Sometimes I REALLY don't get the NRA.

[ISiddiqui]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/15/opinion/15fri3.html?ref=opinion

February 15, 2008

Editorial

A Crime-Fighting Opportunity

In October, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a smart new law that will help police apprehend violent criminals and deter the gun traffickers who supply them. The measure requires that all new semiautomatic pistols sold in the state starting in 2010 be equipped with technology known as microstamping, which will allow police to quickly match empty bullet casings to the weapon that fired them.

Legislation that would extend that requirement nationwide has just been introduced in both houses of Congress. It deserves full support from lawmakers of both parties, and both sides of the gun control debate.
The microstamping process uses lasers to make microscopic markings on a gun’s firing pin and other internal surfaces, identifying the weapon’s make, model and serial number. When the gun is fired, this information is stamped onto the bullet casing, providing an immediate lead for investigators to pursue when casings ejected from the weapon are found at a crime scene.

Sponsored by Senator Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts and Representative Xavier Becerra of California, both Democrats, the legislation would not require weapons manufactured before 2010 to be brought back to a gun shop for retrofitting. The measure’s law enforcement value would grow over time, as older guns get replaced with new models equipped with microstamping.

The National Rifle Association, nevertheless, rejected pleas from the law enforcement community and waged a fierce battle to try to defeat the California law. The powerful gun lobby can be expected to fight even harder on Capitol Hill.

Mandating microstamping would not infringe on anyone’s gun ownership rights. What it would do is help police catch violent criminals and make a dent in the large number of unsolved murders. According to statistics compiled by the F.B.I., around 40 percent of all homicides committed each year go unsolved.

Making it easier for police to trace guns used in crimes would also deter straw purchasers who supply gang members and other dangerous individuals unable to pass a background check. It makes good, practical sense to give police this valuable crime-fighting tool.

WTF?!! How does this in any way infringe on gun rights?!

[Subby]

Wow - what a great idea.

[Coffee Warlord]

I wonder at the reliability and tamper-proof level of these things. If someone who knows how to break down a pistol can just go in and muck around with the markings, bam, there goes that idea.

Now, I haven't actually read up on the law itself, but from this editorial, it reads like it's only gonna be on semis. They just going to stop selling revolvers? Rifles?

'Course, anything that even touches regulation on firearms instantly turns the NRA against it. This one is, in theory, not all that objectionable, but there are some things I question.

[Coffee Warlord]

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200802/NAT20080213a.html

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/viewstory.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200608/NAT20060825a.html

More detail about the actual objections they're having.

[Pumpy Tudors]

I had originally misread the thread title as "Sometimes I REALLY don't get the NBA." That would've been funnier.

[Toddzilla]

blah blah blah liberal New York Times blah blah blahFirst thing I thought, too....:o

[Doug5984]

First thing I thought of is how much would this increase the price of new handguns? How easy would it be to manipulate... ie- just replace the firing pin?

And this still won't help with unregistered guns or older guns...

[Doug5984]

dola- this could be a good idea, but i think they need more info like CW said. How tamper proof is it? How would it affect the prices? Nothing on revolvers?

And like CW said- anything having to do with gun regulation and the NRA is instantly against it... I doubt this would really help solve any crimes for a longg time since it would only be on new guns, the new guns would have to enter the crime world then be used, then be found to really have any effect

[M GO BLUE!!!]

The right-wing talk show host I currently work with is typical pro gun/pro NRA/anti gun control. I asked him if it would be so bad to compile a database of new guns in a similar fashion, so that when a crime is committed and a decent law obiding citizen is shot, that there may be some method of tracing the gun that fired the shot. This was, if a gun that entered the market illegally went thru the same dealer that happened to have a great deal of guns that fall thru the cracks we could shut that dealer down and help prevent guns from falling into the wrong hands.

He actually expressed concern over the government knowing who has guns!

Incidentally, his attitude toward school shootings is that if the faculty in schools were armed that these gunmen would be afraid of getting killed attempting something like this (even though I have yet to hear of gunmen walking away...)

I asked him what gun he owns. His voice trailed off and he looked away as he awkwardly stated that he needs to go and be properly trained on handling a firearm and decide which would be the proper weapon for him... as in he doesn't have a gun! :)

[Kodos]

What's the harm in trying it? If it fails, no big deal.

[flere-imsaho]

Does Cam still post here?

[Oilers9911]

The NRA...what more can be said about these clowns? It is hard to fathom that such an organization has become so damn powerful and omnipresent in American society.

[WVUFAN]

What's the harm in trying it? If it fails, no big deal.

Because it doesn't work, and it would increase the cost of handgun purchases by over 20%.

And I'm not a fan of the government in effect creating a monopoly (all handgun manufacturers would have to pay the sole patent owner for this technology). It's not that the NRA is against anything that is anti-gun, they're just against technology that is flawed and nearly entirely ineffective.

[WVUFAN]

The NRA...what more can be said about these clowns? It is hard to fathom that such an organization has become so damn powerful and omnipresent in American society.

Question: do you really know anything about the NRA?

[Oilers9911]

It's not that the NRA is against anything that is anit-gun,

Really? They're not? They sure as hell yell loudly any time anything "anti-gun" comes up.

[ISiddiqui]

Really? They're not? They sure as hell yell loudly any time anything "anti-gun" comes up.

Indeed. I'm still flabbergasted that registration is fought against so strongly.

[WVUFAN]

Really? They're not? They sure as hell yell loudly any time anything "anti-gun" comes up.

Well, if something comes up that infringes on a person's right to own a gun, then wouldn't it make sense for the organization founded to protect those rights to "yell loudly"?

[ISiddiqui]

Weren't you the one who JUST said:

It's not that the NRA is against anything that is anit-gun,

?

[cartman]

I find it amusing/disturbing that two groups, NRA and ACLU, whose core beliefs are absolute steadfastness in defending particular amendments to the Constitution, have members that cannot stand the policies of the other group.

[Arles]

The NRA...what more can be said about these clowns? It is hard to fathom that such an organization has become so damn powerful and omnipresent in American society.
For a second there, I wasn't sure if you were talking about the NRA or the ACLU.

I find it amusing/disturbing that two groups, NRA and ACLU, whose core beliefs are absolute steadfastness in defending particular amendments to the Constitution, have members that cannot stand the policies of the other group.
I think both have a role, but they are also going to be lightning rods for each side. Which, IMO, is a good thing given their professed goals.

[ISiddiqui]

I believe that this current administration has shown that the ACLU isn't so "damn powerful and omnipresent in American society".

[WVUFAN]

Weren't you the one who JUST said:



?

Yeah. Let me clarify: There's a difference, at least to me, in opposing something that's only purpose is to remove inherent rights, and something that's concerning guns but doesn't infringe.

Registration only affects those who choose to register, and a good majority of those who commit crimes with guns do so with either stolen or unregistered ones. So, really, the only ones you're forcing to register are those who will not commit any crimes to begins with. That makes no sense.

[Arles]

I believe that this current administration has shown that the ACLU isn't so "damn powerful and omnipresent in American society".
I think the ACLU is significantly more powerful in individual cases in school systems/religious/communities However, I don't think they have the national power they once did in congress. For the NRA, I would say the opposite is the case as they have much more power within congress and less of a presence in the smaller, individual cases.

It just comes to whether you think having a strong lobby in congress is "more powerful" than strong-arming communities with big dollars/layers.

[ISiddiqui]

Yeah. Let me clarify: There's a difference, at least to me, in opposing something that's only purpose is to remove inherent rights, and something that's concerning guns but doesn't infringe.

We may have a different definition of infringing on an "inherent" right.

Registration only affects those who choose to register, and a good majority of those who commit crimes with guns do so with either stolen or unregistered ones. So, really, the only ones you're forcing to register are those who will not commit any crimes to begins with. That makes no sense.

There you go, you can book people for carrying a stolen gun or unregistered ones; or tack penalties for it on if a crime is committed and they have an unregistered/stolen gun with them.

[ISiddiqui]

I think the ACLU is significantly more powerful in individual cases in school systems/religious/communities However, I don't think they have the national power they once did in congress. For the NRA, I would say the opposite is the case as they have much more power within congress and less of a presence in the smaller, individual cases.

It just comes to whether you think having a strong lobby in congress is "more powerful" than strong-arming communities with big dollars/layers.

Ok, I see where you are coming from there, even though I think we disagree on what is more powerful.

[Toddzilla]

ACLU is to people as the NRA is to guns.

[WVUFAN]

We may have a different definition of infringing on an "inherent" right.

Fair enough. Not sure why you put that word in quotation marks, though. The right to bear arms is just as much a right as freedom of speech.



There you go, you can book people for carrying a stolen gun or unregistered ones; or tack penalties for it on if a crime is committed and they have an unregistered/stolen gun with them.

There's better ways to tacking penalties on a criminals that screwing with law abiding citizens, I feel.

[WVUFAN]

ACLU is to athiests and criminals as the NRA is to guns.

Fixed it for you, as the ACLU's seemingly only purpose is to protect those two groups.

[Toddzilla]

Fixed it for you, as the ACLU's seemingly only purpose is to protect those two groups.I could have just as easily said:

"ACLU is to people as the NRA is to god-fearing white nujobs"

as the NRA's only purpose is to protect the interests of that one group, but I wanted to keep it civil.

[rkmsuf]

Not that I guess it should be illegal but what do you do with a semi automatic weapon?

Besides shooting cats that is.

[CamEdwards]

I find it amusing/disturbing that two groups, NRA and ACLU, whose core beliefs are absolute steadfastness in defending particular amendments to the Constitution, have members that cannot stand the policies of the other group.

Interestingly enough, the Texas State Rifle Association worked hand in hand with the Texas Chapter of the ACLU on a report that dealt with the "traveling" law in Texas (definition of "traveling" having an impact on how one has to store their legally owned firearm while in a vehicle). So the two sides can and do work together (campaign finance would be another issue on which the two groups were on the same side).

As far as microstamping goes, here are some of the problems. Now keep in mind, I'm not a spokesman for the NRA, just a journalist who covers this issue in great detail.

- the technology is unreliable and easily defeated. In two independent studies the microstamping technology was removed from the firing pin within a matter of minutes using simple household tools. Of course a far easier method for criminals to get around this would be to simply swap the firing pin itself.

- the technology is sole-sourced, meaning the patent holder on this technology would be able to charge a license fee of their choosing on every firearm equipped with this technology. This would add cost to the price of the firearm sold, again with little to no tangible benefit.

- practically speaking, firing pins wear out or break. What happens if you need to replace a part on a firearm costing $500 or more? Under the legislation proposed by Kennedy, it's unclear HOW you could legally swap out the firing pin. Additionally, thousands of gun owners in this country re-load their ammunition, which would also be problematic if the cartridge is supposed to be kept clear for the microstamping technology to work.

- who maintains the database and how much does THAT cost? Maryland and New York already have a "ballistic database" that's been in place for years, has cost tens of millions of dollars, and has helped solve a total of ONE crime (and even then, the ballistic database in Maryland was not the sole investigative tool used in solving that particular crime). This is money that could be better spent on additional law enforcement dollars, be it money for more police, more prosecutors, or additional prison beds.

Additionally, it should be noted (since the NY Times certainly didn't point it out) that in California, there were plenty of law enforcement agencies that actively OPPOSED microstamping legislation, including the Peace Officers Research Association of California (which represents 710 law enforcement groups and over 50,000 California cops). The Attorney General in California also did not endorse this legislation.

Imran says he really doesn't get the NRA. I really don't get people who think that reporters and editors who know very little about this issue could/would provide any semblance of accurate reporting. Given that the editorial from the Times says the NRA ignored "pleas" from law enforcement, when in fact there were many law enforcement organizations in California opposed to this legislation, says a lot about the honesty of the editorial board and the gullibility of some of the paper's readers.

[chesapeake]

Fixed it for you, as the ACLU's seemingly only purpose is to protect those two groups.

So when the ACLU fought to overturn Virginia's law prohibiting interracial marriages, in your opinion was the couple in question a pair of criminals or atheists? What about Oliver Brown, who just wanted his daughter, Linda, to be able to attend the elementary school in Topeka that was closest to her home?

What about the thousands of American citizens whose communications the President directed the NSA to surveil without a court order? Which are they?

[CamEdwards]

dola- and yes Flere, I still post here.

By the way Todd, your post about who the NRA represents is as prejudicial as I've ever seen, and I'm really disappointed to learn that one of my neighbors is so unenlightened as to think the NRA is about "god fearing white nutjobs".

One of the first responses I ever received when doing my radio show was from a self-described "bulldyke" who lived in San Francisco and owned a firearm for her protection. Among the amicus briefs filed in opposition to the DC Gun Ban is a brief filed by the Pink Pistols, a gay and lesbian gun owners group (and many members are also NRA members). Heck, I'm an honorary member of the Stonewall Pink Pistols in Utah!

I could tell you any number of stories about minority gun owners, from the 9th Calvary Gun Club in Maryland to the head of the Congress of Racial Equality. I could point out that the immediate past president of the NRA is a Jewish female, and I could point out that females comprise the fastest growing segment of the firearms community.

I could tell you the stories of NRA members and firearms instructors heading off to Iraq to help instruct the Iraqi police and military on firearms training. I could tell you about Eddie Eagle, which has reached millions of American kids with it's gun safety message. I could talk about the NRA's Disabled Shooting Sports Program, which is now being used in rehabilitative hospitals around the country (including Walter Reed Medical Center).

I could tell you about all of these things Todd, but why? Your mind is already closed.

[ISiddiqui]

Fair enough. Not sure why you put that word in quotation marks, though. The right to bear arms is just as much a right as freedom of speech.

Cause I don't believe in the concept of "inherant" rights.

There's better ways to tacking penalties on a criminals that screwing with law abiding citizens, I feel.

It's not all that much "screwing with". After all, automobile registration is the norm in all 50 states, and it isn't all that much of a burden to people at all.

[ISiddiqui]

By the way Todd, your post about who the NRA represents is as prejudicial as I've ever seen

More so than saying the ACLU represents "atheists and criminals"?

[CamEdwards]

More so than saying the ACLU represents "atheists and criminals"?

Actually the quote was "Fixed it for you, as the ACLU's seemingly only purpose is to protect those two groups."

I would characterize that as more ignorant than prejudicial. The ACLU does represent criminals and atheists in some of their suits, but certainly that's not all the group does, as I pointed out regarding their work with the TSRA on the "traveling" statute and their alliance with the NRA and other groups on the issue of campaign finance.

[ISiddiqui]

Actually the quote was "Fixed it for you, as the ACLU's seemingly only purpose is to protect those two groups."

I would characterize that as more ignorant than prejudicial. The ACLU does represent criminals and atheists in some of their suits, but certainly that's not all the group does, as I pointed out regarding their work with the TSRA on the "traveling" statute and their alliance with the NRA and other groups on the issue of campaign finance.

Point was that Todd's post was in direct response to that one. He probably doesn't even believe it, but was using it to show how dumb the original statement about the ACLU was.

[CamEdwards]

Point was that Todd's post was in direct response to that one. He probably doesn't even believe it, but was using it to show how dumb the original statement about the ACLU was.

I think Todd should speak for Todd. And if someone else wants to point out the other work the ACLU's done, I've got no problem with that. I've already pointed out a couple of instances. I will say that responding to a dumb statement with another dumb statement doesn't usually make for an intelligent debate.

[Galaril]

Fair enough. Not sure why you put that word in quotation marks, though. The right to bear arms is just as much a right as freedom of speech.



There's better ways to tacking penalties on a criminals that screwing with law abiding citizens, I feel.

Sure because if someone doesn't agree with what I say I can just force by him to agree by gun point . I don't see the American Revolution being needed in this country anytime soon.

[rkmsuf]

So...why are brass knuckles illegal and guns are legal?

I mean I only would have brass knuckles for protection.

[Radii]

Have advocates of this bill had any responses to the questions raised by the NRA and other critics?

I'm very, very much pro-gun control, but just as much anti-expensive legislation that has no chance of actually doing anything functionally. The problems raised in the articles Coffee Warlord posted above and that Cam mentioned, from a technical and functional perspective, seem legitimate.

[Cringer]

Interestingly enough, the Texas State Rifle Association worked hand in hand with the Texas Chapter of the ACLU on a report that dealt with the "traveling" law in Texas (definition of "traveling" having an impact on how one has to store their legally owned firearm while in a vehicle). So the two sides can and do work together (campaign finance would be another issue on which the two groups were on the same side).

As far as microstamping goes, here are some of the problems. Now keep in mind, I'm not a spokesman for the NRA, just a journalist who covers this issue in great detail.

- the technology is unreliable and easily defeated. In two independent studies the microstamping technology was removed from the firing pin within a matter of minutes using simple household tools. Of course a far easier method for criminals to get around this would be to simply swap the firing pin itself.

- the technology is sole-sourced, meaning the patent holder on this technology would be able to charge a license fee of their choosing on every firearm equipped with this technology. This would add cost to the price of the firearm sold, again with little to no tangible benefit.

- practically speaking, firing pins wear out or break. What happens if you need to replace a part on a firearm costing $500 or more? Under the legislation proposed by Kennedy, it's unclear HOW you could legally swap out the firing pin. Additionally, thousands of gun owners in this country re-load their ammunition, which would also be problematic if the cartridge is supposed to be kept clear for the microstamping technology to work.

- who maintains the database and how much does THAT cost? Maryland and New York already have a "ballistic database" that's been in place for years, has cost tens of millions of dollars, and has helped solve a total of ONE crime (and even then, the ballistic database in Maryland was not the sole investigative tool used in solving that particular crime). This is money that could be better spent on additional law enforcement dollars, be it money for more police, more prosecutors, or additional prison beds.

Additionally, it should be noted (since the NY Times certainly didn't point it out) that in California, there were plenty of law enforcement agencies that actively OPPOSED microstamping legislation, including the Peace Officers Research Association of California (which represents 710 law enforcement groups and over 50,000 California cops). The Attorney General in California also did not endorse this legislation.

Imran says he really doesn't get the NRA. I really don't get people who think that reporters and editors who know very little about this issue could/would provide any semblance of accurate reporting. Given that the editorial from the Times says the NRA ignored "pleas" from law enforcement, when in fact there were many law enforcement organizations in California opposed to this legislation, says a lot about the honesty of the editorial board and the gullibility of some of the paper's readers.


Ah, I love waiting for Cam to post when the subject is guns. The man has the info I like to hear, the "other" side of the story.

Seems pointless if the technology is easy to get around and would just cost money. Sure it helps get the dumb killer who would probably get caught anyways because he left 12 other clues to who did it, but it's not going to stop guys getting guns through gangs or on the black market.

[CamEdwards]

Have advocates of this bill had any responses to the questions raised by the NRA and other critics?

I'm very, very much pro-gun control, but just as much anti-expensive legislation that has no chance of actually doing anything functionally. The problems raised in the articles Coffee Warlord posted above and that Cam mentioned, from a technical and functional perspective, seem legitimate.


Radii,

Here's the FAQ on microstamping from the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, the major gun control group pushing microstamping:

http://www.csgv.org/site/c.muLYJ7MMKrH/b.2822019/

As you can see, in the FAQ they don't address the criticisms.

In a "report" on microstamping the CSGV put out (available here: http://www.csgv.org/atf/cf/%7B23E96A35-4C75-41EE-BDDD-4BD3A3B59010%7D/CSGV%20Microstamping%20Memo%20Jan%202008.pdf) the response seems to be "nuh-uh". The authors claim that most criminals don't tamper with their firearms (which, if true, is only because the vast majority of guns used by criminals have been aquired illegally, so they can't be traced back to the criminal to begin with), and that "household tools" couldn't remove the microstamping. Yet George G. Krivosta, of the Suffolk County Crime Laboratory in New York and UC Davis grad student Michael Beddow both did tests on the technology and found that they COULD easily remove the microstamp.

[Subby]

wow - what a terrible idea.

[Radii]

<3 Cam, thanks.

[Subby]

Cam is the shit. He makes me wet my bed a little less.

[SFL Cat]

I think the NRA is so adamant against any type of legislation they feel might infringe on a person's right to legally own a firearm because as the saying goes, "if you give an inch, they take a mile."

And while I'm certainly not an avid gun person, I do think the NRA has a point. I'm all for qualified individuals being able to carry guns. After all, we've just seen a fine example of how effective "gun free zones" are at Northern Illinois.

[rkmsuf]

I think the NRA is so adamant against any type of legislation they feel might infringe on a person's right to legally own a firearm because as the saying goes, "if you give an inch, they take a mile."

And while I'm certainly not an avid gun person, I do think the NRA has a point. I'm all for qualified individuals being able to carry guns. After all, we've just seen a fine example of how effective "gun free zones" are at Northern Illinois.

Yeah, maybe if more of the people there had guns we could have had an old fashioned shootout.

[SFL Cat]

Yeah, maybe if more of the people there had guns we could have had an old fashioned shootout.

Or maybe someone could have dropped the perp while he was reloading.

[rkmsuf]

Or maybe someone could have dropped the perp while he was reloading.

maybe

yeah, that's what I want society to be like. everyone drawing their weapon for a variety of reasons or perceived reasons.

[SFL Cat]

okay, fine, then we'll just let guys like this go to malls/campuses and basically shoot fish in a barrel until the cops show up.

[rkmsuf]

okay, fine, then we'll just let guys like this go to malls/campuses and basically shoot fish in a barrel until the cops show up.

as opposed the alternative, then yes

we have examples of the alternative should you like to experience it

[SFL Cat]

Hopefully someone you know won't be one of the 5-20 casualties that generally result in cases like this.

[rkmsuf]

Hopefully someone you know won't be one of the 5-20 casualties that generally result in cases like this.

agree

[Oilers9911]

The only people that should be carrying guns around with them on the streets are cops and soldiers. Hunters, sure, going to a firing range for target practice, sure. Every day civilians walking around packing heat is just messed up.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I don't see the American Revolution being needed in this country anytime soon.

Let's see how the election turns out first, m'kay.

[Synovia]

Hopefully someone you know won't be one of the 5-20 casualties that generally result in cases like this.



You really think everyone having a gun would stop that? Yeah, the original Perp would kill less people, but you're talking about very confusing situations. Person A walks in starts shooting, person B pulls out a gun and guns down person A. Someone comes around the corner, sees a whole bunch of bodies and Person B holding a gun...


And the whole "people wouldn't shoot up a mall if they knew everyone was packing" argument is bogus. Most of these guys kill themselves. They're not worried about their own safety.

[bulletsponge]

so this law would allow you to have the right to own a gun, but if you exercise that right the government will have a database of it. Hmmm i wonder if everyone who likes this law would think its cool if that was applied to other constitutional rights? you have the right to free speech, but what ever you say will be noticed and put into a databank by the government.

this also sounds like it breaches the 4th admendment against illegal searches. the government can effectivly search your property (gun) without your consent. and since its likely illegal to remove (or will be soon after the law goes into effect) you cant remove a government tracking mechanism from your personal property. and knowing gun owners, the first thing they will do after buying a gun with this contraption is to remove it.

the constitition is there to protect us from the government, not to be our Mommy or Daddy

[CamEdwards]

The only people that should be carrying guns around with them on the streets are cops and soldiers. Hunters, sure, going to a firing range for target practice, sure. Every day civilians walking around packing heat is just messed up.

Sorry, can't let this go without commenting on it. There's currently one state in the union that doesn't permit any form or fashion of concealed carry, and that's Illinois. While Wisconsin also doesn't have a concealed carry law, the state Supreme Court has ruled in some cases concealed carry is allowed (most notably business owners carrying in their place of work). Forty states have "Shall Issue" concealed carry laws, which means if you meet the standards set by the state, you cannot be denied a concealed carry license. Eight states have what are called "may issue" laws, in which you can be denied by the licensing authority even if you meet the qualifying standards.

The violent crime rate in the ten non-"Shall Issue" states was 27.3% higher than the forty "Shall Issue" states at the end of 2006. In 2004 the figure was 26.5%. That would seem to indicate that if concealed carry doesn't lower violent crime, it certainly doesn't make the states with "Shall Issue" laws more violent.

Additionally, a study was done back in 2000 that looked at the arrest rate (arrests, not convictions) of concealed carry licensees in Texas, comparing that arrest rate with the arrest rate of the general population. The study found that licensees were 5.7 times less likely to be arrested for a violent offense than the general population and 14 times less likely to be arrested for a non-violent offense than the general population.

And don't forget, with the exception of Vermont, a person who gets a concealed carry license in most states has to be 21, pass a state and/or federal background check, attend a mandated training course, pass a written test, pass a shooting skills test, and agree to have their fingerprints on file with the FBI and state police.

So what about concealed carry makes you think it's "messed up"?

[Synovia]

this also sounds like it breaches the 4th admendment against illegal searches. the government can effectivly search your property (gun) without your consent. and since its likely illegal to remove (or will be soon after the law goes into effect) you cant remove a government tracking mechanism from your personal property. and knowing gun owners, the first thing they will do after buying a gun with this contraption is to remove it.


The exact same thing could be said about license plates.

[Synovia]

And don't forget, with the exception of Vermont, a person who gets a concealed carry license in most states has to be 21, pass a state and/or federal background check, attend a mandated training course, pass a written test, pass a shooting skills test, and agree to have their fingerprints on file with the FBI and state police.

It doesnt make any sense to me that they'd be okay with this, and not be okay with "their gun being trackable"

[BishopMVP]

The only people that should be carrying guns around with them on the streets are cops and soldiers. Hunters, sure, going to a firing range for target practice, sure. Every day civilians walking around packing heat is just messed up.Silly naive Canadians :)

[CamEdwards]

You really think everyone having a gun would stop that? Yeah, the original Perp would kill less people, but you're talking about very confusing situations. Person A walks in starts shooting, person B pulls out a gun and guns down person A. Someone comes around the corner, sees a whole bunch of bodies and Person B holding a gun...


And the whole "people wouldn't shoot up a mall if they knew everyone was packing" argument is bogus. Most of these guys kill themselves. They're not worried about their own safety.

That's a bit of a strawman argument. The majority of people in states with Shall Issue concealed carry still do not choose to become concealed carry licensees. I think it's fair to assume that if fewer places were posted "no guns allowed", you would see a modest rise in the number of concealed carry holders. But that change alone isn't going to convince you, or Oilers, or anyone else that they need to become gun owners, much less concealed carry licensees.

So I don't think you'd have to worry about there being too many people with guns. I think you'd still have to worry about there being one concealed carry holder when you need her. It would just up the odds a little bit.

[CamEdwards]

It doesnt make any sense to me that they'd be okay with this, and not be okay with "their gun being trackable"

Not every gun owner is a concealed carry holder. And a license that shows you're a concealed carry holder isn't exactly the same as a registration requirement for every firearm you own.

[Toddzilla]

Damn, a lot happened while I was napping :)

To sum it up:

(1) Yes, I purposely made a stupid statement - solicited mind you - in response to an unsolicited one. Cam, more often than not, is right. It doesn't make for intelligent debate. I've been in too many threads with Bubba it seems. My fault.

(2) I happen to have a very high opinion of the ACLU since they will defend anyone they see as having their constitutional rights violated. Their litmus test has nothing to do with the victim, since their position is to defend - in their eyes - constitution rights.

(3) That sounds to me an awful lot like the NRA to me. They come down on the side of the Constitution, NOT a particular person or group of people.

(4) I have no belief whatsoever that all or most gun owners are "god fearing-white nutjobs". That group is a tiny part of the intended constituency, similar to how "atheists and criminals" are a tiny part of the other. ISiddiqui hit it on the head, but it needs to come from me.

(5) I think my feelings about guns and firearms are well known, but that's really irrelevant to the topic. I think Cam hit this one out of the park so far as the technology goes.

All better?

[CamEdwards]

Damn, a lot happened while I was napping :)

To sum it up:

(1) Yes, I purposely made a stupid statement - solicited mind you - in response to an unsolicited one. Cam, more often than not, is right. It doesn't make for intelligent debate. I've been in too many threads with Bubba it seems. My fault.

(2) I happen to have a very high opinion of the ACLU since they will defend anyone they see as having their constitutional rights violated. Their litmus test has nothing to do with the victim, since their position is to defend - in their eyes - constitution rights.

(3) That sounds to me an awful lot like the NRA to me. They come down on the side of the Constitution, NOT a particular person or group of people.

(4) I have no belief whatsoever that all or most gun owners are "god fearing-white nutjobs". That group is a tiny part of the intended constituency, similar to how "atheists and criminals" are a tiny part of the other. ISiddiqui hit it on the head, but it needs to come from me.

(5) I think my feelings about guns and firearms are well known, but that's really irrelevant to the topic. I think Cam hit this one out of the park so far as the technology goes.

All better?

Smooches. If I wasn't working I'd offer to buy you a beer at Glory Days. We could toast to the ACLU and the NRA. :D

[Bubba Wheels]

Damn, a lot happened while I was napping :)

To sum it up:

(1) Yes, I purposely made a stupid statement - solicited mind you - in response to an unsolicited one. Cam, more often than not, is right. It doesn't make for intelligent debate. I've been in too many threads with Bubba it seems. My fault.

(2) I happen to have a very high opinion of the ACLU since they will defend anyone they see as promoting their hard-core lefty liberal new world order agenda as begun by their founder Communist Roger Baldwin while ignoring anyone elses' case that doesn't cater to their views.

Fixed it for ya! Sorry you can't think straight after going a few rounds with me, but not surprised. :)

[Toddzilla]

Go away, troll. This was an intelligent debate until you showed up.

[Warhammer]

The exact same thing could be said about license plates.

Except for the simple fact that the cops can't just strip search a guy to check and see if they did anything to their gun unless they had reason. If someone drives without a license plate on their car, they have all the justification they need to pull them over.

[Bubba Wheels]

Go away, troll. This was an intelligent debate until you showed up.

Just thought I would show up with a Troll-zilla like post on your view of things. :D

[CamEdwards]

this is the very definition of trolling. Can't contribute anything worthwhile to the conversation so it's "pay attention to ME!! pay attention to ME!!"

Way to annoy even the people who may be philosophically on the same side, Bubba.

[duckman]

Just thought I would show up with a Troll-zilla like post on your view of things. :D
http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d138/duckman76/a49dcfeb.jpg?t=1203116678

[Radii]

this is the very definition of trolling. Can't contribute anything worthwhile to the conversation so it's "pay attention to ME!! pay attention to ME!!"

Way to annoy even the people who may be philosophically on the same side, Bubba.

Cam is just dominating this thread from start to finish.

[CamEdwards]

Cam is just dominating this thread from start to finish.

Well, it helps that Bubba is the Leeroy Jenkins of conservatism. :p

[JonInMiddleGA]

this is the very definition of trolling.

Actually, the current signature of the piece of shit you're defending is pretty much the definition of trolling. If you want to jump in bed & defend that, that's your call but it sure as hell diminishes your credibility.

And I point that out as someone who thinks BW is pretty whack a great deal of the time.

[CamEdwards]

Actually, the current signature of the piece of shit you're defending is pretty much the definition of trolling. If you want to jump in bed & defend that, that's your call but it sure as hell diminishes your credibility.

And I point that out as someone who thinks BW is pretty whack a great deal of the time.

Honestly Jon, I don't pay attention to people's signatures. They're like billboards as far as I'm concerned, I just don't see them anymore.

Having looked at Todd's sig, yes, I'd consider that trolling, especially if I was the recepient of said sig (though I suppose it's a different kind of trolling than what Bubba's doing). However, I never even mentioned Todd when it came to Bubba. I was berating Bubba over the fact that I took the time to make serious substantive arguments about this issue only to have him come along and jerk off all over this thread.

And lest I be accused of not responding to Jon calling Todd a "piece of shit"... I have four children in my house that provide me with enough refereeing over name-calling. If that's where this thread's headed, I'm checking out.

[DaddyTorgo]

I wonder what Noop's opinion of this is....

[DaddyTorgo]

Honestly Jon, I don't pay attention to people's signatures. They're like billboards as far as I'm concerned, I just don't see them anymore.

Having looked at Todd's sig, yes, I'd consider that trolling, especially if I was the recepient of said sig (though I suppose it's a different kind of trolling than what Bubba's doing). However, I never even mentioned Todd when it came to Bubba. I was berating Bubba over the fact that I took the time to make serious substantive arguments about this issue only to have him come along and jerk off all over this thread.

And lest I be accused of not responding to Jon calling Todd a "piece of shit"... I have four children in my house that provide me with enough refereeing over name-calling. If that's where this thread's headed, I'm checking out.

as a liberal, I <3 Cam. It's nice to have an intelligent, non-name-calling conservative to discuss things with on an intellectual level.

[CamEdwards]

as a liberal, I <3 Cam. It's nice to have an intelligent, non-name-calling conservative to discuss things with on an intellectual level.

To be fair, I did call Bubba the "Leeroy Jenkins of conservatism", which I suppose could be considered trolling in its own right. Whatever. I was annoyed.

[Bubba Wheels]

this is the very definition of trolling. Can't contribute anything worthwhile to the conversation so it's "pay attention to ME!! pay attention to ME!!"

Way to annoy even the people who may be philosophically on the same side, Bubba.

Well, alright...

1.) Couldn't resist proving my point that someone of the likes of said aftermentioned recipient of my previous verbal jab has made a career of doing exactly what I did to many of my points of view without ever getting called on it at all. So its never been about trolling per se, its always been about who does the trolling...aftermentioned person must have a life-time pass on it. Sorry it took place after your post but...

2.) My comments on the ACLU that were so praised to the high-heavens are valid. ACLU is clearly a biased organization that will defend NAMBLA in Massachussetts while ignoring a teacher being reprimanded for wearing a cross around her neck in New York. Plain double-standard. And founder Roger Baldwin was a Communist and did found that organization as a defender of Communists in America until after ww2 and the cold war started. Then it suddenly became all about 'the constitution.' Right.

[CamEdwards]

Well, alright...

1.) Couldn't resist proving my point that someone of the likes of said aftermentioned recipient of my previous verbal jab has made a career of doing exactly what I did to many of my points of view without ever getting called on it at all. So its never been about trolling per se, its always been about who does the trolling...aftermentioned person must have a life-time pass on it. Sorry it took place after your post but...

2.) My comments on the ACLU that were so praised to the high-heavens are valid. ACLU is clearly a biased organization that will defend NAMBLA in Massachussetts while ignoring a teacher being reprimanded for wearing a cross around her neck in New York. Plain double-standard. And founder Roger Baldwin was a Communist and did found that organization as a defender of Communists in America until after ww2 and the cold war started. Then it suddenly became all about 'the constitution.' Right.

Bubba, if every post of yours was as thoughtful as this, you would soon lose the reputation you have.

I don't think anybody was arguing the ACLU isn't a liberal organization. I don't even think anybody was arguing that the ACLU hasn't represented "Communists" and "atheists". Hell, nobody can dispute that the ACLU is defending a group of wanna-be and maybe are child-rapists.

And nobody's disputing that Todd likes the ACLU. Not even Todd. But if you want to engage Todd in a debate about the cases the ACLU takes, you've got a strange way of doing it. And the way you went about it pissed me off because it was designed to attract attention to you rather than the or the serious arguments I was making about the validity of microstamping and concealed carry or even the ACLU.

[sabotai]

ACLU is clearly a biased organization that will defend NAMBLA in Massachussetts while ignoring a teacher being reprimanded for wearing a cross around her neck in New York.

What about when the ACLU in NJ defended a student who wanted to sing "Awesome God" in an after-school talent show and the school tried to stop her? Or how about when the ACLU in Iowa sued the state because a school tried to stop students from passing out religious literature (yes, Christian literature) during non-instructional time? Or how about when the ACLU sued the state of Missouri because a nurse was fired for wearing a cross on her uniform? Or how about when they defended two women in Massachusetts who were fired for refusing to work on Christmas Day? Or how about the many of cases where they support and defend pro-lifers protesting abortion clinics? And the many times they support and defend the rights of Christians to protest gay pride events?

I'm wondering how all of this, and much more, fits into the idea that they "will defend anyone they see as promoting their hard-core lefty liberal new world order agenda as begun by their founder Communist Roger Baldwin while ignoring anyone elses' case that doesn't cater to their views".

[DaddyTorgo]

What about when the ACLU in NJ defended a student who wanted to sing "Awesome God" in an after-school talent show and the school tried to stop her? Or how about when the ACLU in Iowa sued the state because a school tried to stop students from passing out religious literature (yes, Christian literature) during non-instructional time? Or how about when the ACLU sued the state of Missouri because a nurse was fired for wearing a cross on her uniform? Or how about when they defended two women in Massachusetts who were fired for refusing to work on Christmas Day? Or how about the many of cases where they support and defend pro-lifers protesting abortion clinics? And the many times they support and defend the rights of Christians to protest gay pride events?

I'm wondering how all of this, and much more, fits into the idea that they "will defend anyone they see as promoting their hard-core lefty liberal new world order agenda as begun by their founder Communist Roger Baldwin while ignoring anyone elses' case that doesn't cater to their views".

sabotai FTW

I think we just tend to hear more about one side than the other because of the particular cases drawing media attention.

[JPhillips]

Bubba: Are you opposed to the Pledge of Allegiance? A Socialist came up with that as a way to get people comfortable with worshiping the state. And does that make Obama anti-socialist? It's all so confusing.

[Brian Swartz]

You really think everyone having a gun would stop that? Yeah, the original Perp would kill less people, but you're talking about very confusing situations. Person A walks in starts shooting, person B pulls out a gun and guns down person A. Someone comes around the corner, sees a whole bunch of bodies and Person B holding a gun...


And the whole "people wouldn't shoot up a mall if they knew everyone was packing" argument is bogus. Most of these guys kill themselves. They're not worried about their own safety.

Let's go to a fairly well-known example of what tends to happen in these situations. January, 2002, in Grundy, VA. Appalachian School of Law. A student is told they will be suspended because of bad grades. They take a handgun and kill three people, wounding three others, before being taken down by three other students.

Except the main reason the last three were able to take him down was because two of them had guns. None of them got confused and tried to shoot at the wrong person.

Bonus points for anyone who knows roughly what % of news outlets so much as mentioned, even in passing, that the students who took out the gunman did so with the aid of their own firearms.

Point being, the risk of accidental 'additional' deaths in these situations is FAR less than the risk of additional deaths caused by original gunman, to the point where they aren't even comparable. <!-- / message -->

[WVUFAN]

Damn, a lot happened while I was napping :)

To sum it up:

(1) Yes, I purposely made a stupid statement - solicited mind you - in response to an unsolicited one. Cam, more often than not, is right. It doesn't make for intelligent debate. I've been in too many threads with Bubba it seems. My fault.

(

Since I was the one who started the stupid statement on what was at that point a good debate, I need to apologize for that statement. I'm not a fan of the ACLU because of a whole lot of reasons, but I should have not typed that very troll-like statement.

[Uncle Briggs]

And the whole "people wouldn't shoot up a mall if they knew everyone was packing" argument is bogus. Most of these guys kill themselves. They're not worried about their own safety.

They do care how they die. You know these people hate the cops more than random people at school or a mall. And yet, they never go after the cops, and kill themselves when the cops show up. They pick unarmed targets because they want the power, and they "win" if they die on their own terms. Don't credit these losers with having balls; that's one of their motivations.

[Phototropic]

Point being, the risk of accidental 'additional' deaths in these situations is FAR less than the risk of additional deaths caused by original gunman, to the point where they aren't even comparable.
What would you estimate as the risk of accidental (or non-accidental) death outside of these situations when everyone else is carrying a weapon?

[Brian Swartz]

I wouldn't have any idea what to estimate it at. These things have to evaluate in a more or less likely manner I think, trying to assign numbers to them would be pure conjecture IMO.

I think the deterrent effect is important though. There is no absolute safety anywhere in a modern society, but I think there's more of it when the criminal element has to be concerned about whether or not the average citizen might be carrying a weapon. Fundamentally, I think the body of evidence we have available points to the concept that the weapon itself is not the problem.

[CamEdwards]

What would you estimate as the risk of accidental (or non-accidental) death outside of these situations when everyone else is carrying a weapon?

Again, not "Everyone" would be carrying concealed. Most states already have concealed carry.

In 2006, there were 730 accidental firearms deaths. There are (estimated) 60-80 million American gun owners.

In 2006 there were also 809 deaths from being struck by an object accidentally, 893 accidental deaths from natural heat or cold, 1,307 accidental suffocations, 3,306 accidental drownings, 3,369 deaths from fire or smoke inhalation, 4,272 deaths by accidental choking on something, 17,229 accidental fatalities from falls, 19,457 accidental poisoning fatalities and 44,757 car accident fatalities.

Since you're asking what you think the accidental firearm fatalities would be like outside of these mass shooting scenarios, I'm hopeful you'll find these statistics useful.

By the way, the number of accidental firearms fatalities is falling. In 1930 the number of accidental firearms fatalities was 3200. These numbers come from the National Safety Council's 2007 Injury Facts if you want to check them out for yourself.

[Phototropic]

Again, not "Everyone" would be carrying concealed. Most states already have concealed carry.

In 2006, there were 730 accidental firearms deaths. There are (estimated) 60-80 million American gun owners.

In 2006 there were also 809 deaths from being struck by an object accidentally, 893 accidental deaths from natural heat or cold, 1,307 accidental suffocations, 3,306 accidental drownings, 3,369 deaths from fire or smoke inhalation, 4,272 deaths by accidental choking on something, 17,229 accidental fatalities from falls, 19,457 accidental poisoning fatalities and 44,757 car accident fatalities.

Since you're asking what you think the accidental firearm fatalities would be like outside of these mass shooting scenarios, I'm hopeful you'll find these statistics useful.

By the way, the number of accidental firearms fatalities is falling. In 1930 the number of accidental firearms fatalities was 3200. These numbers come from the National Safety Council's 2007 Injury Facts if you want to check them out for yourself.

They are useful although I should have emphasized the non-accidental side more. I would imagine we'd see more attacks with a higher percentage of the populaton carrying a weapon. It sounds very callous, but school shootings have never really gotten to me. I understand that I would feel differently were I more closely affected, but in the grand scheme of things the proposed countermeasures seem extreme.

[CamEdwards]

They are useful although I should have emphasized the non-accidental side more. I would imagine we'd see more attacks with a higher percentage of the populaton carrying a weapon. It sounds very callous, but school shootings have never really gotten to me. I understand that I would feel differently were I more closely affected, but in the grand scheme of things the proposed countermeasures seem extreme.

Well, you can check out the statistics I cited further up in the thread. "Shall Issue" concealed carry states have a much lower violent crime rate than states with limited concealed carry. I'm not saying that concealed carry is the reason, but concealed carry certainly doesn't appear to increase non-accidental shootings.

[Synovia]

Again, not "Everyone" would be carrying concealed. Most states already have concealed carry.
Cam, most of your posts have been great, but you're responding right now to a train of thought that was started when someone basically said "I doubt school shootiings would happen if everyone carried a gun"

So yeah, for the purpose of that argument, everyone IS carrying a gun.

[BishopMVP]

By the way, the number of accidental firearms fatalities is falling. In 1930 the number of accidental firearms fatalities was 3200.:eek: What was going on in 1930? Was this because of bad guns misfiring or going off unintentionally, or did they take suicides from the Great Depression into the count? That just seems ridiculous to have 5x as many shootings given the smaller population and everything.

[RainMaker]

My issue isn't so much with guns but with the fact a guy who spent a year in a mental hospital was able to get a gun so easily.

[CamEdwards]

Cam, most of your posts have been great, but you're responding right now to a train of thought that was started when someone basically said "I doubt school shootiings would happen if everyone carried a gun"

So yeah, for the purpose of that argument, everyone IS carrying a gun.

Actually it was SFL Cat, who said "I'm all for qualified individuals being able to carry guns. After all, we've just seen a fine example of how effective "gun free zones" are at Northern Illinois."

Not to be a dick in pointing this out, but you're the first person who brought up "everyone" carrying a firearm (though rkmsuf wasn't far behind). Either way, I don't think it makes much sense to have an argument about something that's never going to happen (100% rate of concealed carry).

[flere-imsaho]

dola- and yes Flere, I still post here.

That was mostly a :p post by me, to be honest, because I expect you to be all over gun threads. I mean, showing up after 31 posts?! You're slipping, man! :D

Although, you've now made up for it.

Or maybe someone could have dropped the perp while he was reloading.

Maybe someone would have pulled their trigger just as a screaming student ran in front of them. Maybe someone would have missed the perp and a ricochet would have killed another student. Maybe someone's gun, the night previously, may have been the vehicle of an accidental shooting during a late-night dorm party.

Extrapolating policy from a single incident doesn't make a lot of sense.