Comments on: Let’s have a cordial, productive talk on gun sales surge

By: Bubba Greene

Bubba Greene — Thu, 17 Jan 2013 14:39:43 +0000

Tony: I agree with the spirit of your last post. There are a few things we responsible gun owners should address in the way of controls but the thing is that anti gun people do not recognize ANY gun owner as responsible. Guns belong in the hands of the military and the police, period. Now, back to the fingerprint. Another reason “fingerprints” don’t work is that they change with normal wear. I just purchased a perfectly good gun made in about 1930. Do you see that the fingerprint today would in no way match had one been taken in 1930. And as to wanting to have a fingerprint…what if I sell or trade that gun to a neighbor or friend and then the same process repeats over the years and then it shows up in a crime with ME being the original documented owner. Am I now guilty of the crime? Am I subject to arrest, or investigation and do I have to spend my money to defend myself? The complexity of a vaild paper trail of ownership changes simply cannot be achieved. I have done a great deal of self examination on the subject. No, I don’t NEED a 30 round magazine. I don’t even NEED an Armalite style firearm. I cannot find fault with some process that screens the mental state of a prospective firearms buyer..until the government defines that I might not be mentally ready to make that purchase. It is not about the next step, but where the path leads. I will agree however that a “private seller” who offers a table full of modern hand guns at a gun show is operating as an unlicensed dealer. THAT should stop and every licensed dealer you speak to at shows agree with it. BUT if ole Bubba takes his grampa’s old shotgun to a show and lands a buyer who wants it, THAT should remain a private transaction. It’s not the location where the sale happens nor the type of firearm sold but simply the number.

SEE YOU AT THE SALEM GUN SHOW!

By: Bubba Greene

Bubba Greene — Tue, 15 Jan 2013 00:04:06 +0000

Well, I suppose all the gun guys and gals are either sleeping or out hunting/shooting. Just wonder how some feel now that there is more and more serious dialogue being given to an executive order which potentially will ban Armalite style weaapons and those dreaded “assault magazines”? No, Perch, we have nothing to fear. Our government is heaar to help us and to take care of us. Just wonder if an executive order to end or restrict speech and press should not go along with the gun ban?

By: Tony Rutherford

Tony Rutherford — Sat, 12 Jan 2013 16:21:42 +0000

Bubba Greene…..like I posted there are no foolproof measures. Unfortunately, responsible gun owners are being lumped together with irresponsible gun owners. If responsible gun owners don’t embrace sensible changes in gun regulations……we’ll likely be forced to embraced ineffective changes.

Sure the barrels could be altered to change ballistic fingerprints…..but what law abiding gun owner would do that? IMO, no measure would protect the right’s of law abiding gun owners than being able to say……”every bullet that my gun discharges has got my signature on it”.

Criminal gun use threatens gun owner rights more than responsible gun use. If responsible gun owners don’t find ways to distance themselves from the criminals…..we’ll all be policed as criminals.

By: Bubba Greene

Bubba Greene — Sun, 06 Jan 2013 18:07:48 +0000

While Nicely’s message was suspect in that it has been more than a year, the question of the effectiveness of the gun ban in Australia is very MUCH suspect. First of all, the trend of crime was in a decline before the ban and the rate of the decline has continued as before the ban. Secondly, one of the statistics which come to the front of anti gun advocates is the sharp reduction in suicide. It appears true that suicide by gun is off significantly. But the following factor not so readily mentioned is that suicide by other means, mostly by hanging, is up significantly and the rate and trend of suicide appears to be uneffected by the gun ban. Mass killings as the one that sparked the ban appear to have been reduced and one report is there have been none since the ban. HOWEVER Australia has no “history” of such events and gun rights advocates suggest the ban does not prove to be a cure for the insane acts of mad people. In fact, recent reading suggests that a deep concern exists in the minds of many that when a looney toon strikes, it’s going to be much worse than anything seen before or after the ban. BTW, “the ban” apparently is not completely an accurate phrase. I understand they have a number of different aspects to gun control enacted over several years and driven by different circumstances.

By: Ranger217

Ranger217 — Sun, 06 Jan 2013 02:04:17 +0000

Nicely, you have attached a forwarded email that has been floating aroound the web for more than ten years. You might want to check Snopes next time.

http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

By: Bubba Greene

Bubba Greene — Sat, 05 Jan 2013 20:19:34 +0000

Hi Perch: I really don’t mean to toy with you. You have proven to be a reasonable person and hope you continue providing your views. I actually feel we share more in common than you might think. I do run close to the edge sometime but anyone who never questions the “truth” in their views is not an open minded person IMO.

“Professors”, intelligent??? some maybe, esp in science and math but in the liberal arts area they are only there because they find being an academic is all they can do. Cannot hold a reaal job. I know several exactly like that. Wonderful ability to “recall” historical facts supporting their views and like to impress young impressionable minds. As I have reflected back on my college days it all seems perfectly clear. Those soc, phil, govt and religoin classes…all gave me a veru big dose of anti culture or maybe counter culture. I think higher education feels young people come in the door thinking they have it all figured out BUT see it as their task to push students buttons and open their minds to other possibilities. I honestly do not feel the citizens of the US will ever take up arms against the govt even though it may feel like it is necessary. Anyone who would actually do that needs to be in an institution. I do howeveer feel that civil situations might materialize, esp in large cities, where the “authorities are not able to immediately deal with it and where armed citizens are the only way to maintain order. I think there have been several instances of that over the years and some even just recently.

Tony Rutherford: You need to do some homework on ballistic finger printing. It has been pronounces as ineffective by just about every agency that has ever studied it. Ballistic characteristics of a firearm can be altered rather easily but I’ll refrain from saying how.

Here is one article that give a good summary but if you are in favor of the idea you may reject the article based on the source.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,66007,00.html
Two important points. A 38 and 62 % fail to match rate is simply not even close to being effective AND there is a seriously big problem with Pre and post crime evaluations.

Nicely:
Good stuff. Like any “right leaning” individual I have looked into the status of things in countries with bans and don’t see them as effective. Chicago and Cook County Illinois have maybe the most restrictive gun laws in the US and potentially the highest homicide rate in the nation. I actually think I saw something saying it was worse that some of the drug loard areas of Mexico.

By: Nicely

Nicely — Wed, 02 Jan 2013 13:42:52 +0000

I received this email recently. I found it interesting as this goes against everything that has recently been brought up in the “news” about the recent tragedy and how laws should be implemented to stop this from ever happening again. Before you read the below ask yourself why we have a drug problem in America and particularly in schools. The last I checked; drugs are illegal.

AUSTRALIA’S GUN LAW – OOPS
Everyone should be very careful about what your government wants you to NOT have.
Australian Gun Law Update
Here’s a thought to warm some of your hearts….

From: Ed Chenel, A police officer in Australia.
Hi Yanks, I thought you all would like to see the real figures from Down Under.

It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by a new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by our own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars.

The first year results are now in:
Australia-wide, homicides are up 6.2 percent,
Australia-wide, assaults are up 9.6 percent;
Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent) in the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent.(Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not and criminals still possess their guns!)

While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since the criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.

There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the elderly, while the resident is at home.
Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in ‘successfully ridding Australian society of guns….’ You won’t see this on the American evening news or hear your governor or members of the State Assembly disseminating this information.
The Australian experience speaks for itself. Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws affect only the law-abiding citizens.
Take note Americans, before it’s too late!

By: Tony Rutherford

Tony Rutherford — Tue, 01 Jan 2013 20:54:22 +0000

“Fear of Loss or Anticipation of Gain”…….explains why there’s a huge rush to buys guns…..and it explains why there’s so much interest in restricting guns.

Guns with rifled barrels leave DNA on each bullet they dicharge…..through “ballistic fingerprinting”. If we had required “ballistic fingerprinting” years ago, it would have been the most effective gun “responsibility” measure we could have adopted.

If we require “ballistic fingerprinting” going forward it will be the most effective step we could take to ensure gun rights.

There are no “fool proof” measures…..but being able to trace a recovered bullet back to the gun that discharged it would have an effective impact on gun violence, gun thefts, transfer of ownership, gun crime investigation success……and at the same time ensure the rights of responsible gun ownership in the future.

By: Perch

Perch — Sun, 30 Dec 2012 23:20:40 +0000

Bubba, this is my last post on this thread, it almost seems like you and I are at each other, but I disagree with your characterization of liberals. Maybe I have known way more of them than you have, but I know a boatload of them and they just don’t think like that. As for professors, I think you are right. I wonder why? Erudition? Intelligence? Maybe that explains it. I’m sure you have a right winger’s explanation, but I probably won’t buy it. At my house, if a bad guy gets in, then gets past the dogs, he’ll find the same result you described at your house, and for the same reason. Lastly, I will just remind you that your recent posts seem to be flirting closely with what you called me on several posts ago, it does sound like you fear the government, our government, yours, mine and all of ours. What would it take to send you into armed revolt? Taxes? Restrictive gun laws? The wrong guy getting elected president? I am being deliberately provocative, and I may or may not be back to read your response, but this is obviously a highly provocative topic and I appreciate the back and forth. I hope you have a happy new year and a safe and non-violent life. Mark, thanks for the topic and the interesting responses.

By: Bubba Greene

Bubba Greene — Sat, 29 Dec 2012 17:24:42 +0000

Well, here I am again. Funny you mention the concept of publishing name and addresses of gun owners. You paper made that mistake as I recall. The thing as every intelligent person understands is that it makes gun owners targets, esp for criminals to come in and steal their guns. Now, put that together. A criminal and a stolen gun = more crime. Or maybe people think gun owners would be embarrassed to have the info made public. Honestly, in one way it does not bother me. Let a bad guy enter my house with the intent of doing harm to myself, family or property and it very well may be the last criminal act they are connected with. But since I cannot be there all the time the notion that my property becomes a target compliments of any local news paper does not make me happy. NOW, another newspaper in NY is apparently doing or has already done that for part of their circulation area. In a reaction a blogger has put together a list of names, addresses and phone numbers for various people on the staff specifically those responsible for the publication of the gun owners names and addresses. You will find it here:

http://christopherfountain.wordpress.com/2012/12/24/sauce-for-the-goose/

I think later today and over the next several days I may make a few phone calls myself to some of these misguided people.