<div>Mike et. al.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I will enumerate 5 critical issues, in responding to Mike's post:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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."</div>
<div> </div>
<div>In pursuing the full story, perhaps you can respond to each numbered point below?<br> </div>
<div>Mike wrote:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Total homicide and suicide rates around the world don't appear to be related to the rate of firearms ownership.<br>----</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Info comparing Canada to the USA on murder and handguns:</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/international.html">http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/international.html</a></div>
<div>-------------</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Mike wrote:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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. </div>
<div>-----</div>
<div>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?
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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:
</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/yvfacts.htm">http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/yvfacts.htm</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div>
<li><font face="verdana, arial, helvetica" size="2">In 2003, 5,570 young people ages 10 to 24 were murdered—an average of 15 each day. Of these victims, 82% were </font><font face="verdana, arial, helvetica" size="2">killed with firearms (CDC 2006).
</font></li></div>
<div> </div>
<div>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.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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?
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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?
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>If you did not read the post on the gun show loophole issue, please read the information at this web link:</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://www.physorg.com/news100839164.html" target="_blank">http://www.physorg.com/news100839164.html</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div>------</div>
<div>Ted Moffett</div>
<div> </div>
<div><span class="gmail_quote">On 7/29/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Mike Finkbiner</b> <<a href="mailto:mike_l_f@hotmail.com">mike_l_f@hotmail.com</a>> wrote:</span></div>
<div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">My earlier post dragged some numbers into the debate, because I think a lot<br>of people treat the issue of firearms as an emotional issue and don't look
<br>at the facts. The page I listed<br><br><a href="http://www.gunowners.org/sourcetb.htm">http://www.gunowners.org/sourcetb.htm</a><br><br>is merely a group of links to the original studies so those interested could<br>
look at them. Any post on V2020 has to oversimplify a complex issue like<br>this, which is why I think we need to reference more detailed work.<br><br>The main points I was trying to make are -<br><br>1) When we want to discuss the dangers of any technology, we need to include
<br>the benefits as well as the risks. Firearms have many benefits to honest<br>citizens who are being preyed upon by criminals.<br><br>2) Firearms are dangerous, but most of the people who are being killed are<br>already involved in criminal behavior and the death rate among children is
<br>very much lower than other types of accidents. Honest people are very<br>unlikely to be killed by guns in their houses, and while keeping guns out of<br>children's hands is important, fences around swimming pools might save more
<br>lives. People who stress the danger of gun ownership without putting it in<br>context are not giving you the full story, for whatever reason.<br><br>3) Total homicide and suicide rates around the world don't appear to be
<br>related to the rate of firearms ownership.<br><br>I didn't get into the question of rights, but here's my brief take on it.<br><br>To my mind it's quite clear that honest citizens have the right to self<br>
defense against both criminals and tyrants, and the people who wrote the<br>Constitution simply codified that as the second most important amendment<br>after free speech. Look at the infamous Dred Scott decision, the 1856
<br>Supreme Court case which essentially held that blacks were not citizens.<br>Here's part of their reasoning -<br><br>"It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognized as citizens<br>in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever
<br>they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without<br>obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they<br>pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they
<br>committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and<br>it would give them the full liberty of speech in public, and in private upon<br>all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public
<br>meetings upon political affairs, and TO KEEP AND CARRY ARMS WHERE THEY<br>WENT." (Emphasis added)<br><br>In other words, if they allowed blacks to be citizens they could keep and<br>bear arms, which terrified many people at the time. Most gun control laws
<br>in this country started as a means of controlling the lower classes (blacks,<br>Italians, Irishmen, etc.)<br><br>As a society we have generally held that certain people forfeit at least<br>some of the rights as citizens, such as voting or firearms ownership. That
<br>included convicted felons and people who are involuntarily committed to<br>mental institutions by the courts.<br><br>The second part has been harder to deal with then the first, but the NRA<br>just joined with a wide range of people in congress to change the instant
<br>check program. H.R. 2640 will give financial support to the states to put<br>people with mental health orders saying they are dangerous or mentally<br>incompetant on the national list of people who are prohibited from owning
<br>firearms.<br><br>- <a href="http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=3128">http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=3128</a><br><br>I'm not clear if Hamilton would have been on that part of the list, but we
<br>as a state need to to do some serious thinking about how we handle people<br>like him.<br><br>As far as the comments about his access to armor piercing ammunition and<br>automatic weapons, I don't believe he had either. Almost any ammunition
<br>fired from a normal hunting rifle will pierce soft armor, the sort that<br>policemen generally wear. They are designed to defeat normal pistol<br>rounds, so armor piercing ammunition wouldn't be needed. Our troops in Iraq
<br>are wearing heavier vests, with pockets for special hard plates which will<br>defeat many, but not all, normal rifle rounds.<br><br>Both of the weapons he had, were standard semi-automatic rifles. There was<br>some confusion about the AK-47 clone he used, but when the police tried it
<br>they found it will only fire one round each time you pull the trigger.<br>Both rifles have magazines which can be replaced, and he had several for<br>each so he was able to quickly reload and keep firing, but only one round at
<br>a time.<br><br>So - we need to hold people responsible for their actions. Crimes committed<br>with firearms should be punished much more severely than those without.<br>People who are careless about allowing untrained people access to their
<br>firearms should be held responsible. Training and education about safe<br>firearms use is important.<br><br>Oleg Volk came to the country from Russia many years ago. He does a far<br>more eloquent job than I can to put the case for responsible gun ownership,
<br>unfettered by a government which may not always have the rights of honest<br>citizens at heart.<br><br>- <a href="http://www.a-human-right.com/introduction.html">http://www.a-human-right.com/introduction.html</a><br><br>
<br>- Mike<br><br><br>Mike Finkbiner<br><a href="mailto:mike_l_f@hotmail.com">mike_l_f@hotmail.com</a><br><br>Disclaimer: No trees were harmed in the sending of this message; however, a<br>significant number of electrons were slightly inconvenienced.
<br><br><br>=======================================================<br>List services made available by First Step Internet,<br>serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.<br> <a href="http://www.fsr.net">
http://www.fsr.net</a><br> mailto:<a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">Vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>=======================================================<br></blockquote></div><br>