[Vision2020] Firearms - Dangerous or Useful?

[Ted Moffett]

Mike et. al.

I will enumerate 5 critical issues, in responding to Mike's post:

Mike wrote "People who stress the danger of gun ownership without putting it
in context are not giving you the full story, for whatever reason."

In pursuing the full story, perhaps you can respond to each numbered point
below?

Mike wrote:

Total homicide and suicide rates around the world don't appear to be related
to the rate of firearms ownership.
----

1)  This statement is highly questionable.  There is reliable data
correlating lower or higher rates of firearm ownership in many nations with
either a lower or higher rate of murder.  Consider one example, comparing
Canada's murder rate to the USA's, where the murder rate by other means in
Canada is about equal to the USA, while the murder rate from handguns is 15
times higher in the USA than Canada.  To claim that there is no causal
relation between the 77 million hand guns in the USA (compared to the
roughly 1 million in Canada) and the 15 to 1 ratio in the handgun murder
rate between the USA and Canada requires explanation.  Perhaps no proof can
be offered that this greatly increased access to handguns in the USA is
casually related to the greatly larger US murder rate, but to prove it is
not is also problematic.

Info comparing Canada to the USA on murder and handguns:

http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/international.html
-------------

2)  As is often stressed by those who promote less firearm regulation,
firearms are a preferred means of self defense, because they are so
effective and convenient when needed for this purpose.  If other forms of
"tools" were as effective and convenient as firearms in inflicting enough
damage to stop an attacker, there would be no need to focus so exclusively
on firearms for this purpose.  We'd be discussing knife or baseball bat or
taser, etc. rights of ownership.  This exposes that in fact, firearm use is
associated with a higher risk this will result in death or serious injury,
compared to many other weapons that might be employed by those doing
violence.  Easy access to firearms cuts both ways, offering powerful self
defense, but also more easy access to firearms for criminals who may kill
someone without intending this level of harm in the commission of their
crime, due to the power of firearms to inflict damage.

I located research on the subject of the rate of firearms when used
inflicting death or serious injury, compared to rate of other common
"weapons" when used inflicting death or serious injury, but the information
was not available for public posting.

Mike wrote:

Firearms are dangerous, but most of the people who are being killed are
already involved in criminal behavior and the death rate among children is
very much lower than other types of accidents.
-----
3)  So criminals deaths are not to be considered in the human and financial
costs to society from firearm violence?  Consider the amount of violence
among urban youth using firearms.  Many of these youth are involved in
criminal behavior, but standing on a street corner selling dime bags of
cannabis renders someone a criminal.  Of course self defense is always
justified when confronting a violent criminal.  But why put the fuel of easy
access to firearms (at unregulated gun shows, for example) onto the fire of
underground gang and drug crime, often youth related?

Mike is not offering the shocking data on youth deaths from firearm violence
in the USA.  Youth (or someone of any age) being killed by firearm violence,
even when engaged in criminal behavior, are still human beings, with
mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, friends and loved ones, and their
deaths are a tragedy for all of us, an expression of an out of control
culture of violence in the USA, while placing a burden upon hospital
emergency rooms, and long term medical care, when firearm violence results
in serious injury not death.  Note that by "youth" the Centers For Disease
Control web site below offers data for 10-24 year olds:

http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/yvfacts.htm

 In 2003, 5,570 young people ages 10 to 24 were murdered—an average of 15
each day. Of these victims, 82% were killed with firearms (CDC 2006).

4)  Regarding the Hamilton case, while you focus on the mental health issue,
and what sort of firearms he used, you do not mention that the primary
reason he should have had his firearms seized by law enforcement, was that
he was convicted in court of violent crime, attempted strangulation.

5)  I posted to this list information regarding the gun show loopholes that
make it easy for criminals and others wishing to bypass scrutiny for their
firearm purchases.  So what if there is a registry for those with mental
problems to not be allowed to purchase firearms, if the sale of firearms can
be conducted at advertised gun shows bypassing this registry?

I am curious if you would agree that gun shows should be monitored via more
strict nationwide regulations, like the strict regulation of gun shows in
California, to prevent sales to criminals, straw purchases, or purchases
that skip background checks, such as what occurs in other states that do not
have California's more strict gun show regulations?

If you did not read the post on the gun show loophole issue, please read the
information at this web link:

http://www.physorg.com/news100839164.html

------
Ted Moffett

On 7/29/07, Mike Finkbiner <mike_l_f at hotmail.com> wrote:

> My earlier post dragged some numbers into the debate, because I think a
> lot
> of people treat the issue of firearms as an emotional issue and don't look
> at the facts.  The page I listed
>
> http://www.gunowners.org/sourcetb.htm
>
> is merely a group of links to the original studies so those interested
> could
> look at them.  Any post on V2020 has to oversimplify a complex issue like
> this, which is why I think we need to reference more detailed work.
>
> The main points I was trying to make are -
>
> 1) When we want to discuss the dangers of any technology, we need to
> include
> the benefits as well as the risks.  Firearms have many benefits to honest
> citizens who are being preyed upon by criminals.
>
> 2) Firearms are dangerous, but most of the people who are being killed are
> already involved in criminal behavior and the death rate among children is
> very much lower than other types of accidents.   Honest people are very
> unlikely to be killed by guns in their houses, and while keeping guns out
> of
> children's hands is important, fences around swimming pools might save
> more
> lives.  People who stress the danger of gun ownership without putting it
> in
> context are not giving you the full story, for whatever reason.
>
> 3) Total homicide and suicide rates around the world don't appear to be
> related to the rate of firearms ownership.
>
> I didn't get into the question of rights, but here's my brief take on it.
>
> To my mind it's quite clear that honest citizens have the right to self
> defense against both criminals and tyrants, and the people who wrote the
> Constitution simply codified that as the second most important amendment
> after free speech.  Look at the infamous Dred Scott decision, the 1856
> Supreme Court case which essentially held that blacks were not citizens.
> Here's part of their reasoning -
>
> "It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognized as
> citizens
> in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State
> whenever
> they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and
> without
> obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they
> pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they
> committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished;
> and
> it would give them the full liberty of speech in public, and in private
> upon
> all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public
> meetings upon political affairs, and TO KEEP AND CARRY ARMS WHERE THEY
> WENT."   (Emphasis added)
>
> In other words, if they allowed blacks to be citizens they could keep and
> bear arms, which terrified many people at the time.  Most gun control laws
> in this country started as a means of controlling the lower classes
> (blacks,
> Italians, Irishmen, etc.)
>
> As a society we have generally held that certain people forfeit at least
> some of the rights as citizens, such as voting or firearms ownership. That
> included convicted felons and people who are involuntarily committed to
> mental institutions by the courts.
>
> The second part has been harder to deal with then the first, but the NRA
> just joined with a wide range of people in congress to change the instant
> check program.  H.R. 2640 will give financial support to the states to put
> people with mental health orders saying they are dangerous or mentally
> incompetant on the national list of people who are prohibited from owning
> firearms.
>
> - http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=3128
>
> I'm not clear if Hamilton would have been on that part of the list, but we
> as a state need to to do some serious thinking about how we handle people
> like him.
>
> As far as the comments about his access to armor piercing ammunition and
> automatic weapons, I don't believe he had either.  Almost any ammunition
> fired from a normal hunting rifle will pierce soft armor, the sort that
> policemen generally wear.   They are designed to defeat normal pistol
> rounds, so armor piercing ammunition wouldn't be needed.  Our troops in
> Iraq
> are wearing heavier vests, with pockets for special hard plates which will
> defeat many, but not all, normal rifle rounds.
>
> Both of the weapons he had, were standard semi-automatic rifles.  There
> was
> some confusion about the AK-47 clone he used, but when the police tried it
> they found it will only fire one round each time you pull the trigger.
> Both rifles have magazines which can be replaced, and he had several for
> each so he was able to quickly reload and keep firing, but only one round
> at
> a time.
>
> So - we need to hold people responsible for their actions.  Crimes
> committed
> with firearms should be punished much more severely than those without.
> People who are careless about allowing untrained people access to their
> firearms should be held responsible.  Training and education about safe
> firearms use is important.
>
> Oleg Volk came to the country from Russia many years ago.  He does a far
> more eloquent job than I can to put the case for responsible gun
> ownership,
> unfettered by a government which may not always have the rights of honest
> citizens at heart.
>
> - http://www.a-human-right.com/introduction.html
>
>
> - Mike
>
>
> Mike Finkbiner
> mike_l_f at hotmail.com
>
> Disclaimer: No trees were harmed in the sending of this message; however,
> a
> significant number of electrons were slightly inconvenienced.
>
>
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>               http://www.fsr.net
>          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20070729/dab2e8ea/attachment-0001.html