America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

I've done a lot of reading recently on the topic of gun control and mass shootings. The last successful gun control measure, the assault weapons ban passed in 1994 and allowed to expire 10 years later, did little to reduce the number of people killed. Moreover, the number of people killed in mass shootings is minuscule, compared to more common causes of death in the US. Even the total number of people killed by guns, including victims of mass shootings, is fewer than the number of people killed in auto accidents, poisonings, falls and other accidents, diabetes and a host of other diseases, and by the flu. Meanwhile, the number of legally owned guns has grown exponentially.

The fact that the right to own firearms is Constitutionally protected removes it from similar legal scrutiny that allowed regulation of the auto, tobacco and oil industries. Gun owners view their guns as the only way to defend themselves and their loved ones in an increasingly frightful world, another basic right in America. This basic right over-takes any discussion about what to do to reduce the number of gun-related deaths. Given our culture, understandably so...

It is now obvious to me that regulating guns is the wrong solution to the "problem" of American gun deaths. And as our society becomes more polarized, it seems that the incidence of gun violence which has historically been mostly self-inflicted, or aimed at known persons, will increasingly target strangers. We have to look elsewhere for answers because advocating more gun laws is a futile exercise.

that's what I've been trying to tell you guys...

So, other problems cause more deaths than guns therefore we shouldn't try to solve gun deaths?

I'm of the opinion that we don't really have a problem.

From a statistical standpoint, I believe I read somewhere that there are somewhere on the order of around 10,000 gun related deaths per year in the US where the majority of those are suicides.

There are well over 300,000,000 people in the US.

Now of those gun related deaths, a statistic I just found says that about 3 percent of the murders are from legally purchased firearms... lets call it 5000 (it's probably a little high, but easier for arguments sake).

So that's roughly 150 murders by legal firearms per year in the United States.

Which isn't much... but you could spin this in a way that fits your argument if you want.

There's roughly 30 deaths per year or so by lightning strikes...

So you can argue that you are 5 times as likely to be killed by a legal firearm than get struck by lightning!!!

Wait, if the probability of dying by lightning is only 20% of that of dying by legal firearms, then it to must be a problem... maybe we should do something about lightning.

Ya, we should push congress to legislate something to ban lightning, if we can ban lightning, surely that would be sufficient justification to ban currently legal guns.

I would argue the real danger to innocent people is not so innocent people ;)

I've always said regarding motorcycle helmet laws that they were just about control and feeling good. If they really wanted to prevent serious injuries and save lives then they should require helmets while in all vehicles.

.motorcycle helmets are less about safety, and more about containing the mess. ...on street bikes anyway. ....you get hit by a truck and that helmet doesn't offer much protection

Final thought about gun control laws...there is no way that any proposed gun control law would require people to turn in newly declared illegal weapons...all efforts in the past "grandfathered" or allowed owners to keep weapons and ammo clips that were declared illegal...

There are so many of these guns and magazines in legal circulation, and they can last for generations ( I have a 19th century Winchester lever action rifle and 2 early 20th century S&W revolvers that shoot like new) that a new ban would have little to no effect...

You don't. It's called freedom of expression.

Mental health.

It needs to really be addressed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RiU4KBTZuIA

Who cares? It's not my business to tell others what should and shouldn't make them feel safe.
If the gun owner acts responsibly then why burden them with the fears of others?




If someone steals your car and plows through a carnival and kills a dozen should you be held responsible?


I know you're just asking the questions. But we're looking at it wrong.
We don't blame legal immigration for our problem with illegals.
We don't blame parents for the pedophiles out there.
And we shouldn't blame responsible gun owners for the murderers out there.

can accept most of what you say without issue...but one difference in the stolen car/stolen gun thingy.

each gun is designed to kill and is likely the value to the thief.

a car can be used to the same end, but that is not the reason to steal it 98.2% of the time.
It takes some highly unusual outside the box planning.

so yeah, I expect gun owners to be more responsible for their theft than car owners.

so, to my way of thinking, responsible gun owners do not lose their guns and would not get blamed.

we are talking about theft here right?
more responsible how? like security system, 24/7 armed guards, packs of dogs, lasers, jason bourne?

you act as if most gun owners are some sort of idiots who forget their guns on the park bench next to the teeter totter because they are too deplorable to give a crap.

i know you are a good guy and dont mean it this way, but your comment strikes me as being so out of touch i cant wrap my mind around it. i want to propose the law that if some junky steals someone's narcotics and overdoses they goto jail for manslaughter. cause hey, its easy to regulate things that dont really apply to me. good grief.

[rant over, i aint mad at ya frank - just hit a nerve i suppose]

Frank..!!

no doubt under the table sales and trades go on.. that's all part of the hobby.. not sure about the 'bulk' of sales tho... all the guns being traded were purchased at a store originally..

^So if you're a heterosexual white dude, any crime against you is less of a crime?

Because that is exactly what 'hate crime' legislation is saying. A crime is a crime, and should be prosecuted on its merits, not on who committed the crime or who it was committed against. Period.

Unless the crime was committed by a gay, jewish, one legged black guy.

rough week William.
threadjack on:
root canal yesterday and that was my favorite day!
threadjack off:

I know, X, but I needed a break in the routine!

You do realize that gun dealers do back ground checks at gun shows?

Is there a national database to track the purchase of cars, baseball bats, knives, rope, cement, etc... which also kill?

If one wants to prevent homicides......never mind the world doesn't want to be saved, yet some keep trying.

minority: root word "minor" syn. fewer...

Far greater numbers and longer history in one direction...would've been nice if it had stopped during the civil rights era...but...

many heterosexual white legislators had to vote for hate crime laws in order for them to pass because they were implemented a little at a time with few minorities holding public office...


As for your point Ant, I believe it is possible and righteous, to charge a person with a hate crime if the evidence shows that the suspect targeted the victim because he was a white male hetero.

Here is the FBI's legal definition of a "hate crime" from their website: a “criminal offense against a person or property motivated in whole or in part by an offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, ethnicity, gender, or gender identity."

As the chief of a campus law enforcement department (college and university), we were required by federal law to include all reported hate crimes (among many other crimes and distinctions of crimes) on and about our campuses in our annual crime report to the USDOE and to the FBI, since about 2008. I complied with this mandate...my personal opinion didn't matter...


Most municipal/state law enforcement departments were recently required by CA state law (within past 6-7 years) to tabulate hate crimes...I'm surprised you guys on the streets don't have to do that in LA, but I'm sure the LA college campus cops know all about it...PIA federal mandate with fines and de-funding penalties for non-compliance...

As a law enforcement officer, personal opinions should not matter...

Almost...he/she needs to establish probable cause based on evidentiary facts from his gathering of info about the reported crime, not his opinions, that fit the elements of the crime, and upon which a prosecutor will evaluate who and what is to be charged.

It is entirely possible that a hate crime may be prosecuted with a white hetero victim.

Example 1. If a group of Mexican men decide that they would like some white *****, and seek out a female white victim and rape her...if evidence that the victim was targeted because of her race, ie phone text messages between the perps, or you tube videos depicting their discussions about raping a white woman beforehand, or one of the perps confesses during interrogation that that was their motive for selecting the victim, that fits the definition of a hate crime and should be prosecuted as one.

Example 2. If a black bully commits some strong arm robberies, and several of his victims, all white, state that the perp said "Hey whitey, give me your wallet" while grabbing their throats, this could be prosecuted as a hate crime, especially if circumstances (ie, victims were in an area where whites are few, among other potential victims) show the victims were targeted because of their race.

Note that the element of hate is only a penalty enhancement, for an underlying crime, requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt that animus against the victim was a motivating factor. Hate is not a crime, in and of itself.

As for effectiveness or deterrent value, I don't know, but many local law enforcement agencies in Orange County, CA promote the reduction of hate crimes as an element of their community policing efforts.

I don't know of segregation being a goal of the creation and passage of hate crime laws protecting some classifications of victims.

Penalty enhancements based on the status of the victim are common in American criminal law: crimes against police, fire fighters and other public officials carry greater penalties in most states, and in federal law.

And as we come full circle, the same acceptance and tolerance is NOT bestowed on others by those who once demanded it themselves.

https://www.conservativereview.com/articles/video-gay-coffee-shop-owner-kicks-christians-out-of-his-shop?utm_source=cr-content&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=cr-content-newsletter-default&utm_content=-link-101117-cr-content