The gun control advocates are having a field day

[MKSheppard]

If guns are so damn inefficient, then you have no need for one do you?
Im mean, if most people can sustain multiple hits, then you obviously are not going to be able to stop federal troops with body armor.

Go read up on the entire reason for picking the .223 caliber bullet.

It takes two men to take care of a wounded man. And besides, anything
larger than pistol caliber can go through body armor.

Guns make it easy to INCAPICATE someone.....killing them needs more work...

[TrailerParkJawa]

Guns make it easy to INCAPICATE someone.....killing them needs more work...

Go tell that to the parents of every soldier killed by gunfire. Im sure they will find it helpful.

I understand the reasoning behind the .223 and wounding soldiers.

But you dont seem to make the connection that your arguement that guns are not good for killing weakens your arguement for personal ownership.

[Soulman]

Those small arms allow you to acquite heavier weapons through the spoils
of war......

The Afghans had a proper military before the Soviet attack. They had everything from jet fighters to tanks to machine guns. If it wasn't for this they wouldn't have been anything but a nuisance.

[Robert Treder]

Tell me, how do you "shell" cities with small-arms fire? Face it; the only reason they could cause any trouble at all was because they had more than just small-arms. Small-arms in the hands of private citizens will not stop a military.

Those small arms allow you to acquite heavier weapons through the spoils
of war......

We air dropeed thousands of single shot .45 caliber pistols over occupied france
during WWII

the concept was that the Maquis would get one of these one shot pistols,
walk up behind a german soldier alone on patrol, shoot him, take his
weapon and use that weapon to acquire more weapons, up to crew
served weapons.

81mm mortars are cheap and easy to aquire/make ya know?

You're the WWII expert, Shep. You should know that the French Resistance was ultimately ineffective. I think that the German occupation of France is actually more of an argument against the power of small arms, and in favor of a state-sponsored military.
After all, it took other national armies to end German occupation.
If American militias are expecting to have success rates similar to the French Resistance in a similar scenario, then perhaps they need to rethink their hobby; they're not going to be able to make a significant dent in the occupying force.
Though I don't know why this scenario's even being discussed; it's astronomically unlikely that these militia groups will ever get to do their thing.

[Sea Skimmer]

Those small arms allow you to acquite heavier weapons through the spoils
of war......

The Afghans had a proper military before the Soviet attack. They had everything from jet fighters to tanks to machine guns. If it wasn't for this they wouldn't have been anything but a nuisance.

The Afgan GOVERMENT had a fair military. However this force was loyal to the Goverment and the goverment supported the Soviets. The resistance had to fight that force along with the hundreds of thousands of men the Soviets sent.

[weemadando]

The Soviet goal was to secure the country for future operations against Pakistan and Iran. They where never able to come close to the level of control needed to use the country as a base, then they left and a couple years later the Union disbanded.

Actually they went into the country at the request of the newly elected communist Afghan government. That some of the population was opposed to this presence should be no surprise.

American aid did not show up until 1986, seven years into the war. And then it was primarily small arms and general supplies. The only thing you could call advanced they got was radios and MANPADS, about 1500 rounds total which scored a minority of Fagan kills. Triple A and land mines brought down most of them. Even this aid for the most part only reached the south eastern quarter of the country. Most of the bands did without outside assistance.

Still, the point stands that they did receive significant support from an outside power. Just like the Viet-Cong.

The Soviets held the cities, but those held only about 35% of the population, and where continually shelled by the resistance. Because the Soviets could not control the hills and mountains around the city they where continually harassed and suffered quite heavy losses. The reason most of Kabul is destroyed is because of the resistance attempting to hit Soviet checkpoints and patrols within the city center. And because of their height advantage country battery fire was near impossible against many batteries.

And America only holds one or two cities now, along with the airfields. Trying to hold all of Afghanistan has been proven impossible by every invader since Alexander the Great. And Kabul has been trashed by nearly 25 years of non-stop war, not by just the rebels attacking the Soviets.

The Soviets where very defected. They wanted Afghanistan for its roads and what lay beyond. They did not have control of the roads, and attempts to open them got entire battalions destroyed in single nights several times. Because they could never do this they could never move on to Pakistan or Iran, both of which actually had things of value to them, a warm water port on the open sea.

ACtually, the Soviets built the main road in Afghanistan. A lovely 4 lane paved road that ran from the Russian border down to the centre of the county. This was what the tanks rolled in along that day. And you should realise that there is no way that they would have invaded Pakistan or Iran, but more likely waited to be invited by the governments.

What? They had nominal control of all major assets and all the cities!

Hooray, the Union controlled a minority of the population and a bunch of mud huts. The assets they did not have control of was the thing they invaded for and the only one of value, the road network.

How much of the population of Vietnam was under control? How much of the population of Afghanistan is currently under control?

[weemadando]

Go read up on the entire reason for picking the .223 caliber bullet.

It takes two men to take care of a wounded man. And besides, anything
larger than pistol caliber can go through body armor.

Guns make it easy to INCAPICATE someone.....killing them needs more work...

The strategy of modern warfare (for most Western nations) is to place such a drain on the resources of a nation that they cannot continue to resist. As such, power stations, hospitals, water treatment plants, red cross depots etc are the first things to go (once the air-defense network has been eliminated). The majority of munitions dropped in the field will be cluster bombs or other "designed to wound" weapons. When you have thousands of injured people and no capacity to care for them morale is going through the floor, do you euthanase those who won't make it, or let them die slowly? Same thing applies with the .223, designed to be 'less than lethal' unless used with accuracy or in a burst.

And yet we proud Western nations declare that we fight the humane cause against people who would bring suffering to their nation and others.

[Alyeska]

Well, fully jacketed high power 5.56mm rounds can be quite fatal and have decent body armor penetration.

[Darth Wong]

Well, fully jacketed high power 5.56mm rounds can be quite fatal and have decent body armor penetration.

10 for 13 in Virginia. They seemed pretty effective. I'd say that of all Shep's arguments, the "guns aren't really that effective" argument is the dumbest.

[Durandal]

Guns don't kill people. People kill people.

But, I think the gun helps. Just standing there with your index finger pointed at someone going, "BANG! BANG!" isn't likely to accomplish much of anything.

[aerius]

IF they could come up with a means of gun control that actually keeps guns out of criminal hands while allowing the law abiding citizen to own them I'll be all for it. Unfortunately what we seem to be getting is a blanket system that tries to keep guns out of everyone's hands, which I disagree with. Furthermore, these gun laws are highly ineffective at actually keeping and getting guns out of criminal hands, so ineffective in fact that they might as well not exist. What we more or less have is a bunch of "feel good" laws that the government has passed to say "look, we're doing something about the problem", while in reality we still have just as many people getting shot as ever. What we need to do for example is start shooting those black market dealers and gangbangers, and have the Customs guys do a proper job of finding and confiscating illegal shipments. That will keep help guns off the street and out of the hands of criminals, and it'll likely work a lot better than passing yet another gun control law.

[Hotfoot]

Lazlow: "Al-right, another award-winning show on Chatterbox. Today we're talking about anything, it seems. If you have something to say about anything, call now. Hello caller. You're on Chatterbox"

Caller: "Yeah, hi, I love the show, love hearing people's opinions, that's what made this country great. People. And opinions. And stuff. Most of all, guns. I've had it with people whining about 'guns kill people,' guns don't kill people, death kills people. Ask a doctor, it's a medical fact. You can't die from a bullet. You can die from a cardiac arrest or organ failure or a major hemorrhage, small piece of metal ain't the problem. Besides, I only use my machine-gun in the safety of my own home and car. I ain't hurting nobody. And countries that don't have guns ain't American."

Lazlow: "Y-you know that's a really good point. Countries that don't have guns aren't American. You know, if more people had guns, we'd have less shootings in this country."

From the Chatterbox radio station in Grand Theft Auto 3.

Frankly, if more of the US's gun control laws were actually properly enforced, we'd likely be better off. That's one of the biggest problems, IMO.

[Beowulf]

Wrong. An example of event A leading to event B in one incident is not validation of a slippery-slope fallacy. Please purchase a book on basic logic before you embarrass yourself further.

Besides, event B was the original stated intent in this particular case anyway; they backed off to A and then went back to their original plan. That is hardly evidence of event A causing event B.

This does however prove that they are lying son of a bitches, because they changed from plan B (give them extra time to register their guns), to plan A (confiscate all guns that weren't registered by the origanl deadline).

It is good to note, that the deadline was not set into the statue allowing for this confiscation, but rather was decided upon by the AG of the state of California.

And tell me, exactly how does registration help prevent crimes?

And it is the stated intent of the anarchy advocates such as Shep to make extremely powerful military weapons legal for private use. So what? How does their extremism nullify the possibility of finding a workable compromise?

No, their extremism does not nullify the possiblilty of finiding a workable compromise, but the only two voices being heard are the extremists, and the media, which at least partially controls how people vote, favors the ban all guns crowd.

Where exactly is the fallacy in asking for a comparison between murder rates before and after this gun-control measure was passed?

The gun-control measure has long-term effects, not short-term effects. It does not confiscate thousands of guns from existing gun owners, so it is ridiculous to gauge its usefulness by short-term results. Should I repeat myself a third time before it sinks in?

4 years isn't a long enough time to determine the effects? I'm not expecting the effect to be immediate or drastic, but it should have shown at least a drop in crime after that much time.

You described a gun-control law in Australia as a "ban".

I misspoke there. In any case, the gun-control law did ban some people from owning guns, so it is a "ban" just not a total one.

No, it is regulation. You do not describe automotive vehicle licensing regulations as "car bans", do you?

Do they have shrinks do tests on you before you can get a driver's license? No, they just test you to see if you can handle a car safely. And cars can be as deadly, or more than a firearm.

And how can you turn ban into confiscation? I could ban the sale of automobiles, but that doesn't mean I want to confiscate them.

My belief is that people should be able to do anything they want so long as it doesn't hurt anyone.

If I drive while straddling two lanes on the highway, I am not hurting anyone. Does this mean that's OK, and that the laws regarding driving should be changed to permit it?

Strawman. I never said that, because it has a very high probability of risk involved. It's like saying that I want all prisoners freed, becuase it won't hurt anybody...

I'm saying that if you want to have a gun to shoot at a paper target, why shouldn't you be able to? It's like drugs...

If you want to destroy your life by smoking crack, that's your right. It shouldn't be a felony to possess that crack. Trying to make someone else addicted to crack, should be a felony, because you're harming them.

A good form of gun-control would be necessary to prevent people from hurting others w/ guns, but the current situtation is banning certain classes of guns just because of they're looks.

I'm just saying that the idea of gun-control makes sense. I never said that every gun control law in existence is well-designed. And it does make sense to ban certain types of guns; no one complains because bazookas are not allowed, and the logic is the same.

Hmm... not all guns are designed to hurt people, while the only purpose of a bazooka is...
The idea of gun control does make sense, but almost all implementations cater towards fear, while in reality do jack shit.

Picture this:
A 6 year-old boy picks up a gun from his crack-dealing, felonious uncle, and shoots a girl in his first grade class.

Should we pass a law forcing gun locks on the public? Why? It's not like that uncle should have had the gun in the first place, should have had in reach of a minor, or would have paid any attention to a law saying that their must be a gun lock on all guns not in use...

But this exact situation occured during the Clinton administration...

I'm opposed to new gun legistation because it will do jack shit to the crime rate.

[Beowulf]

Basically I think that people have the theoretical right to own weapons, but that is only if they can follow the rules and safety procedures.

Hear hear. Of course, since that means a violent ex-con like Shep would be excluded so that only people like you and me could legally own them, he won't agree ...

Of course, you do realize that this isn't how gun control works, right? Gun control depends on using the media to hype up a specific type of gun, so that they can't put restrictions on it, irregardless of whether or not it has any difference on actual preformance. To use as an example, the assualt weapon ban. This bans rifles based solely on looks. There is no functional difference between a gun labeled an assault rifle, but an assault rifle looks mean to the public, so it's an easy target...

Concession accepted.

[Wicked Pilot]

Just standing there with your index finger pointed at someone going, "BANG! BANG!" isn't likely to accomplish much of anything.

I don't know, your victum may die of laughter.

[Darth Wong]

And tell me, exactly how does registration help prevent crimes?

Good question. I would say that if guns were registered, you would know how many guns someone owns if he is convicted of a serious crime, so you could go in and grab them. But the more important item is licensing, not registration. There should be a few hoops one must jump through in order to get a gun; the quaint notion that any idiot should be assumed responsible enough for gun ownership is naive and foolish. Registration is an inevitable accompaniment to licensing.

4 years isn't a long enough time to determine the effects? I'm not expecting the effect to be immediate or drastic, but it should have shown at least a drop in crime after that much time.

Crime, or gun homicide? Crime rates wouldn't change at all; guns only change the lethality of crime, not its incidence. As for gun homicide rates, it's hard to say; the timeframe for any kind of change would be more generational than one, two, or even five years (let's put it this way; has gun ownership dropped yet?). And that assumes laws which are actually written in order to function, instead of being written to appease voters while leaving so many loopholes and legalese that you can get around them easily, and nobody wants to bother enforcing them.

If I drive while straddling two lanes on the highway, I am not hurting anyone. Does this mean that's OK, and that the laws regarding driving should be changed to permit it?

Strawman. I never said that, because it has a very high probability of risk involved. It's like saying that I want all prisoners freed, becuase it won't hurt anybody...

How is it a strawman? Handing out guns to people without rigorous checks is an enormous risk.

I'm saying that if you want to have a gun to shoot at a paper target, why shouldn't you be able to? It's like drugs...

Ah, so (continuing the "logic") if I want to have a car just to drive around my backyard, I should be able to get one without any kind of licensing requirement? Ridiculous. Anyone can state any intent when they purchase something, but the public risk must be assessed. This is merely a smaller-scale version of the same reasoning that keeps high-powered military weapons out of private hands.

Hmm... not all guns are designed to hurt people, while the only purpose of a bazooka is...

... to blow holes in metal. Gee, I guess bazookas aren't meant to hurt people either! Seriously, this "guns are not meant for killing" bullshit is moronic. Guns were designed to be lethal against people or animals. That is their sole purpose for existence.

The idea of gun control does make sense, but almost all implementations cater towards fear, while in reality do jack shit.

Then attack the implementation, not the idea. You are attacking the idea by attacking the implementation. Unless a reasonable gun law is impossible due to inherent flaws in the idea, I don't see how that can be a reasonable approach.

Picture this:
A 6 year-old boy picks up a gun from his crack-dealing, felonious uncle, and shoots a girl in his first grade class.

Should we pass a law forcing gun locks on the public? Why? It's not like that uncle should have had the gun in the first place, should have had in reach of a minor, or would have paid any attention to a law saying that their must be a gun lock on all guns not in use...

Ah, the "it's not 100% effective, so don't bother" argument. I've heard it before. It's a black/white fallacy. What is it with you gun anarchy people and black/white fallacies? Do they take you aside and tutor you on this technique?

I'm opposed to new gun legistation because it will do jack shit to the crime rate.

Every argument against gun licensing can be applied to vehicle licensing. Without exception. The only difference is that gun licensing has been fought so vigorously in the US that whatever laws have been passed have been byzantine and hopeless. The situation calls for rewritten and improved laws, not new laws piled on the old ones or worse yet, gun anarchy.

[Beowulf]

And tell me, exactly how does registration help prevent crimes?

Good question. I would say that if guns were registered, you would know how many guns someone owns if he is convicted of a serious crime, so you could go in and grab them. But the more important item is licensing, not registration. There should be a few hoops one must jump through in order to get a gun; the quaint notion that any idiot should be assumed responsible enough for gun ownership is naive and foolish. Registration is an inevitable accompaniment to licensing.

Right now, in California at least, (If that doesn't give you a clue where i'm from I don't know what will...) You have to take a safety course to make sure that you know how to handle a gun, or take a test for the same purpose. The quaint notion that any idiot is responsible enough for car ownership is naive and foolish. Just look at the idiot who decided i was going too slow(at 75 mph) for him in a van. He tailgated me, passed me on the right, while giving me the finger, swerved in front of me, all without using a blinker, of course, and then hit his brakes, while giving me the finger yet again. Note, I was going fast than all the traffic to my right, so it really was just him being an asshole why couldn't stand my moving slow...

Trying to legislate being responsible enough to own something is naive and foolish. Take a look at cars. Out of all the driver's out there, you'll always find somebody who will be irresponsible.

Why must you need to know how many guns a person owns when licensing? To continue the car analogy, does the government need to know how many, and of what kind, of cars you own?
[size=x-large] NO! [/size]
They just make sure you're not driving a car that you don't know how to handle.

4 years isn't a long enough time to determine the effects? I'm not expecting the effect to be immediate or drastic, but it should have shown at least a drop in crime after that much time.

Crime, or gun homicide? Crime rates wouldn't change at all; guns only change the lethality of crime, not its incidence. As for gun homicide rates, it's hard to say; the timeframe for any kind of change would be more generational than one, two, or even five years (let's put it this way; has gun ownership dropped yet?).

More than half a million guns were turned in in victoria when the 1996 gun control law was put in effective.

And that assumes laws which are actually written in order to function, instead of being written to appease voters while leaving so many loopholes and legalese that you can get around them easily, and nobody wants to bother enforcing them.

Wow. My argument against gun control. You know that many of the gun laws weren't enforced during the Clinton administration?

If I drive while straddling two lanes on the highway, I am not hurting anyone. Does this mean that's OK, and that the laws regarding driving should be changed to permit it?

Strawman. I never said that, because it has a very high probability of risk involved. It's like saying that I want all prisoners freed, becuase it won't hurt anybody...

How is it a strawman? Handing out guns to people without rigorous checks is an enormous risk.

And where did I say that? Stop putting words in my mouth.

I'm saying that if you want to have a gun to shoot at a paper target, why shouldn't you be able to? It's like drugs...

Ah, so (continuing the "logic") if I want to have a car just to drive around my backyard, I should be able to get one without any kind of licensing requirement? Ridiculous. Anyone can state any intent when they purchase something, but the public risk must be assessed. This is merely a smaller-scale version of the same reasoning that keeps high-powered military weapons out of private hands.

You know, in the US, an unlicensed driver can drive around in private property. The license only applies to public roads.

Hmm... not all guns are designed to hurt people, while the only purpose of a bazooka is...

... to blow holes in metal. Gee, I guess bazookas aren't meant to hurt people either! Seriously, this "guns are not meant for killing" bullshit is moronic. Guns were designed to be lethal against people or animals. That is their sole purpose for existence.

/me points to a Olympic free pistol

So this target pistol is really a gun designed to kill people?

No, it's designed to be as accurate as possible, which is the reason why it fires a .22 LR cartridge and only holds one shot.

/me points to a Olympic Rapid fire pistol

So this pistol is designed to shoot people?
No, it's designed to be able to fire very fast at a target, very accurately. It fires a .22 short round, which is nothing remotely like a 9mm in terms of lethality.

The idea of gun control does make sense, but almost all implementations cater towards fear, while in reality do jack shit.

Then attack the implementation, not the idea. You are attacking the idea by attacking the implementation. Unless a reasonable gun law is impossible due to inherent flaws in the idea, I don't see how that can be a reasonable approach.

The problem is that due to the extremism of the anti-gun crowd, the only way to attack the implementation is to attack the idea. A reasonable gun law will be attacked by extremists from the anti-gun crowd as doing nothing, and from the gun nuts as being too restrictive.

Picture this:
A 6 year-old boy picks up a gun from his crack-dealing, felonious uncle, and shoots a girl in his first grade class.

Should we pass a law forcing gun locks on the public? Why? It's not like that uncle should have had the gun in the first place, should have had in reach of a minor, or would have paid any attention to a law saying that their must be a gun lock on all guns not in use...

Ah, the "it's not 100% effective, so don't bother" argument. I've heard it before. It's a black/white fallacy. What is it with you gun anarchy people and black/white fallacies? Do they take you aside and tutor you on this technique?

So I'm a gun anarchist?
I guess you must be an anti-gun nut then.
I'm saying that you shouldn't have to legislate common sense, like securing your weapon when not in use, and you should try them for laws already on the books.
I mean, trigger locks is something that they can really only use to slap on another few years onto the sentence, rather than actually be able to prosecute.

I'm opposed to new gun legistation because it will do jack shit to the crime rate.

Every argument against gun licensing can be applied to vehicle licensing. Without exception. The only difference is that gun licensing has been fought so vigorously in the US that whatever laws have been passed have been byzantine and hopeless. The situation calls for rewritten and improved laws, not new laws piled on the old ones or worse yet, gun anarchy.

Why do you assume that I'm promoting gun anarchy? I'm promoting the idea that gun control is almost entirely a piece of shite due to how it's implemented, and how it's written, and that therefore, we don't need new gun control laws. Also, it's a bad idea to make blanket statements, they just need one counter-example to disprove them. I just can't think of one at the moment...

BTW: why is your board so slow? It took more than a minute for the post reply page to show up, while pages from other sites pop-up rather fast.

[Kuja]

Look at the size of your post, Beowulf.

[Evil Sadistic Bastard]

Look at the size of your post, Beowulf.

That approximates the size of most fanfic chapters.

And WOng's too.

[Beowulf]

Look at the size of your post, Beowulf.

Hmm... maybe there should be track of how many KB was written by a person too...

Wow, it's a lot of text...

[haas mark]

*Wanders in* You can clean up the quotes...just take the text from the last quote only (unless previous quotes are necessary). *Wanders back out*

[greenmm]

Banning guns won't stop murders, nor will it stop the use of weapons in committing crimes. People have been committing crimes and murders for thousands of years now, most of them without having the technology to even build a crude musket, let alone modern firearms.

I know it's only my opinion, but this is what I think needs to be done:

1. Abolish all federal gun control laws, except a law prohibiting private citizens from owning fully automatic weapons. There's absolutely no justifiable reason for anyone who's not in active or reserve military service, working as a law enforcement official, or performing bodyguard duties for our government officials, to have one, because they're not faced with the potential for combat situations on a daily basis.

2. All gun control legislation must be handled at the state level, not the federal. The only change is, you have to satisfy the legislative requirements of the state you reside in, in terms of what you're allowed to own and whatever registration requirements are met.

3. Purchasing a gun requires that the buyer have a gun license. In order to get said gun license, the buyer must complete a state-certified gun certification class. Said class should teach as a minimum proper care of a gun, how to safely shoot the gun, and how to safely store the gun, and should also include multiple quizzes/tests during the course with a final overall test, with the buyer having to have a minimum grade at the end of the course in order to get their license. Note that none of these tests should reflect how accurate of a shooter the buyer is, as you can be a deadeye shooter but be an unsafe gun owner.

3a. As with auto licenses, different gun types should require different licenses, i.e. handgun license, bolt-action rifle license (including shotgun training), semiautomatic rifle license. Just as a standard driver's license doesn't confer automatic capability to handle a motorcycle or a commercial truck, passing a handgun certification course doesn't make you an expert with a rifle.

3b. Certain factors may impose restrictions on a person's ability to obtain a license. For example, a former criminal should be restricted on what gun licenses they can obtain. A former criminal who committed violent crimes that involved guns should be prohibited from gaining any gun license. Granted, some criminals actually do come out of jail reformed, and no longer present a danger to society; so, if a state wants to impose a time limit before said ex-convict can gain a license, or imposes a limitation on the type of license available or the number of guns that can be owned, that would be fine. Obviously, the worse the crime that was committed, the more crimes committed, or the more times the ex-con has been in and out of jail, the more stringent the limitations should be.

4. Whether bought at a gun shop or a travelling gun show, or even bought from a private citizen, each gun owned by a licensed gun owner should be registered with the state. The registration on file will record the gun's data (i.e. model, caliber), its unique serial number, and the gun owner's information. Each gun registration, like a car's registration, must be renewed every year, and each gun license should be required to be renewed every few years, with some sort of system (i.e. license sticker) to show when the license will expire and needs renewed.

[Glocksman]

As for gun homicide rates, it's hard to say; the timeframe for any kind of change would be more generational than one, two, or even five years (let's put it this way; has gun ownership dropped yet?).

What about the UK's century long experience with ever tightening gun laws?

This columnist looks at the British experience over the course of the last century or so.

British History Lessons

But at the very least, she has demonstrated that the history of English gun control does not support the commonly made claim that English crime rates were (formerly) lower in England because of stricter gun controls, for the rise in English crime has coincided with the growth of governmental intrusiveness where firearms are concerned.

The columnist is referring to Joyce Lee Malcolm's new book Guns and Violence: The English Experience. I haven't read the book yet, but I eventually intend to as the premise is interesting.

John Lott reviewed it:

Joyce Lee Malcolm has put together an excellent, very readable study that should cause many to rethink the claims that Britain has a lower homicide rate because they have so many gun control regulations. What Malcolm shows is that British murder rates were declining for centuries before gun control was started and had reached very low rates by the turn of the last century. It is only once gun control was implemented that the crime rate began to slowly rise. Malcolm's findings should be a warning to those who rely on simple cross-sectional comparisons, without taking into account that crime rates can vary for many different reasons. Any one interested in history generally or in the gun debate in particular will find this very interesting reading

If the author has her facts straight, then gun control isn't the solution.

[Glocksman]

Right now, in California at least, (If that doesn't give you a clue where i'm from I don't know what will...) You have to take a safety course to make sure that you know how to handle a gun, or take a test for the same purpose.

Interestingly enough, I'm in Indiana and our gun laws are light years removed from CA's.

The state has to issue you a CCW permit if you meet these legal standards.

IC 35-47-1-7
Sec. 7. "Proper person" means a person who does not:
(1) have a conviction for resisting law enforcement under IC 35-44-3-3 within five (5) years before the person applies for a license or permit under this chapter;
(2) have a conviction for a crime for which he could have been sentenced for more than one (1) year;
(3) have a record of being an alcohol or drug abuser as defined in this chapter;
(4) have documented evidence which would give rise to a reasonable belief that he has a propensity for violent or emotionally unstable conduct;
(5) make a false statement of material fact on his application;
(6) have a conviction for any crime involving an inability to safely handle a handgun;
(7) have a conviction for violation of the provisions of this article within five (5) years of his application; or
(8) have an adjudication as a delinquent child for an act that would be a felony if committed by an adult, if the person applying for a license or permit under this chapter is less than twenty-three (23) years of age.
As added by P.L.311-1983, SEC.32. Amended by P.L.191-1984, SEC.1; P.L.148-1987, SEC.3; P.L.269-1995, SEC.5.

IC 35-47-1-8
Sec. 8. "Proper reason" means for the defense of oneself or the state of Indiana.
As added by P.L.311-1983, SEC.32.

Much different than California's laws.
Washington's law is similar to Indiana's
Vermont's law is even less restrictive than Indiana's.
Vermont requires no permit at all.

Now let's compare violent crime rates between the 4 states.

California: 703.7
Indiana: 431
Vermont: 106.3
Washington: 428.5

However, Indiana's Homcide rate (7.7) is higher than California's (6.6).
Vermont's rate is 2.2 and Washington's is 3.9. All figures are 1998 data.

Interestingly enough, of the 454 homicides in Indiana that year, 79 of them occured in the city of Gary (pop: 478,323) alone. Gary by far has the highest homicide rate of any city in Indiana (or in the US for that year)

Now obviously gun laws are not the reason for the differing rates in VT, WA, CA and IN. Socioeconomic factors play a much larger role in violent crime than any gun laws would (Hence Gary's astronomical murder rate compared to the rest of the state). My only point is that 'lax' gun laws do not lead to higher murder rates.