As a pro-gun progressive, I totally support your right to own firearms, but these gun shows scare me a little, especially the notion of people selling guns out of the backs of cars. Gun ownership should be protected, but it also ought to be regulated.

Dave -

IMO the major reason for the greatly increased market for firearms isn't an actual danger of losing your 'Second Amendment rights', but a reaction to the fear- and hate-mongering by many on the far right, particularly the radio talk show hosts like Michael Savage.

That's why there have been more death threats against Obama than against any other president-elect...and this is less than two weeks after the election.

What they don't seem to realize is that sooner or later some right-wing nut-job just might try to take out our next president without having any comprehension of the nationwide riots, murder, and looting that would surely follow.

I know that particular concern doesn't mean much to most conservatives...but perhaps this will. If some right-wing nut-job attempts to assassinate (or, God forbid, succeeds in the attempt) Obama, after the riots, the murders, and the looting that would take place across the nation, you will see a large number - and perhaps a majority - of moderate Republicans switching sides...for they will have seen the far right for what it really is.

If anything happens to Obama, Dave, you will see a greatly diminished Republican party. It truly is in the Republicans' best interests to do their utmost to tone down the rhetoric and protect the guy.

Glenn, you keep mentioning the death threats. This seems to be a variation of the race-baiting that the Obama camp did during the campaign. Of course it's something that the Secret Service has to take seriously, and there isn't a decent human being who wants to see anything happen to Obama. But compare what the average conservative says today with what the average liberal has been saying about Bush.

Dave, I forget, did you say that you live in Hartford CT?

"If anything happens to Obama, Dave, you will see a greatly diminished Republican party."

I'm afraid I don't agree with your reasoning that an assasination attempt will cause Republicans to switch sides in huge numbers "for they will have seen the far right for waht it really is." This presumes that the "far right" is supporting or promoting assasination. That is quite a leap.

Bryan, this is the first time I've ever seen anyone selling guns outside the show, which is why I mentioned it in the article. Now, it is possible to get a table at the show to sell your own guns, and under current law private sales of guns at a gun show are not regulated, but I think that in this instance the show was oversold and there was no room for these folks to get a table.

Bryan, there's a pretty big difference between the far right and the Republican party, and that ought to be abundantly clear to anyone who looks into it at all. Most of those on the far right hate the GOP as much as or more than they hate the Democrats. They see Bush as the essence of evil and the frontman for global conspiracies which they feel are trying to enslave everyone.

Racist extremists are yet another group which is as likely to be politically in step with the Democrats as the Republicans on issues other than race, but generally they don't have a party allegiance to any mainstream party. Most racist extremists are anarchists or socialists philosophically.

The assumption that these groups are somehow associated with the Republicans is a common smear from the left which has no basis in truth. Almost none of our most notorious domestic terrorists would ever have identified themselves as Republicans. Quotes from many of them are available. Some like Eric Rudolph even had websites. One of the first things you find in their public statements is their condemnations of the Republican party.

Dave

The most credible threats against Obama so far have come from people in the Aryan Brotherhood, who are very far outside the mainstream. They hate the GOP a lot, mainly because they are convinced it's a jewish conspiracy. You can read up on this at resist.com if you've got the stomach for it.

Dave

Dave -

A 'big difference between the far right and the Republican party'?

I could partially agree with you in the same sense that the far left eco- and animal-freaks don't speak for the Democrats.

But do the ones below oppose the Republicans?

Michael Savage: "We need to get our troops out of Iraq and put them on the streets of America to protect us from the scourge of illegal immigrants who are running rampant across America, killing our police for sport, raping, murdering like a scythe across America while the liberal psychos are telling us they come here to work."

Chris Baker (talk-show host who supported Fred Thompson and Ron Paul): "I don't think homeless people should vote. Frankly. In fact, I have to be very honest. I'm not that excited about women voting, to be honest."

Michael Savage: "This country today is far beyond the excesses of the Weimar Republic that led to Adolf Hitler. God forbid that should ever happen here. But the German people, who were not all Nazis prior to Hitler's arrival on the scene, were shocked by the degenerates of Berlin. They were sickened by the perverts, sickened by the artistes, they were sickened by the leather fetishists, they were sickened by the degeneracy, and they couldn't handle it." (IOW, homos and fetishists CAUSED WWII)

Quinn and Rose (supported Bush and then McCain): "Gay sex produces AIDS, which the state doesn't have -- or should have an interest in. They should charge homosexuals more for their -- for their health insurance than they charge the rest of us."

Bill Cunningham (a regular guest on Hannity and Colmes: "[I]magine at the age of 1 or 2 seeing your father for the last time. See, his father was a typical black father who, right after the birth, left the baby. That's what black fathers do. They simply leave."

Michael Savage: "The Democrat [sic] Party is the minority party. ... Obama is a minority, a half minority at least. The membership is made up largely of minority blocs, the Hispanic caucus and the gay caucus -- caucuses that are all against the white person." Savage also claimed: "Now, the white women generally are not as hard-nosed about things as the white male, and so many white women don't even understand that they're being duped, and they vote for a Democrat, not knowing that they're digging their own grave."

Michael Savage: ""I'll tell you what autism is. In 99 percent of the cases, it's a brat who hasn't been told to cut the act out. That's what autism is."

So the above don't represent the Republicans in ANY way? If not, then why do so many Republicans LISTEN to them?

Ah, I forGOT! It's not news or helpful information...it's ENTERTAINMENT! Such good, honest, trustworthy people they are, every one....

you can find all of these quotes and much more at http://mediamatters.org/items/200811130002?f=h_top

Some more brilliance by CONSERVATIVE talk-show host Michael Savage:

"I'm as good an expert as any. I have found in my life that most of the Ph.D. experts on children are either gay or crazy and were never married. Or if they were married, they either tried to kill their wife or were in rehab for a few years, and then came out and went into psychotherapy to find out why they killed, or attempted to kill. And then they washed it all away, and suddenly they're experts on childrearing."

"Why in the world did [Obama] take time off from the campaign to visit the grandmother who then suddenly and suspiciously died virtually the night before the election?"

"And I'm sick of [the homosexual community's] terror tactics, and I'm sick of them attacking Mormon women. And I want to know where my government is to protect people from these gangs."

Yeah, such good, kind, LOVING people, these Republican-SUPPORTING conservatives.

Glenn,

I see you like the little wienie (Michael Wiener [Savage]) as much as I do.

But that ignores the real issues that Dave raises in his article - the fact that in the States, folks are nervous enough to believe that the government will take their arms away.

In the final analysis, as little as I like the American attitude towards weapons (toys that go bang), these weapons are all that may stand between dictatorship and less dictatorship. That "less dictatorship" may well be what Americasn will call "freedom" in the near future.

We'll see.

Glenn, Michael Savage explicitly states over and over on his show that he's not a member of the Republican party and I believe that the last time he was registered with a party he was a Democrat.

He fits in that same model of socially conservative kind of totalitarian ex-Democrat as Bill O'Reilly and Joe Lieberman. These guys are left-wing populists gone bad, and when they go bad they go a little crazy.

As for the others you mention, yes some of the religious right have radio shows. And yes, they infest the Republican party. I can line them up one for one with equally crazy marxist or green fanatics on the other side with equally crazy beliefs.

Dave

Ruvy -

Look at the other industrialized democracies. Look at SWITZERLAND, for Pete's sake! Every one of them - including Switzerland - has gun control regulations MORE restrictive than America's (speaking of America as a whole, not this or that city or state). If I remember correctly (and I'm sure you'll correct me), Israel's laws are more restrictive than our own...even though your general population is under a much greater threat of invasion than our own.

The gun nuts believe that gun control is a sure way to tyranny...but if that is the case, then:

(1) Can you show me a single modern industrialized democracy that has become a tyranny due to gun control? You might claim 'Nazi Germany'...but their situation had far more to do with hyperinflation and religious extremism than with the Weimar Republic's gun control laws.

(2) Can you name even one safe, modern country anywhere in the world right now that has no restrictions on gun ownership? Even one?

(3) What countries currently have no enforced restrictions on gun ownership? (referring to the whole of the country, not just certain sections or provinces of that country)

I understand your concerns, Ruvy...but I suspect modern history doesn't agree with your views.

Remember - I'm against total gun bans and always will be. But it's just like my argument for Social Democracy - "Goldilocks Freedom". Too much is as bad as too little. The same goes with gun control - too much is as bad as too little.

I think that all that can constructively be said on this subject has been said.

I would only observe that the terms 'panic' and 'gun show' seem to me to be uneasy bedfellows...

Dave -

Does one have to be a registered Republican to fit your definition of one that supports the Republican party?

Michael Savage endorsed McCain, and (even though he often ranted against him) said "George W. Bush may be remembered as the greatest American president" in response to the gun control fight.

He may not be a registered Republican, but can you imagine him supporting any Democrats? Where does his influence lie - among Democrats...or among Republicans?

So like it or not, Dave, due to his influence among Republicans I can and do lump him in with the rest of the Republicans.

I'm not making a stack of pro-gun arguments here, Glenn. I'm simply pointing out the basic fact that the only thing that keeps America from becoming more of a dictatorship than it is is a well armed population. Goons who want to put down what liberties remain to you have to stake their own lives on the line at present - even if they are well armed.

This is not as true here, where the goons are far better armed than the average citizen, and where active efforts are under way to disarm certain portions of the Jewish population in preparation for expulsion from their homes.

Therefore our efforts to protect our liberties have to be far stronger than yours are - at the moment.

Sure, Glenn, I'm sure it'll be a fair argument once we concede to you the right to define all the terms. Like your contention that anyone who disagrees with you is equivalent to a right-wing assassin. You're leaving us with plenty of wiggle room there, right?

Glenn, the US has substantial and relatively rational rules restricting gun ownership. We have a background check when you buy a gun. We bar various classes of people from owning guns. We have outright bans or special limitations on many classes and types of guns and gun related items.

For an example of a relatively modern and civilized society with virtually no gun laws at all, consider Britain in 1900 where the only gun law was the requirement to pay a small tax if you wanted to carry a gun openly in public. There was virtually no gun crime by modern standards. Plenty of other crime, but very little gun crime.

That's just one of many bits of evidence which all reinforce the fact that guns aren't the problem in societies which have them. Other factors explain high crime rates.

Dave

Dave - sorry this is off-topic, but why can't I send you an email?

I don't know, Sue. What happens when you do? Try the contact form at republicofdave.com

Dave

Look at the other industrialized democracies. Look at SWITZERLAND, for Pete's sake! Every one of them - including Switzerland - has gun control regulations MORE restrictive than America's = "Everybody does it."

Can you name even one safe, modern country anywhere in the world right now that has no restrictions on gun ownership? Even one?

No. Including the usa.

I thought this article was going to be about Dave flexing his muscles. I cannot help but hide my disappointment. At the same time, do you own any sleeveless shirts, Dave?

Jordan, I'm not sure what you're getting at, but most of the time I wear t-shirts or something similar. Your play on the title was unexpected, though. I'd been expecting people to pick up on the play on the name of the popular band Panic at the Disco.

Dave

I would have gone there, but I'm not a tween. :)

Dave -

I think you'll find that culturally/racially/religiously homogeneous societies like the Britain of 1900 and Japan even now have far less crime. Yes, they did have their minorities...but these were (and in Japan, are) far smaller than what Europe, America, and much of Asia have. Britain and Japan were also aided by the fact that they are islands.

That said, let me address the following:

(1) We have a background check when you buy a gun.

Except for at gun shows, if I remember correctly.

(2) We bar various classes of people from owning guns.

Which is good.

(3) We have outright bans or special limitations on many classes and types of guns and gun related items.

This depends on the location, does it not?

In retrospect the Washington D.C. gun ban was silly and led to a great deal of crime - BUT there is no GOOD reason why each firearm can't be registered. This is not part of some evil plot to take away all the guns, but to make it easier to track down gun-runners and other criminals.

There is also no GOOD reason why each prospective firearm owner shouldn't have to be required to receive training in the class of firearm he or she intends to buy. Not only will this make them safer when they use it for fun...but maybe safer when the time comes that they need it for self-protection.

These aren't a path to tyranny - these are common sense, and opposed only by those who listen to the fear-mongerers who dominate the conservative media, especially on radio.

Dave, we've got many wackos on the left who want a total gun ban...and you've got many wackos on the right who want totally unrestricted freedom of gun ownership (including automatic weapons). The wisest path - as with most other things - is somewhere down the middle.

Ooh, I'm so hip. I got the Panic at the Disco reference and the "gun show" reference from The Office.

we've got many wackos on the left who want a total gun ban...and you've got many wackos on the right who want totally unrestricted freedom of gun ownership (including automatic weapons). The wisest path - as with most other things - is somewhere down the middle.

Exactly. A total unrestricted gun ban on freedom!

yeah, but, you see, dave, panic at the di*co is so awful, their name should not be spoken, lest the suddenly appear in your room for an impromptu performance where they think someone must want to hear them.

I think you'll find that culturally/racially/religiously homogeneous societies like the Britain of 1900 and Japan even now have far less crime.

Exactly. It's the increased diversity and altering social forces which have lead to an increase in crime, not guns or the lack thereof.

(1) We have a background check when you buy a gun.

Except for at gun shows, if I remember correctly.

If you buy a gun from most of the dealers at a gun show you have to do the background check. Most dealers have FFL licenses. At a gun show as in private sales, if you buy from a non-professional who is just selling his personal guns there is no background check.

(3) We have outright bans or special limitations on many classes and types of guns and gun related items.

This depends on the location, does it not?

Some locations have additional bans, but I was talking about the national restrictions on fully automatic weapons, for which you need a special license, and on certain assault weapons and types of ammunition and even magazines, not to mention breech-loading artillery, silencers and short-barrelled rifles and shotguns. While the full assault weapon ban expired in 2004, there are still some restrictions in place, and there are two bills now under consideration to reinstitute it.

In retrospect the Washington D.C. gun ban was silly and led to a great deal of crime - BUT there is no GOOD reason why each firearm can't be registered. This is not part of some evil plot to take away all the guns, but to make it easier to track down gun-runners and other criminals.

But you can't deny that if a government ever wanted to seize all guns, having a list of who owned them would sure help, can you?

There is also no GOOD reason why each prospective firearm owner shouldn't have to be required to receive training in the class of firearm he or she intends to buy. Not only will this make them safer when they use it for fun...but maybe safer when the time comes that they need it for self-protection.

Classes are required for CCL licenses. I'm not sure how much of a class you really need to point and shoot a shotgun or a pistol for home defense, but I'm sure that once the idea got going they could beef it up to 8 hours as a way of discouraging gun ownership.

These aren't a path to tyranny - these are common sense, and opposed only by those who listen to the fear-mongerers who dominate the conservative media, especially on radio.

The problem is that the fearmongers in this case have actual evidence on their side. There are many organizations including the UN which would like to ban and then seize all privately owned guns.

Dave, we've got many wackos on the left who want a total gun ban...and you've got many wackos on the right who want totally unrestricted freedom of gun ownership (including automatic weapons). The wisest path - as with most other things - is somewhere down the middle.

To me the wisest path is always the path of the most freedom for the most people.

Dave

Do you suppose all these new gun fans are concerned that the US Treasury is being invaded?

Do you suppose they intend to hold off the infidels that are invading Wall Street? The miscreants who are stealing their stock values and their very homes?

No, I don't think so. No more than the self identified gun nuts here on BC. You know, all those who claimed that the second amendment assured the other rights, who bragged that they were the ultimate defense against oppression.

But now, as we are losing our sustenance to these invaders, as the USA treasury gets plundered, they will do nothing. They will find refuge in the same ideological subservience that led them to support these criminals in the first place.

They only way these cowards would really revolt is if it gave them a chance to shoot a hippy.

They are cowards.

Actually, Bliffle, from my conversations with them, economic mismanagement of the nation is probably one of the top items on their list of concerns. And some of them certainly were hippies once upon a time. They're very different from what you arrogantly assume them to be, but you won't believe me and you certainly aren't open-minded enough to find out for yourself.

Dave

Man, I got all misty as Dave described his visit at the gun show. This is one fucking great country! It made me want to grab a gun and shoot somebody in an exquisite moment of a truly American rapture.

Dave has gone out of his way to point up the idiocy of most conspiracy thoeries and theorists. But he and most of the other rabid gun lovers here are actually the ultimate conspiracy nuts.

All you "gunnies" should move to Texas. (Don't worry, Dave can put you up.) Extend the wall completely around the borders. Wall yourselves in. No gun laws. No registrations. No regulations. It will just be assumed that everybody's packing, ready and willing to open fire at any provocation (or none at all.) Then you can just shoot each other willy-nilly and leave the rest of us alone. The last man standing can have Texas. What the hell, he can have Oklahoma, too. (I don't mean to be sexist, but no manly man could ever imagine that any woman could wind up the winner.)

B

But Baritone, owning guns is all about NOT having to shoot anyone. If you were truly part of the culture you'd understand that.

In the hypothetical 'fortress texas' which you propose there would be almost no crime and Sarah Palin would probably be president.

Think about it. Have you ever heard of someone robbing a gun show? There's tens of thousands of dollars sitting around in cash and millions in hardware, but not even the most insane crackhead would even consider trying to rob one.

Dave

What about Annie Oakley? Calamity Jane? Belle Starr? Ma Barker?

Dave, you just don't get it do you? No. I am NOT part of the "culture." Nor do I care to be. You live by the notion that everyone is a potential enemy. You expect someone - random strangers - to draw down on you to take your "stuff" and blow you away.

It is that world view that is both juvenile and dangerous. Your belief that there would be no crime in a walled up Texas is naive. Eventually, probably sooner rather than later, somebody will piss off somebody else. Someone will covet someone else's "stuff." Someone will blow somebody's head off. It is human nature.

Of course, the "walled" up Texans would also likely start manning the walls. Gun emplacements would be set up. Watch towers would be erected in efforts to keep the "others" out of their Texan paradise.

But then, some of those looking out beyond the walls would start wondering, What's out there? Hmmm. We've got guns. Apparently, they don't. Maybe we could go out under the cloak of darkness, see what they've got, and if we like it, we'll just take it. Shoot the fuckers if they fight back. Then we can just expand our walls out further. What a concept!

I know the above is all silliness. But you seem to be perfectly comfortable with the notion of living in a world where everyone is "packing" thinking that factor would stop violence and aggression amongst people. I contend the opposite. It would simply give license and easily available means to "solve" one's problems. That just doesn't work for me. It is now a far different world than that of 19th century Dodge City or Tombstone.

Let's see hands: Which ones of you want to be the Earps, and who wants to be the Clantons?

B

Fine article, Dave. I appreciate the research you did for this article.

I'm curious: What would you say was the demographic breakdown of the people at the gun show? Primarily middle aged White men? Or was it a younger crowd? More women than you expected? More Hispanics and other minorities? Or less?

I know the above is all silliness.

Very much so.

But you seem to be perfectly comfortable with the notion of living in a world where everyone is "packing" thinking that factor would stop violence and aggression amongst people.

Not stop it 100%, but certainly reduce it. I live in a society like that in Texas now, and the crime rate is remarkably low.

I contend the opposite. It would simply give license and easily available means to "solve" one's problems.

Except that the evidence doesn't support that theory.

That just doesn't work for me. It is now a far different world than that of 19th century Dodge City or Tombstone.

Did you know that in the 1880s the gun homicide rate on the western frontier was 1/3 of what it was in New York City?

Again, it's not the number of guns, it's the number of people willing to kill other people.

Dave

Baritone,

Dave, you just don't get it do you? No. I am NOT part of the "culture." Nor do I care to be. You live by the notion that everyone is a potential enemy. You expect someone - random strangers - to draw down on you to take your "stuff" and blow you away.

Don't be annoyed with Dave. He grew up in the Middle East. That attitude, that everyone is a potential enemy, is normal here. It's taken me a while to absorb the fact that "potential enemy" around here does not necessarily mean "Arab" or "non-Jew". It can get hard to deal with sometimes, and it does grind you down some, but it is part of the culture here. And Dave picked it up.

RJ, this past weekend the crowd seemed younger and more economically affluent than usual. There seemed to be a lot of white, middle-class professional types. There were still plenty of hispanics and crazy old mountain man types, but the people who don't come every month seemed to be a more mainstream demographic. And from what I could tell, the yuppies were buying AR-15s.

Dave

Oh, where to start...

#37 So, it's back where it was in the early nineties, then? Back then, you could tell the undercover cop/Feds, because they were dressed up like a CBS Stereotype "Gun Nutz" with the whole "Mountainman/skinhead/gangabanger/Outlawbiker" getup and the kooky konspiracy talk. I ran a table in '95 next to a guy who caught a "Someone" stuffing a round of ammo into a rifle-it turned out the guy doing the 'stuffing' was an ATF agent-and the excuse for this dangerous behaviour was testing the security of the show. (Never mind that if this action had gone un-noticed, someone could have been hurt or killed.)

#28 "They only way these cowards would really revolt is if it gave them a chance to shoot a hippy."

Okay, Bliffle, put the crack-pipe DOWN, and seek help, before you do harm to yourself or others. Do you have ANY IDEA how stupid that statement is? (Probably not, or you wouldn't have written it.)

First off, Bliffle... There's more of US in Police, fire departments, and the Military, than of you. If we were the kind of sick, evil, perverted monsters you're making us out to be, Bliffle... if you really BELIEVE that, you're a sick, sick, sad human being.

Seek help. Honestly.

"Did you know that in the 1880s the gun homicide rate on the western frontier was 1/3 of what it was in New York City?"

That's a stupid comparison on so many levels. How big was what you refer to as the "western frontier" in area? What was the population? What was the gun homicide rate in the towns, especially say, mining towns, big railroad and cattle herding towns? How many people actually carried firearms on their person on a day to day basis? What was the nature of those firearms? How many automatic assault weapons did they have access to? How about consideration of the differences in living in an urban society as opposed to a more rural, agrarian society?

"Not stop it 100%, but certainly reduce it. I live in a society like that in Texas now, and the crime rate is remarkably low."

So, you are saying that the average Texan walks around armed?

"Except that the evidence doesn't support that theory.

What evidence? Do we have an adequate number of communities wherein the majority of residents regularly pack heat with studies comparing them to communities that are largely unarmed?

I live in a community where it is relatively easy to acquire guns. One or more people are killed in and around Indianapolis almost every day. The great majority of them were shot. How many of them would be dead today if guns were magically removed from the equation?

B

That's a stupid comparison on so many levels. How big was what you refer to as the "western frontier" in area? What was the population? What was the gun homicide rate in the towns, especially say, mining towns, big railroad and cattle herding towns? How many people actually carried firearms on their person on a day to day basis? What was the nature of those firearms? How many automatic assault weapons did they have access to? How about consideration of the differences in living in an urban society as opposed to a more rural, agrarian society?

Look, it's just an interesting demographic tidbit from original work by a frontier historian I worked with at UT. In the 1880s there were only about 45 gun related homicides in all of the major cattle towns added together. In that same period there were over 150 in Manhattan alone, with about the same total population. It's not meant to mean more than it does. It's mainly a commentary on how much more violent the street gangs in New York were than the outlaws of the wild west, despite their reputation.


So, you are saying that the average Texan walks around armed?

No, but we do have concealed carry and enough do walk around armed to make criminals think twice. There is virtually no mugging and very little armed robbery and burglary compared to the way things were 20 years ago.

What evidence? Do we have an adequate number of communities wherein the majority of residents regularly pack heat with studies comparing them to communities that are largely unarmed?

We do have some very prominent areas where CCL has changed the crime patterns, including Texas and Florida where the crime rates have plummeted since CCL was passed.

To quote the FBI's crime statistics report:

"Violent crime rates are highest overall in states with laws severely limiting or prohibiting the carrying of concealed firearms for self-defense".

Look, it's just an interesting demographic tidbit from original work by a frontier historian I worked with at UT. In the 1880s there were only about 45 gun related homicides in all of the major cattle towns added together.

I understand and agree that the 'Wild' West was a lot less violent than it's portrayed in the movies, Dave. Nevertheless, I have to wonder whether your historian obtained his numbers from newspaper/police reports or from official statistics collected at the time? In either case, I rather doubt whether deaths by the gun of Indians (of which there were many), or even of black people, were even considered to be homicides.

"In Florida, for example, in the first 5 years after they passed concealed carry crime dropped 26% overall while the rest of the nation saw an overall 12% increase in crime."

Reference, please.

Because here's what I found from a Florida Department of Law Enforcement website:
"In addition, the report revealed that crime volume, the actual number of reported crimes, increased by 1.4 percent. Of those reported crimes, non-violent crimes decreased, and violent crimes were slightly up from 2005 but down 14.4 [NOT 26%] percent since 1996. The rate of violent crime increased by 0.5 percent over the 2005 rate, while non-violent crimes resulted in a 1.2 percent decrease for the same period."

Here's another interesting one showing the price that OTHER states pay for some states having weak gun laws: "Georgia, Florida and Texas are the top suppliers of crime guns to other states, according to crime gun trace data recently released by the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives (ATF) and analyzed by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.

Illegal guns generally flow from states with weak gun laws to states with stronger gun laws. In states with strong gun laws, criminals find it more difficult to obtain guns from local sources and frequently must obtain guns from traffickers supplied by out-of-state gun dealers. This fuels the "iron pipeline" described in past Federal law enforcement reports.

Georgia ranked number one in the nation in the total number of crime guns traced to Georgia gun dealers and recovered in other states in 2007, with 2,631 crime guns traced to Georgia and recovered outside the state last year. Florida ranked number two in 2007, with 2,328 crime guns traced to Florida dealers and recovered in crime in other states. Texas ranked number three, with 2,281 crime guns traced to Texas dealers and recovered in crime in other states."

AND WAS IT THE WEAKENED GUN LAWS that helped drive down crime in Florida? Not according to the Florida government:
"10-20-LIFE has helped to drive down Florida's violent-gun crime rates by 30%. ...During his campaign for Governor in 1998, Jeb Bush proposed the toughest gun-crime law in the nation: 10-20-LIFE. Under 10-20-LIFE, a felon who used a gun to commit a crime like armed robbery would face at least 10 years in state prison. ...The results under 10-20-LIFE are impressive. In only six years, from 1998-2004, 10-20-LIFE has helped drive down violent gun crime rates 30 percent statewide."

And how about this? Look at FBI statistics(from fbi . gov since I can only put three URL's in one post) of the numbers of police officers killed in the line of duty from '98-'07, and you'll see a definite pattern - the majority were killed in states with weak gun laws.

Totals for the 10-year period:
Northeast - 46
Midwest - 98
South - 271
West - 108
Territories - 26

Dave, I don't want all guns banned - that simply ain't gonna happen. I DO want gun laws ensuring background checks (including at gun shows), registration of ALL firearms, mandatory training in EVERY class of firearm for new prospective owners of each particular class, and mandatory destruction of all guns used in a crime or not legally registered.

Reference, please.

I'm too sick to find it right now. It's probably from guncite.com.

Because here's what I found from a Florida Department of Law Enforcement website:
"In addition, the report revealed that crime volume, the actual number of reported crimes, increased by 1.4 percent. Of those reported crimes, non-violent crimes decreased, and violent crimes were slightly up from 2005 but down 14.4 [NOT 26%] percent since 1996. The rate of violent crime increased by 0.5 percent over the 2005 rate, while non-violent crimes resulted in a 1.2 percent decrease for the same period."

I was talking about the first 5 years after CCW was passed, which would be 1987-1992. Any stats you have after that would be changes from the baseline established after that initial high-impact period of the law.

Here's another interesting one showing the price that OTHER states pay for some states having weak gun laws: "Georgia, Florida and Texas are the top suppliers of crime guns to other states, according to crime gun trace data recently released by the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives (ATF) and analyzed by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.

This just seems like obvious common sense, but it has nothing to do with concealed carry. And, of course, if all states had uniformly liberal gun laws then people wouldn't have to travel to get them.

Of course, according to Bureau of Justice statistics, the overwhelming majority of guns used in crimes - even in states with very loose laws are sold illegally or privately. Guns sold legally, with background checks are generally not used in crimes. Similarly state by state the percentage of gun crimes committed by CCL licensees is under 2%.

Georgia ranked number one in the nation in the total number of crime guns traced to Georgia gun dealers and recovered in other states in 2007, with 2,631 crime guns traced to Georgia and recovered outside the state last year. Florida ranked number two in 2007, with 2,328 crime guns traced to Florida dealers and recovered in crime in other states. Texas ranked number three, with 2,281 crime guns traced to Texas dealers and recovered in crime in other states."

AND WAS IT THE WEAKENED GUN LAWS that helped drive down crime in Florida? Not according to the Florida government:
"10-20-LIFE has helped to drive down Florida's violent-gun crime rates by 30%. ...During his campaign for Governor in 1998, Jeb Bush proposed the toughest gun-crime law in the nation: 10-20-LIFE. Under 10-20-LIFE, a felon who used a gun to commit a crime like armed robbery would face at least 10 years in state prison. ...The results under 10-20-LIFE are impressive. In only six years, from 1998-2004, 10-20-LIFE has helped drive down violent gun crime rates 30 percent statewide."

And how about this? Look at FBI statistics(from fbi . gov since I can only put three URL's in one post) of the numbers of police officers killed in the line of duty from '98-'07, and you'll see a definite pattern - the majority were killed in states with weak gun laws.

I looked at the stats. The number of officers killed in each state is so tiny - averaging just over 1 per state per year - that it's statistically meaningless. Plus a raw number does not take the population of the state into account and Texas, Georgia and Florida are among the most populous states, so of course they have more people and law officers killed.

And what's more, California which has some of the most restrictive gun laws had almost as many officer deaths as Texas in that period and was second in the nation. I'd figure out the percentages relative to population, but I have to go back to bed and cough some more. That's the comparison which would actually be meaningful.

Dave, I don't want all guns banned - that simply ain't gonna happen. I DO want gun laws ensuring background checks (including at gun shows), registration of ALL firearms, mandatory training in EVERY class of firearm for new prospective owners of each particular class, and mandatory destruction of all guns used in a crime or not legally registered.

John Lott has written a book called The Bias Against Guns which you might find enlightening. It has a lot of information about the psychopathology of the irrational fear of guns. He has some informative extracts on the web.

Dave

I'm not against guns: I've owned a few myself.

What I'm against is the posturing of gun people, who claim that they represent a force against crime, and the ultimate defense against invaders.

I say that they are NO defense against the people who are currently looting our country. In fact, many of them approve of the looting.

Obama has expressed no interest in or intention of pushing any gun legislation.

He, um, has a few other things on his plate.

But I am so happy for those people eagerly standing in line to pay ridiculous amounts of money for a part that will make their lovely and precious assault rifles so much more 'authentic,' i.e. deadly.

If they are not going to use these expensive toys for hunting, and [one assumes] very few of them have any intention of actually shooting anyone, then what exactly are they for? [And where do they get their money? At least there's one 'healthy' part of the consumer economy.]

For some of us, gun-lust is as mysterious and inexplicable as ... the appeal of Sean Hannity and Michael Savage. Makes absolutely no sense. Or, to put it another way...

Not our kind, dear. Would you pass the arugula, please? And bring me another glass of sauvignon blanc.

Dave, Dave, DAVE -

"In Florida, for example, in the first 5 years after they passed concealed carry crime dropped 26% overall while the rest of the nation saw an overall 12% increase in crime."
"I was talking about the first 5 years after CCW was passed, which would be 1987-1992."

#45 I'm going to be incredibly foolish, and try to answer some of your questions...

If they are not going to use these expensive toys for hunting, and [one assumes] very few of them have any intention of actually shooting anyone, then what exactly are they for?

What does someone need with a Corvette, Harley Davidson, $5000 italian suit, Nintendo Wii, those stupid overdecorated russian egg things, Chihuli Glass sculpture, print of an expensive painting, $400 pair of sneakers, etc. etc.? What possible use is it to collect coins or stamps past their 'use by' date? How 'bout bottle-collectors?

I guarantee, you take a Corvette at 180mph through a neighbourhood at mid-day, you're probably going to kill someone. Take it to a Track, and you'll get a nice thrill ride. Take an AR-15 out shooting in a neighbourhood, and you're going to kill someone. Take it to a range, and you've got a sport-see? The difference here, of course, is that there isn't a faction out there trying to get laws through to take your corvette away and toss you in jail for owning it. There are for the guy who owns the gun.

Most AR-15's aren't legal to hunt with in most states-the .223 round is too small due to some rather reasonable legal restrictions relating to its tendency to wound and maim instead of killing cleanly. As a sportsman, I agree with these rules-as a shooter, I don't want to see the AR-15 or its round banned, because it makes a decent entry-level target rifle useable by people with smaller frames (women, small non-athletic men), it's a good 'entry level' gun for high-power competitive target shooting, and it's the only legal analogue to the current U.S. service rifle for Service Rifle class Matches, both professional, and Amatuer.

Notably, Great Britain no longer HAS a high-power class rifle team, which is kind of a shame, for a while there the British used to dominate the sport.

"[And where do they get their money? At least there's one 'healthy' part of the consumer economy.]"

Okay, where do people get the money for Nintendoes, Segas, fancy cars, motorcycles, plasma-screen televisions, or E-bay? Answer: (oh, this will probably shock you...maybe not, but probably)... They Earn It at their Jobs.

Believe or not, most of the "Gun Culture" is not made up of guys with a bentley in the garage and a butler-in fact, the corporate raiders and other subhuman scum running our economy into the ground mostly don't shoot, rarely own guns, rarely approve of anyone other than their security staff or the police HAVING guns. At most, they tend to be "Shotgunners"-that is, those expensive twelve-thousand-dollar shotguns made in Italy or Germany or somewhere else equally as exotic (britain? ARE there any workers at Rigby anymore?), and as we saw with Dick Cheney, they hardly know which end the dangerous bit comes out of, or what the safety rules for handling are.

"American" gun-culture is mostly blue-collar or no-collar working class, middle class, and lower-tier working class type people (using the taxonomy of the political chattering classes). When you go to a gun-show, most of the folks there are looking for a bargain-that is, to pay less than they would be forced to pay at a storefront-or to find 'bits and pieces' for something they're collecting-and still, they're looking for a bargain first and foremost. At a storefront, you can't engage in the time-honoured tradition of the 'Haggle', or 'customer negotiated pricing'-at gun-shows, you can. It's a bit like going to a slightly more restricted form of garage sale, where the seller has to make a phone call to the Feds before you can close the purchase, and while many private sellers don't have to do 4473's, few will close a sale without getting some kind of legally-binding affidavit and I.D. check.

"For some of us, gun-lust is as mysterious and inexplicable as ... the appeal of Sean Hannity and Michael Savage. Makes absolutely no sense..."

Well, it takes all kinds to make the world, Handy. I myself can't understand the attraction of drinking old, rotten grape-juice that costs a week's pay per bottle, or eating crushed goose livers and fish-eggs (Yuck. Tried it, it was gross, I didn't like it...)

"This presumes that the "far right" is supporting or promoting assasination. That is quite a leap." Davy Nalle,

Dave.... I presume that the media is willing to attempt that leap. Am I presuming too much?

"You live by the notion that everyone is a potential enemy. You expect someone - random strangers - to draw down on you to take your "stuff" and blow you away." - Baritone


B-tone.... you didn't grow up in my neighborhood that's for sure. Fathers went to work with .38's in their lunch bags... fully prepared to ditch the gun if it had to be used. Every store owner, bar tender (whatever) had a little something behind the counter, or in their pocket. My mom had a gun in the kitchen, where she worked and at home, just in case. Home invasions were unheard of, but on the street you were open game.

Does that suck? Not if you're used to it. The cops weren't there to help, so matters had to be taken in hand and dealt with. We had churches too... but we weren't from Pennsylvania. Do I still carry? Hell, I open carry. I want to leave absolutely no doubt about whether I'm armed or not.

Now... I once had a discussion from a very non-gun lover. And I suggested that if that was how he truely felt to put a sign up in his yard that read "I don't believe and guns, and I don't own any" he absolutely refused. I call him a chicken, and a hypocrite and he absolutely refused. I cajoled him and verbally abused him for months until he shut is puke bucket mouth. Was using the 2nd amendment to his advantage? Sure he was. But he had a right to do that.

If you don't own guns and you insist that others don't either... yet you are unwilling to publicly make that known... and a target. You need to shut up and live your life on your own terms. Baseball bats don't work in close quarters. Tear gas gets in your eyes as quickly as the attackers... People are very capable of inflicting pain and suffering if allowed to do so. I would rather not be a victim. And... will take the necessary measures to guard against becoming a victim... Semper Paratus (Always Ready). And there is nothing you or anyone else can say to convince me otherwise... do you know why.... because I've been there couch potato.

has condor been drinking?

You don't have to be a Republican to want to have the option to protect yourself. I have NEVER liked guns, having had one held to my head once, but the older I get and the more weird people become, it seems like a good idea for Americans to keep at least one unloaded, locked up shot gun in their home.

I can't believe I just wrote that, but yet, it's how I feel. Seriously, how the hell else am I going to protect my family should all hell break loose?

Plus, all those zombie movies have got me thinking.

Drinking and carrying a weapon in the open is a felony.

The answer is no.

But I firmly insist on protecting myself. No matter who insists I can't. Sorry.

Seriously, how the hell else am I going to protect my family should all hell break loose?

I throw pancakes. Works well.

I keep a double barrel shotgun (unloaded) by my bed. The shells are afixed to the stock with a shell holder. I can load up in a second or two. I also perscribe revolvers... they are easy to handle, and safe.

IF YOU HAVE CHILDREN... NEVER, I repeat NEVER leave your gun(s). unattended. Carry them with you, always. Leaving a gun in a dresser drawer is a stupid invite to a terrible scenario.

I call it the cowboy rule.... own only as many guns as you can carry. That is.... a pistola and perhaps a shotgun that can be safely stored in your absence. But carry, and carry always. There is no need to own an arsenal, and lock them up in a closet someplace... that serves absolutely no purpose. If you wish to arm yourself, then arm yourself. Don't buy and hide... buy it, practice with it, and carry the damn thing. That is what they are supposed to be for.

In the house a shotgun is the probably the best choice of a defensive weapon. I go with the side by side for same reason I use a revolver... they are simple to use (no fumbling around with buttons etc...) and they don't have springs depressed when loaded (which wears on the spring and causes misfires if the spring is compressed over a long period). Why? Experience over time has taught me that a misfire due to a tired spring probably would happen just as Murphy's law states.... at the worst possible moment, or when you really needed it to function absolutely perfect at the time of crises.

Notice... all you gun objectors... that I said defensive weapon.... which does NOT mean letting the intruder take the first shot. That means... the that the intruder is in my territory and I'm on the defense.

I had thought about pit bulls or some other such attack animal, but bought a small, very alert terrior, just to keep me informed. The arrangement is working out very well.

Condor, do you suggest bringing the gun with you in the shower? If so, plastic bag it or...?

"Seriously, how the hell else am I going to protect my family should all hell break loose?"

Well, all hell broke loose: The CEOs of Wall Street and Detroit are raiding the treasury and stealing your savings and you childrens futures.

Did you find your guns useful against them?

I suggest locking the windows and doors, and if you hear some bastard scratching around outside, call the cops.

Seems to work well, since almost 100 per cent of shootings in the home in the US are by gun owners who've decided to turn the gun on someone they know - spouse, partner, family member etc, rather than on intruders. Figures don't lie on this point.

My view is that too many American blokes love guns because they are long and cylindrical.

Besides, what's wrong with a good old-fashioned smack in the mouth? Come on, Harden the f.ck up, America.

You've become a nation of fear-obsessed nancy boys.

Even your cowboys like sleeping with other blokes.

My purpose for wanting a shotgun is simply should law and order break down (like it did during Katrina) or should there be another 9/11 and people get totally whacked, I want to be able to stand my ground. It may not prevent the inevitable, but at least I have a fighting chance. It's not the random violence (although I sure as shit don't want that either) it's a fail safe for when all else fails.

To me, a shotgun is sufficient. And of course I would have it unloaded and locked away.

Even your cowboys like sleeping with other blokes.

Sssssttttoooopppp!

Mate, I'm only going on what people have told me about that Brokeback movie ... is that a true representation of cowboy culture?

Dawn, for most home defense uses a shotgun is the perfect choice. A nice short-barelled 12-gage pump action shotgun is relatively foolproof and gives you maximum effectiveness at minimal cost for home defense.

Another note on home defense. The police freely admit that their role is to investigate and catch criminals after the fact and that they cannot respond fast enough to actually protect citizens from crimes. Most police departments recommend having a shotgun for home defense if you want to actually prevent a burglary or home invasion.

Dave

Dawn: "My purpose for wanting a shotgun is simply should law and order break down".

We used to have a .303 Lee-Enfield kept up in the bush for shooting kangaroos (or wild pigs).

Whenever law and order broke down, which was pretty much every Friday and Saturday, we just stayed in the front bar of the pub, away from the street, and watched it out the window (whilst cheering). No one took their guns to town though.

Now, since you don't have kangaroos in America, and most Americans don't live in places where law and order is going to break down, what possible need would you REALLY have for a lethal weapon?

I'll admit, I've skipped a lot of these comments. It's the same old back and forth, and it signifies nothing.

The fact remains that gun sales have exloded since Obama was elected. That says a lot about certain segments of the American populace.

Why we don't need shotguns Down Under :)

Now, since you don't have kangaroos in America, and most Americans don't live in places where law and order is going to break down, what possible need would you REALLY have for a lethal weapon?

Yes, well if you wrote scathing reports on certain paranoid, criminal cults having a shotgun isn't such a bad thing to have around.

Dawn, I have written scathing reports in the past on paranoid, criminal cults, along with stories about organised crime figures, outlaw motorcycle gang members, (really) corrupt police officers and bad folk generally (including serial and spree killers) ... and guess what?

In 30-odd years, just two or three threatening phone calls, not followed up of course.

I think law-abiding Americans probably need about the same number of guns among the general population as we do down here - almost none, if the truth be known.

Admit it. You guys just love 'em for some bizarre reason.

Must be all that made-up Hollywood bollocks.

Now, since you don't have kangaroos in America, and most Americans don't live in places where law and order is going to break down, what possible need would you REALLY have for a lethal weapon?

Stan, today our local police force called a friend of mine who is a former military firearms instructor because they weren't equipped to deal with a situation they encountered. They needed someone with more specialized weapons and the skills to use them to take out a pack of feral dogs which had been attacking pets in a local neighborhood and do it from a safe distance. Our police force has about 20 members and none of them is a trained sniper. So there's one instance in which it's a good thing that a private citizen had weapons and the skill to use them.

Another case in point. A couple of times every year I get a call from one neighbor or another who has encountered a giant rattlesnake in their yard and has no idea how to deal with it. People in the neighborhood know I have the right hardware, so I come help them out. I actually have a shotgun designed for long-range target accuracy, not just home defense, so I can take out dangerous snakes with no risk.

And remember, while we don't have kangaroos here in Texas, we do have insane, disease-carrying feral snow monkeys.

Dave

OK, Dave ... this is the point I was trying to make whilst being a bit silly and giving you guys over there a cheeky ragging.

You DO need firearms in places like rural Texas (or rural New South Wales, for that matter).

The last time I was up in the bush (admittedly a long time ago), I had to shoot a couple of feral pigs, and I've shot snakes in the past too (except for the one that somehow managed to slither into my car, which is another story entirely), and as you know, most of 'em here are deadly.

But do you really need guns in town? How many of you have actually encountered someone trying to break in while you're in the house, or for that matter, actually succeeding.

I think there is just a gun culture in the US, and while it might be convenient to say you need them for protection against criminals, in reality they most often get used for the things you are describing - which is what I think they should be used for in rural or semi-rural areas.

In reality, however, since I'm not American, I guess it's none of my business. It seems strange to have that many firearms out in the general community, is all.

STM,
I know a number of Aussies (Queensland and NSW primarily) none of them like the fact that they were (legally) forced to give up certain weapons. In fact, they noted an increase in crime since the legislation. Since, I'm not tuned into Australian legalities, please enlighten us with what your country has done over the last 20 or so years to strip away a persons ability to defend themselves with weapons.

In America, we have a raging drug culture, Meth users abound and in rural areas, you would think you are safe, when in fact... there is more illegal crap going on, with much smaller police forces and greater distances to deal with problems. Dave nailed it in an earlier comment that the police only respond and investigate. Police are also NOT obligated to respond to 911 calls. They do, but in order to avoid a myriad of lawsuits and liability actions, they make it known that if they are late, or can't get there in time to save your victimized butt, then... well ... there is nothing you can do. Hopefully, you have taken some precaution or prevention to aide yourself when in a predicement.

I especially liked your allusion to brokeback mountain.... and coming from the sheep capital of the world, an Aussie could probably relate, but that can be expected from a country of pommy bastards. Nice talkin' with you. By the way... I think your faking the accent.

#60 STM asks:

"Mate, I'm only going on what people have told me about that Brokeback movie ... is that a true representation of cowboy culture? "

Well, here in the SF area we figure that it's a pretty sure sign if a guy wears chaps or cowboy boots that he's so inclined.

condor, where do you live? you can say something like "rural arkansas" if you like.

i live in a lower class area of brooklyn, and i don't feel the need to have an unloaded shotgun beside my bed. in fact, if i did, i'd have no friends, and girls would never ever sleep with me.

unless you were just being silly and i missed it somehow.

Dave and Condor -

Here's an Australian government piece on the recent five-year decline on gun crime in NSW...and it ends with what they feel to be WHY there was an increase back when the gun ban started (apologies for the big cut-and-paste, but this is important to the discussion):

The Bureau examined trends in firearms and violent crime in NSW between 1995 and 2005.

Last year about 15 people in NSW were murdered with some kind of firearm, compared with 23 people back in 2001. The drop in murders involving handguns has been particularly marked. Last year there were five murders with a handgun compared with 12 in 2001.

The Bureau also looked at incidents involving firearms that did not result in a death. Shooting incidents (i.e. Recorded incidents of shoot with intent) rose by 83 per cent between 1995 and 2001. Since 2001 they have fallen by 40 per cent.

As with murders, the fall in shooting incidents involving handguns has been particularly marked, falling from a peak of 53 incidents in 2001 to around 20 incidents in 2005 (i.e. a fall of about 62 per cent).

Robberies with a firearm have shown the most spectacular decline. The incidence of this offence peaked in 1997, when police recorded over 1,200 offences. Last year, NSW Police recorded fewer than 500 robberies involving firearms.

The director of the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research described the figures as very encouraging.

"When we looked at this issue back in 2001, the trends were very troubling indeed. It now looks as if the effort the NSW Police put into reducing firearm trafficking and firearm offences has paid off."

"It's particularly encouraging to see the sharp decline in shooting incidents involving 15-19 year old offenders. It was this age group that caused the huge increase in the homicide rates in the United States between 1985 and 1991."

During that same period crime declined similarly in America as well, and the only change in gun laws here was towards more liberality. Most credit the almost 2 decade drop in crime primarily to economic and demographic changes, having nothing to do with guns or gun law. The same is likely true in Australia.

Dave

Dave -

You should read "Freakonomics" - the authors make a very strong case - with facts and figures and without moral rhetoric - that one of the major reasons for the decrease in crime in America during the 90's and afterward was...Roe v. Wade.

Dave, did you even ATTEMPT to address my previous post where I showed your claim that the crime rate in Florida dropped due to the concealed-carry law was COMPLETELY FALSE? Did you? No, you did not.

And I'm sorry for sounding so...arrogant, but it's NOT arrogance for me to tell you that (just like with the voting fraud statistics) when it comes to crime and gun violence, the real statistics are NOT on your side.

"real statistics"

here we go.

zing -

I try to bear in mind how stats can be used quite wrongly, and so I do try to use reliable stats from non-partisan sources.

That's why I said "real statistics".

I'm just waiting for Dave to show where he got HIS stats from.

dave has a way with stats. he hovers over them, delaying their pleasure until they bend to his will... and then he uses and humiliates them. he's a bastard. a beast.

Glenn,
What about crime rates overall? Guns stop assaults, B&E's, robbery, etc... Granted the controlling efforts of Australia have lessened crimes committed with guns.... but has crime stopped? Or has it blossomed without the victims being aided by the protection of a firearm. Everything I've read here in the U.S. points to increases in crimes overall. The stats you have found only reveal the drop in crimes committed with guns, not crimes rising due to the lack guns used in defense, or threat reduction.

Zing... you casually inquired as my shower routine. Sorry not interested.

Zing... you also inquired as to my whereabouts... I grew up in East LA. Lived all over the world and live in 4 different locations throughout the year depending on work and season. And no, I wasn't joking about keeping weapons around to protect myself and my property.

I used to work around Gem shows along with coin and stamp shows. And yes I was fully armed.

I also used to work up in Alaska around communications high sites, and yes I was armed, albeit with larger calibers. I fully understood that in Alaska (as with Africa) you ARE part of the food chain.

That said, as my father before me and his father, I did a hitch with the Marines. I'm perfectly comfortable around weapons and stay proficient with them.

Are you allowed to own guns in Brooklyn?

"Zing... you casually inquired as my shower routine. Sorry not interested."

no, i didn't. i asked if you were drunk, because you posted a comment with tons of spelling errors and fat-fingered fuck ups. and you made little sense. but i never asked about your... cleanliness. did i? i haven't gotten drunk for several days now, but i don't recall any such thing. go look at your comment #49. it's hilarious.

"Zing... you also inquired as to my whereabouts... I grew up in East LA. Lived all over the world and live in 4 different locations throughout the year depending on work and season. And no, I wasn't joking about keeping weapons around to protect myself and my property."

well, i hope you live in dangerous areas. or something. if you're living in any civilized place, you really don't need a shotgun next to your bed. that's part of what the word "civilized" means. if you're setting down a shotgun before bed, you're not part of "civilized society."

"Are you allowed to own guns in Brooklyn?"

i don't know. never seen one here. i've seen a couple in my day, but not here. one in england, may have been a fake. and one in the south. both were totally unwelcome and screwed up what could have been a nice transaction. fucking idiots and their guns always fuck shit up.

Ok, I'm feeling marginally more coherent and heavily drugged now.

Here are the actual violent crime statistics for Florida from 1960-2007.

Concealed Carry passed there in 1987. In the course of the next 20 years the overall violent crime rate dropped from 1024 per 100,000 to 702 per 100,000. That's a 31.5% decrease. Of course, property crimes were down even more dramatically, from 7487 per 100,000 to 4089 per 100,000, or a drop of 45.5%. And the homicide rate dropped from 11.4 per 100,000 to 6.6 per 100,000, a drop of 42%.

I did the math. Feel free to do it yourself.

And the point is that during the period since concealed carry was enacted in Florida, crime is just down enormously in every category. Can we attribute it causally to CCW? That's impossible to do with 100% certainty, but clearly something changed in the state and CCW coincides with a period of substantial decrease in crime.

Dave

Condor: "In fact, they noted an increase in crime since the legislation. Since, I'm not tuned into Australian legalities, please enlighten us with what your country has done over the last 20 or so years to strip away a persons ability to defend themselves with weapons".

Condor: First up, a pommy bastard is an Englishman. I'd reckon currently they comprise about 2 per cent of the population. Second, New Zealand is the sheep capital of the world, not Australia. We're the beef capital. Third, most people in this country were happy about the gun ban. It banned the kind of weapons that were increasingly being used by nutcases to commit mass murder, ie multiple shooting deaths. Since the ban a decade ago, there hasn't been a single one of those.

Gun crime in NSW has dropped by about 50 per cent, which is significant, according to official figures compiloed by the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistic, which prides itself on its independence and its accuracy.

Also, we never had a gun culture here. I grew up using guns, but never felt the need to keep one in the house, and plenty of my mates have the same attitude.

The key is, especially in regard to our government, we don't feel any fear that rule of law will collapse since it's a continuation of the same rule of law that has made Britain the modern world's longest-continuous running democracy (since the late 1680s, 300-plus years).

On that note, given that the US is one of the world's most stable and long-running democracies (in the modern sense, not the ancient Greek), I can't understand why a lot of Americans worry about that one, either.

I think the personal protection thing in regard to guns is a crock. Granted, there will be the odd case where it applies, but most shootings with a gun in the home in the US aren't comitted against intruders, but someone known to the owner - family member, friend, spouse, partner, etc.

I probably shouldn't, but I still leave my back door unlocked at night. Admittedly, I have other security measures in place, and the dog hears anything unusual and lets me know pretty quick, but in general, we're not living in fear down here despite the odd lunatic who thinks drive-by shootings are a good lark.

On your last point, if you REALLY think I'm faking the accent, you could ask Clav or Dave Nalle ... I'm sure in our phone calls they could barely understand me, although I must say, I occasionally have the same problem understanding your mob especially when that old Yank accent sometimes sounds like two cats being strangled :)

Finally, we don't have gun ban here. There are certain types of weapons you can't own, although there are more lenient rules in place for those in rural areas who really need them.

I was buying something from a disposal store earlier last year in Sydney, and a guy was buying a bolt-action WWII army rifle.

You now have to go through very stringent checks to get a gun licence, which isn't a bad thing.

I think your gun mates from Australia are overplaying the situation big time.

Dave -

Will you please learn to read a table of statistics?

The violent crime RATE - the number of violent crimes per 100,000 inhabitants - in Florida DID NOT DROP in the five years from 1987 to 1992 as you claimed. In fact, the crime rate did not drop below the 1987 level UNTIL TEN YEARS LATER in 1997...which closely coincides with what the FBI showed for nationwide violent crime rates, wherein the numbers of violent crimes did not drop below the 1987 level until 1996.

In other words, the concealed-carry law in Florida had NO positive effect and may have had a negative effect.

Dave - give it up. Just as the facts and numbers are against the Dems when it comes to nuclear power, and just as the facts and numbers are against Cindy when it comes to anarchism, the facts and numbers are against you on gun control.

STM -

I think the personal protection thing in regard to guns is a crock. Granted, there will be the odd case where it applies, but most shootings with a gun in the home in the US aren't comitted against intruders, but someone known to the owner - family member, friend, spouse, partner, etc.

STM -

Apologies - here's the link.

Glenn, as I mentioned before, I'm sick and heavily drugged. I misquoted one stat, thereby giving you the opportunitty to focus on that one minor point and ignore all the more relevant and significant stuff I've posted since then. My mistake.

I've since found the correct reference and the stat. In fact, it was not a 26% reduction in crime in Florida relative to prior to CCL, but that CCL states generally had a 26% lower rate of crime than non-CCL states. Still interesting, but I got my stats mixed up earlier. The link which I finally found is here.

Now you can stop harping on that and focus on the dramatic decline in crime in Florida since CCL.

Dave

(drugged-up) dave admits a mistake! huzzah!

I saw "dave admits a mistake" in the fresh comments and I had to come running to see, with the same ferver as if someone declared "look a huge space craft has just landed on the lawn".

I reckon a big spacecraft did land on Dave's lawn

Only a whole bunch of little green men could force Dave to admit he's made a mistake.

Must have been that probe thing they use :)

OK, now I'll be nice ... Hope you're not too crook Dave. What's wrong mate? Flu??

Glenn, thanks for that link.

I think it's a hoot that some people in the US think my rights are taken away by having to get a licence to keep a gun, when I think my right is to express a view to my government that I don't want certain types of firearms in the community.

I've exercised a right to keep assault-style weapons out of the hands of nuts - at the ballot box, which is a sign of a free and mature society.

One right I really value in Australia is the right to take the bus to work without some idiot taking potshots at me.

Do I need a gun? Nup.

Reason: I don't live in the bush, I'm not a cop, and I'm not in the army.

And I don't have any worries about the army turning up on my doorstep and carting me away, so that ones null and void too.

The 2nd amendment - the way it's interpreted - is a total anachronism in a modern civilised society.

Perhaps Americans who support it holus-bolus should remember that one of the founding fathers expressed a view that they couldn't possibly have got everything right in that document, and believed Americans of the future would be clever enough to make changes to the constitution as they saw fit.

Beyond what I consider certain inalienable rights (like free speech, the freedom to gather, etc) it's not something that should be set in stone when its time has passed.

Unshackled gun rights = far too many gun deaths. If some of you can't see the correlation, neither me nor anyone else is going to be able to undo the delusion.

America is now the world's biggest shooting gallery.

It's not my business of course, but to guys like Condor: don't give me any bollocks about how my rights have been taken away and how I can't protect myself. I've still got two fists.

It's all relative I guess, and depends on your point of view, but how I see it is that I've got way more legislated-for rights down here than Americans will ever have.

Things like the right not to be arbitrarily sacked from a job, the right to free top quality medical care courtesy of the taxes I pay (and the right not to go bankrupt when I get sick), the right to express a point of view about how damaging a proliferation of certain kinds of guns are in the general community, and have the government listen ...

That kind of stuff.

As much as I love you guys over there and consider you our close cousins, there are differences - and what I see of America's brand of "freedom" doesn't convince me that it's freedom at all.

Bondage to fear is what it seems like a lot of the time.

America is now the world's biggest shooting gallery.

Is that because of the Law abiding citizen who owns a gun legally or is it due to the criminals who sell,steal & purchase unregistered & "hot" firearms on the black market?!

yeah lets have no more guns and start with the cops and the army

Things like the right not to be arbitrarily sacked from a job, the right to free top quality medical care courtesy of the taxes I pay (and the right not to go bankrupt when I get sick), the right to express a point of view about how damaging a proliferation of certain kinds of guns are in the general community...

This sounds familiar...Wait...Yea, didn't that fat dumb ass named Micheal Moore try to persuade people with his soc-ial-ist propaganda as well??

Yeah, except Moore was stupid enough to try it in America, where too people live under the delusion that they're free because they have to pay either in blood or through the fu.king nose for everything.

We don't need no fu.king Michael Moore to convince us ... we've been livin' that dream for 100 years down here in the south Pacific.

It's probably why none of us is breaking the door down to get into America. That'd be the clue.

It's probably why none of us is breaking the door down to get into America. That'd be the clue.

Or,maybe,you're too poor to make the f*cking trip.

I knew I would weed out this anti-American tirade.
I have no idea about what kind of "bondage to fear" that you are talking about. You really don't have a clue do you?

I knew I would weed out this anti-American tirade.

If you troll long enough, Brianguppy, you'll irritate even a reasonable man like Stan.

As a matter of fact, Stan, who's a good friend of mine, has long proclaimed, on these threads, his admiration and respect for america and americans. In fact, he's a far greater admirer of america than I am, and I'm an american citizen.

He doesn't agree with the way guns are so widely available in america, but it's one of the few exceptions to his admiration.

Anti-american he is not.

"He doesn't agree with the way guns are so widely available in america"

Well then, Stan doesn't have to live here does he?

Stan has this recurring theme that the American gun owner is afraid of the gov't and the cops....
exclusively. I want to protect my property, my business and when I'm in the bush (working on communication towers)... my life. I am not afraid, I'm just prepared. In fact, I don't recall being really afraid of anything since I was about 25 and exiting the Marine Corps.

Perhaps life in Australia is different, but I have a number of friends and relatives in Australia who don't agree with Stan at all. So, in my mind, Stanley is really isn't a spokeman for his country. But he's very vocal.. and his blogs read like the script to "A country practice." Which intially made my suspect as to the true origins of STM. But I guess he's been vouched for.

As for Zinger... he likes Brooklyn and he doesn't own guns, has seen a couple and wouldn't own one because is girlie friends wouldn't put out.... I think he thought I was some hillbilly because of a grammatical error in a response... after checking with MS-Word... I found that I actually did spell truely (truly) wrong, my bad. If MS-word isn't picking up my errors, blame Bill Gates, not me. Also I type (keyboard) at about 50 wpm, and I don't care how many mistakes I make, it's a pain to type the response up in word, cut and past to this and publish... Why? Because, after a long day or night at work... I'm not in the mood to craft a shitty response to a shitty blog.

This discussion is insane. 'nuff said.

Well then, Stan doesn't have to live here does he?

No, he doesn't have to. And doesn't.

I'm not in the mood to craft a shitty response to a shitty blog.

Too bad you decided to inflict yourself on us this morning, then.

condor--your comment was littered with grammatical errors, the syntax is ridiculous and you successfully made typos that word wouldn't pick up at nearly every opportunity. but that's not why i thought you were a hick. that's why i thought you were drunk. i thought you were a hick because you keep a shotgun next to your bed at night. like there are occasionally bears to kill in your bedroom or you live in mortal fear of the sasquatch.

fact is, if you keep a gun in reach at all times, you're afraid of something.

"no, having the gun around means i'm NOT afraid," you might say. but what were you afraid of without the gun?

If you troll long enough, Brianguppy, you'll irritate even a reasonable man like Stan.

[Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor] BUT, as soon as I have read an article & have spoke my mind, because I am FREE to do so, that makes me a troll?!

Did Mr. America (Stan) answer my question before the comment about Michael Moore... NO, he didn't because his basis for a shooting gallery that is tormented by fear is unfounded. We should give up our right to own a gun and let the criminals have free reign. Or we could move to Canada. *smirk*

"Or,maybe,you're too poor to make the f*cking trip."

[personal attack deleted]

What, do you think you're all universally better off over there and the rest of us live in mud huts or something? You have a lot to learn if that's the case.

These are the kinds of delusions that have the rest of us tearing our hair out in frustration at dealings with SOME Americans.

How many times have you travelled outside the US [personal attack deleted]?

I wonder if I can top it, just starting with the trips I've made to your country. Hawaii counts too, I suppose, being a state so that'd be even more.

Come on, if you want to make those kinds of statements, back them up from your end and we'll see who's poor and who isn't.

And mate, I'm not anti-American. I'm anti-stupidity. [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor]

Brian [edited] asks: "Is that because of the Law abiding citizen who owns a gun legally or is it due to the criminals who sell,steal & purchase unregistered & "hot" firearms on the black market?!"

I answered that earlier [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor]. If you can't see the simple correlation between the proliferation of firearms in the US and the number of gun homicides, there's no hope [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor].

It's not about legal or illegal. It's about a country infected with a bizarre gun culture, and it's purely about numbers and acceptance. Legal guns in the US become illegal guns.

And yes, Clav's right - I simply don't like guns, although I could probably use one better than you. I know first-hand what they can do to a person, it's not very pretty, and I formed an opinion over a period of time that all they're good for is killing people.

Which is one of the reasons I chose not to move to the US to work some years ago. So yeah, Condor, I don't have too.

That and that I like it in my "poor" country down here on the edge of paradise.

And Condor, trust me, my view on firearms is representative of the majority view.

It might not fit the redneck picture, but it's a view held by most of us.

[edited]

Are you too busy traveling,Bono, to answer my question that stemmed from your stupid rant about how us Americans are living in fear. You come across the pond a few times & think you know the country I live in?? Do you f*cking pay taxes here? Did you serve for my country? Have you lived in Dorchester? NO?? I didn't think so. [edited]

[Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor] I bet you have no idea what it means to live in a city where people are being shot up. Believe me, it's not the law abiding citizens doing this shit & backing these citizens into a corner isn't going to rid the problem either! [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor] Kinda like "Guns for Giftcards" *Smirk* day that happened in Boston! Fucking Retards! I'm pretty sure the founding fathers weren't thinking of taki