Gun owners push back: a former Marine's letter to Dianne Feinstein

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

5% Percent Of The World’s Population, 50% Of The Guns

[spookyturtle 9,465]

Spooky, the problem I see in your comparison of undertaking these huge changes is that the examples you use as proof of success are of inanimate objects, not people. In the examples you use of pollution and gas mileage, there is an absolute and the variables are finite and definitive. With people, it's the complete opposite. There are no absolutes, the variables are infinite and very unclear. You are suggesting that we attempt to change the economy, culture and mindset of the lower and middle class population, that's more than half the entire US population, and to also take in to consideration their mental health. There are simply too many unknowns that need to be adressed, and I don't believe the chances for success are all that high. The amount of money needed to attempt such a task would make the stimulus bill look like a weekly paycheck. The amount of time is unknown, maybe 50 years or so, maybe never? It's not realistic in my mind.

I have not called for an all out handgun ban because I do believe in the 2nd amendment, I do believe a person has the right to protect and defend themself. Stricter gun control is the way to go. It's proven to work in relatively short periods of time. Canada is a perfect example of this. They have stricter gun control laws and average about 140 murders by gun per year compared to 9,000 in the US.

But we have 300 million guns out there. Stop selling guns right now. How long before the murder rate drops? Those guns aren't going to evaporate. I don't see just banning one type of gun that only accounts for a very small proportion of gun deaths. Handguns are used for the majority of murders and suicides. If guns are the problem and not the things I have suggested, then wouldn't it make the most sense to get rid of the guns that are really causing the carnage?

[Teddy B 17,251]

But we have 300 million guns out there. Stop selling guns right now. How long before the murder rate drops? Those guns aren't going to evaporate. I don't see just banning one type of gun that only accounts for a very small proportion of gun deaths. Handguns are used for the majority of murders and suicides. If guns are the problem and not the things I have suggested, then wouldn't it make the most sense to get rid of the guns that are really causing the carnage?

If your idea of gun control is to simply stop selling guns, then I agree we will get nowhere fast. It has to be much more comprehensive than that and go much deeper.

Edited January 8, 2013 by Teddy B

[spookyturtle 9,465]

If your idea of gun control is to simply stop selling guns, then I agree we will get nowhere fast. It has to be much more comprehensive than that and go much deeper.

For the record, that's not my suggestion for gun control. So in order to be more comprehensive, you have to get rid of a substantial portion of the guns in private hands, specifically, the ones that are used most often. I don't believe that is going to happen in the next several decades. That is why I suggest attacking the root of the problem. Mental health is clearly one of them. We average 50+ suicides per day from guns, over double the amount of murders by firearms. If that isn't mental health, I don't know what is. Ditto for the mass shootings. All of those guys are a couple of sandwiches short of a picnic.

What are your thoughts and ideas on reducing these deaths?

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

For the record, that's not my suggestion for gun control. So in order to be more comprehensive, you have to get rid of a substantial portion of the guns in private hands, specifically, the ones that are used most often. I don't believe that is going to happen in the next several decades. That is why I suggest attacking the root of the problem. Mental health is clearly one of them. We average 50+ suicides per day from guns, over double the amount of murders by firearms. If that isn't mental health, I don't know what is. Ditto for the mass shootings. All of those guys are a couple of sandwiches short of a picnic.

What are your thoughts and ideas on reducing these deaths?

When the government starts taking active measures of getting the guns out of the hands of the bad guys then I'l start to listen to their agenda. Until then it's all a farce.

All "private hands" are not one and the same. They can start with Oakland, Detroit, Chicago, and St. Louis.

[spookyturtle 9,465]

When the government starts taking active measures of getting the guns out of the hands of the bad guys then I'l start to listen to their agenda. Until then it's all a farce.

All "private hands" are not one and the same. They can start with Oakland, Detroit, Chicago, and St. Louis.

I'm not proposing taking everyone's guns away. I'm a gun owner. The number of daily suicides says something about mental health. This issue needs to be addressed and it will take a long time and cost a fortune. The bad guys will always have guns, even if the good guys don't. I believe that more can be done and still keep our Second Amendment rights. Anyone caught illegally selling a firearm gets a mandatory prison sentence and loss of firearm privileges for life. And go on from there. It won't affect legal responsible gun owners one bit. I can think of a few more like that too.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

When the government starts taking active measures of getting the guns out of the hands of the bad guys then I'l start to listen to their agenda. Until then it's all a farce.

All "private hands" are not one and the same. They can start with Oakland, Detroit, Chicago, and St. Louis.

Saint Louis I believe allows conceal carry and is shall issue is it not?

Saint Louis has a very unique issue that is different than say Detroit or Chicago.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Saint Louis has a very unique issue that is different than say Detroit or Chicago.

These cities all have the very same issue - too many firearms in hands they don't belong into. It's really simple. No need to make it any more complicated than that unless you want to mask the actual issue.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

These cities all have the very same issue - too many firearms in hands they don't belong into. It's really simple. No need to make it any more complicated than that unless you want to mask the actual issue.

Saint Louis Metro crime rates are not actually all that high. Because the city boundary was permanently locked in the 40s you get a statistical anomaly. So you have a downtown with 300,000 people serving a metro area of nearly 3 million people. As a result, with a population of only 300,000 against the crime stats you get very high crime rates.

Edited January 9, 2013 by Usui Takumi

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Saint Louis Metro crime rates are not actually all that high.

The 25 most dangerous cities in America:

1: Flint, MI

2: Detroit, MI

3: St. Louis, MO

I rest my case.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

The 25 most dangerous cities in America:

1: Flint, MI

2: Detroit, MI

3: St. Louis, MO

I rest my case.

You rest your case?!!

I suppose I never noticed before because we are rarely are on the opposite sides of a discussion but you are an extremely frustrating poster. You didn't even bother reading my last post based on the above quote and like the conservatives that you lambast in this forum on a daily basis you would rather ignorantly over simplify complex problems to suit your narrow point of view.

Edited January 9, 2013 by Usui Takumi

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

You rest your case?!!

I suppose I never noticed before because we are rarely are on the opposite sides of a discussion but you are an extremely frustrating poster. You didn't even bother reading my last post based on the above quote and like the conservatives that you lambast in this forum on a daily basis you would rather ignorantly over simplify complex problems to suit your narrow point of view.

Look, St. Louis is bad news. Ranks in the top three of the bad news cities. St Louis Metro might be a different story but then I would submit that that is true for many cities vs. their Metro areas. Nashville, TN, for example, made the 20 worst cities but the Nashville Metro area is actually rather nice. Same goes for any number of cities vs. their Metro areas in that list I linked to. There's nothing really that makes St. Louis special in that regard.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Look, St. Louis is bad news. Ranks in the top three of the bad news cities. St Louis Metro might be a different story but then I would submit that that is true for many cities vs. their Metro areas. Nashville, TN, for example, made the 20 worst cities but the Nashville Metro area is actually rather nice. Same goes for any number of cities vs. their Metro areas in that list I linked to. There's nothing really that makes St. Louis special in that regard.

Most of those cities don't have a perm. locked boundary with a 0.1 population ratio. Most are closer to 0.4 or 0.6 and have the ability to annex.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Most of those cities don't have a perm. locked boundary with a 0.1 population ratio. Most are closer to 0.4 or 0.6 and have the ability to annex.

Odd, all of the below major FL cities have a comparable ratio of city vs. metro as St. Louis and yet none of them is as dangerous as St. Louis. Could it be that St. Louis is indeed as bad as the stats say it is?

Tampa

City: 335K

Metro: 2,850K

Ratio: 0.12

Orlando

City: 340K

Metro: 2,180K

Ratio: 0.16

Miami

City: 408K

Metro: 5,560K

Ratio: 0.07

Oh, and then there's the only other place in MO where people actually live - Kansas City. That place also made the list at #16. Is that some anomaly, too, or can we just agree that Missouri has some issues it better sorts out?

Edited January 9, 2013 by Mr. Big Dog

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Odd, all of the below major FL cities have a comparable ratio of city vs. metro as St. Louis and yet none of them is as dangerous as St. Louis. Could it be that St. Louis is indeed as bad as the stats say it is?

Tampa

City: 335K

Metro: 2,850K

Ratio: 0.12

Orlando

City: 340K

Metro: 2,180K

Ratio: 0.16

Miami

City: 408K

Metro: 5,560K

Ratio: 0.07

Oh, and then there's the only other place in MO where people actually live - Kansas City. That place also made the list at #16. Is that some anomaly, too, or can we just agree that Missouri has some issues it better sorts out?

I'm not doubting that those florida cities are safer, nor am I saying Saint Louis City is crime free its simply not in the same league as a Detroit or a Chicago or Oakland. If I go down the list to memphis which you mentioned previously its ratio is roughly .5, Kansas City is .25

If anything I'm saying Orland or Miami shouldn't even be on the list of top 25. Perhaps Saint Louis still makes the list but quite a bit lower.

Edited January 9, 2013 by Usui Takumi