Comments on: Gun Laws are Getting Looser Across Much of US
By dsrobins on 12-12-09
It’s sad to see that while we are sending our sons, daughters and grandchildren to fight and die opposing overseas terrorists, the National Rifle Association continues to work diligently and effectively to undermine our personal safety and security here at home. The NRA and the gun goons who support it kill and injure far more Americans each year than all the international terrorists in the world. The NRA is our own home grown version of Al Qaeda.
By dsrobins on 12-12-09
It’s always fun to ring littlehawk’s chimes. Unfortunately, his spelling hasn’t improved. I doubt it ever will.
By JCW on 12-13-09
@ dsrobins,
How do you account for Vermont having the lowest gun crime rate in the U.S. while having the loosest gun laws…?
By Kalispell Native on 12-13-09
JCW: How about you answering your own question, with credible citations? Go big or stay at home.
By Kalispell Native on 12-13-09
dsrobins: Have you seen the commercials for the Montana Millionaire lotto drawing? The one with the two guys all bundled up on the front porch with a snow-covered lawn in front of them?
littlehawk is the guy in the stocking cap who claims he was struck by lightning. To which his brother/friend responds, “That explains a lot.”
By mitch on 12-13-09
this article would certainly explain why there’s so many gunslingers out there shootin up their buddies, neighbors, family members,street signs, etc. Also as to why the vile poachers are at an all time high. Reading thru some of the postings makes one wonder if some of these are actually the ones allowed to carry a deadly weapon? I think they would have trouble handling a spoon.
By mitch on 12-13-09
smells FISHY to me. 
By JB on 12-15-09
The Montana and Tenessee gun laws relating to no background checks on firearms made in their respective states are not so much a pass for dealers to freely sell guns to just anybody as they are a challenge to BATFE’s authority - in other words, it’s a legal exercise in states rights.
There has always been a correlation between gun laws supporting legal carry and crime rates. In states with metropolitan populations and usually the most restrictive gun laws (New York, California, etc.) the crimes rates are consistently higher than those which have little or no restriction on gun rights. From a 2005 study done by the FBI:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_02.html
By Scott on 12-15-09
Great link JB.
Folks like dsrobins though do not respond to data. Luckily for us, his/her viewpoint does does not represent the majority view here in the U.S. I guess they can always put some effort into amending the United States constitution and getting three fourths of the states to approve it. I know they have put a lot of effort into bypassing that process by going through the courts and that has failed as well.
The whole issue of gun ownership is not really even a debatable. I find it interesting that citizens of this country are offended by gun ownership, which happens to be a fundamental right here. Trying to take away my gun rights is paramount to trying to remove my rights to free speech. 1st amendment, 2nd amendment…you get the idea right?
History has showed us time and time again that the first step to removing free speech is to control the media. The second is to control firearms. For those that are uneducated in this fact please take a look at how this process began in Germany about 70 years ago.
So, if guns scare you and offend you and you feel as though you absolutely must live in a society where guns are banned….
Perhaps you should consider moving to Europe where people are more “enlightened”. Please feel free to destroy your U.S. passport when you get there and don’t procrastinate on applying for citizenship in your country of choice. While there, please visit the holocaust museum and look at the faces of the defenseless.
By mitch on 12-15-09
I don’t think anyone has fear of guns. It’s the irresponsible uneducated careless angry fools who hold them in their hands that we fear. Unfortunately those who are cautious, careful and abide by the laws will lose their guns eventually because of the actions of a not so few.
By Vud on 12-15-09
JB:
Yes. Great link, Lots of good info. Including this very informative page from the same site:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/offenses/expanded_information/murder_homicide.html
By Scott on 12-15-09
So Mitch,
When you say “irresponsible uneducated careless angry fools” do you mean the criminals who commit crimes and get the guns illegally? Or…are you talking about average citizens? If it is the latter than I am certain that you are also against another dangerous item out there that is responsible for a large number of deaths each year:
cars
And let us not forget if you mix that with alcohol, you have drunk driving fatalities. Are you currently active in making cars and alcohol illegal to buy and own? We currently have a few highways named after highway patrolman who have died in the line of duty from drunk drivers and even more have died in non-alcohol traffic accidents. Once again it is the “irresponsible uneducated careless angry fools” getting in car accidents and drinking and driving killing people out there every day and I am sure you are actively trying to remove the rights to own and consume right?
By Scott on 12-15-09
While we are at it, why don’t we outlaw calories:
http://www.doctorslounge.com/primary/articles/obesity_death/
We have those “irresponsible uneducated careless angry fools” getting fat and costing the tax payers money. Perhaps we should outlaw consuming more than 1200 calories per day. We also need to outlaw the “buffet”. When it comes to cars, guns alcohol and food, the government needs to step in and start making personal choices for everybody right Mitch?
By mitch on 12-15-09
I mean those who, in a fit of anger or carelessness or plain old stupidity kill their friend, spouse, child, dog, or a whole group of people. ..................... If they are average citizens, those actions put them into the criminal catagory. If drunk drivers have caused an innocent party grief, they’re in the same catagory. It’s all about responsibility Scott. That of which there is so little left anymore. If you own a gun, you should take on a responsibility there, one saying you are sane and supposedly safe. If you get drunk and smash up your car…...well then lets just blame in on to the bartenders and bar owners. Take responsibility for your actions. The “cars” isn’t an excuse, or whatever you claim it to be. . People choke on chicken bones, shall we attempt to do away with chickens? Or those eating them? There are other uses for cars Scott, and also chickens, and anything else you intend to throw in there. If you pick up a gun in a moment of stupidity, something is probably going to die, or one way or another your intentions are to shoot it full of holes.
By Scott on 12-15-09
If that is your argument Mitch, then the system is working as expected and criminals are being prosecuted and thrown in jail and this whole gun ownership argument is a waste of time. Why should I pay a price for a crime that somebody else has committed? Either you support the premise that we should all pay for the crimes of others or you support personal responsibility when it comes to gun ownership or car ownership or even the right to purchase chicken wings at the grocery store. I and millions like me went through the background check when we purchased a hand gun and we are citizens who respect and obey the laws regarding weapons. I took my training further and I have had extensive law enforcement training as well as certifications regarding the use and safety of handguns as well as shotguns. I also took a hunter safety course and personal responsibility and safety is taught in there as well.
Punishing the masses for crimes of the few is certainly not the answer.
I agree with those who say that there should be more education regarding firearm and safety.
.
By mitch on 12-15-09
I believe in personal responsibility, but if that is not taken, there has to be other methods to fall back on. Of course you shouldn’t be held responsibile for stupid acts of others, but, you are allowing that to happen when you yell 2nd ammendment and want unrestricted gun ownership for all. I certainly don’t feel we need more restrictions on guns. What we do need is to have the laws that are there enforced and more restrictions on who carries them. That’s another question, I realize a crazy person does not always act crazy. Hence, he has legal approval for his gun. So (and I’m asking you this Scott) how do we sift thru them and pick out the crazies? Only thing that comes to mind to me is that the gun owners must do a better job of policing their own. Hard to do, I know, esp. if it’s a loved one or good friend, but if you feel someone is unsafe or unbalanced, remember they’re holding your future gun rights in their hands. Absolutely there should be more education on safety. If you have indeed have spent time in law enforcement then you already know about crazies and guns.
By Vud on 12-15-09
I agree…
While gun laws in this country are becoming much looser the gun belts holding them up are getting much tighter.
...the American diet is a train wreck.
By Vud on 12-15-09
lh:
If you haft to axe…You probably don’t wanna know.
Do what us ‘Lefties’ are doing…eating a greasy diet and growing so fat that those government guns won’t be ABLE to hit a vital organ.
By Vud on 12-15-09
...better yet eat greasy government cheese for the same effect…We call that a “2 - fer”.
(I think I just had a stroke.)
By JB on 12-15-09
Selling firearms to someone who is mentally unstable should already be taken care of through existing legislation - if a judge issues a court order stating that an individual has been shown to be mentally unstable and should be disallowed to own a firearm, then the current law on the books should suffice.
I believe any law abiding citizen should be allowed to own a firearm - for whatever reason. That individual being mentally unstable but not prohibited by law is an exception rather than the rule. If this were a major concern, would this not receive much more attention than it does now?
“Policing our own” is a non sequitur - saying that gun owners should police each other is like saying drivers on the road should enforce traffic laws on other drivers - it makes absolutely no sense at all.
By JB on 12-15-09
I do absolutely agree that education in firearms use is necessary - any law abiding gun owner should be very much in agreement with this. To quote a phrase, the “comfort of skill at arms” should be a necessary part of every gun owner’s life - it needs to be learned from experts, and that training should always be reviewed and expanded on..
By mitch on 12-16-09
JB if you believe drivers on the road do not “police” others, you do not listen to a scanner. Calls are constantly coming in to report dangerous conditions and dangerous drivers on the road. IF callers do not sign, verifying what they’ve seen, the officers can not respond. If they do, the officers are right there, as well sometimes as bystanders who’ve seen wrong done. There is absolutely no way these reporters have their names released, so it is silly for them to call if they do not follow up on their complaint. We’re not in grade school anymore, the “can’t tattle on your buddy” thing makes no sense in this case, especially where someone’s life, safety, and if your case, your “right” to have a gun is jeopardy.
By JB on 12-16-09
So in that vein, mitch, is there any reason for you to believe that gun owners (and non gunowners, for that matter) do not report someone improperly using a firearm? You obviously do not go to a firing range. And I most certainly have heard of people calling police when a weapon is discharged within city limits or close to residential areas. So you are wrong also - these things do get reported - and the police most certainly do investigate every report - even more so than reckless drivers get reported.
By mitch on 12-16-09
I can only hope they do. If not, as the saying goes, “if you’re not part of the solution you’re part of the problem”.Yes, the officers do investigate every call, that’s a given. However, if the reporting party refused to sign, they have no authorization to stop the vehicle. They watch, but at that time they can only proceed if they see the driver in action.
“By the way”, you are absolutely correct ” proper parenting and education and responsibility. As well as clearly visible and eye-opening consequences for breaking laws of civil human conduct.” that is where it should begin.
yes, yes, yes.
The views expressed in the comments section do not reflect those of the Beacon.