No longer a threat. Police can't shoot under those circumsrances. Stand your ground laws don't apply in those situations.

So, yeah, it was a criminal use of force.

It does not say where the shots occurred, inside or outside? Lots of details is left out, but I will concur shooting (even shooting AT) someone whom is fleeing should be prosecuted for something, but the prosecution should be tempered somewhat by the fact that the person doing the shooting just minutes before was relaxing quietly at home, with his loved ones, not knowing he would be facing an armed home invasion.

Charges would be warranted...But let's not "throw the whole firearms code" at them.

Is there some kind of revenge code that you think everyone should be following? That it is in the least way justified?

But if you're in my house, it's dark and the lights are off...Well, lets just say for the assailants sake, he better hope I can tell....

What is this "Revenge code" you speak of?

If someone is in my house running away and I have a gun I am not scared of them, even if I don't have a gun. Revenge code = they attacked you with a gun when you had none and now you get to turn the tables and attack them with a gun when they don't have one. There are too many scared people now that use a gun to not feel scared. It's just sad. And please don't lecture me on gun use, I have three, have been shot at and have had assailants point them at me inches from my head. There are situations where you can use a gun, Ive been mugged, assaulted, robbed, and in none of those situations would me having a gun have stopped any of that. You are not a gunfighter no matter how much you might think you are.

Sounds like something out of a movie. Who feel scared? Who is lecturing who? You have three? What does that mean?! My minor son, has more than that already. Who says I'm a gun fighter?? Where is all this coming from? Why do you think this?

shoot when I cant tell exactly who or what I am shooting at. That is the height of irresponsibility. Criminal even.

Dark does not necessarily mean "unknown", if you're in my home, and it's dark, it is logical to assume you mean me and my loved ones harm...well let's just say "momma should have taught you better" Believe you me Before I squeeze the trigger, I will be assured of my target. Just maybe not his/her/its direction.... But I will have a good view of what's going on, and I can assure you that I will take control of the situation. Long ago, we had a drunk home intruder...I was gone to work, and momma bear stuck a "modern sporting rifle, with features that make it extra, extra scary in New York, and California" in his face and caused him to forcefully defecate, and lay for half an hour in my living room floor in a puddle of crap, and piss, until the sheriff's office showed up... He decided to force the door open, and try to "do whatever" at about 2 AM....My lovely wife, whom is a BSN, and at that time a new mother, had other plans. She told me he had came literally half a second from being gunned down, but he wisely surrendered.

The locks on my doors, are not for my protection...They are for yours....

Last edited Wed Aug 2, 2017, 03:20 AM - Edit history (3)

He's 'dude in house'. Says it right at the top.

Don't you think probably somewhere it'd actually say 'the homeowner' if Monroe ... WAS the homeowner?

BTW, it's certainly POSSIBLE that it was a family consisting of two guys ... this could've been a 'loved ones' scenario ... but there's nothing really suggesting this was innocent 'family night' with 'loved ones' being interrupted by armed assailants ... that's just a scenario some on this thread are being lead to imagine, although it's no way 'part of the actual story presented'.

But even THAT ... in fact, if you ACTUALLY read CLOSELY, you'll realize it's possible that Monroe was in fact one of the 3 INVADERS, who ended up switching sides and fighting for the two dudes that were previously/already in the home. It doesn't say ... he was even one of the two originally in the home, does it?

It says he's barred from contact w/two individuals ... perhaps those are the two originally in the home? Or perhaps they are the two he broke into the house WITH, but betrayed later? Because if he was one of the people IN the home, originally, wouldn't he be barred from contact w/either 1 (other dude in house) or 3 (the invaders), or 4 (all the above)? Being banned from seeing 2 people ... suggests he was actually ... an invader, who betrayed his 2 cohorts. Otherwise, the 'math' doesn't add up. Why 2 people, if he was 1 of 2 originally in the home, invaded by 3?

This story is very obviously trying to spin a particular 'yarn' ... without ACTUALLY saying SHIT.

"several shots were fired as the suspects fled"; it doesn't identify if there was more than one shooter. Per the article, the three broke in armed with guns, implying at least one was still armed. There is still a potential threat. If one of the home invaders was shooting and the homeowner returned fire, then it would be justified even if the home invaders were outside and running away.

That invaded the house. What if he turned on his compadres, betrayed them? NOTHING stated as fact in this story precludes that, and it only describes him as 'man in house'. Well, there was 5 'men in house'. We don't know WHICH of them he was. Nor do we know whether he 'shot back' with the 'confiscated weapon'.

Nor does it in fact say that the wounded man was wounded during the gunfire (was it 1 direction, or an exchange?) that apparently took place as 'suspects' (an unknown number ... logically it would be either 2 or 3, but we're not sure which) fled the scene.

Funny how our minds and preconceptions can lead us to conclusions that aren't actually stated in an article like this, isn't it?

if those who broke in will face firearm, or any other, charges.

Presumably to make sure they kept running. Especially if one or more of them was still armed.

There's all these charges related to things that pre-suppose 'ownership' of a firearm ... that make NO SENSE ... if the shooter had simply acquired said firearm from a home invasion suspect, with no other weapons present on the premises prior to their introduction by the invaders.

There's something important to this story CLEARLY being left out, for what I'd guess are political purposes.

I'm supposed to believe the 'victim who JUST shot back after taking a gun from his assailant' is now being charged with unlawful possession of firearm w/intent to traffic firearms?

C'mon ... no.

Maybe this victim was probably something more akin to an arms trafficker, and these home invaders were shot while trying to steal his weapons stash. That makes far more sense, given the set of charges ...

Notice the ambiguity inherent in this statement:
"The two in the home seized a firearm from one of the suspects and several shots were fired as the suspects fled".

Conveniently, nowhere is it said 'nobody already in the house had a weapon', NOR does it say that 'the several shots' were 'fired FROM THE SEIZED WEAPON'.

As a reader, you're CLEARLY being led to BELIEVE that a certain set of circumstances are 'how it was' ... I would argue it's likely you're being cleverly manipulated ...

happen if guns are regulated in any way. Perfect "horror story" for what happens when the "socialists" "take away" your guns.

Using this example if someone had ever advocated using incremental restriction leading to an absolute ban.

On the other hand do you view this as an example of "Common Sense" gun control?

...could use this story to have a field day explaining that the CHRONICLE HERALD is seriously challenged in the ability to write/report news with detail and accuracy.

This article fails the very first primary, the who. Neither the assailants nor the victims are identified. Nor are they specified as unidentified. "Kyle Earl Munroe" is named but not described as either victim or assailant. Failing to anticipate a reader's questions and failing to reread and edit a story to remove ambiguity and occasions for inference rather a report of fact seem like basics to me.

IMHO, not where I would choose to spend my advertising dollar.

they are the most tightly regulated consumer product in the US. I don't know where people miss the four or five current federal gun control laws various state laws.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_law_in_the_United_States

Actually, the "perfect horror story" is Mexico and Venezuela.
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2016/10/dean-weingarten/mexico-looking-second-amendment/
http://www.businessinsider.com/r-venezuela-crushes-2000-guns-in-public-plans-registry-of-bullets-2016-8

I live in Virginia where owning a car and driving it is much more tightly regulated. Gun owners are not required to pass a test, undergo annual inspections, or buy insurance. You keep whining about gun control and you may end up with all those regulations...

Neither are car owners. Anyone can buy a car. Operating one on the road is a different story. What are the restrictions in Virginia on carrying a firearm in public?

Car owners aren't required to undergo a criminal background check to purchase a car. They can sell their cars to residents of any state without the mediation of a federally licensed dealer. They can legally drive their car to any state or to another country. Guns? Not so much.

A concealed carry license can be obtained by taking a single 2 hour NRA safety course. How would you like to have to pay for insurance on every single firearm you own? Cars aren't much use if you buy one and never drive it off your property - your point that you can own one without doing that is nonsensical.

Holding a job can be very difficult, if not impossible, if you can't drive a car. That's not the case with firearms.

also, self-defense is a fundamental natural and human right.
So open carry is legal. It is in most states but is not a problem from any objective level. The delicate sensibilities to culture warriors and pearl clutchers should not be the basis for public policy.

The Militia Act of 1792, Passed May 8, 1792 says:

George Mason: "I ask you sir, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people."
Alexander Hamilton (Federalist Paper #29): "…that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms."
Richard Henry Lee: "A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves…and include all men capable of bearing arms."

The militia is pretty much everyone who isn't part of the Army, Navy or National Guard.

Nope, the state National Guards are the militia.

there is a difference between organized and unorganized. The National Guard and Reserves are simply reserve forces, which most countries have to augment their active duty forces if things get really bad.
The only thing different about the NG is the dual chain of command.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246

the government from mobs of unruly citizens (not to defend unruly citizens against the government, as many right wingers now believe). All members of the National Guard of the United States are also members of the militia of the United States as defined by 10 U.S.C. § 246. National Guard units are under the dual control of the state and the federal government.

but it has nothing to do with OP.
fundamental question is, do you believe in natural rights like self-defense? Should this guy be charged? The chances of a conviction is close to zero. He wouldn't be convicted in Quebec, let alone in Nova Scotia.

I see that you attributed to them a dual role, so I guess you did acknowledge that they are also out militias. Or did you? Using the word "simply" seems to deny that they are indeed the militias of which the 2nd Amendment speaks. Well-organized indeed.

but the NG does have a dual role. That has nothing to do with the Second Amendment since the BoR are individual rights. It says THE PEOPLE have a right. A government agency does not need a right protected by the BoR because every military has weapons. The Anti Federalists opposed ratification to replace the Articles of Confederation until the Federalists agreed to the BoR, which 10 out of 12 were ratified.
http://teachinghistory.org/history-content/ask-a-historian/21861

When the Constitutional Convention sent the proposed Constitution to the states for ratification, Anti-Federalists voiced strong objections to it, especially criticizing the strength it invested in the national government and its lack of explicit protections for the rights of individuals. Politicians in several states were able to secure their states' ratification of the Constitution only with the promise that it would be almost immediately amended.

Yes, I do deny that because that is the legal and historical facts are on my side. Your side is simply ideology. If you read the links provided, you would see that.
Either way, read the Ninth Amendment
https://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt9_user.html#amdt9_hd1

... to the the security of a free State, the right of the people..." Until the 1970s, the NRA also interpreted the amendment that way. It is only conservatives on the court who swung the interpretation away from what was originally intended.

"Enter the modern National Rifle Association. Before the nineteen-seventies, the N.R.A. had been devoted mostly to non-political issues, like gun safety. But a coup d’état at the group’s annual convention in 1977 brought a group of committed political conservatives to power—as part of the leading edge of the new, more rightward-leaning Republican Party. (Jill Lepore recounted this history in a recent piece for The New Yorker.) The new group pushed for a novel interpretation of the Second Amendment, one that gave individuals, not just militias, the right to bear arms. It was an uphill struggle. At first, their views were widely scorned. Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, who was no liberal, mocked the individual-rights theory of the amendment as “a fraud.”"

http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/so-you-think-you-know-the-second-amendment

and Warren Burger was giving his personal opinion in Parade magazine, none of it was based on scholarship nor does he cite any. In fact, the links I provided prove him wrong.

That is because there wasn't a gun control movement to speak of. If it weren't for a few billionaires, there still wouldn't be. The NRA reacted.

Actually, as my links prove, isn't novel at all. The collective rights theory didn't exist until the 1930s, and was rejected by the SCOTUS.

The New Yorker is long on ideology and conventional wisdom and short on scholarship and honesty. Guns only became a left/right issue since he died.
I wouldn't call Burger liberal or conservative, just authoritarian. Nixon didn't like people owning guns either.

It does say the right of the people, as in individuals, just like it does in the other amendments.
BTW, why don't you address the links I provided? Why the appeal to authority from popular publications?

To repeat one relevant to your reply
An Analogue

"A well-educated electorate being necessary to the preservation of a free society, the right of the people to read and compose books shall not be infringed."
Obviously this does not mean that only well-educated voters have the right to read or write books. Nor does it mean that the right to read books of one's choosing can be restricted to only those subjects which lead to a well-educated electorate.
The purpose of this provision is: although not everyone may end up being well-educated, enough people will become well-educated to preserve a free society.
http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndana.html

Nor can it be construed to deny one's pre-existing right to read books if there are not enough well-educated people to be found. The right to read books of one's choosing is not granted by the above statement. The rationale given is only one reason for not abridging that right, there are others as well.

pay insurance, you're comparing carrying a firearm into battle to reading a book.

In 1871 the National Rifle Association (NRA) was organized around its primary goal of improving American civilians' marksmanship in preparation for war. In the 1920s, the National Revolver Association, the arm of the NRA responsible for handgun training, proposed regulations later adopted by nine states, requiring a permit to carry a concealed weapon, five years additional prison time if the gun was used in a crime, a ban on gun sales to non-citizens, a one day waiting period between the purchase and receipt of a gun, and that records of gun sales be made available to police.

On Nov. 22, 1963, President John F. Kennedy was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald. He shot the president with an Italian military surplus rifle purchased from a NRA mail-order advertisement. NRA Executive Vice-President Franklin Orth agreed at a congressional hearing that mail-order sales should be banned stating, “We do think that any sane American, who calls himself an American, can object to placing into this bill the instrument which killed the president of the United States.” The NRA also supported California’s Mulford Act of 1967, which had banned carrying loaded weapons in public in response to the Black Panther Party’s impromptu march on the State Capitol to protest gun control legislation on May 2, 1967.

http://time.com/4431356/nra-gun-control-history/

Have to consider at the time, both represented competitive shooters that did ISSF and Olympics and did not represent the working or middle classes.
Some have to do with racism and fear of immigrants, which is why Canada passed their strict handgun licensing laws in the 1930s. This was also an era when any of the BoR, outside of maybe the 10th, was respected as much as it should be. Protesting against the draft was actually a crime.

Have to remember also, that this was in reaction to a president and NRA life member being murdered. Have to consider too, the Black Panthers had a negative reputation. Kind of like the dim bulbs like Open Carry Texas, they scare and piss people off. Kind of like flag burning, nobody gets the point because you just scared the shit out of them or pissed them off.

Today's NRA is less elitist and more grassroots than at that time. There is a lot of side effects of the 1977 convention that I think was unfortunate, but nothing I could do about that. The NRA isn't really the big player. Local grassroots groups and the Second Amendment Foundation does most of the work. BTW, pro choice people can learn a lot from SAF.

Of course, none of those provisions violate the second amendment and helped protect US companies like Winchester. In fact, the US manufacturers supported the restrictions on imports.

BTW, the KKK also supported strict gun laws in the 1920s and were instrumental in getting UBC passed in Michigan, Missouri, and North Carolina as well as restrictions on concealed carry in other states. Like I said, there was no prohibition lobby at the time. Also, Margret Sanger was a racist and hung out with fans of eugenics. Should I base my opinion of today's PP and birth control/abortion based on that? I don't, and I don't think you do either.

This seems to be a plug for Adam Winkler's book. I haven't read it, and I don't know the primary source documents he based it on. It may or may not be accurate, and given Winkler's activism a doubt it, but all of this is an irrelevant red herring.

I'm not comparing a firearm to reading a book. It was about sentence structure an what the sentence means.

None of the articles in the Bill of Rights restricts rights of individuals.
All of the articles limit the powers of government in order to preserve the rights of the people.
Why would a Bill of Rights need to address authorities of a government agency? If the organized militia is the only valid militia, the government in command of it can authorize whatever is needed. People have rights. Government and government agencies have authorities and powers derived from the consent of the governed.

basic civics that everyone should learn in middle school and to be a citizen. The BoR are a set of negative rights, meaning it restricts the State, not give anything to individuals since the Founders were big on Natural Law Theory. Also, group or collective rights was not a concept to them.
That means each individual has those right for simply existing. What it actually means is that the general population needs to be armed for a well-functioning militia to exist. That sentence structure was common back then.
That is also why Congress and FDR, who signed the National Firearms Act, put a tax and registration for automatic weapons instead of banning them outright. They believed a ban would be struck down. The only challenge to the NFA was about a "sawed off shotgun", which the court said had no military value.
http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndana.html
http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/common.htm
http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html
BTW, bans on less than lethal weapons like tasers have been overturned because they are protected "arms".
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/05/01/new-jersey-stun-gun-ban-struck-down-by-consent-order-new-orleans-ban-repealed/?utm_term=.95f650354b94

Also, if it were about State power, it would be part of Article 1, section 8, clause 15

originally conceived citizens to be), had the right to serve in a militia. And the right to bear arms in that capacity. The extension of the right to vote to women and the rest of us did not extend the right to bear arms beyond those serving in a milita.

Some states limited voting to property owning white males, but was true of every state. Voting rules have always been a state issue, not a federal one.

Not true. There was a time when young men got draft notices but did not have the right to vote.

The scholarship doesn't agree with you on this.

I overreached on the one.

I'm in favor of more education for handgun carriers. No problem there. But if Virginia is anything like New York, stringent background checks are also required for a concealed carry license. Not for a driver's license, though. Should we talk about requiring one for drivers? Shall we continue pursuing this analogy?


I assume you mean liability insurance. Why would I need it on every single firearm? It would make more sense to have one policy that covers me for whatever damage I may do with any of them. Or are you talking about comprehensive coverage that would also reimburse me for damage to my firearms? Nice idea, but it has nothing to do with public safety.

You only pay liability insurence on any vehicle that you use on a public roadway.

I have a tractor and 4 wheeler that are only driven on my land. Should I carry insurence on them?

that you actually drive, then you obviously don't have a leg to stand on. I take all of my forearms to the shooting range to stay in practice with each one. So does anyone who doesn't have a place on their own property to practice using them. Legally I could fire my weapons on my 2-acre property, but my neighbors and their dogs would not appreciate the noise.

You are not required to have liability insurance on any vehicle that you do not drive on a PUBLIC ROADWAY.

My tractor and my 4 wheeler do not drive on PUBLIC ROADWAY. Therefore it is NOT a requirement that have liability insurance on them.
Am I clear now?

I have a 400yd range on my property There fore I only shoot my weapons off property when I attend a competition.

IMO, comprehensive insurance should be severable, and liability insurance should be on the operator, not on the vehicle. But that's just me.

None of those are required to buy or own a car, just drive it on public roads. No, owning a car is not tightly regulated at all. Owning a car is not regulated at all. Driving it on public roads is.
You don't need a background check to buy a car. You can go to a car dealer in the next state and drive off with your new car. You can buy a car from a resident of a different state. Do that with a gun, you are risking up to ten years in federal prison. You don't need to fill out federal forms with personal information to buy a car. There aren't specific classes of people barred from owning a car. You can be any age to buy a car. A minor doesn't need written permission for their parents to drive any car. A minor with a handgun violates federal law. You can park your car on school grounds or by a post office without violating federal or state law. does your car muffler require a tax stamp, fingerprint based background check, and registration with the feds?

On the federal level, are car dealers licensed by the feds? Are there specific security and inventory requirements that dealers must comply with? Are any infraction punishable by a decade in prison? Can the DoT go to your local Ford dealer and inspect their business records at anytime without a warrant? How about car manufacturers and importers? Is robbing a car dealership a federal crime like robbing a bank? Are car dealerships required by federal law to give any law enforcement access to their business records at any time?

Doesn't matter if I "whine" or not. It isn't about public safety, it is a culture war, just like pot was in the 1930s. Also, learn about current federal gun control laws. My link wall was a basic overview.

Also, what value is there in gun insurance? Other than huge profits for the insurance industry because they would never pay out. Gun accidents nationwide are very rare and they don't pay out for criminal offenses and suicides. Since most gun crimes are drug dealers shooting at each other, insurance doesn't matter. The premiums would be dirt cheap and guess who already has gun and self-defense insurance?

It's a distinction without a difference. How many people actually buy a car without intending to drive it on public roads? Is there a major public controversy or potential hazard regarding millions of people filling their garages with undriveable cars?

seems like if you buy a car, as you said, it should be assumed you'll drive it in public.................but it's not.
why is that?

but if you do just leave it in your garage, there are no public safety issues with it, so there is no need to regulate it.

I asserted that most gun buyers will not carry in public.

Why can you buy a car without the same level of federal investigation as a gun?

If you buy a car, it's assumed you will drive it, which is a dangerous activity, and there are laws about when, where and how you will drive it. There are laws about who can drive a car and who can't. Police spend a lot of time enforcing these laws. If you keep your car in your garage, then there is no danger, and so you don't need a license.

A car is difficult to conceal. If didn't intend to drive your car when you bought it, but drove it anyway without license plates, the police are likely to catch you. If you are also drunk and don't have a driver's license, they will arrest you. You may go to jail. You may be restricted from getting a license in the future.

Most of this regulation is at the state level, and that seems to be adequate because all states have similar laws and enforcement is fairly uniform. However, if you did, say lose your license due to DUI in one state, there is a national database that will prevent you from getting a license in another state.

Regarding guns, if you buy a gun, it is assumed you will shoot it, which is a dangerous activity, even if you only did it in your own home. People have shot themselves or others by mistake or on purpose in their homes. People have shot through walls and killed their neighbors. People have shot visitors to their home. Visitors have shot their hosts. Children have played with guns and shot themselves or their parents. Children have shot visiting children. There is a risk with having a gun in your home that is much greater (such as it is) than keeping a car in your garage.

Also, guns are easy to conceal. If you did decide to take it out of your home, it is much less likely the police will catch you, than if you drove a car without license plates. If you wanted to commit a crime with your gun, it is much easier to dispose of or hide the gun than it would be with a car. It's much easier to take that gun across state lines and violate laws in other states. So it follows from this, that there should be laws about who can have a gun and when, where and how you can use it. If you commit gun crimes in one state, you should not be able to go to another state, buy another gun and commit the same crime. Also, gun laws vary greatly from state to state, much more so than for cars. Some sort of national framework is necessary, even if it is limited to a background check to make sure you didn't commit a gun crime in another state.

There is one, and only one case I can think of in which you might buy a gun and I would not assume you intend to shoot it, and therefore create potential danger to your family, friends, neighbors or enemies. That would be if you didn't buy any bullets. So from a theoretical perspective at all, I'd be okay if we didn't regulate guns at all, but only regulated bullets. But I don't think that would satisfy you at all and probably would be harder to enforce.

Actually, it is very safe when done properly like on a range with proper backstop.

All of which are extremely rare. When an incident in a small town is national news, that means it is extremely rare.

Criminals don't go to gun stores, and the background check system uses the FBI data base, and is usually done by the FBI.

Actually, there is a national framework. There are several federal laws concerning guns, there are none about driving. Also, criminals buy their guns on the black market.


Statistically, it is about the same.

Since gun laws are impossible to enforce like drug laws..........

Regarding guns, if you buy a gun, it is assumed you will shoot it, which is a dangerous activity, even if you only did it in your own home.
Actually, it is very safe when done properly like on a range with proper backstop.
If you took your gun to a range, then you didn't keep it at home. If you have a gun range at home, then you own a lot more land than the average person. If you shoot at home on your own land, then the law should require that you build a proper range. I would consider that a form of gun control.

People have shot themselves or others by mistake or on purpose in their homes. People have shot through walls and killed their neighbors. People have shot visitors to their home. Visitors have shot their hosts. Children have played with guns and shot themselves or their parents. Children have shot visiting children.
All of which are extremely rare. When an incident in a small town is national news, that means it is extremely rare.
They may be rare, but laws aren't just based on statistics, they are based on a sense of outrage, the feeling that certain things just shouldn't happen. We are more outraged by plane crashes than car accidents, even though car accidents are much more common than plane crashes. Therefore air travel is much more regulated than car travel. The reasons for outrage are complex, emotional and buried deep in our psyches. Those small town incidents make news, not just because they are rare, but because it is outrageous that children are shot dead.


If you commit gun crimes in one state, you should not be able to go to another state, buy another gun and commit the same crime.
Criminals don't go to gun stores, and the background check system uses the FBI data base, and is usually done by the FBI.
Correct, that is a national framework. But I think there is loophole for gun shows. Is that correct?

Also, gun laws vary greatly from state to state, much more so than for cars. Some sort of national framework is necessary, even if it is limited to a background check to make sure you didn't commit a gun crime in another state.
Actually, there is a national framework. There are several federal laws concerning guns, there are none about driving. Also, criminals buy their guns on the black market.

I was talking about the justification for the framework. You asked why you should be able to buy a car without a national framework, but not a gun. I am not actually in favor of federal gun regulation in general. But I do think national background check makes sense.


There is a risk with having a gun in your home that is much greater (such as it is) than keeping a car in your garage.
Statistically, it is about the same.
Please provide your data

Since gun laws are impossible to enforce like drug laws..........
No law is impossible to enforce. Just some are harder than others.

How do you get grey highlighting in your posts?

for accidents. fatal gun accidents are in the hundreds. Those involving children are in the tens. When you consider the hundreds of millions of guns and tens of millions of gun owners, it is pretty close to the same.

No. The "gun show loophole" is a propaganda buzz term do decieve the uninformed. All federal and state laws must be followed by the letter. FFLs still do background checks, private individuals still fall under relevant laws. Non FFL holders are not allowed access to NICS by federal law, and any federal law would violate the Commerce Clause.

About 600 fatal gun accidents per year. I didn't see any statistics on fatal accidents with cars parked in garages, but I'd guess it's about zero. Not the same. But if parked cars in garages started suddenly on their own and ran over 600 people a year, you can bet their would be some federal regulation on it.

Millions of cars around the world have been recalled due to deaths by airbags. Do you know how many people have been killed by faulty airbags? 18.

Do you know how many deaths it took to create a federal ban on lawn darts? One.


As for the gun show loophole, I researched it and I was actually referring to "private gun sales." Illegal in my state. I think it should be illegal in every state. Or at least the law should be that if you sell someone a gun, and they commit a crime with that gun, you go to jail too. Unless you go through a gun dealer.


Federal laws violating the Commerce Clause? Where have you been for the last 80 years? That's how long it's been since FDR got the SCOTUS to change the interpretation and created most of the federal laws you probably love to hate. Today's SCOTUS probably wouldn't go for it, but if the balance on the court changes, that could change too.

There shouldn't be a ban on lawn darts.
Airbags have more to do with insurance liability.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawn_darts
Instead of going through a gun dealer, a FOID system would be better. That is how Canada does it, along with internet sales. They include the PAL number at check out. Once the PAL number is verified with the RCMP, they ship the gun to your house.

It would violate the Commerce Clause because it would be intrastate sales between private individuals. That is why UBC did was not part of the Brady Bill.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause

Maybe their shouldn't be a ban on lawn darts, but the point is that our attitude towards other, much less dangerous items is not colored by ideology the way guns are. Not sure why you think airbags have to do with just with insurance liability. The recall was forced by the government. Had it been just a matter of liability, it probably would have been cheaper to just fight like hell in court and pay out claims when they lose.

Don't see why we can't use or try a variety of systems to prevent guns from getting in the wrong hands. I don't see having to go through a dealer as being a big burden.


Yes, I've know about the Commerce Clause, and the federal government regulates intrastate sales of all sorts of items. You can't sell lawn darts privately either.

Name which laws should be local, which should be state and which federal.

Speaking of distinctions, the act of buying a car is separate from the act of registering that car. State laws implicitly permit ownership without registration for a variety of case and purposes.

Almost all gun-"control" laws aim at PREVENTING crime. This is apparently a very difficult achievement since crime continues to be a problem where ever a motivation for it exists. This discussion is beginning to circle the drain of uselessness and the auto analogy is stretched thin. "Control" other than self-control is a myth. Politicians that "control" laws are somewhat disingenuous.

I prefer the term regulation. We regulate all sorts of products in all sorts of ways. Regulation is what keeps me from building a nuclear bomb in my backyard.

At the federal level, there should be a rigorous background check program including private sales. Private sales must go through a dealer. Federal law should require a state license system. The license system should require a course in gun safety and responsible gun ownership. The rest is left up to the states.

I think states should make a concerted effort to get guns out of the hands of criminals. The federal government should provide money to state and local law enforcement for this purpose.

Is crime prevention really THAT difficult? We have a system of laws and enforcement aimed at prevention of crime. Do you really think everybody just obeys the laws by themselves and if there were no enforcement at all, crime would not increase?

If every state had a licensing system, what is the point of a NICS check as well? It is a pointless and redundant barrier that serves no real purpose. That is why the ATF lets several states waive the NICS check if the buyer has a concealed carry permit.

Great idea, but the reality is that when the local police turn gang members over to the feds for "felon in possession" prosecution, the US attorney usually blows it off. As for keeping them out of the hands of criminals,
http://www.bogosity.tv/forum/index.php?topic=1718.0

Also, most people learn gun safety etc. from their parents and guardians, scouts, 4H, required firearms training for first time hunting licenses. All of them, outside of force of use law, is basically the same or better than what cops get. Gun safety and basic marksmanship isn't hard. It is easier than safely driving and can be learned in a You Tube video.

I don't care how it is done, as long as the data is national.

I am not talking about local police giving people to the feds, I am talking about local enforcement.

As for private gunsmithing, doesn't make a difference, same rules apply.

I used to own a gun. I bought it at a store, took it to a range, and said, okay teach me to shoot. They gave me a 15 minute lesson and that was it. I really could have used more, but I didn't even know what was available. So I know how easy it is, I just don't think it should be that easy. I have no problem if the scouts or 4H teach the course, just has to meet certain minimum requirements. Just to make sure you know more than I did when I started.

Look, I am not trying to catch every single gun any more than any other laws can prevent every single crime. I just think we can do better than we are doing now.

ran by the FBI. When a gun store in Wyoming or Guam calls the NICS call center, it is a branch of the FBI using federal databases.
Felons in possession is a mandatory min of five years under the Gun Control Act. The local authorities don't give a shit especially in places like Chicago and Detroit where local politicians have mutually beneficial relationships with the drug gangs. One problem Chicago has is the city council protecting the gangs from the police while screaming for gun control.

I'm fine identifying gun laws as "regulations". Calling them "controls" implies that prevention is possible which clearly is overcome often by those with sufficient motivation, patience and resources.

I believe in the NICS database which the FBI now operates. I like the idea of making this system available to individuals for private sales at a local police station or sheriff's office. I like the idea of a license system at the state level for those who want to carry. State standards for licenses that meet federal standards should be accepted nationwide by all states.

People arrested and charged with crimes while in possession of a firearm (I would hope) have that firearm confiscated and not to be returned until and unless found not guilty. The feds should pony up dollars to help abate interstate crime, firearms trafficking and assisting underfunded local LE departments.

No, bad things would become more widespread without laws. I think everyone's idea of good and evil is rather uniform but not everyone has the same idea of a safe speed for freeways and alleys. I think most people follow good advice about drinking and driving because they want to remain safe and not risk an accident. I think gun owners target shoot at a range because they know it's dangerous to start firing (without a proper backstop) in their backyards.

I think doing whatever is possible and reasonable to empower people is generally the best option.

Also, you didn't mention the federal laws and regulations.

If people would stick to facts, evidence, and reason instead of emotion, logical fallacies, and dogma/ideology, there would not be any such controversy. Guns are nowhere near the public hazard cars can be, never mind studies that fail peer review that claim "you are more likely than...." If widespread gun ownership were such a hazard, Norway and Iceland should have murder rates similar to ours.

1. Owning a gun requires a license.
2. Automatic weapons are banned.
3. Some handguns are banned.
4. To get a license, you must state the reason you want one (most are for hunting, not self-defense).
5. You need to complete a safety course.
6. You must be over 18.
7. You must have a clean police record.
8. You must lock the gun in a safe at home.
9. The police can inspect your safe at any time with 48 hours notice.
10. If you bring your gun to a public place, you must have a valid reason (such as transportation for hunting).
11. When transporting your gun, it must be empty, concealed but not carried, and under your constant supervision.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Norway

Sounds like Norway thinks guns are pretty dangerous so they put some common sense laws in place. Maybe that's part of why they have a lower murder rate than ours (not to mention a totally different socio-economic profile).

I don't think all of Norway's rules would work here, but some of them would.

None of the gun laws in Europe had anything to do with "being pretty dangerous", it had everything with the monarchs and the oligarchs being overly concerned for their safety at the hands of working class bolshevik during the "red scare". Italy's gun laws date back fascist rule.
If their gun laws were a reason for their lower murder rate, Brazil and Mexico should have even lower rates. The plurality of criminologists consider gun laws and gun ownership is pretty irrelevant. There is no correlation between gun laws or gun ownership and crime. The real issue is the GINI coefficient.
BTW, why would gun laws be relevant? Criminals and gangs in the US don't go to gun stores or to gun shows. That has been pretty well established by the Wright Rossi studies in the 1980s. It is an issue where the right and left are both wrong.

&t=4s

You raised a lot of issues all at once. First the questions:
1. How do you know that CURRENT gun control laws in Norway or Italy are based on things that happened in the 1920s and 30s?
2. Why are you comparing the United States to third world countries like Brazil and Mexico? Law enforcement is very weak in those countries.
3. Where are you getting your data on criminologist opinions?

If Wright and Rossi are correct, then certainly cutting down on gun theft and black market transfers should be a primary goal of gun laws or enforcement. The National Institute for Justice does promote this https://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/gun-violence/prevention/pages/gun-market.aspx but I don't think we are doing a whole lot of it, or if we are, we are not doing it effectively. Also, if I remember correctly, Congress stopped funding research on gun violence 20 years ago so I can't find any current data on this issue. I am not doubting Wright and Rossi, but a lot has changed in this country since the 1980s, research methods have changed too. It doesn't seem like we can do that kind of research anymore.

I do agree that the Gini coefficient is a big factor, and I am in favor of anything that will reduce ours.

And I am not only concerned about crime. I am also concerned about suicide and accidental deaths. There are more suicides than homicides. Half of all successful suicides use guns. Most suicide attempts fail, but 85% of attempts with guns succeed. Places with stricter gun control laws have lower suicide rates.http://www.suicidology.org/Portals/14/docs/Resources/FactSheets/2012datapgsv1d.pdf

and some are still in place from that era. Italy's is the most complex. Germany's, post war, started registration in 1972 because of left wing terrorism that swept Europe at the time. Their recent gun laws has more to do with a couple of Sandy Hook level school shootings.

Neither Brazil or Mexico are "third world", it also isn't relevant. What is relevant is wealth inequality, as Dr. Peterson explained. That is also why our problems are concentrated in urban areas where wealth inequality are extreme. given the strong correlation, that is where the answer is. When you look at the 25 worst cities in the world, two are American, the same conditions exist: extreme wealth inequality, crumbling infrastructure, gangs, and political corruption.
Google Scholar.

No they didn't stop funding research, they banned the CDC (Wright Rossi was DoJ funded) from advocating gun control. The CDC was giving money to ER doctors and activists that have no scientific method training and already decided on the conclusion and created a "study" to get preferred result. Author Kellerman was the worst offender, and was the poster child for the "ban". During the "ban" the DoJ funded several studies during the "ban", but activists didn't care for the results.

Stricter gun control will have fewer gun suicides, but not fewer suicides. Besides, what happened to "my body my choice"?

Gini coefficient isn't the only factor. Israel, United States and Saudi Arabia have about the same Gini coefficient, but different murder rates.

25 worst cities for what?

Fewer guns would definitely reduce suicides. 85% of gun suicides are successful, but only about 4% of all suicides are successful. Regardless of method, most people don't plan their suicides, they decide to do it minutes or hours before acting, so they appear to be acting on impulse. 9 out 10 people who try suicide don't try again. So if you keep a gun away from someone at risk for suicide, they are more likely to survive an attempt and are unlikely to try it again anyway.

"My body my choice" is a great catch phrase for abortion rights, but it simply doesn't apply to the reality of suicide.

but as Dr. Peterson points out, the GINI coefficient also breaks down to the county and local level. South Dakota is not the same as California or Illinois. Oakland is not the same as Vacaville etc.
Our murder rates are not evenly spread. They are almost always gang hits within pockets of large cities. Neither Isreal and Saudi Arabia has those problems. Saudi Arabia is also a theocratic police state where crimes against racial and religious minorities are taken less seriously if at all. Where did you get your data for Saudi Arabia?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality

Those who use guns are serious while those who use pills tend not to be. Without guns, they would simply would jump off buildings or hang themselves. Just look at South Korea's suicide rate.

Worst cities for violence.
http://www.businessinsider.com/most-violent-cities-in-the-world-2017-4/#43-nelson-mandela-bay-south-africa-had-3919-homicides-per-100000-residents-8

Since our GINI coefficient is closer to Mexico's, and on some levels historically and culturally closer to Mexico than anywhere in Western Europe. while Norway and UK are not "third world" they have less in common with us culturally.

In the past ileus has used that phase to mean favoring the right (to keep and bear arms.)
Analogous to a progressive stance on the First Amendment.