Detroit, Cesspool of Gun Violence

[mikeb302000]

http://www.detnews.com/article/20110819/METRO01/108190379/1409/5-of-7-shooting-homicides-over-weekend-closed--Detroit-police-say">The Detroit News

Police have made three arrests, identified a fourth suspect and believe they have closed five of the seven homicides that happened last weekend in Detroit.

The shootings between 6 a.m. Friday and 6 p.m. Saturday included the deaths of 14- and 16-year-old boys in separate incidents.

The last time I referred to The Motor City that way, I was taken to task by an irate Detroiter who was quite offended at my characterization of his fair city. I'd like to know what else you can call it when the police and the city are happy to report solving most of the murders that take place over the weekend, most of the SEVEN murders.

And who do you suppose is responsible for this miserable situation? Well, let's see, there's plenty of blame to go around. There are the former crooked mayors who robbed the city blind for generations, there are the socio-economic difficulties that afflict Detroit more than many other places, to name just two.

I suppose some would say you must blame only the criminals. They are responsible for their actions. But, I'm afraid it's not that simple.

Two other sources of blame, which for me are important, are the gun manufacturers who produce and sell as many weapons as possible, like any other business, to make a profit. They do this well aware of the fact that a certain portion of their production ends up in the hands of criminals. In fact they pay lobbyists in Washington to make that as easy as possible by blocking the universal background check law, for example.

The other blameworthy group is the gun-rights advocates, who along with the gun manufacturers, fight for the most lax gun control laws possible, always under the pretext of freedom and rights, but really for a much simpler reason, so they won't be inconvenienced themselves.

That's what I call a pathetic, nearly-criminal self-centeredness. But I'd like to know what you think.

http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/">(cross posted at Mikeb302000)

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[OffWithTheirHeads]

2. Heck, there are only two people left in Arizona. The rest of us have all

shot each other.

[mikeb302000]

3. yes, and if you keep complaining about how I do it

you're gonna drive yourself mental.

The argument you offered is one of the most facile and easily defeated. Strict gun control laws in a particular city or state are useless if the surrounding areas have it easier. More importantly, what we call strict gun control is a joke, it's really a mish-mash of easily circumvented regulations. We've never tried real gun control.

About a particular city in gun-friendly Vermont, there are many factors which go into gun violence. In Burlington they don't suffer from many of the other factors like they do in Chicago or Newark. Gun availability is one of those factors, only one. The reason I focus on it is because compared to poor education, poverty, drug addiction and the rest, gun availability is a concrete thing about which we could do something quickly.

[LAGC]

4. I don't think you've ever clearly explained how we would legally go about accomplishing that, Mike.

Short of 2/3 of the states voting to repeal the Second Amendment, how do you ever expect to reduce gun availability?

Like I've said before, violent crime rates are continuing to go down DESPITE millions more guns on the streets every year. If the anti-gunners would just shut their traps and quit making people paranoid about new gun restrictions, chances are fewer people would go out and buy guns as there would be less perceived need due to the lowering crime rates.

People like you are the #1 reason why gun proliferation is so rampant despite falling crime rates.

[Kolesar]

6. "Short of 2/3 of the states voting to repeal the Second Amendment"...how lame

"shut their traps and quit making people paranoid about new gun restrictions" -- no, you shut your "trap"

"People like you are the #1 reason why gun proliferation is so rampant" -- no, it's the Ted Nugent/weapons industry inducted malaise.

[WAFS]

10. Ted Nugent? Really?

People don't buy guns because Ted Nugent has one. People buy guns because they perceive a threat, from someone or something, and they believe that having a gun will counter that threat. Also, some people simply use guns as a form of recreation, or to provide food for themselves and their families.

[iverglas]

15. a master of bald assertions

People buy guns because they perceive a threat, from someone or something, and they believe that having a gun will counter that threat.

And people's perceptions and beliefs are just never influenced by anyone or anything else.

Why, nobody in the US believes that I've waited six months for the eye specialist appointment I have this morning! Of course not. They know that it's the three-week follow-up from the minor elective eye surgery I had three weeks ago, for which I waited a month (summer holidays can be a pain in the ass). Nobody at all in the US believes that I and my family are unable to get the medical care we need because Canada rations it and we die on waiting lists. Nobody believes that at all ... because nobody in the US tells them that ...

You may be needing this: :sarcasm:

Nobody ever, ever perceives something that isn't there, or believes something that is false. Not ever.

:eyes:



typo fixed

[SteveM]

53. Actually, the expansion of 2A rights has been the result of gun-controllers...

and prohibitionists. No doubt people like Nugent and the arms industry will take advantage of the situation. But the main reason why laws have changed in favor of the RKBA IS most obviously the actions of those groups who, since the late 1960s, have sought to ban and prohibit weapons in general. Only lately have they backed off on their sweeping prohibitionism, and sought to demonize certain guns, or pass bureaucratic laws designed to affect the acquisition of arms by the law-abiding, all in the name of "reasonableness" and "common sense." But both pro and anti-2A folks know the original (and continuing) goal is firearms prohibition.

The best thing to ever happen to the Second Amendment is the gun-control/ban "movement," and its chief (and only effective) ally MSM.

[GreenStormCloud]

21. A Constitutional Amendment takes 3/4 of the states for ratification. N/T

[LAGC]

62. My mistake.

Thanks for clarifying that.

An even bigger hurdle, in this case...

[WAFS]

9. OK, I'll bite...

How do we quickly do something that prevents criminals from using guns to commit crimes while not infringing on the rights of the vast majority of law abiding citizens to keep and bear arms?

[DonP]

14. Don't waste your time

Most of the gun control people that are still out there, and there are fewer every year, don't care about our 2nd amendment rights. They don't think we should have them anyway or that they are a misinterpretation by a rogue Right Wing SCOTUS.

They have no problem with the idea of things like banning all handguns, hunting or even forced confiscation, if that's what it takes. As long as somebody else does the actual confiscation of course.

Some of them are fundamentally fascists at heart, but since it's about guns they think it's OK to go to any unconstitutional extreme to get what they think is a "better world", serious "end justify the means" people. They have a double standard and have no problem treating gun owners and sport shooters as stereotypes and second class citizens, when they would never think of doing that to any other group.

[iverglas]

16. "Some of them are fundamentally fascists at heart,"

... but since it's about guns they think it's OK to go to any unconstitutional extreme to get what they think is a "better world", serious "end justify the means" people. They have a double standard and have no problem treating gun owners and sport shooters as stereotypes and second class citizens, when they would never think of doing that to any other group.


But since that doesn't describe anybody AT THIS WEBSITE, why would you instruct the other poster not to bother enquiring of somebody AT THIS WEBSITE?

Hm?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

30. Why are you so sure that there are not rabid anti gunners at this site?

There are certainly a few who qualify in the eyes of many.

[iverglas]

33. still can't read?

Or is it: won't acknowledge?

There was nothing in the post I replied to about "rabid anti-gunners" at this site or elsewhere.

Perhaps the person who composed that post will reply to mine.

But hey, if you know of any "rabid anti-gunners" here, you should introduce yourself, I guess.

"Anti-gunner". What a silly salad.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

39. Snork

Your wording fetish is at time amusing.

[rl6214]

60. You jmean this?

"snork" or this "What a silly salad"

[rl6214]

59. Where did he do this?

"why would you instruct the other poster not to bother enquiring of somebody AT THIS WEBSITE?"

[iverglas]

67. breadcrumbs

Use your finger, follow the dotted line.

Read post 14 to which I was replying.

Check the subject line.

Let me know whether you need further assistance.

[WAFS]

35. You're probably right.

I've found very few, if any, anti-rights types who actually have a plan to prevent criminals from using guns without infringing on the rights of the vast majority of us.

[DonP]

43. But cheer up!

Every single gun control supporter seems to be all talk and no action.

All they do is rant and rave online. Maybe that's why the Brady group has no real dues paying members and the NRA is well over 4 million now and growing.

I have yet to find any that are actively involved in gun control causes or that "proudly" contribute to the Brady Group. Well, we had one last year that claimed they had sent Brady $2,500, but then we found that the total Brady contributions for the year were only something like $200.

But nobody has any petitions circulating for CCW recall in any state, too much work I guess, and no one in their right mind is suggesting repealing the 2nd amendment. The best they hope for is a re-balanced SCOTUS and somehow that Heller and McDonald cases will be magically overturned. That's about as likely as overturning Brown v. Board of Education.

So they can rant electronically all they want. The only thing that really matters are the results of the pro 2nd amendment supporters. 49 states with CCW passed by a bipartisan (Illinois is next) and not one effort to repeal in any state, Chicago has lost 3 gun control cases in a row in court, several states going from may issue to shall issue, some going constitutional carry, more cities allowing CCW in more places. The list goes on an on. All while the violent crime rate continues to drop.

They've reached the point where they celebrate a single Wisconsin county building banning CCW, when it becomes activated this fall, as if it were a legislative or SCOTUS major victory.

So it seems to boil down to the fact that sports shooters actually support their POV with their checkbooks and actions and gun control people just talk - endlessly, pointlessly and repetitively.

[WAFS]

73. They do seem to make a lot of noise but not much in the line of results. n/t

[iverglas]

74. yes, people do make noise

about universal health care, getting out of Iraq, taxing the rich, taking action on climate change, feeding the hungry, housing the homeless ...

Yes indeed, the voices of sanity and decency may often be heard, but true, they are not producing much in the line of results these days, in many places in the world.

It's kind of what happens when the other voices drown them out at the polling stations.

This is a matter for great rejoicing, of course. Or so I understand it from posts like yours.

Might makes right, after all.

[mikeb302000]

63. Are you making me repeat myself, or is that a

serious request? http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2010/10/straw-purchasing-solution.html">I've answered it before.

1. Background checks on every gun transfer (no private sales)
2. Licensing of all gun owners requiring criminal and mental health background checks
3. Registration of every gun sold. The licensed owner will have to renew the registration after 3 months and yearly thereafter.


Those are the main ones which would put straw purchasers out of business.

In addition safe storage laws in the home would cut down on theft. How long do you think it would be under these conditions for the criminals to begin having a hard time finding guns?

[beevul]

64. Yes, but you haven't answered with anything viable.

"1. Background checks on every gun transfer (no private sales)"

The federal government has no authority -wasn't granted the authority to begin with, and never will be - to require it.

At the state level, yes there have been some successes in that area, however, I doubt very much you'll see any more of them.

"2. Licensing of all gun owners requiring criminal and mental health background checks"

Like it or not, gun ownership in America, is a constitutionally protected fundamental civil right. As such, USSC precedent regarding civil rights would forbit what you suggest.

"3. Registration of every gun sold. The licensed owner will have to renew the registration after 3 months and yearly thereafter."

Good luck with that. People that want such things, people that push such things, have shown that it wont stop there. Have shown they can not be trusted. Have shown and stated publicly in some cases what their intent - where this will lead - is.

You can wish for all that to your hearts content, but like the saying goes, you can wish in one hand and crap in the other, and see which gets full first.

[mikeb302000]

65. so you're agreeing that those measures would work.

you're just saying they're not practical or not legal, is that it.

[LAGC]

66. Sure, if we just tossed the Bill of Rights and became a police state...

...I imagine our crime rate would be quite low indeed!

The question is: would it worth it? Sacrificing our freedoms, everything this country stands for, for the veneer of security and safety?

I keep forgetting, you're not an American, so you wouldn't understand.

[beevul]

70. Was I?

Tell you what, take a look at places where your preferred rules are in effect inpart of in full, look at the gun violence levels,and get back to me. You tell me, is is working?

You could start with say...chicago, D.C. and L.A.

Hows that workin out for them, eh?


I'll wait right here for a reply.

[AtheistCrusader]

48. Martial Law would work too. And warrantless home to home searches. And curfews.

And a dozen other ways we might shit upon civil liberties.

Why pick one, when you can do more?

[Glassunion]

54. Warrantless home to home searches...

It was tried and failed miserably after SCOTUS spanked the shit out the ones who tried.

I lived through it. If it ever happens again, I will leave the country.

[SteveM]

52. "...but the introduction of small-mouth bass has caused intergrading with Guada-"

[rl6214]

58. "We've never tried real gun control."

What's this "we" crap? You live in italy, worry about what's going on there.

Unrec for...well, you know why.

Typical BS.

[geckosfeet]

5. I think, socio-economic factors are much a greater driver of crime than gun laws.

Socio-economic factors determine who gets jobs, who needs to join the military, who gets educated, who eats, who has millions in the bank, who is exposed to drugs and alcohol, who grows up in safety and security, and in many cases who lives and who dies.

Guns are tools. Utilitarian pieces of metal polymer composites.

[iverglas]

17. "Guns are tools. Utilitarian pieces of metal polymer composites."

Tools needed by people who choose to engage in certain activities and cause certain harms, in order to act on their choices, whatever the reason for their choices to do those things.

So why not just make sure they have no difficulty acquiring them, hm?

[ileus]

24. actually they're safety devices meant to keep loved ones safe.

The motto of my guns...first do no harm.

They weren't designed to harm but to save lives of me and my loved ones...


Of course 98% of mine are for sporting purposes (hunting/target) so those aren't even designed for any reason other than enjoyment for me and my family.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DissedByBush]

8. Car manufacturers know a portion of their cars will be used in crimes

They are responsible for all DUIs, hit-and-runs and speeding tickets!

[WAFS]

11. Good point.

Does that mean that computer makers are responsible for hackers and identity thieves? If so, I'm gonna sue the heck out of Apple, Dell, and Microsoft.

[iverglas]

18. what's this, auto-reply?

I'm sure it must be relevant to something in the opening post, but I seem to be needing directions.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

38. Please read the OP

And who do you suppose is responsible for this miserable situation?
.
.
.
Two other sources of blame, which for me are important, are the gun manufacturers who produce and sell as many weapons as possible, like any other business, to make a profit. They do this well aware of the fact that a certain portion of their production ends up in the hands of criminals.

The OP claimed that gun manufacturers were part of the problem in Detroit since they knew that some of their products would end up in hands of criminals. Others are pointing out to the OP what a stupid concept that was.

Hopefully that is enough directions for you.

[SteveM]

55. Good idea, 'auto-reply.' Could use that tech. in this forum! nt

[TheCowsCameHome]

12. Seven homicides in one weekend.

Wow. That's awful.

[ileus]

13. I remember the last time I was in detroit...do you remember the last time you were there?

[iverglas]

19. I do, I do

The frost heave on the way in on the I-94 broke a bolt in my Toyota van and I spent three days in St Clair Shores waiting for the repair before I could continue on to Moline ...

[ileus]

22. I don't believe you....a toyota can't break.

[Union Scribe]

23. That's because Michigan doesn't like scab vehicles.

[iverglas]

25. yes, I'm sure that's how the Toyota dealership in question felt

"Scabby" would have described it though. It was a 1979 that I bought in 1988 ... drove until about 2000, into the ground almost literally ... they didn't use to cope well with the salt on the roads where I live. 1984 Suzuki was the same. A fairly minor problem though, really, just the odd replacing of undercarriage bits.

It's always been such a shame that North American car manufacturers have just never produced products to rival those foreign ones, eh? Unless you're into pickup trucks. I'm not.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[virginia mountainman]

45. I beg to differ... Thunderbird Turbo Coupe....

I LOVE, my 1985 Thunderbird Turbo Coupe... Yes, she is old, yes she needs paint. She is by far my oldest vehicle (and I own several ranging from 2 SUVs, 1 F150, 1 Pontiac Grand Prix GTP, and a Ford Mustang GT Convertible)

But hands down by far, my favorite, is the Turbo Coupe, she is sleek, fast, comfortable, hangs the curves like she is glued to the road, and sips the gas (if I stay out of it, with the 5 speed manual gearbox it has, it gets around 30 MPG) I have "improved" it some, with a free flowing exhaust, larger Turbo, and added an intercooler, with the NACA ducted hood from a later Turbo Coupe. Yes, it will run with the Mustang GT...and Yes, if the road is curvy, I can walk away from the GT... I have kept the boost pressure relatively low, I want my car to last a LOOOOONG time. It is amazing what a turbocharged 2.3L 4 cylinder can do.

It has been one of my favorite cars, in have ever owned, reliable as a brick, it has never left me stranded (yes I carry common fail items like a TFI module). Now I don't drive it but just a few times a month, to save miles on the old girl, but when I do, it is a special treat!

I have owned many cars over the years, and, even to this day, in my eyes, that old Thunderbird is better than many of the "bland" cars that come from overseas and in many cases the domestic automakers now. And when you compare it with BMW's and other high end imports from its era, its not even a close comparison. UAW PRIDE!!!!!!

[AtheistCrusader]

49. Most of our shitty fords were made in Canada.

If that makes you feel better.

[rl6214]

61. Why don't you buy one of those canadian built vehicles?

[iverglas]

68. oh, fer chrissakes

I have owned 3 vehicles in my life, the first bought when I was about 35. I don't drive at present.

I bought what I wanted. Used. Quite used. Fools buy new vehicles.

1. a pre-Samurai Suzuki -- I wanted small, cheap and four-wheel drive, so I wanted a Suzuki -- I live with a lot of snow that I'm not really interested in pushing around. Can you name me one of them I could have bought in the mid-1980s?

2. a pre-Previa Toyota -- I wanted the van capacity (I tended to haul sheets of plywood and drywall and such around) without the weight, and I liked the visibility of no front hood, and the height -- the NA equivalents c1990 were small trucks (the Big 3 having figured out how to get around mileage standards for cars -- build passenger vans on truck foundations) ... I couldn't afford a VW

3. a 1994 Mazda van (more like a station wagon) -- I was going to go with a particular NA model that was closer to the Toyota height/visibility but still a truckish thing -- they were cheap and plentiful but everybody I talked to told me it was a piece of crap and to stay clear, so I bought what I found on offer for the price I wanted

Are you happy?

[beevul]

71. O.T. but...

1. a pre-Samurai Suzuki -- I wanted small, cheap and four-wheel drive, so I wanted a Suzuki -- I live with a lot of snow that I'm not really interested in pushing around. Can you name me one of them I could have bought in the mid-1980s?

Chevy s-10/gmc s-15 pickup or blazer model. Great little vehicles.

3. a 1994 Mazda van (more like a station wagon) -- I was going to go with a particular NA model that was closer to the Toyota height/visibility but still a truckish thing -- they were cheap and plentiful but everybody I talked to told me it was a piece of crap and to stay clear, so I bought what I found on offer for the price I wanted.

mid 90s gmc safari/chevy astro. The 4.3 v6 in them runs practically forever.

[iverglas]

72. still OT but

Pickup trucks R not me. For one thing, the whole idea of a van is to put stuff *inside* it. ;) I know, pickup trucks can be covered. They also don't carry passengers in the back seat when you are toting people rather than stuff. When I took the little neighbour girls on outings, or drove friends and family to sightsee around town, I didn't want to be tossing them in the cargo hold.

I know, I know, they do that in Texas ... or at least they were doing it when I was there. I was gobsmacked to see people actually driving around in the late 20th century with children unsecured in the back of a pickup truck. Just a cautionary tale about somebody else's experience: a client of mine lost four kids under five when they were in a serious head-on car crash: she had a broken pelvis because she was wearing a seat belt; they died because they were unsecured in the back of a station wagon. (She was pregnant again when I met her ... there may be something to that licensing-parents idea ...) I am a kids-and-seatbelts, in the back seat, fanatic.

The Astro was the mid-90s NA vehicle in question -- I did test-drive a couple, but I felt like a trucker. My mechanic had one. He advised against it. ;)

[Spoonman]

42. "scab vehicles"

After 2 Ford F-250 trucks ($35,000 each) crapped out on me (17,000 miles, 41,000 miles), I felt the same as most Americans did.

My Toyota was built in San Antonio, and has 123,000 miles now. Oil, tires and shocks are the only things I've had to replace. (It also has the PERFECT concealment cubby-hole for my Kimber .45!)

I am familiar with both sides of the story, so don't bother, the truth always lies somewhere in the middle.

[Union Scribe]

57. I'm not going to apologize for my pro-domestic stance

any more than I'm going to apologize for my pro-gun stance.

[iverglas]

69. and I give about as much of a crap

about both, other than to advise you to keep your disgusting false accusations to yourself.

[Scout]

44. Tiger game last Friday night, and another next week.

Slow's BBQ too, yum!

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

26. as long as this is here for as long as it's here

and I'm replying to something substantive so I don't expect my post to be deleted:

Union Scribe:
That leads me to the real problem of your crap argument:
you think laws make criminals stop being criminals.

Would you substantiate this claim, please?

Provide something, anything, to back up your assertion that the poster (or heck, anyone else) thinks that laws make criminals stop being criminals.

[Union Scribe]

29. Just as soon as you provide that cite I asked for

regarding suicidal people being homicidal.

[iverglas]

34. I seem to have missed that

Perhaps you have missed the entire discussions here of the phenomenon of homicide-suicide.

I'm sure a search will find them for you.

Over to you.

[iverglas]

47. google results for the lazy

iverglas "homicide-suicide"

Not that you will find me saying "suicidal people are homicidal". You made that one up.

Now I'll look forward to my answer.

[gravity556]

41. I believe that's called "recidivism".

I know, it's polysyllabic, but it basically means criminals who, upon release, commit more crimes, getting locked up, again and again. See also "career criminal".

And folks might get the idea that you think more laws will stop crime because you constantly harp on how lax gun laws are, blah blah blah. Here's a memo, Sparky-the more restrictive the laws, the more lucrative the black market. And since, as you love to quote 90% of folks don't carry daily, and since the cops keep getting cut back, who's defending those folks who can't or simply WON'T defend themselves?

Not I, says this gun carrier. Call me paranoid all you want, but when you're trying to find cover in a McDonalds, I'm getting my family out. The rest of you have the same chances, unless you're one of those pro-criminal safety people. Then I would recommend taking your wallet out of your back pocket beofre you wet yourselves. Robbers hate pissed on wallets.

[iverglas]

46. wow, there's a big word

I published a paper on recidivism back in 1976.

I don't believe anything in this vicinity is called recidivism, sadly.

I'll keep waiting for my answer.

[ileus]

27. Excellent post....thanks for sharing

[Union Scribe]

31. Thanks

At least someone will have seen it :P

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

36. Typical dribble from you

I suppose some would say you must blame only the criminals. They are responsible for their actions. But, I'm afraid it's not that simple.

Economics, history, lack of social support, gutted public education up through high school, sky rocketing college costs, lack of civic infrastructure contribute nothing?

Two other sources of blame, which for me are important, Irrational and incorrect are the gun manufacturers who produce and sell as many weapons as possible, like any other business, to make a profit. Many smaller manufacturers have gone out of business. There is very limited profit available outside of military contractsThey do this well aware of the fact that a certain portion of their production ends up in the hands of criminals. So are all producers of goods. Drunks drive cars, is that the fault of the automakers? Mass murders eat in resutrants sometimes, is that the Applebee's responsibility? In fact they pay lobbyists in Washington to make that as easy as possible by blocking the universal background check law, for example.Please document where that is happening. Note that the NRA is not run/owned/controlled by the manufacturers.

The other blameworthy group is the gun-rights advocates, who along with the gun manufacturers, fight for the most lax gun control laws possible, always under the pretext of freedom and rights, but really for a much simpler reason, so they won't be inconvenienced themselves.Conclusion without facts or support. Typical from you. Come back when you can do better.

Per the admins, you are indeed allowed to flog your blog here, that doesn't mean your posts aren't nonsense and we can not set records for Unrecs for them.

[Atypical Liberal]

37. Most of those crimes.

I'd be willing to be that most of the crime in Detroit revolves around gangs and drugs, and most of the gun violence in that city is committed by people who already can't legally own a firearm.

But in any case, the crime in these major urban centers revolves around two important things:

1) Drug prohibition. As with alcohol in the 20's and 30's, drug prohibition does not appreciably affect demand. All it does is turn an otherwise lawful business that has recourse to due process of law to settle disputes into an unlawful business where there is no recourse of law to settle disputes and so they get settled outside the law, often with violence.

2) Lack of opportunity, real and perceived. People with less opportunities, or who even simply think there are no opportunities for lawful advancement of their lives will undoubtedly turn to crime to satisfy their desires.

As wealth in this country concentrates at the top, opportunities for everyone else will decline. Those at the bottom of the pile will feel this first.

Firearms are simply the convenient means for committing crime. But getting rid of firearms does not address the root problems that are causing crime.

The other blameworthy group is the gun-rights advocates, who along with the gun manufacturers, fight for the most lax gun control laws possible, always under the pretext of freedom and rights, but really for a much simpler reason, so they won't be inconvenienced themselves.

The simple fact continues to be that I don't care what the actions of criminals are. They have no bearing on how I live or should live my life. I am not going to allow the actions of criminals to be used as an excuse to curtail my firearm rights.

Moreover, if you take firearms away from the law-abiding people in an attempt to take them away from criminals, all you are going to do is make it so every single victim of violent crime is left with only three choices: Flee if they are fast enough, submit if they are tough enough, or engage in a physical contest of strength with their attackers if they are strong enough. The weak will be at the mercy of the strong.

[rrneck]

40. It's a pity

that a discussion of such an important issue by educated adults should be reduced to something resembling an undergraduate bull session. And all because the OP knows how to type a complete sentence in a cookie cutter format.

That's why we can't get anything done in this country. Everyone is so busy feeding their egos and wallets off of an issue they have no interest in actually dealing with it.

Do you have a firearm free self defense solution that works as well as a gun?

[Abin Sur]

51. Until someone invents a phaser that can be set to "stun"

Or the equivalent, such a solution does not exist.

[AtheistCrusader]

50. Fact free as usual.

"I suppose some would say you must blame only the criminals. They are responsible for their actions. But, I'm afraid it's not that simple."

Nice that you declare it so, but it doesn't make it so. One way or another, criminals, or not-yet-caught/convicted criminals are to blame. Both the people enaged in unlawful use, and the people engaged in unlawful transfer of firearms to ineligible recipients.

My RKBA is not self centered, any more than my right to self expression, which could also be mis-used in a criminal manner to kill, by starting a riot, mob, etc.

[SteveM]

56. "...steel radials, once industry standard, have given way to low-profile designs which..."