Another fact not often mentioned is that gun deaths are frequently worse in areas with strict gun control laws.  There's a reason why Washington DC and Chicago have high gun slayings per year: they have some of the strictest gun laws in the nation.

 

Then you have a state like Montana, where just about everyone is armed, and murder by gun rates are extremely low.  The last few murders where I live have been either knives or bare hands.  Nor do gun bans solve all violence: there was a school shooting in Germany a few weeks ago, and serial killers in Japan don't seem to be deterred by Japan's ban on personal weapons.

 

I'm not a particular fan of civilian-owned assault rifles, but neither will I stand in the way of someone owning one.

 

Then you have a state like Montana, where just about everyone is armed, and murder by gun rates are extremely low.  The last few murders where I live have been either knives or bare hands.  Nor do gun bans solve all violence: there was a school shooting in Germany a few weeks ago, and serial killers in Japan don't seem to be deterred by Japan's ban on personal weapons.

I thought the daily toll was much higher.  I'm thinking the more people now die violently in the US then do in Iraq.

 

---  CHAS

 

 

Gun control overdue!!!

The Bureau of Justice Statistics notes that around 80% of all homicides (and we can safely assume at least 80% of all gun homicides) are street gang and drug related.  Since we are discussing career criminals with long and well documented violent crime activities, then gun control becomes non-issue.

 

The "28 per day" also includes a body count that should not be classified as "gun violence."  Accidental discharges, legal interventions, etc.

 

For more clarity, see Gun Facts - www.GunFacts.info... 

My solution to the problem of gun violence is to actually enforce the laws in place, and stiffen up the penalties for anyone that commits a crime with a gun or while armed with a gun.  I think we should take a look at the federal model, which tacks on a mandatory five years prison sentence any time a felon is caught with a gun.  I've even heard of them charging felons for having a few bullets in their pocket.  I would make the penalties for gun related crimes and illegal gun possession so harsh that your run of the mill gangbanger or miscreant will think twice before stuffing that Raven in his jacket pocket before he steps out to prowl the streets.  World will get out quick once a few mopes get sent up the river for a minimum ten year sentence for robbing a liquor store or taking shots at rival gang members. 

 

Of course there will always be violence, and as long as there are guns there will be people that use guns to commit violent acts, but to use that argument to outlaw guns for everyone is at best flawed.  I also don't fall for that "but if it saves one life" argument that many anti-gunners use.  We would probably save a lot of lives if the government enforced a strict ten p.m. curfew and forced us to only eat with plastic knives and forks, but would you want to live in that world? 

I think there are a few things that need addressing.

 

First is the difference in ownership/carry laws from state to state. I think things should be a little more uniform nationally and that states where gun laws are too lax  or too strict should conform more to those states with moderate laws so that all citizens are on the same page and have the same rights. No whack job should easily get a gun but no honest American should be deprived either.

 

Next is quantity control. To me this is most important. I don't see why anyone should have good reason to buy 10 Glocks in one day unless they are doing a show or part of a legitimate business like a security company. If people were limited to say 1 or 2 hand guns a week, that would seriously reduce the flow of guns to criminals.

 

 

Last is prosecution changes. In most states there is no difference in charges from some one who robbed a guy at gun point to some body that robbed a guy by sticking his finger in his pocket and pretending to have a gun. It is a very stupid and bull headed approach to give the appearance as being tough on crime. "If you rob somebody with or without a gun its all the same your going down" WRONG, the message here is that if it doesn't matter then might as well carry a real gun in case things get dicey.

So, can crooks open a security company as part of their "legit" business and channel 10 Glocks into illegal hands in one day?

 

Gun control overdue?

 

Seems to me like it's been in place for decades already. Has it really helped?

 

People die everyday from various things that are not strictly necessities. Drowning in swimming pools, electrocuted while using some power tool, injured while surfing/skateboarding/ skiing. Lots of people are killed or maimed each year from dog bites. And of course, the aforementioned high death rate from automobiles (a rate which hasn't really abated despite cars that are safer).

 

As far as stricter controls on legal gun ownership - I would go as far as mandating a annual or semi-annual qualification (like what most cops have to do) with all of the guns one owns (with ammo cost for this qualification partially subsidized by gov't) in order to assure competent handling and familiarity with that gun. Plus - I'm of the opinion that just this sort of regular practice with one's firearms is what the Founding Fathers had in mind with "well regulated militia." A group of citizens who are armed, ready, and capable of handling their firearms in combat due to regular practice and drill. Not a group of guys who simply enjoy owning what is (to them) little more than an expensive, dangerous toy.

 

 Ideas like this are all well and nice, but it should be more than apparent how easily they WILL be abused to remove the ability to exercise the right of gun ownership.

 

Let me ask you this, given the extremely low rate of accidental injury and death from improper handling of guns (and if you care to check the rate it is extremely low, and has been declining for years even in the face of increasing levels of gun ownership), what purpose does the above suggestion really accomplish? You are asking for a huge intrusion into the realm of individual rights to solve a problem which doesn't really exist.