Another gun-free zone shooting - Ohio State University

[gorfle]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/03/09/ohio.state.shooting/index.html?hpt=T1

Once again people of ill intent disobey the rules about firearms while the victims are helpless to resist.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

1. Texas yesterday, Ohio today.

Is the reporting simply getting more involved and focused on these shootings, or are there more shootings?
I really cannot tell, or if both.

[TheWraith]

5. As a rule, mass shootings are pretty rare.

However, if the chance of something happening to a given person on a given day is one in a billion, then that thing will still happen every three days in the US. But the media is more likely to cover a sensational story than they are, say, the fact that 150 people died today because they didn't have healthcare. Or the fact that coal pollution kills more people every year in this country than guns and 9/11 put together.

[Bold Lib]

7. Rare yes, but what are the odds that they happen in a "Gun Free Zone" when they do?

I bet it is damn near 100%.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

87. Deleted sub-thread

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

[Fresh_Start]

2. I'm okay with guns

as long as they are registered and the owners are licensed which would require them to be periodically tested to see if they are emotionally and mentally competent to be a gun owner.

I am tired of reading about someone tragically killing their own families including small children because they don't feel manly anymore after they lost their job or wealth or home.

[cowman]

6. Why, as a

law abiding citizen, with no, zero, criminal history, should I have to register my weapon, and why do I have to prove to the govt. that I am competent to carry a firearm? I've already done that when I got my CCW Permit. Here in the rural part of NV, the local govt and county sheriff trusts it's citizens and we don't have to register our guns. As a matter of fact, we are allowed to carry in our local stores and are welcomed with open arms. All registration does is give the govt a list of who owns firearms and I for one don't trust the govt with that info. Call me paranoid if you want but judging from past experiences with the govt I think we have good reason not to trust them

[Fresh_Start]

21. you have to register your car and be licensed to use it

its a public safety concern.

[gorfle]

26. Not true.

you have to register your car and be licensed to use it its a public safety concern.

You only have to register your car and be licensed to use it on public property.

If you use your car on private property, it does not need to be registered, nor do you require a license to operate it.

Firearms are much the same way. If you use them on private property, no permit or registration is generally required.

If you want to carry in public, often a permit is required.

[safeinOhio]

30. That would be fine with handguns too

You can legally own one in your own home and on your own property. Put it in your car to take to a range or anywhere else a crime? I have no problem with registering all of my handguns to take them off my property. Seems only bad guys would bitch.

[TheWraith]

33. The bad guys wouldn't "bitch."

They simply wouldn't obey the law. That's the same whether you have no registration at all, or draconian registration of the tenth degree like New York State does. So most people who realize that don't believe in penalizing people who DO obey the law by making them jump through unnecessary hoops which do absolutely nothing to reduce crime or improve safety.

Tell me, if someone needs to apply for a license--with all the fees and paperwork that would go with that--just to take their gun to the range to practice with it, what difference would that make in the level of public safety?

[gorfle]

35. Not necessarily.

Most states have provisions for the transportation of firearms without having to register for a concealed carry permit.

For example, if you wanted to tow or trailer your non-registered car to a race track, you can certainly do that because you are not actually operating it on public roads.

Likewise if you want to drive your firearms from your home to a private shooting range, most states allow for the safe, unloaded, inaccessible transport of firearms for that purpose without registration.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted sub-thread

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

[cowman]

51. Driving is a

privilage not a right. The 2nd amend is a right

[PavePusher]

64. Do you claim the licencing and registration...

will prevent crimes?

The stats on both gun and vehicular crime seem to not support this supposition.

Edit: In general, these things are only good for taxation purposes. How much do you propose to charge me to obtain permission to exercise my Civil Rights?

[Fresh_Start]

68. no, I claim that it may identify unsafe operators

of those tools.

[PavePusher]

72. How so?

Surely you would not give a licence to someone "unsafe"? So what would be the point? And how would you guarantee they would not be able to obtain a firearm regardless?

[rrneck]

81. Auto registration

doesn't do much to certify mental competence, responsible use of drugs and alcohol, or emotional stability.

[TheWraith]

8. And I'm sure that the religious right is tired of reading about gay people getting happily married.

Fortunately, we don't live in a country where one person's rights are subject to whether anyone else is uncomfortable with it. Despite the magnifying glass you may see in the media, the incidence of innocent people getting mass murdered is quite low.

[Fresh_Start]

24. you compare killing wives and children

with someone being uncomfortable with gay marriage?

You ought to rethink your priorities.

[TheWraith]

36. No, I compare one set of of myths and faith-based nonsense to another.

"Owning guns" does not equate to "murdering wives and children" any more than "gays getting married" equates to "end of American society."

If you'd like to do something, perhaps you should try lobbying to create a greater domestic safety net so a single job loss doesn't push them into poverty and depression, instead of thinking that it's somehow morally superior if a murderer uses an axe or a kitchen knife.

[Fresh_Start]

46. the most likely victims of gun violence

are the owner of the gun and then someone else in their family.
Suicide and homocide.
Reality.

[TheWraith]

53. That's false. The study which claimed it has been debunked dozens of times.

It counts a firearm brought by a criminal in a home invasion as "having a gun in the home."

Legal gun owners are no more likely to die due to guns than a random person on the street is.

[Fresh_Start]

55. which study are you talking about?

do you even know what you think was debunked?

[TheWraith]

58. The Kellerman study which you were alluding to, obviously.

For which Kellerman refused to release the source data for years, because once he WAS forced to release it he was exposed as having completely biased his model in order to produce the desired result. It was thoroughly debunked by Don B. Kates and Gary Kleck in "Guns and Public Health: Epidemic of Violence, or Pandemic of Propaganda?" From the book Armed: New Perspectives on Gun Control (2001), p. 79.

[Fresh_Start]

65. No I'm not getting information from the kellerman study

I'm looking at CDC, FBI, DOJ, FBI,

The data is out there if you open your minds to see it.

Total firearms deaths 2006: 30,034 CDC
Total firearms suicides same source: 16,883.
Homicide of family member 2006 DOJ: 1,781

Total gun deaths in the family: 18664: total of suicides and homicides in family.
Total gun deaths not in the family (all other causes): 11370

In my experience 18,664 is greater than 11,370. Without going any further, it already shows that its more likely to be used to cause the death of someone in the household than someone outside the household.

I'm ignoring about 800 accidental deaths since they aren't counted in the violence statistics: that statistics includes 8 year old Johnny accidentally killing his 4 year old sibling.

I'm ignoring almost 1,000 friends killed by their friends: boyfriends 150, girlfriends 450, other friend 339.

The most recent stats I can find for justifiable homicide was from 2004: it was a total of 229 and that included 49 which did not involve firearms (primarily knives).

I understand the Darwinian award aspects to owning guns. Mine are in a locked gun safe.

[PavePusher]

73. But you ignore the estimated uses of self-defense...

in which no-one dies. Often, the gun is not even fired. Self-defense does NOT automatically equal "kill". Completely the contrary, in fact.

Self-defense usage estimates range from 750K to 2.5 million times per year.

[Fresh_Start]

76. I also didn't count non-fatal injuries because I was focused on

deaths from guns.
I also didn't count other crimes committed by people wielding guns.
I didn't count threats by people with access to guns.

Almost 100 family members killed for every felon killed. Thats a helleva tradeoff.

[PavePusher]

85. Again, counting self-defense as only those cases where the felon is killed...

is not a valid method.


Unless what you want is for Citizens to actually morph self-defense into on-the-spot executions... Which would be a crime.

[TheWraith]

89. You're assuming that guns cause crime.

You're automatically assuming that without access to a gun, those people wouldn't have committed suicide, instead of simply choosing an alternative route like pills or jumping off a building.

You're also assuming that those people who killed a family member were friendly, happy people until they picked up a magical killing machine and it forced them to commit a crime with it. Because apparently no one who lacks access to a gun ever kills a family member by beating, strangling, knifing, or other methods.

Now, if you were interested in legitimate scientific process, you'd check the suicide rate in households owning guns to the suicide rate in homes of equivalent income, region, and culture, that don't own guns. To see if there was a variance. But you're not interested in facts, only in spin.

[Fresh_Start]

77. do some research

Harvard data analysis concludes that the self-defense numbers are grossly overestimated based on statistical analysis.

Criminal court judges who read the self-reported accounts of the purported self-defense gun use rated a majority as being illegal, even assuming that the respondent had a permit to own and to carry a gun, and that the respondent had described the event honestly from his own perspective.


Publication: Hemenway, David. "Survey Research and Self-defense Gun Use: An Explanation of Extreme Overestimates." Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology. 1997; 87:1430-1445.

Publication: Cook, Philip J; Ludwig, Jens; Hemenway, David. "The Gun Debate's New Mythical Number: How Many Defensive Uses per Year?" Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. 1997; 16:463-469.

[X_Digger]

79. Ahhh, more Hemenway nonsense.

Ever wonder why all the 'gunz r bad' "research" comes from the same four or five names?

[Fresh_Start]

80. there are no good statistics on defensive gun usage

its all survey data unlike the CDC injury statistics or the DOJ crime statistics which are actual counts rather than survey data.




.

[X_Digger]

83. Hard to measure what _didn't_ happen..

but even if you assume the median, you're still into the 175k range. (Admittedly, from when crime was higher, but there were fewer 'shall issue' states as well.)

[PavePusher]

86. If I recall correctly, the DOJ lists some 100K solid self-defense cases per year.

I can't seem to find the cite right now, can someone help me out? TIA.

I think their qualification method is done by actual police reports that mention the self-defense act, and/or by shots actually fired by the defendee.

[X_Digger]

88. 108,000 per 1993-4 NCVS survey

http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf

The original response would lead to 1.5M DGUs, but applying the additional questions (to verify a person's story) that comes down to 108,000.

eta: Yes, these are folks who did actually report the crime.

[PavePusher]

93. Thanks X-D! Stupid work gets in the way of Google-time.... n/t

[X_Digger]

78. replied in wrong spot. n/t

[GreenStormCloud]

123. You are not separating out legally-owned from illegally-owned guns.

Criminals live high risk lives and they usually have guns. Gang-bangers, drug dealers, pimps and prostitutes and johns, Mafia members, etc., usually know each other.

Domestic murders almost always have a history of violence and have been forbidden to own guns.

You are also including suicides, as if not having a gun would have prevented the suicide. There are many ways to kill oneself that are cheap, easily available, fast, and 100% effective. Since some industrialized coutries with extreme gun control, such as Japan, have higher suicide rates than the U.S. it seems likely that not having a gun won't stop a suicidal persohn.

Subtract out the suicides and the illegal gun owners and you are left with non-suicidal legal gun owners. We rarely use our guns wrongly.

And you are not factoring in the lives saved by having guns. My wife definately would have been murdered if she had not had a gun when she needed it. No shot fired, bad guy ran away.

[X_Digger]

59. Here's my take on the '3 times more likely'.. myth

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=221485

We've had many many many discussions on the topic of epidemiologists treating crime as a disease rather than a social problem.

Criminologists study crime. Epidemiologists study disease. When crimes reproduce via mitosis and you can pick up one from a dirty doorknob- then and only then is studying them via epidemiology relevant.

[Callisto32]

112. That is part of the thought.

You forgot

"but the people who are doing this to their families are those with violent pasts and tendencies who are mostly already barred from owning firearms.

Reality.

[Bold Lib]

9. Prior restraint on a civil liberty? I do not agree with that.

[Fresh_Start]

25. happens all the time

drivers licence
marriage licence
professional license
building permit

[SteveM]

94. Yet your list is not protected by the Constitution. The RKBA is.

[AtheistCrusader]

106. You're going to have to direct us to the specific items on the BOR guaranteeing each of those

because I'm not finding any of them on MY copy of the list.

[Callisto32]

113. Maybe you should consider that those are all wrong, too.

[oneshooter]

14. I'm okay with voters

as long as they are registered and the voters are licensed which would require them to be periodically tested to see if they are emotionally and mentally competent to be a voter.


There, if it is good enough for one right, it is good enough for another.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[Fresh_Start]

22. I'm okay with voters being registered to vote

and most states require it.

And most states exclude some people from being able to vote.
Your example proves my case.

[TheWraith]

37. No, actually it doesn't.

Voter registration is based solely on proving that you exist as a person. You are not subject to any restraint or test on your ability to vote or how you exercise it.

[Fresh_Start]

48. No, it requires you to be a person who has the right to vote

12 year olds can't vote
illegals can't vote
in many states prisoners can't vote
the mentally incompetent can't vote (if the state is aware of the person's incompetence)

[TheWraith]

54. You just named a bunch of groups which can't legally own a firearm.

So in other words, you destroyed your own point. Firearms are more regulated than voting is.

[Fresh_Start]

56. let me quote back to you your objection

"Voter registration is based solely on proving that you exist as a person. You are not subject to any restraint or test on your ability to vote or how you exercise it."

sounds like you may not have remembered what you wrote so I wanted to make it easy for you to find it.

[TheWraith]

60. Your claim was that voter registration and gun registration are the same thing.

The difference is that you can't charge people a fee for registering to vote.

You can't say "no one can register to vote after X date."

You can't discourage people from voting by making the process too difficult.

You can't demand that someone prove they're qualified by passing a knowledge test.

All of those things are routinely done with gun registration. Hence, gun registration is not the same as voter registration.

(By the way, the mentally incompetent CAN legally vote as long as there's no suspicion that they're being influenced or controlled by others.)

[Fresh_Start]

62. I dont see any place where I said voter registration and

gun registration are the same.

In the majority of states including NY, the mentally incompetent cannot vote.

[PavePusher]

66. The available scenery at any polling place...

would seem to indicate that you are wrong. From both ends of the political spectrum.

[Fresh_Start]

70. my research says very few states preclude idiots from voting

however they do preclude non compos mentis from voting.

[PavePusher]

74. Well, the screening isn't working well then.

How do you propse to screen 80 million plus gun owners?

And who will pay for it? I can give you my word that I will not.

[TheWraith]

90. Your post number 22 directly equated gun registration and voter registration.

And the residents at the NY state owned home for the developmentally disabled where my friend works are encouraged and given help in voting as a growth exercise.

[AtheistCrusader]

107. That sort of stuff has been used repeatedly to strip people of their right to vote.

See 'voter disenfranchisement'.

[spin]

20. Why should guns be registered?

Many states, such as Florida, do not require gun registration.



While I am also tired of reading of gun tragedies, I fail to see any positive benefit to gun registration.

Canada is thinking of getting rid of their system of gun registration as it is a dismal failure.

New federal bill would end long-gun registry

The federal government introduced a bill in the Senate on Wednesday to abolish the long-gun registry.

"It's totally inefficient and ineffective against crime," Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan, told reporters on Parliament Hill.

"We believe the long-gun registry as a device simply does not work … It's a misdirection of resources," he said.

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/saskatchewan/story/2009/04/01/ottawa-gun.html#ixzz0hi9IYPJV

[Fresh_Start]

23. its a public safety matter

why do you register your car?
why do you have to have a drivers license?

why do we have building codes and inspectors?

[spin]

27. If it is so important then why do so few states require registration?

It's only real value is to confiscate firearms from legal owners as criminals don't register their firearms.

In response to the furor over Patrick Purdy and his firearm, the California legislature defined and banned the "assault weapon." In 1989, it passed the Roberti-Roos bill, which listed roughly 70 firearms, generally identified by make and model and required owners of these guns to register them with the state. Additionally the legislature further defined "assault weapons" to include guns with specific characteristics such as pistol grips, magazine capacity, and other cosmetic features. The law was so draconian that even after gun-owners registered their rifles, the guns could not be sold or bequeathed.

By the 1991 cut-off date, only 34,000 firearms were registered, from an estimated 250,000 to 1 million firearms, and manufacturers renamed their firearms to avoid those named guns.

The gun banners responded to the renamed firearms and in 1991 amended the "assault weapons" law declaring that AR-15 and AK-47 "series" guns (defined as other models, regardless of manufacturer, "that are only variations, with minor differences") were "assault weapons" too.

Those amendments led to more unwitting "assault weapon" violators. People like Desert Hot Springs Police Officer Steven O'Connor was arrested and prosecuted by his own department just last year for possessing a Maadi RML rifle, incorrectly deemed an AK "series" gun. It isn't. It took ten months for the case to be dismissed; but he still isn’t back on the job. emphasis added
http://97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=23707

Obviously gun registration in California created a whole new class of criminals who were just honest citizens who happened to own a "banned weapon".

True, we have car registration. However, no one is talking about confiscating all Toyotas because they suffer from an acceleration problem which might endanger the driver and other drivers.



edited for HTML error

[PavePusher]

67. Again, please explain how registration...

would increase safety? I don't see it.

[oneshooter]

92. You list both California and New York, both have some of the

"strongest gun laws" in the US. Both have crime rates well above the national average. Is this what your registration program is about?

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[AtheistCrusader]

108. Only if you operate your car on public property.

No license or registration on your own property.

Nice analogy though. Too bad I can drive a truck through the hole in it.

[proteus_lives]

44. Do that and more will follow.

You want to be tested to see if you can vote too?

That line of thinking makes me want to :puke:

[Fresh_Start]

49. I have no problem with it: in fact I highly recommend it.

I am already tested to vote.
I had to be registered
I have to prove that I am in fact the person registered
I have to be a citizen
I had to reach the age when I'm allowed to vote in elections.
I had to be a resident of the location where I am voting
I cannot vote in multiple locations (for example two different states)
I had to not be imprisoned
I had to not be mentally imcompetent.

[oneshooter]

61. As per your previous post

"require them to be periodically tested to see if they are emotionally and mentally competent to be a voter."

As per the above post:
"I am already tested to vote."

In what way were you tested in order to be allowed to vote? Was it a mental competency test? How was it administered?
In what way were you given an "emotionally competent" test? And how was this test administered?

Were these tests given by the State?, the County?, the City?.

When was the last time these tests were given to you?

Finally, Who signed off on these tests, and was the final authority of your ability to vote?

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[PavePusher]

69. What kind of fee did you have to pay?

What classes did you have to take?

What was the waiting period?

How long does the government get until they must give you an answer in reply to your voting application?

Do you have to provide evidence of who you voted for?

Does all of this information have to be available to the "authorities" any time they wish to review it?

[Fresh_Start]

75. I have no problem with free gun registraton

of course I also have no problem with free auto registration.

I'm from an immigrant family. Most of us had to pass a test to become a citizen to allow us to vote.

They must reply to my voting application within 2 days: check your own state on its rules.

They don't know how I voted but they do know that I participated in the election. I actually sign the book when I vote and it appears to have years worth of data on voter participation.

And I'm not scared about it.

[PavePusher]

84. So, in other words...

guns are restricted far more harshly than voting. Thanks for confirming what I already knew.


On a side note, I am glad your family made the desicion to come here. I've traveled extensively, and The U.S., despite having many problems, is still, in my opinion, the best place in the world.

[oneshooter]

91. Please answer the questions about the testing procedures to vote. n/t

[Glassunion]

98. I will never register register any one of my firearms...

Both my state and my country guarantee me the right, as an individual, to posses firearms.
The federal level states my right should not be infringed on by the government.
The state level states my right should not even be questioned by the government.

Another reason is that registration is criminalizing the exercise of a right. The assumption is being made that we are not to be trusted and therefore guilty of a crime that has not been committed. So we must "register" ourselves as "potentially" harmful people. This is where there is a difference between voter registration and firearms registration. You do not register to vote because the government "feels" that you may do potential harm. You register to vote for the same reason that firearms owners have background checks run. To verify the eligibility, not the exercise thereof.

Thankfully I doubt this will happen.

[RaleighNCDUer]

100. And that is also, of course, why you don't have a license plate on your

car - the state assumes you're going to be running people over. How arrogant of them!

[Glassunion]

102. No. I do indeed have a license plate on my car.

Plain and simple driving is a privilege. Self defense and individual ownership of firearms are protected rights.

Since when would the government have the authority to force registration of rights?

It is quite plain and simple, as history has shown time and time again, that registration leads to confiscation. Our own "leaders" state this as their motive. “Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal.”- Janet Reno, US Attorney General.

If you are ok with registration of protected rights, what other rights would you require registration for?

[RaleighNCDUer]

104. And just how, pray tell, would the government EVER confiscate

300 million weapons from 80 million gun owners?

We BOTH know that is a rank impossibility - so what you are left with is either pure paranoia or a right-wing agenda of cranking up fear.

NOBODY IS EVER GOING TO TAKE AWAY YOUR GUNS.

Except, of course, the criminals who break in, who steal that pistol from your glove compartment, or get the drop on you on a dark street. And with those guns not registered, when they are finally recovered by the police they will be destroyed, because there will be no way to return them to their rightful owner.

Fine with me.

[Glassunion]

105. Actually it would be quite simple to take guns away.

Now you say that I am paranoid. But when I heard our Attorney General state: “Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal.” What I heard was that the government wants me to register my firearms so they can then be taken away. Now it could have just been the voices in my head, but I think I was able to properly ascertain the goal of the statement.

When a US Senator says: “What good does it do to ban some guns? All guns should be banned.” What I heard was all guns should be banned. Again, it could be the voices, but I think I got the gist of what he was saying.

When the Director of the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration stated: “I am one who believes that as a first step the U.S. should move expeditiously to disarm the civilian population, other than police and security officers, of all handguns, pistols and revolvers ... no one should have a right to anonymous ownership or use of a gun.” I heard that a director (dude in charge) of federal agency, within the US Dept of Justice, state that the government should disarm the civilian population. Those damn voices!

When I heard the President of the United States say: “If the personal freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution inhibit the government's ability to govern the people, we should look to limit those guarantees.” I get the impression that the commander in chief wants to limit my personal freedoms and rights that are guaranteed.

But your right, it’s just paranoia. Should I not listen to our government, are they just being rhetorical?

Again, why do we have to register a right?

[RaleighNCDUer]

109. And you still didn't answer HOW the govement would confiscate

300 million weapons from 80 million gun owners.

A few months ago, one crazy guy THOUGHT the police were going to take his weapons, and when they showed up to serve a warrant on him he killed three of them before he was killed. Let's see, 3 dead for each gun owner - that would be 240 million police needed to get all the guns.

Yeah, YOU ARE PARANOID.

[cowman]

111. I never thought

I would be saying this but I do agree with you, if the govt tried to confiscate the guns in america, the citizens, military, and most law enforcement would rise up and either remove them from office either by the ballot box, which is my preferred method, or, failing that, by force. I just don't see it happening

[Glassunion]

115. How? I’m not 100%, but if you want to speculate…

Inspired by an article I read some time ago, however I cannot remember where or by whom. These are my notes and some copy and pastes from that article.

Some here on the DU talk about how they would resist any government attempt to confiscate firearms to the point of shooting back. I’m sure that some would actually do that. But I doubt that the government would make the attempt commando style or make use of a foreign government to assist in disarming the citizenry.

Let’s be hypothetical and suggest that Congress passes a total ban on all civilian firearms, and the President signs it into law. Let’s say that the law will go into effect starting April 1st. The government will most likely give some grace period to gun owners, and in all probability there will be an extension or two. My best guess using Canada and Australia as a baseline, about 25% of the firearms will be collected. Now we are at a point where extension after extension has run out and all amnesty periods have run out. Would the government then send out the personnel carriers with swat teams? I would doubt that.

Odds are, if you purchased a firearm anytime after the GCA of 1968, there is some record of it, somewhere. Now of course at this point gun stores are completely out of business, and all of their records are now in the hands of I would assume BAFTE. From which they can build a list of serial numbers of firearms. Now let’s say that it will most likely take quite a bit of time for them to compile all of the serial numbers of surrendered firearms and line it up to their new records. Then they spend even more time cleaning up those records which them gives them a new and good “list of un-surrendered firearms”. This could take about 3 years.

Working off of that new list, you would then see firearms owners receiving official notices stating that they think you still have a firearm. In the notice there could be the registration forms, serial numbers, dates of sale, etc… You will then maybe have some time to surrender the gun. If you don’t have the gun, you will most likely have so many days to return a form with some explanation of why you don’t have the gun. For many people the idea that the government has intimate knowledge that they didn’t turn in that firearm and they have the detailed information about it will be enough to get them to surrender the gun. After some more time BAFTE will figure out how many guns are still out there and what the compliance rate of the surrenders are.

My best guess would be that they would look at their remaining compiled list and sort it by the volume of un-surrendered firearms each individual has. I still don’t think at this point the government would resort to the use of swat teams or commandos. They would probably continue their official notices that generate insufficient responses. Basically their grounds will be that they cannot track the firearm after you owned it. This would be sufficient grounds for search warrants, perjury charges, etc…

How hard would it be to get someone out of their home? How long would you have to have surveillance on someone before they would leave their home? Now I know there will be some shut-ins and what not, but most of us have jobs, and even if we decided to retain our firearms, how hard would it be for BAFTE to find out where we work. Remember the BAFTE is an arm of the Treasury dept. And the Treasury also controls the IRS. So BAFTE can easily figure out where you work. It would only take a very short period to figure out a person’s schedule. So they simply wait for the average person to go to work. With you safely gone, they execute their search warrant, searching your home looking for guns. They could easily use slow-scan and ground penetrating radar to search walls, yards, under the patio or deck, the basement, etc. You might even find your hot tub has been drained and moved. Yes, they’ll search your cars in the driveway and perhaps in your work parking lot as well.

Let’s further speculate that they will make sure that possession of ammunition is also a serious crime. Also any “gun parts” can be made illegal at some point in time too; magazines, casings, bullets, primers and maybe even old cleaning kits. Anything that says “gun” will be interpreted as “probable cause” to search your entire home. Also expect that you can never use that gun without becoming a serious felon in the eyes of the government. Even if some thug has repeatedly stabbed you with a large knife and threatened to rape your six year old daughter, they won’t forgive you for having the gun. They may even give you extra penalties for using it to save your family. Especially if you are one of the first few hundred people caught this way, they will use you to “set an example”. This will cause people to “bury” their guns away in hiding places, making them all but useless. If the government does come to confiscate it, you won’t be able to get to it fast enough and they will probably find it.

I remember showing my ID when I bought my guns. I remember writing down my place of birth. Why do you think the government has so many computers? Linking you to your new driver’s license in another state shouldn’t be too hard. Besides, the Treasury folks know where you work. Some government data might show that a gun was sold to a resident at your current address. How about if they tie you to ammo sales or range use with your credit card in the previous few years? You might get a surprise visit even if you don’t own or never owned a firearm. Sometimes I go to the range and rent firearms just to see how they shoot. Don’t forget that private seller that may have remembered that you bought that gun from him and filled out his gun notice to get “off the hook” in his BAFTE requirements.

Put yourself in the government’s shoes. Would they be better served raiding our homes, or just making us criminals? Once you are a criminal, the average citizen is no longer on your side. To them you are a danger to society. Also keep in mind since the mere possession of a firearm would be illegal, what would keep that window monitor across the street from turning you in, because she saw you get gussied up two years ago for a hunting trip?

There are several alternatives that the government could use to confiscate firearms without the use of force. Just look at the countries that have done it, in just the past 80 years. One thing that most of them had in common was that they started with registration.

[cowman]

116. You make a

very compelling scenario, now let me put my 2 cents worth in,

1. If the Congress enacted that law and the Pres. signed it, there would be a blood bath at the ballot box and every congressperson and senator that voted for it would be voted out.

2. The new members of Congress would run over each other to see who would be first to file articles of impeachment against the Pres. for, treason?, or possibly violation of americans civil rights, I'm not sure what the charges would be, and I pretty sure it would be a unanimous vote to impeach and convict.

3. I think the Judicial Branch would step in and declare it unconstitutional and I think this would be the fastest decision in the Court's history.

4. If the Feds tried that I think the States would rebel and tell the Feds to go fuck themselves.

Just my humble opinion, what do you think?

[Glassunion]

117. I think...

1 yes
2 yes
3 yes
4 oh hell yes. Have you seen my state constitution?

It of course was all hypotheticals. But let's say they just did it with assault weapons? It is not all that improbable.

[cowman]

118. You are

absolutly correct and that's why we have to be ever vigilant

[Glassunion]

119. You are not a Marine by any chance?

[cowman]

120. Proud

U.S. Navy Seabee, Vietnam Veteran, but do love the Marines, fought along side them in Vietnam at Con Thien

[Glassunion]

121. I spent some time with a group of Marines.

I heard the phrase "ever vigilent" about 2 times an hour for 3 days.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=259x29131

I did notice the service ribbon. My next guess would actually have been Army's 18th MP Brigade.

[cowman]

122. Yeah

that's where I learned the phrase, from the Marines

[cowman]

124. I was stationed

at Dong Ha but we were at the Marine Base alot to build and fortify the base

[cowman]

125. I just read

your other post.
You have my deepest respect for the magnificent words and as far as this old Vet is concerned, you are a hero in my eyes and I'm sure all of the other Vets past and present.

Once again, THANK YOU

[Glassunion]

127. And thank you.

Are all SCPOs cut from the same cloth?

The one I work with is about 5ft 6in, I'm a hair under 6ft and somehow he is taller than me. He once tossed a table when we decorated his office for his 50th birthday. We filled it with sweet 16 pink ballons and Barbie dolls. After he tossed the table he pinned one of the Barbie dolls to his door with his utility knife(which he calls precious). It was priceless.

[cowman]

132. Yeah

pretty much, they have to be tough to get to that rank, my SCPO was one tough old salt who knew his shit. I credit him with keeping me alive during my tour, when I first arrived in country, he took me aside and told me the do's and don'ts and if I fucked up, he let me know in no uncertain terms, I must have done it right because here I am

[Glassunion]

133. Then he did his job.

God bless them.

I remember going to his father's funeral, it was a Navy funeral. My co-worker wore his full dress, and I swear he had more hash marks than he had sleeve. They stopped in the crook of his elbow. He does have some stories. They usually involve booze, Marines, a fight, MPs and a Phillippine prison.

[PavePusher]

126. Well certain industries would go into overdrive...

Large diameter PVC pipe and accessories, dessicant and shovels, for starters.

And an incredible surge in non-injurous boating accidents and property loss for the insurance companies...

[Glassunion]

128. And not to mention the huge back market that would spring up overnight.

[PavePusher]

130. Shhhhhhhh!!!

Ix-nay on the lack-bay arket-may until I get my lathe, mill and a good supply of bar stock laid in.

Geeese, some people...

;-)

[Glassunion]

131. Ohkay dohkay

I-may ad-bay.

[cowman]

110. Dont't forget

our personal favorite, the poster that advocated the govt inviting in foreign armies to disarm the american population.

[MichaelHarris]

3. put another way

someone acquires a gun very easily and kills people. Doubled-edged knives are a bitch huh?

[TPaine7]

10. Your edge is exceedingly dull, his is razor sharp.

It is practically impossible to make guns very difficult to acquire in America, especially for someone who isn't planning on life after they use it.

It is relatively easy to make guns available to responsible, CCW permitted adults on campus.

Comparing fairy tales to practical solutions shows the desperation of the anti-rights movement.


&#*!ing typo

[Euromutt]

129. "It is practically impossible to make guns very difficult to acquire" just about anywhere

Those hell-bent on acquiring a firearm for unlawful purposes don't seem to have significant difficulty doing so, no matter how tight the local gun laws are.

Volkert van der Graaf, the guy who committed the second political assassination in the history of the Netherlands as an independent country, and the first in over 300 years, bought the handgun he used (a Spanish-made Star 9mm Firestar M43) from some guy in a bar in a medium-sized (pop. ~100,000) provincial town. The weapon turned out to have previously been used in a robbery of a jeweler's store in the north-east of the country.

Even in China, where a private citizen can at most own a .177-cal air rifle (and even that requires a permit), organized crime has no difficulty acquiring firearms, through a combination of corruption and bad inventory-keeping in various arms manufacturing plants.

Prior to the Bosnian declaration of independence and the subsequent outbreak of civil war in April 1992, the entire inventory of the Yugoslav National Army in the republic had been placed under Bosnian Serb control; almost all of artillery, AFVs, military aircraft and even automatic weapons were in Serb hands. The Bosnian government ("Muslim") forces had at most some obsolescent and obsolete hardware from Territorial Defense armories that the JNA hadn't cleaned out beforehand. In terms of firepower, the Bosnian government should been unable to stop the Serbs from taking Sarajevo in the first two months of the war. What prevented the Serbs from actually doing so were the city's criminal gangs. In urban warfare, infantry is the key arm, and the Sarajevan gangsters had sufficient numbers of assault rifles and SMGs to fight off the Serb infantry, leaving their armor unsupported.

[oneshooter]

16. "someone acquires a gun very easily "

Easily or legaly? Could you pass a NCIS check?

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[TPaine7]

4. How could he get those guns onto a gun free campus?!!!

Did the campus forget to put up signs? Was there a back entrance that wasn't marked: "This campus is a gun-free zone"? Did a sign get knocked over? Was a sign covered in snow?

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

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

[cowman]

13. Remember

All knife owners are law-abiding until they ain't and then it's too late.

[cowman]

15. I've had

a CCW for years and I've had many a bad day and I have never ever thought of pulling my gun and shooting people, and I have several weapons including those "gasp, evil, black, rifles, gasp" not because I think it gives me power but because it gives me the chance to defend my self if some asshole of a criminal leaves me no choice but to defend my self and I do collect weapons also for their value which keeps going up. You may not like guns and that is your right, but don't belittle my RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS

[safeinOhio]

31. No Constitutional right to not

register handguns. It aint in there and has never been decided by the courts. Bans, yes. Registration, no. Reasonable restrictions are legal.

[cowman]

52. "This is true

but most states trust their citizens unlike certain people on this site

[oneshooter]

17. ALL drivers are law-abiding, until they ain't and then it's too late.

My hobby is collecting and restoring Military Firearms. I also recondition Military Vehicles, including jeeps, tanks, armored cars and halftracks.

Anything wrong to you about my hobby, or my way of making a living?

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[spin]

28. Nobody is suggesting that all citizens pack heat ...

except in your imagination.

[TPaine7]

38. I'm trying to understand your logic:

ALL gun owners are law-abiding, until they ain't and then it's too late.

Doesn't the same logic apply to police officers, security personnel, FBI agents, and basically, everyone who owns or uses guns? In fact, isn't every driver a sober drive until they drive under the influence?

Isn't your observation a truism--a technically true statement that proves nothing?* Isn't it rather like saying "that which is, is"?

Either that or your logic proves that we have to restrict human possession of anything that they could use to commit crime, because it is certainly true that

Every human being is law-abiding until they aren't and then it's too late.

*(Actually your statement is false--most people who commit gun crimes commit non-gun crimes first, but I'll ignore that fact. It is still true that they are innocent of GUN crime until their first GUN crime.)

[Callisto32]

114. All murderers are law-abiding, until they aint'....

SO WHAT.

We can't punish people for what they did not do. Removing property from someone is a punishment, or at the very least theft. Prior restraint on property is just sick.

[oneshooter]

18. The injured should be able to sue the school

for damages, medical bills, and pain and suffering. After all they are a declared "Gun Free Zone" and failed to supply enough security to enforce it. This failure allowed a weapon within the campus resulting in death and/of injury to the student and faculty.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[spin]

29. Exactly. That would stop the gun free zones or at least ...

those areas would have to have good security.

[safeinOhio]

32. Local courts are "gun free" and try to get one in there.

Enough college shootings and it'll be the same metal detectors and guards to get on campus.

[spin]

34. Well if you want a gun free zone ...

that's probably exactly what you need.

Honest people will not bring firearms into your "gun free" zone, but the bad guys will.

[TheWraith]

41. There will never be a college campus secured like a courtroom.

It would be like trying to frisk everyone in Times Square.

[safeinOhio]

63. Enough shootings on campuses or Times Square

and they'd be just like airports.

[RaleighNCDUer]

19. And I'm sure that if he'd opened up at the coffee shop 20 yards off campus

that a dozen vigilant citizens would have whipped out their CC weapons and dropped him in his tracks.

[TPaine7]

39. Is that bad?

Would they do better to let him have his fun?

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

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

[TPaine7]

45. Sarcasm would have been pretending to believe something that you

actually don't.

Do you think that you could walk into an armed group at a coffee house (like the ones in the news lately, whom you were obviously referencing) and safely threaten people with a gun?

I assumed you weren't that silly.

I won't make that mistake again, and you won't have to explain "sarcasm" to me.

[RaleighNCDUer]

47. I did not posit that there was a CC rally at the coffee shop. Just that it

was a typical off-campus coffee shop and that while NOT being a 'gun-free zone' there would have been NO difference. The number of CC holders is vanishingly small, and just about anyone, anywhere could open up at any time and NEVER have a CC holder throw down on him; therefore, 'gun-free zones' are NOT any more a shooting gallery than any other place at any other time.

And you know that's true.

You are .02% of the population, and only want people to THINK you are ubiquitous.

[TPaine7]

50. Ok, my mistake.

You are right; the probability of encountering a CC holder in a randomly selected coffee shop is probably small.

I disagree that "just about anyone, anywhere could open up at any time and NEVER have a CC holder {draw} down on him", however. The bigger the crowd the larger the probability that there are at least a few CCW permit holders present.

I also disagree that "'gun-free zones' are NOT any more a shooting gallery than any other place at any other time." Even suicide bombers can be deterred by the likely failure of their mission. I believe that most mass shootings happen in nominally gun free locations, and that makes sense. Cho and those like him want to be famous, to break records and be remembered. They might not mind dying, but they do not want to go down in history as the loser mass murderer who shot two victims and then got plugged by a petite lady with a CCW permit.

But mea culpa, you did not posit that there was a CC rally at the coffee shop, I assumed it.

[TheWraith]

57. 2%, not .02%. You're only off by a factor of 100.

While it's true that the odds of someone being in the right place at the right time are small, that's even more true of the police. Personally I'd rather take the 2% chance instead of throwing myself on the mercy of someone intent of slaughtering everybody in sight.

[PavePusher]

71. The point is...

that non-"Gun Free Zones" allow Citizens to make their own choices. If one choses to be unarmed, that is fine, and the only person responsible for the results are the criminals and the individual.

[SteveM]

95. I'd settle for the thugs and crims THINKING we are ubiquitous. nt

[RaleighNCDUer]

96. And THERE is the ultimate fallacy in the whole posture -

criminals DON'T THINK.

If they thought, they would not be criminals.

The idea that there might be a CC holder among the customers has NEVER deterred a criminal from holding up a quick-mart.

[SteveM]

97. Actually, much as I hate to admit it, many crims do think...

I can't recall the study, but interviews of B & E types in both the U.S. and England (after they were cooling in the cooler, of course), revealed that the British crims spent far less time "casing the joint" of English residences than U.S. thugs. The reason cited: The British thugs were far less concerned about an armed resident, so only spent time figuring out what the would-be victim's property value was, routine security measures, etc. In the U.S., the crims spent more time on determining when the victim was NOT at home for fear of confronting an armed resident.

Some B & E types are not interested in getting shot; it seems only the HyperPunks and Thugabees desire confrontation over "thinking." They make up a smaller portion of the criminal population.

Quick-marts and other stores? The issue is self-defense, not social policy. I'll go with a self-defense posture every time.

[TPaine7]

99. "Criminals don't think"

is a gross exaggeration.

Why, if there is an expired coupon beside a $100 dollar bill, would a thief pick up one and leave the other? And why do you know which one he would pick up?

Why do criminals rob houses and not police stations? Don't police carry money?

Why do criminals not step in front of buses? Or off cliffs?

Why do they avoid robbing houses with large dogs?

Why will they avoid raping known aids victims?

The idea that there might be a CC holder among the customers has NEVER deterred a criminal from holding up a quick-mart.

Prove that, and I will confess that you are a genius of unparalleled brilliance.

[RaleighNCDUer]

101. Prove that it did. nt

[TPaine7]

103. I made no claim that it did.

I just proved that criminals do think. I proved it to your satisfaction, and you simply ignored it. Why should I exert myself to prove anything else for your amusement?

[YllwFvr]

134. Would this work for you?

If they weren't thinking they wouldnt have cased the store first, just gone in and robbed it.

http://www.examiner.com/x-5619-Atlanta-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2010m2d18-Open-carry-deters-armed-robbery-in-Kennesaw

Same story here, you can check for differences if you want
http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2010/02/two-men-carrying-guns-deter-robbery.html
http://www.americansheepdog.com/Forum/content.php?233-Open-Carry-Deters-Robbery
http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/2010/02/18/open-carry-deters-armed-robbers/

I tried to find another story or two but apparently that story is exploding because 6 pages into google and its all the same.

[oneshooter]

43. And what would you do? n/t

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

82. OP title is incorrect... should be "THE Ohio State University"

O H ...

[guardian]

135. How many mass shootings have occurred at GUN SHOWS

compared to "gun free zones"?? Bad guys don't want resistance. You are safer at gun shows. Similarly how many bad guy purposefully try to rob a cop bar? NONE.