Lock up guns, but don't ban them-USA Today

[Prince Yamato]

So assuming the court rules as such, how about at least doing something for the children?

*Explosive laughter*

1992 called, they want their flawed ideology back.

 

[obxned]

I'm using the very same gun locks that the police and Secret Service are using on their firearms at this moment.

 

[mpmarty]

I agree on good parenting as a prevention measure. I went further than that with my children. At ages between three and five and repeated annually thereafter until they were shooters themselves, in mid to late October we bought a pumpkin to carve and one to shoot. Kids are REALLY impressed when they have struggled to carve a pumpkin realize how tough the outer shell is and then see one literally explode when shot with a pistol. They are then informed that the same thing happens to people when they are shot. My kids are all shooters, but I never had to worry about them "playing" with guns. The friends of my kids were not allowed to enter the "adult" wing of our home where the firearms were located.

 

[texas bulldog]

I'm using the very same gun locks that the police and Secret Service are using on their firearms at this moment.

me too. i'm glad cal and bob were able to come to some kind of agreement, but i must say that i adamantly disagree with the idea of mandatory gun locks. certainly i will take more precautionary measures when i have kids, but right now there are multiple loaded and unlocked guns at my house. and i hope cal's acceptance of bob's position on this isn't indicative of what most gun owners would agree to.

 

[DogBonz]

That is right!

I was just trying to make the point that the Constitution does not "allow" us to have rights. They are inherrent in us by virtue of the fact that we exist.

The constitution does not GIVE us rights. It is supposed to protect and guarantee that the Gub’ment can’t take those rights away.

 

[GigaBuist]

Yet the NRA still opposes background checks.

When all else fails: lie.

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Background Checks?

Yet the NRA [strike]still opposes[/strike] ought to oppose background checks.

Background Checks.

Another solution to a problem that never existed.

 

[Mannix]

Background Checks.

Another failed solution to a problem that never existed.

 

[sph33r]

I just had a bit of fun with this on my new blog (shameless plug).

My observations...

Bob: Does this mean the waiting period for buying handguns under the Brady Bill had no impact on crime? If you say no, then explain the fact that thousands of former felons were stopped from buying weapons. Cal, for a man as smart as you to buy this NRA drivel is silly. If it were up to me I would ban handguns except for sporting competitions, and those guns would have to be held in licensed gun clubs. That will never happen because the NRA and the other militia groups have paid for and intimidated politicians. I once debated the former head of the NRA, Charlton Heston. I told him then he and his NRA thugs should go to the funerals of children accidentally killed by legal handguns and ask God’s forgiveness for the blood on their hands.

Cal: I have no problem with waiting periods and background checks. You have yet to convince me how more laws will deter criminals intent on breaking them. Cars driven by drunken drivers and people who exceed the speed limit kill more people than guns, and I know you do not favor banning cars.

Bob: No, but I favor strict punishment for drunks who drive those cars. That’s why we have tough drunken driving laws … to keep as many drunks away from cars as possible. That is exactly the point of the Brady Bill. The FBI with its national database on gun purchases now does the job of the Brady Bill. Yet the NRA still opposes background checks. Surely you don’t agree with the NRA on this.

Take a look at that. Bob clearly blames the GUN for what it does. But when drunk driving is brought into the picture, he blames the person, not the car.

Hmmm.. so who has the anti-gunner rule book for when to blame the object and when to blame the person? I can't find a copy anywhere.

 

[Kevin108]

The fact is, more people die at the hands of guns in their own homes from domestic violence and accidents involving children than are ever saved from criminal intruders.

What a manipulative lumping together of statistics!

In all honesty, it sounds like neither side was really prepared to argue their points.

 

[K3]

Hmmm.. so who has the anti-gunner rule book for when to blame the object and when to blame the person? I can't find a copy anywhere.

I have a copy. It was a rare book and the most expensive I have ever bought. I'd be hesitant to loan it out...

 

[1911Tuner]

Why yes, officer. My gun was securely locked away from the ammunition when I heard Mr. Crackhead and his friends entering my home. I got the keys to both lockers...otained the ammunition...loaded the gun, and fired just as they were beginning their assault on my wife and daughter. I was in fear for my life and the lives of my family. I want to talk to a lawyer, please.

 

[Prince Yamato]

I bought my gun-locks at an FFL in Never-Neverland. They're invisible and so long as I believe that they're there, my gun has a lock on it. Say, any of you guys ever try these?

 

[gyp_c2]

uhhhh...

The FBI with its national database on gun purchases now does the job of the Brady Bill.

Yet another reference to databases of gun-owners...

 

[The Lone Haranguer]

They're both wrong, but Cal is less wrong than Bob.

 

[Geno]

Whatever would I do if I didn't have the likes of the government and the "talking" heads telling me what's good for me, what I should think, what I should do, and how I can conserve money and the environment so that they can jet-set to all 15 of their 40,000 square foot homes...each which has a monthly carbon footprint that exceeds my lifetime carbon footprint.

Lock-up my guns? Please…put a pad-locked, chastity belt on every liberal alive…save the world from their proliferation. Then, put a padlock on their mouths.

 

[Ready2Defend]

Their IS a study connecting a gun regulation and reduction of vioent crime:

As John Stossel noted on a recent 20/20 program, when Kennesaw, Ga., passed a law requiring its citizens to be armed, the crime rate declined. Stossel reported that the National Academy of Sciences "could not document a single gun regulation that reduced violent crime or murder."

When the law was passed requireing gun possesion then there was a reduction in violent crime. What if all future gun regulation followed the Kennesaw law? Then I could tell my wife "honey, I have to buy this gun - It's the LAW!"

 

[ROMAK IV]

I like Cal but he's kind of whimpy on gun rights:

Bob: Are you saying gun-control laws don't matter? Do you really believe the level of gun violence would be the same in D.C. without these laws? That is insanity. Without such laws, the number of victims in the District would increase dramatically. By the way, it doesn't help that D.C. borders Virginia, which has among the most lax gun laws in the country. If the Virginia Tech killer had faced D.C.-type gun laws, perhaps 32 lives would have been spared.

This is absolutely false. DC has one of the highest crime rates in the country for a host of reasons, a significant reason being, its strict anti-gun laws. If the RKBA is a constitutional right, as Bob agrees, then DC should have NEVER had laws so restrictive as to be effectively a gun ban. Bob is also completely disregarding the rights of citizens and the factors surrounding the Virginia Tech shootings. The perp got guns because the authorities involved didn't identify him as having dangerous mental problems. Sure an effective gun ban may have saved 32 lives, unless he came up with some other method of mass murder, such a chaining the doors shut as he did, and setting the building on fire, but they also prevent the free exercise of constitutional rights.

Bob: I see you've been reading your National Rifle Association propaganda. With all due respect to Mr. Rowan, a guy swimming in his pool does not deserve to get shot. The fact is, more people die at the hands of guns in their own homes from domestic violence and accidents involving children than are ever saved from criminal intruders. It only stands to reason that in places with strict gun-control laws, fewer people will be killed accidentally. When are you and the NRA going to get it through your heads that arming the public results in more deaths by guns among family members than by criminals?

That is also not true. 99% of the people who kill their family members have histories of criminal activity and drug and alcohol abuse. The exact same situation is true for households where a fatal gun accident occurs. As for saving lives from criminal intruders, there is no way to determine how many lives were "saved by a gun", when the crime is stopped or prevented by the use of a gun. We can only guess by the number of Defensive Gun Uses, (DGU) which are estimated to number over 2 million a year in the US. This number was actually confirmed by Noted "anti-gun" academics, Phil Cook and Paul Ludwig. Yes, the actual number of deaths from gun accidents and domestic violence is greater than the number of criminals killed by civilians, yet for the reasons I stated the statement by Bob is false. Realistically, an armed citizen defending his home against a criminal intruder, saves many times the number of lives, of both the residents AND the criminals.

Bob: Does this mean the waiting period for buying handguns under the Brady Bill had no impact on crime? If you say no, then explain the fact that thousands of former felons were stopped from buying weapons. Cal, for a man as smart as you to buy this NRA drivel is silly. If it were up to me I would ban handguns except for sporting competitions, and those guns would have to be held in licensed gun clubs. That will never happen because the NRA and the other militia groups have paid for and intimidated politicians. I once debated the former head of the NRA, Charlton Heston. I told him then he and his NRA thugs should go to the funerals of children accidentally killed by legal handguns and ask God's forgiveness for the blood on their hands.

If the Brady Bill had an impact on crime, it increased it. Bill Clinton had no real interest in preventing crime, he just wanted to pass more gun bans. That is why the "felons" denied a legal gun purchase under the Brady Bill, weren't apprehended immediately and the Federal prosecutors have to be given grants and incentives to enforce Federal laws which give severe punishment for commiting felonies with a gun. The 10,000 felons denied gun purchases under the Brady Law in the first year, had committed additional felonies. To even get to the step where the background was checked required the filling out of the gun registration form. If they had revealed their former feloniy convictions, they never would have even gotten to the point of being denied. Falsely filling out a federal form is a felony. I just wish Cal had told "Bob" and his antigun thugs to go to the funeral of every victim who was killed because gun control laws prevented them from defending themselves.

Cal: I have no problem with waiting periods and background checks. You have yet to convince me how more laws will deter criminals intent on breaking them. Cars driven by drunken drivers and people who exceed the speed limit kill more people than guns, and I know you do not favor banning cars.

Bob: No, but I favor strict punishment for drunks who drive those cars. That's why we have tough drunken driving laws ... to keep as many drunks away from cars as possible. That is exactly the point of the Brady Bill. The FBI with its national database on gun purchases now does the job of the Brady Bill. Yet the NRA still opposes background checks. Surely you don't agree with the NRA on this.

Unlike Cal and Bob, I do have a problem with "background checks". First, John Lott has proven conclusively that background checks have no positive effect on crime, nor prevent criminals from getting guns. So why have it? You could have a system that identifies people prohibitted from legally owning or purchasing guns without violating the privacy of normal law abiding citizens, but we don't. A background check is essentially the government giving you permission to buy a gun. Don't believe me? Bill Clinton illegally retained the NICS records and even won the right to do so from a federal court. It took years for the NRA to rewrite the law to eliminate that practice. The existance of the NICS is just too easy for the government to abuse. That's why the Anti's try to extend the number of reasons to deny a gun purchase like they did with "court orders" and misdemeanor domestic violence. There is also quite an effort to make NICS records permanant and end ALL private sales.

Bob: One fact is irrefutable. In countries where handguns are either illegal like Japan, or strictly controlled like Britain, the number of gun deaths is miniscule. No wonder the other civilized countries of the world consider U.S. gun laws (or lack of laws) to be nothing short of barbaric.

So what? I consider the gun control laws of the other "civilized countries" to be barbaric. It's another of Bob's deceitful statments. When guns are outlawed, self defense is essentially outlawed. Japan has never allowed much private ownership of guns and their society is strictly controlled. Police have vast powers and few controls. Freedom is limitted and crime is far from non-existant and suicide is easily three times the rate of other civilized countries, BUT, they don't use guns! Same in Britain. They had a historically low rate of crime, until they banned guns. Then the crime rate exploded to where the UK had the highest crime rates in the world. At the same time, the trend in the US was to pass CCL laws, and the US enjoyed a drop on crime rates.

Bob: Well, the bottom line in all of this is that if the Supreme Court accepts this case, I have no doubt that the conservative court will agree with the appeals court and throw out D.C.'s gun ban. And I'll surprise you here: I think the Second Amendment does establish an individual right to own a gun. At the same time, though, I think government can — and in many cases should — restrict that right to protect a greater good.

Bob: So assuming the court rules as such, how about at least doing something for the children? Let's put mandatory locks on guns in homes and provide a stiff legal penalty for those who fail to do so. And please don't reject this as Heston did when I raised it. He said gun locks would be difficult to get off in a burglary, but most people can handle it just fine. If such locks were mandatory nationwide, we could save lives, particularly the lives of kids. How about it, Cal?

So Einstein, how are you going to enforce this law? I know how the Clinton Administration intended to enforce such gun laws. They would have required a federal "arsenal license" in order to legally own more than five guns or more than 50 rounds of ammunition. In order to be granted your "arsenal license" you would be required to allow the federal government to make up to two "inspections" of your home without notice, a year in order to make sure that you are complying with the law, and to inventory your weapons. The rationale for requiring gun locks and safes is equally flawed. The number of "kids" (actual kids under 12, not "kids" up to 27 years old) who are killed from gun accidents is normally less than 20. And what about thse households that have no kids? And what about the cases where responsible kids defend the household? Another deceitful lie is that locked up guns prevents criminals from misusing them. Why would a criminal care about cutting the fingerguard off of a handgun to remove the trigger lock? Or maybe, he would have plenty of time to remove the lock by other means? And if you happen to be home, and a criminal gets the drop on you because your guns are locked in the safe? I can see him hold a gun to your wife, of husband's, or kids' head, and you are going to open the gun safe fro him.

 

[arthurcw]

Kum-By-Stinky-La. Let’s all join hands and agree on stupidity.

Oh it does warm the heart to see two “Inside the Beltway Elitists” agree on how we should behave. I feel safer already.

Bob! Cal! Into the corner and DON'T come out until you grow a some more brain cells. We'll know you're ready when you have an original thought. Go on! Get! Stop sobbin’ like a sissy Bob! Cal, NO! No you can’t come out just because you say you are pro 2A! You are just fibbin’ and I’ll not be having any of that!

 

[eliphalet]

Background Checks.

Another solution to a problem that never existed.

How true.

Wasn't a study just finished by the CDC that concluded gun laws did nothing to prevent crime?

Gosh, lets have another so we can prevent more crimes. Geezzzzh!

NRA endorsed too, makes me angry at an organization I am a life member of.

 

[theleveloftime]

What about Bob

Cal is simply a silly man who would like to sound "nice"
Bob is a fairly evil guy and full of tea and crumpets. I've listened to Bob numerous times and he is a smart guy, too smart to actually believe the things he says about anything. Like all political hacks he hopes to be rewarded for his judist goat act when the democomies come to power. He has demonstrated time and again there is no outrage he will not champion to please his masters.
let's lock up Bob instead.