19,361

[Honda]

I don't think that anyone should assume logic plays a large role in jurisprudence.

Nor does it in religion

[Truckman]

The missing data is how many crimes against persons or property were prevented by the presence of the weapon? That's something I doubt we will ever know, but I have no doubt that it is a big number.

And to Mike's Point

https://www.foxnews.com/us/new-orlea...g-near-airport

In this update to Tom's linked news item, Mike's point is emphasized; it is shown how the debate here can never be argued conclusively without adding the number of lives saved by the presence of armed defenders at any such criminal event...

Armed citizens were credited with limiting fatalities in a shooting in Louisiana on Saturday that left three people dead, including the suspect, according to authorities.

...Ben

[Kevin]

That's not exactly Mike's point. Mike was talking about the number of times the presence of a gun deterred crime, which is essentially unknowable but likely significant.

If the hammer is dropped, then this becomes reportable, and so is likely counted as a defensive shooting.

Or so I understand it. I could be wrong.

[Kevin]

The basic problem in the Louisiana shooting is knowing how many people were NOT shot. No one can possibly know. We only know what DID happen.

[Truckman]

That's not exactly Mike's point. Mike was talking about the number of times the presence of a gun deterred crime.

Although it's never advisable to argue a point with you, Kevin, I'll point out that the "presence" of those armed defenders did deter any further crimes committed by the now deceased assailant......Ben

[Kevin]

Perhaps so. Even likely so. We cannot know for certain because it may be that he would have stopped shooting without being shot. All we can know for sure is that a defensive use of a gun occurred and he was stopped, a manifestly good thing.

Would he have shot more people if he hadn't been stopped? Most probably. We can never know for certain because he was stopped. What did not happen is fundamentally unknowable.

I'm really not trying to be argumentative. What I'm trying to show is that these discussions end up being about beliefs rather than quantifiable facts. And so, they end up being about how one views the world and that is not something that is open to discussion in any real sense.

But all this is about possession issues and whether someone should be allowed to carry a gun. I'd prefer to talk about what can be done to make guns safer to use and buy/sell. We get so wound up in issues of carry we forget that guns can be made safer aside from the issue of possession in public.

[Mike]

....... what can be done to make guns safer to use and buy/sell.........

I assume you are talking about things like Smart Guns. Or may be some other technology.

These things come at a cost premium over today's firearms. That means those with lower incomes may be denied ownership. It is blatantly unfair to minorities.

[Honda]

What do you propose Kevin? Please outline with certainty.

[Independent Voter]

Currently there are 330 + - million guns in the hands of civilians in the U.S. Without confiscation and destruction , how are they going to be made " safe " .

[Kevin]

Mike, it is not blatantly unfair to minorities or those with less income to require features that raise the cost of guns over what guns cost now. To argue that point, you'd have to be giving guns away for free, since guns come at a positive price point now. You are not calling the fact that guns cost something now unfair, so increasing the price is not manifestly unfair.

[Kevin]

I'm talking only somewhat in terms of Smart Guns. That's a technological fix that I believe will happen.

I don't have any problem at all with people carrying in public. I'm not out to decrease their enjoyment of their Second Amendment rights in that regard. I'm not talking about possession issues at all. Carry three guns in public, I don't care.

What I'm talking about is:

1) Making certain the right person is trusted with a gun - background checks, training if you are going to carry in public. I want to know that if I am trusting you to have the right to shoot someone, you know the law and have shown some sort of proficiency. Your enjoyment of your 2A rights doesn't require me to simply swallow hard and hope. I want some assurance. This is a cooperative society, after all.

2) Make certain guns don't flow to the wrong people - crackdown on straw purchases and shady FFLs, the two biggest sources of illegal guns used in crime. If your gun is stolen, it must be reported stolen. If it shows up later as used in a crime and it hasn't been reported stolen, the owner is also going to be investigated. No private sales - everything through an FFL and a background check.

3) Make certain that the maximum punishment is incurred for using a gun in a crime - Asian nations solved their drug problems, when they decided to actually do something about it, by having harsh, certain, swift punishment for offenders, no exceptions. Yes, that means more people in prisons for time but you can bet that a year or two after seeing everyone they know who uses a gun go to jail for life, criminals will use them less often. The number of people using guns in crime will likely decrease after a short increase. Call the the "enforce the existing law, plus make it harsher" option.

4) Safer new guns.

I don't see this as onerous. It means you can carry in public if you demonstrate competency with the gun and the law. It regularizes the transfer process for sales. It keeps future guns out of the hands of criminals, which is the problem, not the individual legal gun owner. And for present guns, it decreases the likelihood they will be used in a crime. It keeps the main focus on criminal use, not possession as such, which is where a lot of gun grabbers want to go.

Thing is, too many people have IV's idea, that nothing can be done. I can guarantee you that such an attitude assures that when something IS done, you won't like the result.

[Mike]

Mike, it is not blatantly unfair to minorities or those with less income to require features that raise the cost of guns over what guns cost now. To argue that point, you'd have to be giving guns away for free, since guns come at a positive price point now. You are not calling the fact that guns cost something now unfair, so increasing the price is not manifestly unfair.

Disagree.

The SCOTUS recognized that self defense is a natural right in The District of Columbia vs. Heller. That natural right pretty is much useless without the means to do so.

Setting the price of firearms so high that they is not affordable or available to low-income citizens pretty much nullifies their ability to defend themselves and thus impinges on their rights.

Kind of the same thing as poll taxes took away their ability to vote, even though they had the right.

[Kevin]

Depends how much the added features cost. You say a lot. I say technology always decreases in price.

And note that I said "new guns". With a gazillion guns already in circulation, the idea that a feature on a new gun will put the right to bear arms out of reach is not tenable.

The 2A doesn't talk about a right to bear new arms.

[Kevin]

What about the rest of the proposals I mentioned? You have to at least admit they are primarily focused on the people misusing firearms.

[Mike]

To address your proposals:

1) I think we need to have universal background checks. Person to person sales included.

2) Agree.

3) Works for me.

4) I agree as long as it is a goal and not something that would outlaw current guns.

The thing is, nothing will keep guns out of the hands of determined criminals. You can confiscate every gun in the land and criminals will find ways to get them. Pretty much every day I read about arrests and gun seizures in countries where they are banned or severely restricted. By their very nature, criminals don't give a damn about the law.