes for kids. Now, let’s say in 2020 all the social-science evidence has it that the kids of gay families turn out fine. Some people will still say they’re against it, not for reasons of social science, but for reasons of faith. That’s what you have here in the gun issue.”

On the other side, the article is balanced and objective enough to acknowledge that the clear correlation between more guns and less crime is simply that - a correlation, without proof of causation. This is one of the weakest arguments my side tends to make.

The portion of the article concerning university 'gun free zones' did a good job illustrating how pointless and counterproductive those policies are, and exposing the irrational and absurd policies/advice that results.

I was pleased to read that the non "gun-nut" author wrote:

But I am sympathetic to the idea of armed self-defense, because it does often work, because encouraging learned helplessness is morally corrupt, and because, however much I might wish it, the United States is not going to become Canada.

And I even agree with his proposed reasonable gun regulation in the paragraph following that one. (Background checks for all purchases, even for person-to-person sales; and training / background checks for issuing carry permits.)

That's why I liked the article. Reasoned, rational, free of hyperbole, minimum of emotion, conclusions that I think are correct.

No one will really convince a strong believer of the other side to switch beliefs.

True, but that's not really why we have these debates.

Good arguments and facts presented in a reasonable, calm, respectful manner can convince people who are undecided, unsure, or until now just uninterested. I'm not trying to convince people like doctor712; he's emotional, irrational, angry, and uninformed. There's no chance to change his opinion.

The reason I argue against the gun ban movement is because I hope to convince normal people that it's ineffective, counterproductive, and inherently anti-liberty. Most of it is a proven failure with literally centuries of history marked by racist and classist motives.

The doctor712s and Michael Moores and Bloombergs of the world are on the losing side of history. The objective truth is that the public policy side of the gun control debate is all but over in this country, and the rational lawful gun owners are on a decade-long winning streak in court. Periodically some tragedy occurs, and they recycle old flawed ideas about how to prevent another one. They mean well, but here we are.

You asked for some sensible regulations that wouldn't infringe upon your second amendment rights. A couple ideas off the top of my head: 1) Eliminate the gun show loopholes for background checks. 2) Create some sort of mental illness background check. 3) Standard 5-day waiting period for purchase of a new gun. 4) Limit the number of guns one can buy at a given time or over a given period of time (to help prevent strawman purchases).

1) "Gun show loophole" is a misnomer; there is a loophole, but it has nothing to do with gun shows. All dealer sales at gun shows must include a background check. In states with waiting periods, those waiting periods still apply. Person-to-person sales in some states can be conducted without a background check, but this has nothing to do with gun shows. Those sales could (and do) occur anywhere ... in private homes, parking lots, anywhere. A small minority occur at gun shows, which gave rise to the "gun show loophole" label.

I would not object to a law requiring all sales between private parties to be conducted in the presence of a licensed dealer who can run an instant background check.

2) How do you reconcile a "mental illness background check" with HIPAA? Do you really want a national, instantly searchable database with mental health records? Don't you think that creating such a system would seriously dissuade millions of people from seeking treatment in the first place? Wouldn't that put those sick people and the people around them at MORE risk?

3) Should the 5-day waiting period apply to ALL purchases, or just a person's first gun? If a person owns a gun (or five, or ten) already, what's the purpose of a waiting period?

I would not object to a waiting period for first gun purchases. I don't even have a big problem with a waiting period for subsequent purchases too, I just think it's silly - it's feel-good "security theater" like most gun control measures.

4) There's no evidence that "1 in 30" type laws actually reduce straw purchases. Guns used in crimes that were acquired as straw purchases almost invariably come one at a time from a family member or girlfriend. The notion that people are buying cases of guns and then immediately reselling them to gangs is media myth.

Even so, I'd be willing to tolerate this kind of restriction. Again, silly feel-good "security theater" ... but at the end of the day a minor inconvenience. Presently I live in a state with both a 10-day waiting period and a 1-in-30 law. It has had zero effect on crime.

None of the above would prevent a legit citizen from buying essentially any type of weapon they currently can, but I think it would help make it a little more difficult for mentally ill individuals from getting guns.

Except for requiring all person-to-person sales to go through a dealer intermediary, I don't think any of these ideas even have the potential to make a positive difference.

There isn't any evidence at all that waiting periods or 1-in-X laws have any effect at all.

A federal mental health registry is a disturbing idea. An argument could be made that the mere possibility of lost privacy would dissuade people from seeking mental health care, which could increase the number of untreated people living with psychopathology. Would YOU go see a psychiatrist if he was required by law to log your diagnosis online for the purpose of background checks?

These laws would also hopefully slowly reduce the number of illegal guns moving around the black market. It would take time (years, easily), but I think they would also make it harder for people to get illegal guns as well.

I don't think this is at all a realistic outcome from any of these measures.

Preventing violent crime is a hard problem. At some point, maybe the rational and intelligent thing to do is just acknowledge that there is a hard limit to how much safety can be engineered into the system, and that more and more restrictive gun control simply infringes liberty without any positive effects on crime.

Reasonable people can disagree on where that safety:liberty break point is, but the line is there. I think we passed it long ago in some areas (eg, the entire NFA) but perhaps have room to improve in others (eg, requiring p-to-p sales to go through a licensed intermediary).

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[i want out]

I'm back.

That's a pathetic excuse, I want Out. War isn't civilized. It's WAR.

The US public are not fighting a WAR against IRAQIS and AFGHANS in the US.

Was that fact missed on you when you went through redeployment and became a citizen again in the United States, within our borders?

Pathetic excuse.

Make a distinction between WAR and A CIVILIZED DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY. And move on.

As far as my local recruiters office, save it. My entire family are MIL and Law Enforcement Officers. My father who is a retired FED AGENT, would like harsher gun control laws. He spent 30+ years -- DAILY -- fighting the scum of the earth. Would you like his POV on facing an AR-15 in a gun battle?

Your logic is ridiculous and, now that I've pointed it out, faulty.


D712

p.s. perhaps if your MIL recruiters would return a phone call, some of us who were interested before we hit age limits, would have gone into the MIL. It's a pervasive problem with the MIL, you cannot get a call back from recruiters. Period.

will not save it as you have requested, I have fought for your right to freedom of speech, and I have fought for my own as well.

You on the other hand have sat back and let your family fight for you.
Family in the fight whether it is law enforcement or the military does NOT lend you any credibility.

I have faced an AK47, and until YOU have, YOU don't know anything about what your talking about.

As for your redeployment vs war zone argument, you haven't visited Detroit, Houston, or any of our gang laden cities where we are more at war than much of the middle east.

Those who are part of the federal government frequently want tighter control of their subjects, Hitler certainly did.

As I have said, were you in my home I would invite you to leave.

You have chosen not to, so as you choose to exercise your right to freely speak, I will exercise my right to ignore you.

I want out.

Ps no real age limit for physicians, article in USO mag last month about 77 year old physician deployed.

 

[BLADEMDA]

When I hear about a maniac/mentally ill gunman running rampant in a school or a mall or in a theater I always ask myself the same question:

Too bad that law abiding citizens weren't carrying concealed guns; what if there were several who were armed with 9mm semi-automatics to fight back?

Yes, I know that there is no guarantee the death toll would be any lower but I firmly believe the American spirit of self defense and never go down without a fight lives on to this day.

 

[BLADEMDA]

 

[BLADEMDA]

 

[BLADEMDA]

 

[GoodmanBrown]

I appreciate the thoughtful response. I'll throw a few thoughts out myself, but then may have to fade to black for awhile as I study for my psychiatry shelf.

It is a philosophical article; this very issue is a philosophical one. How much liberty can we, or should we, trade for safety. At what point does that promised safety turn out to be illusory?

It addresses the practical impossibility of purging guns from the United States. Is there a point to passing new laws banning certain types of guns, if there is no way to gather up the ones already in circulation? Shouldn't we pass laws that can work, instead of laws that make some people feel good?

Making certain kinds of guns illegal would absolutely reduce the numbers on the streets. There’s no federal policy on gun confiscation, but just a quick search on the Internet reveals that an individual city like Cincinnati confiscates around one thousand guns per year from people who aren’t legally allowed to own them. From the same article, it seems like Kentucky confiscates several thousand. Multiply this by the entire US, and there will absolutely be a reduction in the total gun pool after 5-10 years if certain gun types are made illegal. And for those who are carefully locking them up in a safe, except when being used on the range, I’m not too worried about those.

It points out that even the Brady group concedes that their side has lost the total gun ban debate.

It acknowledges that the dramatic (and dramatic is an understatement) expansion of concealed-carry rights over the last 20 years absolutely has NOT resulted in the US reverting to a wild-west atmosphere with blood running in the streets over parking space disputes. It exposes how empty and silly these dire prognostications always are.

The interview with Gilchrist (about the effects of Ohio's CCW law) showed just how ignorant the typical anti-gun, anti-carry person is with regard to the ACTUAL effects of shall-issue CCW laws. He seized on anecdotes and admitted ignorance, but kept his strong opinion anyway. This is classic behavior from rigid gun-control advocates, further illustrated by this quote:

On the other side, the article is balanced and objective enough to acknowledge that the clear correlation between more guns and less crime is simply that - a correlation, without proof of causation. This is one of the weakest arguments my side tends to make.

The portion of the article concerning university 'gun free zones' did a good job illustrating how pointless and counterproductive those policies are, and exposing the irrational and absurd policies/advice that results.

I was pleased to read that the non "gun-nut" author wrote:

And I even agree with his proposed reasonable gun regulation in the paragraph following that one. (Background checks for all purchases, even for person-to-person sales; and training / background checks for issuing carry permits.)

That's why I liked the article. Reasoned, rational, free of hyperbole, minimum of emotion, conclusions that I think are correct.

While I don’t necessarily believe that arming every will really prevent that many of these attacks, rationally, I have no real arguments against CCW laws. I’m not opposed to giving citizens generous rights with their firearms, once it’s been determined that they are responsible and safe to own them.

True, but that's not really why we have these debates.

Good arguments and facts presented in a reasonable, calm, respectful manner can convince people who are undecided, unsure, or until now just uninterested. I'm not trying to convince people like doctor712; he's emotional, irrational, angry, and uninformed. There's no chance to change his opinion.

The reason I argue against the gun ban movement is because I hope to convince normal people that it's ineffective, counterproductive, and inherently anti-liberty. Most of it is a proven failure with literally centuries of history marked by racist and classist motives.

The doctor712s and Michael Moores and Bloombergs of the world are on the losing side of history. The objective truth is that the public policy side of the gun control debate is all but over in this country, and the rational lawful gun owners are on a decade-long winning streak in court. Periodically some tragedy occurs, and they recycle old flawed ideas about how to prevent another one. They mean well, but here we are.

I think it’s a bit premature to argue that gun control advocates are on the losing side of history. Gun control in the US was significantly stricter until relatively recently. I’m no Nate Silver, but I give Dems a better than 50% shot at winning the WH next cycle, and all Justices retire at some point. And I’m not sure how you’re extrapolating to the rest of the world. I’m not a huge follower of gun control across the world, but are other countries really following our lead re: guns?

1) "Gun show loophole" is a misnomer; there is a loophole, but it has nothing to do with gun shows. All dealer sales at gun shows must include a background check. In states with waiting periods, those waiting periods still apply. Person-to-person sales in some states can be conducted without a background check, but this has nothing to do with gun shows. Those sales could (and do) occur anywhere ... in private homes, parking lots, anywhere. A small minority occur at gun shows, which gave rise to the "gun show loophole" label.

I would not object to a law requiring all sales between private parties to be conducted in the presence of a licensed dealer who can run an instant background check.

2) How do you reconcile a "mental illness background check" with HIPAA? Do you really want a national, instantly searchable database with mental health records? Don't you think that creating such a system would seriously dissuade millions of people from seeking treatment in the first place? Wouldn't that put those sick people and the people around them at MORE risk?

3) Should the 5-day waiting period apply to ALL purchases, or just a person's first gun? If a person owns a gun (or five, or ten) already, what's the purpose of a waiting period?

I would not object to a waiting period for first gun purchases. I don't even have a big problem with a waiting period for subsequent purchases too, I just think it's silly - it's feel-good "security theater" like most gun control measures.

4) There's no evidence that "1 in 30" type laws actually reduce straw purchases. Guns used in crimes that were acquired as straw purchases almost invariably come one at a time from a family member or girlfriend. The notion that people are buying cases of guns and then immediately reselling them to gangs is media myth.

Even so, I'd be willing to tolerate this kind of restriction. Again, silly feel-good "security theater" ... but at the end of the day a minor inconvenience. Presently I live in a state with both a 10-day waiting period and a 1-in-30 law. It has had zero effect on crime.

1) I think we agree on this. Person-to-person sales should be regulated just as dealer gun sales are.

2) This is a non-issue to me. We already have HIPAA exceptions for suicide and people being a danger to others. People’s entire medical records don’t need to be posted online. Some form should be available where two medical professionals can sign saying they believe a person’s psychiatric illness should prevent them from purchasing and owning guns and giving reasons why. One qualification would be that the person poses a significant risk to others when they're psychotic. Their name can be added to the NCIS list. The form can be stored in a secure location if people want to appeal their prevention.

3) I’m of two minds to the waiting period. I think it probably prevents a small minority of gun violence. I haven’t found data to say it has any statistically significant effect. However, is waiting 5 days to take your gun home really such a huge burden if it prevents a few deaths per year? I haven’t bought any guns yet (I live in the city.), but I intend to when I own a place on a bit more land. I would not, personally, be that upset if I have to wait a few days to buy my handgun or rifle. I have a hard time understanding why some people would really see this as such a huge infringement on their rights.

4) Again, it seems you’re right here. According to the link, many illegal gun purchases involve someone going in with a friend or family member and having that person submit to the background check. It also seems that lots of people are getting guns from less-than-aboveboard dealers. Do you believe 2nd amendment advocates would agree to stricter oversight of dealers, or would that infringe upon their rights too extensively?

Except for requiring all person-to-person sales to go through a dealer intermediary, I don't think any of these ideas even have the potential to make a positive difference.

There isn't any evidence at all that waiting periods or 1-in-X laws have any effect at all.

A federal mental health registry is a disturbing idea. An argument could be made that the mere possibility of lost privacy would dissuade people from seeking mental health care, which could increase the number of untreated people living with psychopathology. Would YOU go see a psychiatrist if he was required by law to log your diagnosis online for the purpose of background checks?

Honestly, I think you’re using a slippery slope here. Psychiatrists would not log your diagnosis online for public review. Many people admit to their doctors that they're suicidal/homocidal right now, and there are clear laws on reporting those issues. It would, in fact, be no different than current law, except that the psychiatrist would report to local law enforcement and the federal registry that the person had homicidal ideation.

I don't think this is at all a realistic outcome from any of these measures.

I’m honestly not sure why. The VTech shooter, Cho, was a mentally ill individual who legally purchased his guns. VA closed the loopholes that allowed him to purchase his guns, but gun laws are so state-based that there’s no consistency between states.

Preventing violent crime is a hard problem. At some point, maybe the rational and intelligent thing to do is just acknowledge that there is a hard limit to how much safety can be engineered into the system, and that more and more restrictive gun control simply infringes liberty without any positive effects on crime.

Reasonable people can disagree on where that safety:liberty break point is, but the line is there. I think we passed it long ago in some areas (eg, the entire NFA) but perhaps have room to improve in others (eg, requiring p-to-p sales to go through a licensed intermediary).

I don’t disagree with your sentiment, but I sometimes feel that 2nd amendment supporters use this as a crutch in their argument. “Violence prevention is hard. So we probably shouldn’t bother if it will restrict liberty at all…” I’m all for gun owners having extensive rights for their firearms, but I don’t understand why it’s such a huge infringement on your liberty to have to submit to a pretty extensive background check and have to wait a week to pick your gun up.

 

[darkmansaad]

As much as I dont want to get into a political discussion. Even if this cartoon was fact and not opinion, not everyone is christian. Plenty of good americans out there with a different belief in god or even in the non existence of one.

 

[doctor712]

You on the other hand have sat back and let your family fight for you.

I let my family fight for me? Or each of them were older than me and chose that path when I was a child,
teenager, or strand of DNA in my father's testicles. Sorry that I chose a different path and that not
all US citizens decide to serve. As far back as I can recall, the first career I really gave effort to was
US AFA pilot, just didn't have the eyes for it.

Family in the fight whether it is law enforcement or the military does NOT lend you any credibility.

True. But it lends my family a ton of credibility.

I have faced an AK47, and until YOU have, YOU don't know anything about what your talking about.

Rambling comment #1. So, no, totally disagree here. You're saying that Bill Clinton has no idea what he's talking
about regarding 2nd amendment? Obama? Justice Ginsburg? Justice Thomas...well, maybe he doesn't have a clue.
Justice Sotomayor? Are you KIDDING ME?

Study Constitutional Law, and if you haven't you have no clue what you're talking about. See, I wouldn't actually say or feel
that, but you, you think unless I've walked in your shoes I'm clueless. I'll let your own words speak the rest of that one.

As for your redeployment vs war zone argument, you haven't visited Detroit, Houston, or any of our gang laden cities where we are more at war than much of the middle east.

Ramble #2, how precisely do you know where and where I have NOT visited? Is that an assumption? I've visited Detroit, Houston, South Central, Rio de Janeiro slums, elsewhere in Brazil, the worst areas of Miami and LA and NY and the list goes on and on. What are you TALKING ABOUT?

Those who are part of the federal government frequently want tighter control of their subjects, Hitler certainly did.

So you just compared US Federal Agents to Hitler. I want your words to remain here for quite some time. Federal Agents
who put their life in harms' way for YOU AND YOUR FAMILY, so you can compare them to Hitler.

I'm going to go out on a limb here: you are anti-Government. You are pro-conspiracy 9/11. You are pro-militia. Pro 2nd amendment no matter
what until you die. Anything else. As a Jew, I find your comparison repulsive. Chew on that.

As I have said, were you in my home I would invite you to leave.

I wouldn't be in your home.

You have chosen not to, so as you choose to exercise your right to freely speak, I will exercise my right to ignore you.

Amen.

I want out.

Is your name in reference to your career, life, country, leadership, or just a general comment on your life's perspective?

Ps no real age limit for physicians, article in USO mag last month about 77 year old physician deployed.

I'm not yet a physician. This was pre-medical school era. But good to know, I have discussed with my family adding military into my life
on numerous occasions. Only, I've called about a dozen Recruiters (mostly AF and NAVY, hell I even reached out to PGG once) and never got a single
call back. I even called the USAFA where I had a great brunch at the Officer's Club this morning, to get involved there, and never heard back. No idea why. It shouldn't be easier to get a MD on the phone than a real live recruiter... aside from gun thread, it's totally frustrating!

D712

 

[doctor712]

I am still eagerly awaiting the reply from PGG, Blade (who I respect immensely and he knows that), Periop and other pro-2nd amendment Doctors here regarding the study I posted:

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/index.html

Now, when you are replying to these data, I would ask you to interpret the data and reply normally, and then, as an exercise: pretend the 2nd amendment did not exist. In light of that, and these data, would your reply change at all?

PGG has put forth, today, a few ideas on how to solve certain issues and what areas really need looking at. That's good. But his entire premise relies on: how much of our individual freedom do we give up to prevent these massacres? And, does limiting any freedom help in the first place?

My question then is: what is more important, the right to bear ANY ARM, of the right to bear CERTAIN arms? This is clearly different state to state, or city to city, but let's think bigger picture: what is the downside to banning assault rifles, which were not explicitly covered under the 2nd amendment?

Pgg, do you scream and curse when you go through Customs? Airport security? A security location at the local MLB or hockey game? Do you decline the X-ray machine that allows a naked visual image to be transmitted to TSA in certain airports?

The toughest part is not really PGG's premise or understanding of the Constitution, that's always up for interpretation. The problem is that with data posted in front of his very own eyes, PGG denies it. Because he has a valuable gun collection and he doesn't want to lose that (btw, I wouldn't suggest too many new laws against people like PGG or Blade, and their current collection of killing machines). But for the first time owner of a gun, male, 18-28, I would indeed have a colonoscopy done on them before, during and after the gun purchase. Like the little old lady, 80, who is allowed to leave her shoes on at the airport while the rest of us undress, we can certainly look and scrutinize certain populations much much much closer than we are doing now. Significant psych evals included. If you want a gun, line up for the psych eval. And wait 3, 6, 9 months for the gun. Our society is SO deterrent happy, why not do this with guns. Something about US society right now is breeding these insane people. In France, it's different, Israel too, a live war zone, but in the US, we must realize the times, realize the profile and make a CHANGE.

Data: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/index.html

Awaiting thoughtful, scientific comments. And yes Periop, I have significant research and scientific training, just not the MD yet... Look forward to rebuttals of data, just the way you would rebuff data on ANY of the myriad of posts Blade puts up there on safety topics, if the data are there, Blade advocates, usually. So why not now?

D712

 

[deleted480308]

The study does miss a few important points, first right to own a gun does not translate to right to have it with you. The studies don't account for the fact that states and cities with easier access to gun permits have lower murder rates than those that make it hard to carry.

It also does not account for the fact some criminals don't need to use a gun to victimize an unarmed populace.

And yes, the right to own any arm is important because "some" is simply too subjective for the right to be protected.

 

[doctor712]

The study does miss a few important points, first right to own a gun does not translate to right to have it with you. The studies don't account for the fact that states and cities with easier access to gun permits have lower murder rates than those that make it hard to carry.

It also does not account for the fact some criminals don't need to use a gun to victimize an unarmed populace.

And yes, the right to own any arm is important because "some" is simply too subjective for the right to be protected.

But Sb247, instead of saying what u find missing, what does it SHOW?
I mean even when I disagree with a study I mention what it confirms. Before replying.
It seems like the guns rights people just will not read and reply CRITICALLY.
D712

 

[Perrotfish]

But Sb247, instead of saying what u find missing, what does it SHOW?
I mean even when I disagree with a study I mention what it confirms. Before replying.
It seems like the guns rights people just will not read and reply CRITICALLY.
D712

When I read these posts the voice I can hear in my head is actually yelling. Like he's Christian Bale and the lighting guy just screwed up his shot.

 

[BLADEMDA]

As much as I dont want to get into a political discussion. Even if this cartoon was fact and not opinion, not everyone is christian. Plenty of good americans out there with a different belief in god or even in the non existence of one.

Please don't take everything so seriously. Of course there are plenty of good Americans who don't believe in God or my right to own guns. I know many of them. I respect their opinion and their right to speak out. But, I expect the same.

 

[countingdays]

.

 

[loveoforganic2]

D712 - While it would require more effort than just purchasing a gun, pipe bombs, high explosives (a couple, anyway), and toxic gases are easily made/synthesized with readily obtainable materials/compounds and are easily transportable as well.

What do you think would be the results of detonating a "small" amount (i.e. < 5 lbs) of high explosive in a confined space (like a classroom) and following it up with a 2 liter bottle full of a toxic gas-forming reaction?

How do you imagine regulating compounds like bleach, hydrogen peroxide, sulfuric acid, etc.?

How do you prevent someone from driving a car through a crowd of people during Mardi Gras? or down a busy NYC sidewalk?

You can make an argument for the utility of these things - but their utility isn't removed by the requirement of a mental health background, so would that be a reasonable prerequisite for purchase/possession?

Guns happen to be in vogue. There are plenty of comparably lethal alternatives (to avoid the same argument being made against knife slaughters having a higher %wounded)

Edit: with regard to those studies - I skimmed a couple quickly because I have a path final tomorrow. It looks to me, unless I missed something, that the data they are using is homicide rate, not murder rate. Homicide, if they're using the term correctly, refers to the killing of another person (would include self defense), while murder refers to illegal killing. Just one random thing on a quick look

As far as reasonable gun control implementation I would like to see - a permit to buy firearms that is shall issue and good for life, following passing a standardized test on basic gun safety (including prevention of acquisition by children), with the test being free (and infinitely retakable, with a reasonable # of questions, i.e. <30) and free educational materials that teach to the test available online. Assuming that there's a fair way to keep the answers from being readily distributed online, that would be ideal, but even without, a low cost way to spread a little basic knowledge to at least SOME individuals

 

[pie944]

Secondly, STRICTER GUN CONTROL LAWS lead to less gun deaths in the US (from today's Washington Post)...written by primarily, writers outside the television sitcom world.

"9. States with stricter gun control laws have fewer deaths from gun-related violence.
Last year, economist Richard Florida dove deep into the correlations between gun deaths and other kinds of social indicators. Some of what he found was, perhaps, unexpected: Higher populations, more stress, more immigrants, and more mental illness were not correlated with more deaths from gun violence. But one thing he found was, perhaps, perfectly predictable: States with tighter gun control laws appear to have fewer gun-related deaths. The disclaimer here is that correlation is not causation. But correlations can be suggestive: (MAP NOT VIEWABLE, SORRY)

“The map overlays the map of firearm deaths above with gun control restrictions by state,” explains Florida. “It highlights states which have one of three gun control restrictions in place – assault weapons’ bans, trigger locks, or safe storage requirements. Firearm deaths are significantly lower in states with stricter gun control legislation. Though the sample sizes are small, we find substantial negative correlations between firearm deaths and states that ban assault weapons (-.45), require trigger locks (-.42), and mandate safe storage requirements for guns (-.48).”

So, all you peeps out there saying more regulations don't and wouldn't help, here's some evidence, recent, new and reliable, to state the FACTS.

D712

The Harvard article will take more time to analyze, but the one this Washington Post article cites is from The Atlantic that is a couple years old.

A few huge problems

These figures include accidental shootings, suicides, even acts of self-defense, as well as crimes.

The real issue is trying to measure gun crimes, gun injuries, or gun deaths related to illegal firearm usage. That's what we care about.

In addition, the lack of detailed information regarding the statistics makes this entire article suspect. Furthermore, you are assuming that all the Pearson Correlations are significant in a 2 tailed test(p<0.05). The fact is we don't know, they just noted a 'substantial correlation' with a value that isn't that impressive. I'd love to figure it out, but the article doesn't give the details.

I'll get back to you on the Harvard article.

 

[doctor712]

D712 - While it would require more effort than just purchasing a gun, pipe bombs, high explosives (a couple, anyway), and toxic gases are easily made/synthesized with readily obtainable materials/compounds and are easily transportable as well.

What do you think would be the results of detonating a "small" amount (i.e. < 5 lbs) of high explosive in a confined space (like a classroom) and following it up with a 2 liter bottle full of a toxic gas-forming reaction?

How do you imagine regulating compounds like bleach, hydrogen peroxide, sulfuric acid, etc.?

How do you prevent someone from driving a car through a crowd of people during Mardi Gras? or down a busy NYC sidewalk?

You can make an argument for the utility of these things - but their utility isn't removed by the requirement of a mental health background, so would that be a reasonable prerequisite for purchase/possession?

Guns happen to be in vogue. There are plenty of comparably lethal alternatives (to avoid the same argument being made against knife slaughters having a higher %wounded)

Edit: with regard to those studies - I skimmed a couple quickly because I have a path final tomorrow. It looks to me, unless I missed something, that the data they are using is homicide rate, not murder rate. Homicide, if they're using the term correctly, refers to the killing of another person (would include self defense), while murder refers to illegal killing. Just one random thing on a quick look

As far as reasonable gun control implementation I would like to see - a permit to buy firearms that is shall issue and good for life, following passing a standardized test on basic gun safety (including prevention of acquisition by children), with the test being free (and infinitely retakable, with a reasonable # of questions, i.e. <30) and free educational materials that teach to the test available online. Assuming that there's a fair way to keep the answers from being readily distributed online, that would be ideal, but even without, a low cost way to spread a little basic knowledge to at least SOME individuals

I don't expect to see a lot of non-organic chemists, like yourself, buying compounds, testing them, creating certain reactions (in their homes, of which they have no clue how to work through -- and even with an internet diagram, that's still some DANGEROUS JOO JOO) rather than just use a weapon. So i think your example is really moot. These people don't want to blow themselves up in basements, they want to make the news and THEN kill themselves. The easiest current way to accomplish that is buying assault rifles and using them. So, we're talking about guns, period. Not to, literally, build the wheel from scratch.

D712

 

[doctor712]

The Harvard article will take more time to analyze, but the one this Washington Post article cites is from The Atlantic that is a couple years old.

A few huge problems

These figures include accidental shootings, suicides, even acts of self-defense, as well as crimes.

The real issue is trying to measure gun crimes, gun injuries, or gun deaths related to illegal firearm usage. That's what we care about.

In addition, the lack of detailed information regarding the statistics makes this entire article suspect. Furthermore, you are assuming that all the Pearson Correlations are significant in a 2 tailed test(p<0.05). The fact is we don't know, they just noted a 'substantial correlation' with a value that isn't that impressive. I'd love to figure it out, but the article doesn't give the details.

I'll get back to you on the Harvard article.

Ok, so let's just assume the Washington Post doesn't know how to look into a P value and write a paper...
Points noted, but yours is a dubious argument for me, at best.

D712

 

[doctor712]

When I read these posts the voice I can hear in my head is actually yelling. Like he's Christian Bale and the lighting guy just screwed up his shot.

Voices in your head you say...



D712

 

[WashMe]

D712's behavior in this thread clearly warrants a diagnosis of profound ******ation (IQ < 20). I mean that in the most objective, professional sense.

Carry on (in every sense of the phrase).

 

[deleted480308]

Carry on (in every sense of the phrase).

One on my hip right now, God bless America

 

[sevoflurane]

Trying to steer this discussion back onto it's original objective:

Anybody have any thoughts on pluses vs negatives of the ruger sr9C? My wife really likes it and is up there on her xmas list.

Purpose is for self defense, home/invasion.

Also on the list is a revolver for reliability. Any thoughts on the Ruger LCR .38 special?

 

[deleted480308]

Trying to steer this discussion back onto it's original objective:

Anybody have any thoughts on pluses vs negatives of the ruger sr9C? My wife really likes it and is up there on her xmas list.

Purpose is for self defense, home/invasion.

Also on the list is a revolver for reliability. Any thoughts on the Ruger LCR .38 special?

A 9mm has better lethality than a .38. If all other considerations are equal, that might break the tie. Does she shoot each, equally well?

 

[BLADEMDA]

Police say ex-convict Albert Franklin Hill, 42, forced his way into the Tierra Verde home where he was shot and killed by Brown, a former Florida beauty queen.



Next SlidePrevious Slide


When a burly ex-convict forced his way into a posh Florida home last week, he had no idea what awaited him -- a 25-year-old beauty queen with a pink .38-caliber handgun.

Meghan Brown, a former Florida pageant queen, shot and killed 42-year-old Albert Franklin Hill during a home invasion March 12 at the 2,732-square-foot house she shares with her fiance in Tierra Verde, Fla.

Hill barged into the home at around 3 a.m. after Brown responded to a knock at the front door, according to a police report. He allegedly grabbed the 110-pound Brown around her nose and mouth and dragged her to an upstairs bedroom.

The woman’s fiance, Robert Planthaber, said in an interview that he was quickly awakened by the altercation and ran to Brown’s side.

"I attacked him and took a severe beating to the head," Planthaber told FoxNews.com. "But I got him off of her long enough for her to scramble to the room where she keeps her pink .38 special.”

Brown, who reigned as the 2009 Miss Tierra Verde, snatched her gun from a nearby bedroom and shot the suspect several times – hitting him in the chest, groin, thigh and back, her fiance said. Hill was pronounced dead at the scene.

Panthaber, a 42-year-old arborist, said he believes he and his fiancee were targeted because of their wealth. He claimed a pizza delivery man and possible accomplice staked out the home for three months before Hill attempted to burglarize it.

“We live in a very prominent area and my fiancee wears a $60,000 engagement ring,” he said. “The pizza man knew we had money because sometimes we needed change for a $100 bill when he came to deliver pizza.”

Hill had a criminal record stretching back nearly three decades -- including arrests for burglary, battery, drug possession and grand theft. He reportedly served a 13-year prison term in 1987 and was released in September after serving a fourth term behind bars.

Detectives with the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Robbery/Homicide Unit are still investigating the crime but believe the motive was robbery, according to local press reports. They say they haven’t yet determined the relationship, if any, Hill had with the couple. A police report said the ex-convict demanded money before the altercation between Hill and Panthaber ensued.

Panthaber, meanwhile, said he and his fiancee are lucky to be alive. He said he purchased the pink handgun for Brown last Christmas and that the two had gone to target practice together.

“She was not a good shot at the range,” he quipped.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/03/2...intruder-florida-home-invasion/#ixzz2FJn3cKaU

 

[BLADEMDA]

GOP lawmaker wishes Sandy Hook principal was armed with assault rifle

By Alexander Bolton - 12/16/12 10:03 AM ET





Rep. Louie Gohmert, a Republican from Texas, says he wishes Dawn Hochsprung, the principal of the Sandy Hook Elementary School, was armed with an M-4 assault rifle when she confronted Adam Lanza, the shooter who killed 20 children.

“I wish to God she had an M-4 in her office locked up so when she heard gunfire she pulls it out and she didn’t have to lunge heroically with nothing in her hands but she takes him out, takes his head off before he can kill those precious kids,” Gohmert said in an interview on “Fox News Sunday.”


Dawn Hochsprung, Sandy Hook’s principal, was reportedly killed when she confronted Lanza after he forced his way into the school.

 

[sevoflurane]

She's real good with the sr9C and glock 26. She still did a fantastic job shooting revolvers though. The reason for the LCR is because it's a revolver and she has it in her head that they are the most reliable when push comes to shove and you really need it. The LCR she likes because of it's weight and ease of use when it comes to reloading and it can fire +P rounds. Suprisingly manageble recoil for a polymer revolver that weighs next to nothing. So is .38 ammo not really considered home defense ammo? 9mm for sure, but maybe not with the .38's?

 

[BLADEMDA]

She's real good with the sr9C and glock 26. She still did a fantastic job shooting revolvers though. The reason for the LCR is because it's a revolver and she has it in her head that they are the most reliable when push comes to shove and you really need it. The LCR she likes because of it's weight and ease of use when it comes to reloading and it can fire +P rounds. Suprisingly manageble recoil for a polymer revolver that weighs next to nothing.

I shoot best with the Glock 26 over the SR9C and .38 Revolver. That said, my wife and I prefer to carry a lightweight snubnose revolver on our persons for self defense. The heavy trigger pull (double action) and reliability of the reovolver make it a great choice for CCW. There is no slide to pull back so in an emergency just pull the gun and fire. Also, no worry of accidental dscharge like the SR9C if you carry with a bullet in the chamber.

The Ruger LCR is a fine choice and they are availble for under $375 online.
Of Course, you can get your wife a 10 ounce Smith and Wsson 22 Magnum for CCW like my wife owns: Lightweight and effective.

 

[sevoflurane]

Police say ex-convict Albert Franklin Hill, 42, forced his way into the Tierra Verde home where he was shot and killed by Brown, a former Florida beauty queen.



Next SlidePrevious Slide


When a burly ex-convict forced his way into a posh Florida home last week, he had no idea what awaited him -- a 25-year-old beauty queen with a pink .38-caliber handgun.

Meghan Brown, a former Florida pageant queen, shot and killed 42-year-old Albert Franklin Hill during a home invasion March 12 at the 2,732-square-foot house she shares with her fiance in Tierra Verde, Fla.

Hill barged into the home at around 3 a.m. after Brown responded to a knock at the front door, according to a police report. He allegedly grabbed the 110-pound Brown around her nose and mouth and dragged her to an upstairs bedroom.

The woman’s fiance, Robert Planthaber, said in an interview that he was quickly awakened by the altercation and ran to Brown’s side.

"I attacked him and took a severe beating to the head," Planthaber told FoxNews.com. "But I got him off of her long enough for her to scramble to the room where she keeps her pink .38 special.”

Brown, who reigned as the 2009 Miss Tierra Verde, snatched her gun from a nearby bedroom and shot the suspect several times – hitting him in the chest, groin, thigh and back, her fiance said. Hill was pronounced dead at the scene.

Panthaber, a 42-year-old arborist, said he believes he and his fiancee were targeted because of their wealth. He claimed a pizza delivery man and possible accomplice staked out the home for three months before Hill attempted to burglarize it.

“We live in a very prominent area and my fiancee wears a $60,000 engagement ring,” he said. “The pizza man knew we had money because sometimes we needed change for a $100 bill when he came to deliver pizza.”

Hill had a criminal record stretching back nearly three decades -- including arrests for burglary, battery, drug possession and grand theft. He reportedly served a 13-year prison term in 1987 and was released in September after serving a fourth term behind bars.

Detectives with the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Robbery/Homicide Unit are still investigating the crime but believe the motive was robbery, according to local press reports. They say they haven’t yet determined the relationship, if any, Hill had with the couple. A police report said the ex-convict demanded money before the altercation between Hill and Panthaber ensued.

Panthaber, meanwhile, said he and his fiancee are lucky to be alive. He said he purchased the pink handgun for Brown last Christmas and that the two had gone to target practice together.

“She was not a good shot at the range,” he quipped.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/03/2...intruder-florida-home-invasion/#ixzz2FJn3cKaU

Ahhh... Nice.

 

[sevoflurane]

I shoot best with the Glock 26 over the SR9C and .38 Revolver. That said, my wife and I prefer to carry a lightweight snubnose revolver on our persons for self defense. The heavy trigger pull (double action) and reliability of the reovolver make it a great choice for CCW. There is no slide to pull back so in an emergency just pull the gun and fire. Also, no worry of accidental dscharge like the SR9C if you carry with a bullet in the chamber.

The Ruger LCR is a fine choice and they are availble for under $375 online.
Of Course, you can get your wife a 10 ounce Smith and Wsson 22 Magnum for CCW like my wife owns: Lightweight and effective.

Thank you.

 

[BLADEMDA]

Weighs 10 ounces

 

[BLADEMDA]

Great Carry piece. Get the .38 and not the .22 as the .38 has a better trigger plus fires an effective round. My wife and I use low recoil hollowpoint ammo in this type of gun and it really makes a difference in terms of accuracy.

 

[BLADEMDA]

Thank you.

If you don't like the Ruger LCR then just keep it in the car (hidden) as an extra piece.
I know that the used market for mint Ruger LCRs in .38 is very strong around the $300 range.

The .22 LCR is better than nothing but I'm not a fan of the .22 caliber for self defense. That said, my wife likes the .22 Magnum revolver because it weighs 10 ounces and is a nice looking piece. At least in 22 Magnum that revolver has a decent chance of accomplishing its goal.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLl2Qpq4VFs

 

[sevoflurane]

Yep. She also wants something she can carry when jogging in the woods/trails that would remain comfortable. Need to check into the S&W air lite.

Appreciate the input.

 

[BLADEMDA]

Features:
High Performance Hornady FTX® Bullets
Unaffected by thick and heavy clothing, the 45 gr. FTX bullet delivers superior controlled expansion and terminal ballistics comparable to the 380 Auto Critical Defense load. It offers superb accuracy and devastating terminal performance in a a rifle.

Powder
Optimized for short-barreled firearms, the 22 WMR features clean burning propellants with low flash and blast to help protect night vision.

Highest Quality Cases
Silver nickel-plated cases prevent corrosion and are easily visible in low-light situations.

Comparison:
22 WMR Critical Defense & 380 Auto Critical Defense

The top bullet is a 380 Auto 90 gr. Critical Defense round at 896 fps from a 2.75" barrel Ruger LCP. The bottom bullet is a 22 WMR 45 gr. Critical Defense round from a S&W 351 PD with a 1-7/8" barrel at 1038 fps.



Hornady Critical Defense is the most effective, consistent and reliable self-defense ammunition on the market.


http://www.hornady.com/store/22-WMR-45gr-Critical-Defense/ (take a look at this link. This round is as good as a .380)

 

[BLADEMDA]

 

[BLADEMDA]

You get .380 caliber performance with 7 shots from a gun that feels like a toy (under 10 ounces).

 

[BLADEMDA]

 

[sevoflurane]

Can you explain this picture for me?

 

[BLADEMDA]

Can you explain this picture for me?

The picture shows a gel compound with the bullet penetration through the gel. You look for distance of penetration and how wide the track/path are through the gel. This allows comparison of bullets.

 

[BLADEMDA]

 

[BLADEMDA]

This is the ammo I carry in my SW 642. Yes, it doesn't pack the punch of Plus P ammo but I'll take accuracy over power anytime especially in a 15 ounce gun.

 

[sevoflurane]

You get .380 caliber performance with 7 shots from a gun that feels like a toy (under 10 ounces).

What is the recoil like with the 22 WRM when shooting the 22 magnum? I'm assuming very little.

Def. going to try it out.

 

[BLADEMDA]

What is the recoil like with the 22 WRM when shooting the 22 magnum? I'm assuming very little.

Def. going to try it out.

It's a bit loud but recoil is MINIMAL. Gun is accurate to about 1.5 inches at 25 feet. It is a close range gun (10 feet or less) and not a target gun.

Great Carry piece provided you have the right ammo; you get .380 personal defense with the lighweight/ease of a .22 type revolver.

 

[BLADEMDA]

My weapon of choice for close range duty. Less than 1 inch accuracy with minimal recoil shooting .38 caliber ammo and it holds 8 rounds. This gun shoots plus P ammo easily as well as full .357 magnum loads.

 

[BLADEMDA]

What is the recoil like with the 22 WRM when shooting the 22 magnum? I'm assuming very little.

Def. going to try it out.

The Ruger LCR in .38 is a great choice. Readily available and easy to use. Remember, avoid Plus P ammo in this gun unless you want your wife to hate shooting it.

 

[deleted480308]

Blademda is giving good advice, my carry is a g26 but the other guns work great, nothing to disagree with in his posts

 

[DreamMachine]

 

[pie944]

What type of holsters do you guys prefer when carrying?

 

[pgg]

What type of holsters do you guys prefer when carrying?

I usually use a Galco summer comfort (leather IWB), or a comp-tac (kydex IWB).

On the rare occasion when I carry my LCP pocket gun, it's in a little leather squarish thing, can't remember who makes it.