Really great piece on the Glock handgun, and gun control on NPR!

[virginia mountainman]

Nice audio bit on NPR, very good interview, they stuck to the facts, and dispelled some of the myths that some Gun Control advocates like to repeat.

Be aware that this piece is about 18 minutes long!

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=145035468

[MicaelS]

1. I read the transcript, this is the best part:

BARRETT: Yeah. No. No. It's a terrific question and it's an essential question. I think the way to start that conversation so that it has the possibility of being productive is accepting various realities. And the foundational reality is we have a Second Amendment, which the Supreme Court has now interpreted to mean that people have been individual right to possess handguns.

The second thing, I think, you got to accept, is that most of those gun owners are law-abiding citizens, and most of them are doing no harm with those guns and many of them are very, very attached to them. If you deny the reality of the cultural importance of guns to many Americans, whether they've been in the military or in law enforcement or they grew up hunting, or they just like action movies. If you don't accept that then you are rejecting reality. Beyond that, I think there's plenty of room within the Second Amendment and within a respectfull attitude toward people who enjoy guns, to regulate their use in a very reasonable ways. In fact, we already do it. We have background check laws. We have a federal law that makes the crime for a felon, or someone who's been adjudicated mentally ill, to acquire a gun.

The problem often is, is those laws are not really enforced effectively, and as a result you end up with a lot of gun crime. We have a lot of gun crime in this country and there's no denying that.

As far as common sense solutions, my approach is that we ought to focus on controlling crime, not controlling guns. Focusing on enforcing laws that are on the books, that the vast majority of Americans already except - such as felons should not be allowed to walk around with guns - and make sure those laws get enforced well. They have been, for example, in New York City, where there's been very little change in the gun control laws, but over the last 20 years or so there's been much better policing, and as a result, the streets of New York are much, much safer today.

[Hoyt]

4. Yes, many are "very, very attached to them." LOL

[E6-B]

7. Your a perfect fit for his quote..

"
The second thing, I think, you got to accept, is that most of those gun owners are law-abiding citizens, and most of them are doing no harm with those guns and many of them are very, very attached to them. If you deny the reality of the cultural importance of guns to many Americans, whether they've been in the military or in law enforcement or they grew up hunting, or they just like action movies. If you don't accept that then you are rejecting reality.

"

[Hoyt]

9. Harm -- you have to look at both direct and indirect effects. But you won't.

When the "reality" is detrimental to society, why should I accept it because some folks have lost perspective with their love affair with guns?

[We_Have_A_Problem]

11. Indirect effects?

Sounds a lot like "moral harm" to me...

Channeling Bork now are we?

[PavePusher]

12. Feel free to explain/demonstrate the "harm".

Thus far, you have notably failed to do so.

[Atypical Liberal]

13. Please educate me on the direct and indirect harm people like me cause.

[Simo 1939_1940]

14. And yet............

When the "reality" is detrimental to society, why should I accept it because some folks have lost perspective with their love affair with guns?

........you never feel the need to provide evidence to back up your statements.

[Starboard Tack]

15. "most of those gun owners are law-abiding citizens"

How many is most? And how do we deal with the rest? There lies the rub.

[X_Digger]

16. How many is most? Glad you asked..

There are some 80,000,000 gun owners holding some 300,000,000 guns.

Every year there are about 400,000 crimes using guns.

Even if we assume that all gun crimes are perpetrated by a different owner, and that all criminals are included in that 80M, that's 0.5% of all gun owners. 99.5% of all gun owners have nothing to do with crime.

Per gun, it gets even more ridiculous- 0.1% of all guns are used in a crime, assuming one gun per crime. 99.9% of all guns are not used in crime.

[Starboard Tack]

22. The percentages look great, don't they?

Now let's look at the actual numbers
400,000 gun crimes.
30,000 gun deaths.
50,000 nonfatal intentional injuries
25,000 nonfatal accidental injuries
- Not so great.

How many lives were affected by those numbers?
Millions.
- Not so great

How many taxpayer dollars did those numbers cost?
Tens of billions.
- Not so great

But heck, the percentages look great.
Big question. If the percentages are so minute, why do you carry a gun?

[X_Digger]

27. Non sequitur (it does not follow).

What does the percentage of guns used in crime have to do with carrying (or not)?

Your chances of being the victim of violent crime are more than having a house fire.

[div class='excerpt']In the US there are 400,000 residential fires every year, and there are ~105,000,000 homes. Odds of a home fire? 1 in 263.

http://www.cdc.gov/HomeandRecreationalSafety/Fire-Prevention/fires-factsheet.html

According to the DOJ, the rate of being the victim of a violent crime is 20 / 1,000 overall (as high as 27 / 1,000 for some groups like african americans.) That comes out to 1 in 50.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=1743

Would you similarly wonder why people have fire extinguishers?

[Starboard Tack]

28. "What does the percentage of guns used in crime have to do with carrying (or not)?"

They don't? That was my whole point. You were the one to bring up the percentages.

Please not those deadly fire extinguishers again. Always a sign that you're scraping the bottom of the barrel. How many people were killed last year with a fire extinguisher?

[X_Digger]

33. No, you asked about 'most'.. when shown how rarely most guns or gun owners are used in crime..

You flail off in another direction. You're transparent.

And here you are back at the ignorant condemnation about why someone chooses to have a particular tool handy.

You got spanked the last time you brought this up, do you really want to go there, again?

[Atypical Liberal]

29. Yes, they DO look great!

But heck, the percentages look great.

Yes, the percentages DO look great. In fact, they look awesome!

The fact is, there are 40-80 million firearm owners in this country. Even if every single violent crime was committed by a firearm owner, it would mean that 95% or more of firearm owners aren't involved in violent crime every year. There simply aren't enough violent crimes to go around all the firearm owners.

So regardless what the actual crime numbers are, the fact is the overwhelming majority of firearm owners aren't involved.

This is why I will fight anti-gun measures that penalize the vast majority of people who aren't doing anything wrong. I don't care if a million people die from firearms every year, if the vast majority of firearm owners aren't involved, you can't punish people like me for the actions of criminals. I just won't stand for it, and I'm winning this fight.

Big question. If the percentages are so minute, why do you carry a gun?

The odds of having a spare tire are quite low, also, so why carry a spare tire? The odds of having a house fire are quite low, so why have smoke detectors? The odds of a person my age dying are quite low, so why have life insurance?

The answer is simple: The cost of having the tool and not needing it is small. The cost of not having the tool and needing it is great.

The real question is: If people who lawfully carry firearms are so seldom involved in crime, who cares if they carry?

[Starboard Tack]

31. How many people are killed by spare tires and smoke detectors.

That argument is beyond lame. I have no idea why you have life insurance. I don't and haven't since I was 20.
To answer your "real question". I don't, but many do. Why don't you ask them.
I see people who are seldom involved in crime do foolish things every day. Sometimes it gets them killed. Foolish is as foolish does.

[PavePusher]

34. No, your question is lame, because those things have little or nothing to do with crimes.

The analogy is of their impact in a rare but existant event with serious consequences if defensive steps are not taken.

This has been explained ad nauseum around here (and I'm pretty sure to you), so there's really no need for you to continue your feigned disingenuousness; it only makes you appear desperate, pathetic and repetative.

[Starboard Tack]

35. "Ad nauseum" is right. Totally false analogy.

Red herring. Wild goose.

[PavePusher]

39. How so?

Low-frequency, High-risk/high-cost events that can be greatly mitigated by simple, low-labor/low-cost counter-measures.

What is your justification for the false analogy claim?

[Atypical Liberal]

37. Now you've moved the goalposts.

How many people are killed by spare tires and smoke detectors.

You asked, "Big question. If the percentages are so minute, why do you carry a gun?"

And the answer to that question was, and still is, that regardless of how unlikely the situation may be where you need a firearm, it's still just as rational to carry one as it is to have a spare tire, or life insurance, or smoke detectors, or carbon monoxide detectors, etc.

The fact that guns can be used for bad things has nothing to do with your original question as to why someone would carry a gun in spite of the likelihood of needing it being low.

Yes, some people use firearms to commit crimes. I will not allow law-abiding people to have their ability to carry a firearm be compromised because of the actions of a very small minority of criminal firearm owners.

We'll just have to live with the small amount of inevitable crime that results from living in a society where people have relatively free access to weapons.

[Starboard Tack]

38. No, you moved the goalposts. I stayed on topic.

Please. Enough with the spare tire, fire extinguisher, smoke detector nonsense. Don't you realize how silly it sounds. We're discussing guns, which are extremely dangerous tools. Guns kill or injure 100,000 people every year in America. Nobody gets killed by fire extinguishers and nobody carries them around.

You have all kinds of access to weapons. Carry them if you like. Just don't look to me for approval.

[PavePusher]

40. No-one carries extinguishers because you don't need to. They are in every public-access....

and many (most?) private-access buildings and most commercial vehicles. I have two in each of my vehicles.

A fire will not break out in the middle of an empty street, but I could potentially be attacked there.

You are the one twisting the analogy to incorrect conditions.

[Starboard Tack]

41. Doesn't surprise me.

I've never carried a fire extinguisher in a vehicle. Never had one in any house or apartment I've owned or rented. Never had a fire. Call me reckless. I don't live in fear. I live in awareness and responsibility. If you were attacked in an empty street, who would be attacking you? Have you ever been attacked on any street? If so, I'd be questioning the reasons for the attack, rather than carrying a gun for the next one.

If someone wants to shoot me, it's probably going to happen, regardless of whether I am armed. Can't think of any reason why anyone would want to shoot me. If I could, then I would be thinking about eliminating that reason.

[Atypical Liberal]

43. Living unprepared is your choice to make.

I've never carried a fire extinguisher in a vehicle. Never had one in any house or apartment I've owned or rented. Never had a fire. Call me reckless. I don't live in fear. I live in awareness and responsibility.

Man is a tool-using creature. We have access to many tools that enhance the quality and safety of our lives, including tools for use in emergencies. There are countless such tools. Spare tires. Spare tools. Jumper cables. Seat belts. Carbon Monoxide detectors. Propane detectors. Smoke detectors. First aid kits. Defibrillators. Life insurance. Homeowner's insurance. Property insurance. Automobile insurance. Health insurance. Roadside assistance programs.

For most of these things, the likelihood of needing them is small. But the cost of obtaining the tools is negligible compared to the cost of needing them and not having them, so many people choose to be prepared and spend the money to obtain those tools.

Having such tools does not mean that one "lives in fear". I don't live in fear of flat tires, dead batteries, car accidents, faulty furnaces, leaky appliances, fires, injury, heart attack, dying, house fires, theft, or sickness. Yet I have all of the tools I listed above.

I live in awareness and responsibility.

If you don't have most of the items I listed above, I consider yourself failing in your responsibility to yourself. If you have a family, you are absolutely failing in your responsibility to them. But that is your choice to make. If you wish to be called reckless, that's your choice, and I'll feel badly for your family if, for example, you die without life insurance and leave them with no means to carry on.

But you shouldn't cast aspersions on those who make the choice to buy simple tools in the eventuality they might need them. It is arrogant and condescending.

If you were attacked in an empty street, who would be attacking you? Have you ever been attacked on any street? If so, I'd be questioning the reasons for the attack, rather than carrying a gun for the next one.

I'm sure most victims of violent crime never thought they were going to be a victim when it happened. And if it does happen, that is not the time to be pondering the reasons why it is happening.

If someone wants to shoot me, it's probably going to happen, regardless of whether I am armed.

Many people believe that having some chance at resisting is better than no chance, or having to rely on running, or submitting, or Judo. If you want to take your chances, that's fine with me.

Can't think of any reason why anyone would want to shoot me. If I could, then I would be thinking about eliminating that reason.

I'm sure most people who are victims of violent crime can't think of a reason why it happened to them, either. But when it does happen, it's too late to think about what you might have done differently to eliminate that reason.

[Starboard Tack]

45. None of those safety tools and devices are lethal weapons.

I do have fire extinguishers right now, because I live on a boat. It makes sense and is the law. I've just never had one in a house or apartment or vehicle. I carry spare tires and all kinds of spares and safety equipment. I don't consider a gun to be safety equipment. I know others do. That's fine. Your choice. I respect it. I don't have to agree or embrace it. I have my methods and tools for survival. You have yours.

I disagree about victims of violent crime. I think most do know the reason why it happened and many even anticipate it happening, because of their lifestyle, relationships, environment, choices etc.. As you say, the time to ponder is before the event. Excellent advice. I ponder to the point that I don't choose paths where a gun would be remotely necessary. Where the odds of needing one are statistically as close to zero as possible. And it's working just fine.

I don't need life assurance or insurance. My kids are all grown and self sufficient and my life is full and good. There are no guarantees beyond birth and death.

[Atypical Liberal]

47. Buy me a lottery ticket, will ya?

None of those safety tools and devices are lethal weapons.

So what? Are we supposed to deprive all the law-abiding people of the ability to carry useful tools because the tool can be used to commit lethal crimes?

I do have fire extinguishers right now, because I live on a boat. It makes sense and is the law. I've just never had one in a house or apartment or vehicle. I carry spare tires and all kinds of spares and safety equipment.

Great! Then you can appreciate the idea of buying and having available tools that you might need in an emergency even though the likelihood of needing them is low.

I don't consider a gun to be safety equipment. I know others do. That's fine. Your choice. I respect it. I don't have to agree or embrace it. I have my methods and tools for survival. You have yours.

That's all I ask.

I disagree about victims of violent crime. I think most do know the reason why it happened and many even anticipate it happening, because of their lifestyle, relationships, environment, choices etc.. As you say, the time to ponder is before the event. Excellent advice. I ponder to the point that I don't choose paths where a gun would be remotely necessary. Where the odds of needing one are statistically as close to zero as possible. And it's working just fine.

As it does for me. I have the luxury of living an upper-middle class life in suburbia. I go to work and school and restaurants and playgrounds and that is about the extent of my life. I have never been a victim of violent crime and it is unlikely that I will be, so I don't carry a firearm. But since I would be highly unlikely to cause any problems if I did carry a firearm, it shouldn't be a big deal to society if I do so.

And that's the crux of the matter. People who are so wound up about people who carry concealed weapons are not recognizing the fact that these people are hyper-law-abiding people. They don't just obey the law, they go out of their way to obey the law and conform to regulations and bureaucracy and expense to do something that is completely optional. Even if what they are doing is pointless, it is essentially harmless, so who cares?

[Starboard Tack]

52. I care from a public safety standpoint and a rights standpoint.

I don't want widespread bans and I don't want proliferation of carrying. Neither make sense, but one extreme leads to the other. I don't like extremes or extremist behavior.
You ask who cares if what they do is harmless. Right now, not so many people care. Wait till this kind of legislation gets forced on NYC, LA and Chicago, then we'll see who cares.
I think those who are buying these handguns and all the paraphernalia are being duped into believing they are safer. And they are making a lot of folk rich at the same time. Is this how we get out of economic strife? By arming ourselves in the streets?

[Atypical Liberal]

55. Wow, we agree!

I don't want widespread bans and I don't want proliferation of carrying. Neither make sense, but one extreme leads to the other. I don't like extremes or extremist behavior.
You ask who cares if what they do is harmless. Right now, not so many people care. Wait till this kind of legislation gets forced on NYC, LA and Chicago, then we'll see who cares.
I think those who are buying these handguns and all the paraphernalia are being duped into believing they are safer. And they are making a lot of folk rich at the same time. Is this how we get out of economic strife? By arming ourselves in the streets?

I agree with most of this.

But in the end, the result is basically harmless. The people who bother to jump through all the hoops necessary to legally carry a firearm are not going to be involved in crime in any significant numbers.

[Starboard Tack]

56. Good. We're getting somewhere.

Now let's look at where we disagree, or possibly disagree.

"But in the end, the result is basically harmless"
I don't think we are even close to the end and "basically" is a less than perfect qualifier. To me it means "more or less", which means "not harmless at all" and potentially disastrous.

"The people who bother to jump through all the hoops necessary to legally carry a firearm are not going to be involved in crime in any significant numbers. "
Again, "in any significant numbers" falls into that catchall category of "statistically insignificant".

So that is where we differ. That is why I still participate here, because I want to discourage indiscriminate carrying. That is my main issue. You say you don't carry outside your home. That means you give it rational thought. You ponder the pros and cons. Why would you not want others to do the same?

[Atypical Liberal]

57. It IS statistically insignificant.

Again, "in any significant numbers" falls into that catchall category of "statistically insignificant".

But the facts clearly indicate that CCW permit holders are hardly ever involved in any kind of crime, let alone firearm-related crime. The rate of revocation for CCW permits is less than 2%.

So it isi statistically insignificant. It certainly is not enough of a problem to warrant trying to discourage concealed carry.

You say you don't carry outside your home. That means you give it rational thought. You ponder the pros and cons. Why would you not want others to do the same?

Because I know that even if they carry irrationally, the probability is extremely low that they will be involved in any kind of crime. In fact, they are less likely to be involved in any kind of crime than people who don't lawfully carry a concealed firearm.

So it doesn't matter to me if they give carrying rational thought or not. They are hyper-law-abiding people, and that's all that matters. There is no reason to discourage concealed carry because people who carry concealed weapons simply are not a part of the firearm violence problem.

[Starboard Tack]

58. "They are hyper-law-abiding people, and that's all that matters."

The law in Texas and apparently some other states also makes it OK to shoot thieves in the back as they flee. That matters to me. Shooting people in the back, who pose no immediate threat, is not the way to a better society.

So, why don't you carry outside home? What makes you invincible?

[Atypical Liberal]

59. shooting over property.

Are we talking about something else now besides CCW? Not sure if you replied to the wrong thread or what. Anyway...

The law in Texas and apparently some other states also makes it OK to shoot thieves in the back as they flee. That matters to me. Shooting people in the back, who pose no immediate threat, is not the way to a better society.

As I've said before, I have no problem shooting people over property. I like laws that make this legal. If a thief decides that his life is worth my property, then that is his choice to make.

So, why don't you carry outside home? What makes you invincible?

I don't feel invincible. The main reason I don't carry a concealed weapon is it is unnecessarily difficult. I don't like the idea of registering myself with the government as a firearm owner. I should not need a permit to carry a firearm, especially since criminals don't bother. Another big reason is it is difficult to know which places you might decide to go to that don't allow firearms, which means you might find yourself in the awkward position of either ignoring the signs that say "no firearms" or leaving your firearm unsecured in your vehicle.

But also, I have never been the victim of violent crime. I enjoy a middle-class existence where I go to work, school, and home. My neighborhood does not have crime. None of the places I frequent are troubled by crime, with the exception of my University where my classroom building was the site of the mass shooting by Amy Bishop a couple of years ago. As I take night classes, school is actually the one place where I would like to carry a concealed weapon but, of course, it is not allowed. Of course this is meaningless to people like Amy Bishop.

[X_Digger]

50. If I ever need to find a 'blame the victim' post, I know where to turn..

[div class='excerpt']I think most do know the reason why it happened and many even anticipate it happening, because of their lifestyle, relationships, environment, choices etc..

Disgusting.

[Starboard Tack]

51. Where am I blaming the victim?

I said know why it happened. That means what it means and not what you insinuate. I'm talking about victims in abusive relationships. I'm talking about victims engaged in high risk occupations like police officers, prostitutes, armored truck drivers, pimps, drug dealers. But you knew that. Your constant personal attacks are disgusting.

[X_Digger]

53. It's their 'karma' catching up with them (according to you)..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11728871#post21
[div class='excerpt']I might add that I am a strong believer in karma. We reap what we sow.

[div class='excerpt']So if you lead a clean life you can expect not to be victimized? And what does your "karmic theory" imply about those who are victimized?

[div class='excerpt']You got it. Simo. Congrats.

And now..

[div class='excerpt']I think most do know the reason why it happened and many even anticipate it happening, because of their lifestyle, relationships, environment, choices etc..

Yeah, you're not fooling anyone.

[X_Digger]

60. *taps foot*..

Feel free to chime in.. (response above this one.)

[Atypical Liberal]

46. No, YOU moved the goalposts by changing the subject from probability to what criminals do with guns.

No, you moved the goalposts. I stayed on topic.

No, you did not. You said: "Big question. If the percentages are so minute, why do you carry a gun?"

And the answer is that people carry a gun even though the probability of needing it is low because the consequences of needing it and not having it are dire.

When confronted with this obvious fact, you decided to go off on a tangent that bad people can use guns for bad things. This is true, but does not have anything to do with your original question nor its answer.

Enough with the spare tire, fire extinguisher, smoke detector nonsense. Don't you realize how silly it sounds. We're discussing guns, which are extremely dangerous tools.

But they are tools nonetheless! At least you admit that they are, in fact, TOOLS.

And just like any other tool, particularly tools that are useful in emergencies, people buy them in case they need them, even if the probability of needing them is low.

Yes, it is quite true that firearms are a tool that can be used to kill lots of innocent people, just as other tools, like, say, automobiles, can (and which kill far more people every year, by the way).

But I would no more deprive all the lawful people the use of firearms tools because of the actions of the tiny minority of people who use them to kill people than I would deprive all the lawful people who drive automobiles because of the actions of the tiny minority of people who use them to kill people.

[Hoyt]

18. Exactly. The few on this board may be wonderful carriers, it's all the others that are an issue.

The majority of gun carriers are right wingers. To make the relatively few gun carriers on the left "happy," society has to accept all the other losers who carry for dubious reasons. Time for reconsideration.

[Starboard Tack]

21. Yes. The majority are and we say goodbye to them on a regular basis.

There are obviously some solid Democrats who embrace the philosophy and a few here who embrace the practice. I respect their choice, though I strongly disagree with carrying on a regular basis. Unfortunately, I think they will eventually help to bring on a civil rights infringing backlash. At present there is a lull in violent crime, which some attribute to there being more guns carried. I've seen zero evidence to support that and lots to support other reasons.
Ideally, the reconsideration should come from free will, rather than draconian laws, but I doubt that will happen. Not as long as fear is the hot commodity it is.

[friendly_iconoclast]

25. IOW, "People shouldn't carry, in order to avoid a backlash against carrying."

I'm sure it's entirely coincidental that the further expansion of the practice of concealed carry would make it more difficult to ban,
and that this coincidence plays no part whatsoever in your prediction of a future backlash.

You know, the "moral harm" types are at least amusing, if misguided. In contrast, some vague conspiracy theory that just happens to be
in sync with your previously stated positions is pretty thin gruel.

[Starboard Tack]

26. Think what you like

I just call it as I see it. Thankfully I'm not part of it. You find the "moral harm" types amusing. I find clowns amusing, in a sad kind of way.
What I don't find amusing is seeing people lapping up fear as though it were honey and deluding themselves into a false sense of security. That, I find rather tragic.

[Atypical Liberal]

30. Regardless of political affiliation, they are hardly ever involved in crime.

The majority of gun carriers are right wingers. To make the relatively few gun carriers on the left "happy," society has to accept all the other losers who carry for dubious reasons. Time for reconsideration.

Regardless of political affiliation, when you compare CCW permit holders against any other person you might encounter on the street, you are less likely to be victimized by a CCW permit holder than anyone else you might encounter.

So what exactly is the "issue" that makes this a "time for reconsideration"?

[Hoyt]

32. Not true. People are much less likely to get shot by someone who doesn't walk around with a gun.

That's just a fact.

Further, gun proliferation is an issue we will have to deal with at some point. But, we'll have 100 million more of them to deal with when we come to our senses.

[Atypical Liberal]

36. But you don't live in a society where people don't walk around with guns!

Not true. People are much less likely to get shot by someone who doesn't walk around with a gun.
That's just a fact.

Well of course. But you don't live in a society where there aren't people walking around with guns!

That's like saying that you are much less likely to be raped in a society that has no rapists. And you are much less likely to be murdered in a society that has no murderers.

Yes, of course, if we lived in Utopialand where we were always surrounded by good people you would be much less likely to have anything bad happen to you.

But we don't live in such a land.

So saying that we would be much less likely to be shot if no one had guns is true at face value, but also completely irrelevant. The more so so long as we allow free access to firearms by law-abiding people, which we currently do, always will, and should.

Further, gun proliferation is an issue we will have to deal with at some point. But, we'll have 100 million more of them to deal with when we come to our senses.

But we have had gun proliferation for decades, while all crime, including violent crime, has continued to decline over the same time period.

So again, what is the "issue we will have to deal with"? What negative outcome is resulting from "gun proliferation"?

[Hoyt]

42. First, glad you finally see non-toters are less likely to shoot you.

And, yes, it should have been obvious. But, you missed it.

Also, crime might be even less if you guys weren't spreading so many guns throughout society. In any event, more guns aren't the reason for less crime.

Europeans and Australians seem to do fine without all these guns.

[Atypical Liberal]

44. I never claimed that.

First, glad you finally see non-toters are less likely to shoot you.

Yes, Hoyt, people who never pick up a gun will never commit a crime with a gun. What practical use is this tidbit of knowledge? You cannot control the people who are around you in public. You will be surrounded by criminals and law-abiding people, armed and unarmed people.

It is retarded to try and compare CCW permit holders to people who will never pick up a gun, because of-fucking-course a person who never picks up a gun will never commit a crime with a gun!. But this has no practical application to comparing CCW permit holders against all the people in society that you will come in contact with.

And when you compare CCW permit holders against all the people in society you could come in contact with, CCW permit holders are much less likely to be involved in crimes than any of those people.

Also, crime might be even less if you guys weren't spreading so many guns throughout society. In any event, more guns aren't the reason for less crime.

I've never claimed that more firearms in circulation are the reason for the decades-long and record-low reduced crime rates.

I've simply pointed out that we have record numbers of firearms now in circulation with ever-more-permissive firearm laws and the violent crime rate continues to decline as it has for decades now.

Europeans and Australians seem to do fine without all these guns.

When Europeans and Australians are victims of violent crime, they only have three choices: flee if they are fast enough, submit if they are tough enough, or engage in a physical contest of strength with their attacker.

I'm glad I live in a place where I have another choice of armed resistance.

[Common Sense Party]

17. How attached are you to your computer?

Let's say we pass a law that says the government gets to confiscate your computer, so that you can't do bad things with it--no cyber bullying, no child porn, no hacking or identity theft. It's for the good of all society, Hoyt. Just because you don't do any of those bad things means nothing. A handful of people do, and therefore a few people are harmed, so we're taking away your computer.

Would you object?

[Hoyt]

19. Sorry, guns are not analogous to computers.

[Common Sense Party]

23. Of course they are. I just drew an analogy. Now answer the question.

[ellisonz]

48. Silly analogy IMHO...

[Common Sense Party]

54. In reality, what you mean is silly analogy = "an analogy that I don't like

because it makes my position look weak"

[pipoman]

6. Certainly, one of the biggest failures

is failure to enforce existing laws. Among the most egregious failures to enforce, imo, is the failure to investigate every NICS declined transfer to a prohibited person. There has been almost no investigation of people who filled out the transfer paperwork, who are obviously actively trying to purchase a firearm, but who are disqualified from ownership. Some of the declines are from some technical snafu, many are actually someone who lied on the NICS paperwork.

[ellisonz]

49. Agreed.

Government should do more to investigate those denied by NICS for trying obtain a weapon as a prohibited class. If you're that dumb, you should have problems!

[spin]

2. The book mentioned in the interview...

"Glock: The Rise of America's Gun" looks like a fascinating read. I ordered it for my Kindle.

Thanks for the link.

[E6-B]

8. NPR is obviously a wingnut group.

[Hoyt]

20. They gotta pander to "gun culture" for money. Sad state of affairs.

[SteveW]

61. So, now NPR is pandering to "gun culture?" Where does it end, Hoyt? nt

[E6-B]

3. Ahhhh it is the terrorist gun.

'If you don't accept the importance of guns to people who want to own them, your not living in reality.'

[Hoyt]

5. That's debatable.

[one-eyed fat man]

10. Hmmm

I would say your unreasoned intransigence is demonstrated amply by your posts. What is there to debate? The best thing that can be done is to read your posts for what they're worth and when you contradict yourself, throw your words back in your face.

[Union Scribe]

24. Shit! I thought it read "Really great price on the Glock handgun..."