Ted Nugent Jumps In On Gun Control

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IsrAmeriPrius @ Apr 21 2007, 08:50 AM) [snapback]427316[/snapback]</div>

Have we forgotten Oklahoma City already?

I heard several times last week that the mass killings are on the decrease, but what is new is the extensive media coverage of them. And the stupid, immoral and despicable action of NBC news in airing ... and making famous ... the Rambo-like images of the deviant perpetrator.

There is a tendency for these things to happen near anniversaries of past events, like Columbine, which was planned for the week of Hitler's birthday. The NASA shooting yesterday may have been precipitated by it also.

I would like to see more attention paid to the mental health issue and the ability to buy guns; while I know our privacy advocates won't like it, I think any 72 hour commitment for "observation" should make you ineligible to buy a gun or other deadly weapon. That's a reasonable restriction of a constitutional right. In this case, we have a finding of some kind by a judge, and that should have been enough.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Apr 21 2007, 10:19 AM) [snapback]427335[/snapback]</div>

First of all, I am not nor I was advocating banning guns. I am in favor of licensing, following mandatory competence and safety exams, and registration. I am in favor of banning fully automatic (not semi-automatic, mind you) weapons and semi-automatic assault rifles with overly large clips.

The examples you gave of Israel, Afghanistan and Iraq are not relevant. In those places bombs are used by organized terror and insurgency groups, not by psychopaths and common criminals.

Making, selling and possessing bombs is illegal in the United States. The chances of a madman successfully obtaining or assembling a bomb on the spur of a moment in the fit of anger are slim. In California, businesses have to keep track and report purchases of suspected bomb making materials. Using a bomb is nowhere nearly as easy as reaching for a firearm that for all other appearances is legal.



<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Apr 21 2007, 10:29 AM) [snapback]427341[/snapback]</div>

Absolutely not, and neither did I forget about the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. However, those were isolated incidents perpetrated by self styled militiamen and terrorist groups, not acts of deranged individuals.

Now how many mass killing shooting sprees have we experienced since 1995 when Tim McVeigh set off his bomb in Oklahoma City and how many were killed in those senseless attacks?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Apr 21 2007, 01:19 PM) [snapback]427335[/snapback]</div>

We don't agree on guns, and I know you love yours. I also find you to be a thoughtful and decent person. Because of that, I feel that this statement is beneath you. Frankly, that is a wild assumption. Countries with strict gun bans do indeed see less gun-related crime. It's just fact. I'll use the UK again: 350,000 gun-related criminal offenses were reported in 2003 in the US. In the UK, the number last year was 11,000. We've got five times the amount of people in the US, so using the same figures, to tie with that country on a per capita basis would say that 55,000 gun-related crimes would have been committed. Hell, half that was committed in Detroit alone, who has no waiting period and only a cursory background check. So, it doesn't seem that the criminal element suddenly becomes awash with guns when normal citizens don't possess them. It's an argument that the NRA keeps using that has no legitimate basis.

I for one only would like to see better laws concerning their possession--I'm not for banning them outright. Hell, I come from a family of manly-man hunters. Surely you can admit that states like my good ol' COV are too lax. Some of my thinking--a handgun per household limit. (If, after all, all you need them for is to protect, isn't one enough?) Proven hunting safety classes and limits on rifles/shotguns if you're a hunter. Psychiatric testing. And background checks on every purchase, and not just a cursory one. Including those bought at gun shows.

 

I posted this on my PoliteTalk site, along with some other comments that do not apply here. But I thought this was an interesting analysis of how the stats we hear are compiled. The explanations below are primarily from "The Numbers Guy" column in the Wall Street Journal by Carl Bialik on Friday, 4/20.

1. Gun violence costs the US over $100 billion a year. This was restated by a Congresswoman this week, and its usually attributed to the Brady Campaign. The original research was by Duke economist Phillip J. Cook and Georgetown professor Jens Ludwig.

Now, when I hear something costs us $100 billion dollars a year, I think that someone took an adding machine and added up a bunch of costs. Perhaps, they tallied up the costs of a sample of the 11,000 or so gun deaths that are not suicides in one year, and extrapolated that over the entire 11,000.

However, in this case, the researchers used something called "contingent valuation". They did a phone survey of consumers and asked them how much it would be worth spending to reduce gun violence by 30%. The respondents said $24.5 billion. They then took that and said, well gee, if we asked about 30% and they said that, I'll bet if we asked about 100% it would be about $100 billion.

In other words, it isn't how much gun violence costs us, but about how much we would pay to eliminate it. To me, those are two very different concepts. And frankly, I think we would be willing to pay more for a complete and total solution to losing 11,000 fellow Americans each year.

2. The US has the most gun murders per capita in the world. Evidently the world does not include eastern Europe or Latin America, as the surveys showing this compare America only to western Europe. Slovakia, El Salvador, Albania, Costa Rica, Uruguay and Mexico all have higher per-capita rates. I understand that our Euro-centric, white protestant male perceptions may be at work here, but the world does extend beyond the borders of the English speaking countries and Germany, Spain, France, the Netherlands and the Scandinavian countries. I don't know about the rest, but I do know that Mexico has some pretty strong gun control laws.

3. Defensive gun use (DGU) averts or stops crimes 2.5 million times a year. Florida State criminologists Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz did a survey of gun owners, and asked them if they had used a gun in a defensive manner just over a decade ago. The results were extrapolated over the entire population. So far, so good ... this seems like a reasonable method to me. And another survey done by Profs. Cook and Ludwig seem to support a high number of incidents per year of "defensive gun use" (DGU), in the same 2+ million range.

But there is a problem. The researchers know that people lie in surveys, and that surveys can therefore be very inaccurate for rare events. Some people will deny DGU when they have done it (there are laws in many areas against "brandishing a weapon"), and some will invent it when they have never done it just to impress people. Kleck and Gertz say the people who invent it are less common than the people who cover it up because it is controversial behavior; while Cook and Ludwig think people will invent it more often because it makes them "brave and strong".

Even if we say that 80% "made it up", that still leaves 500,000 crimes averted by average citizens. That's still a powerful argument in my mind to retain gun ownership as a Constitutional right.

4. Right to carry laws seem to prevent mass killings. This stat is from research Prof. John Lott Jr., and economist William Landes, who compared trends from 1977 to 1999 with right-to-carry laws, and found that when states allowed carrying concealed weapons, multiple-victim public killings decreased by 60%. Another study said there is no support for that.

The methodologies are different for the two studies. The second study counted only killings with 4 or more victims, while Lott-Landes included 2 or more. Two people shot seems like enough of a problem for me to consider the Lott-Landis study, but wait ... Lott-Landis exclude shootings that are byproducts of other crimes, such as gang murders. So the Lott-Landis study seems to be OK for debate on a case like Virginia Tech, but perhaps not so reassuring for me when I go to a convenience store or a bank in a bad part of town.

I don't know if it was Benjamin Disraeli or Mark Twain who said there were "Lies, damn lies and statistics", but it seems to apply in so many cases, doesn't it?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(livelychick @ Apr 21 2007, 01:54 PM) [snapback]427351[/snapback]</div>

No one is arguing that the criminals will suddenly be awash with guns. The actual argument, which you are misstating, is that after disarming the public, then ONLY the criminals will have firearms. The criminals will still have the same amount, or probably a little less actually, but the law abiding citizen now no longer has any.



I actually had a really long post answering most of the posts since my last, but I kept getting a "Too many connections" error and then I lost the whole thing... Too busy/tired to retype the whole thing, so I'll summarize by saying,

"You're all wrong, I'm right."

 

(OK, I lied, I still have some time/energy to post more... )

I posted a list of other fatality rates for all sorts of things earlier. So here's a question:

There are so many alcohol related traffic deaths every year. How about mandating an ignition interlock device that would not allow a car to start if the driver is intoxicated? Comparatively this is much simpler than the hoops the law-abiding citizen must jump through to purchase a gun.

The way I see it is that if you are a good person who would never drive drunk, then this little device would have absolutely no effect on your life at all. Only those idiots who feel the need to endanger their own, and more importantly other's, lives would be affected.

Why not? Sounds reasonable to me. The fact is, alcohol kills. It kills more people than guns. So why not do something like this?

Well, this has been suggested before, and has been shot down every single time. Invasion of privacy, and all sorts of nonsense.

"We have laws against drunk driving," opponents say. There is no need for something like this.

Well, we have laws against using guns too. If you commit a crime with a weapon the punishment is much harsher than if committed without one.

What is the difference?

A drunk behind the wheel is just as dangerous as a person with a gun.

The hypocrisy in this country is mind boggling.

Someone else mentioned the Patriot Act infringed upon our constitutional rights. Well, the left fought it like their very lives depended on it. Proponents calim it was necessary to protect people. And then suddenly the same people on the left turn around and say that our 2nd Amendment rights should be taken away. It's necessary to protect people they say. Basically what I get from this is it's OK to infringe certain rights, but not others. It all depends on which mesh with you own views.

???

Am I the only person that sees a problem with this?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ Apr 21 2007, 03:45 PM) [snapback]427390[/snapback]</div>

I saw a guy doing this last week heading north on I-275. I knew that was you, Squid!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(DocVijay @ Apr 21 2007, 12:23 PM) [snapback]427385[/snapback]</div>

In my opinion, that is a poor analogy. Drivers are required to be licensed before they can operate motor vehicles and their cars must be insured and registered and meet safety standards. That is all some of us are advocating for gun ownership and use.

Using your logic, alcohol interlock devices should be installed on guns because, after all, some people use guns while they are under the influence of alcohol.

 

Quiz time

200# of potasium nitrate, 10 gallons of diesel fuel, and what do you have?



You have a bomb that will easily fit in the back of a Prius. All that is needed is a trigger. A spark plug and a capacitor make good triggers.


SO tell me, how hard is it to obtain the above materials? It isnt hard at all. Potassium Nitrate is fertilizer, commonly available at any farm service in that quantity. All that is needed to obtain it is money. Diesel? I have 6 gallons of it sitting in my barn next to my tractor. Spark plug and a charging mechanism? ANy parts store will have them.

Take away guns, make it hard to obtain them, there are other ways wackos can kill, and I just decribed a very bad way of doing so with little effort.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Apr 21 2007, 10:19 AM) [snapback]427335[/snapback]</div>

What he said . . . Plus, I don't know about you but my health and my physical attributes are not as good as they used to be. So I'm not for anything that can take my gun away so that I can face the 3-5 guys that were running around a short while ago in my town committing home invasions. They didn’t have guns but they would drive into the neighborhood and kick down the front door seriously bludgeoning with bats any that got in the way. SO if a gun helps me kill from a distance, say all the way across the living room, and makes it easier conscious wise to kill someone like that then I'm all for guns. In addition I would still be for guns even if you had some device that could make all and I mean all guns disappear.

Wildkow

p.s. Besides I like blasting the crap out of stuff, like clays, paper targets and the occasional upland game bird.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ACD @ Apr 21 2007, 11:50 PM) [snapback]427610[/snapback]</div>

That's still a whole lot more effort than going to a gun show, buying a gun and ammo with NO BACKGROUND CHECK, and heading to the nearest target of your ire. What's a capacitor, btw? Hell, most folks today don't even know what a spark plug is. They have some vague notion that it is part of an engine, but that's it.

For people with the capacity for responsible gun ownership, then having to test out and prove worth shouldn't be a big deal. I want to be a Senior HR Professional; I can't just attach that to my title and go. I actually have to study and get certified for it.

And in VA, you have to retake exams for driving throughout your life.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ACD @ Apr 21 2007, 08:50 PM) [snapback]427610[/snapback]</div>

Let's see, at seven pounds per gallon, the diesel fuel weighs about 140 lbs. Add the 200 lbs. of potassium nitrate and we are at 340 lbs. Smaller quantities do not pack the explosive punch to cause the type of carnage that we witnessed this week. This is not exactly as user friendly a tool to a mass killer as a firearm.

Aside for the obvious, the terror acts of 9/11 and Oklahoma City, how many bombings have there been in the United States in the past few decades? I can only think of the Centennial Olympic Park bombing during the 1996 Atlanta Summer Olympic games and Ted Kaczynski's, the Unabomber, mail bombs which he sent over an eighteen years span.

On the other hand, there have been countless incidents of crazed killers going on mass shooting sprees.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Apr 22 2007, 08:59 AM) [snapback]427777[/snapback]</div>

My bad. Still 270 lbs. is still a lot heavier than any handgun or rifle.

There you go again misrepresenting my position. I have corrected you before and will continue to correct you as long as you keep inferring that I favor banning guns.

I am not in favor of banning guns. I am in favor of licensing gun owners following training, competence and safety testing and completion of background checks. I also favor registering all guns. I do advocate banning fully automatic weapons and assault style rifles with overly large clips.


The number of incidents that I cited is proof positive that it is not that simple to find alternative means to commit crazed acts of mass murder.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ Apr 22 2007, 12:09 AM) [snapback]427626[/snapback]</div>

Squid is right. Getting a driver's license is a JOKE. It requires no skill and no brains. As far as I can see, all that it takes to get a license is $20 and some of your time. As far as the car being registered and insured... Also trivial. Pay your $60 and your car is registered. As far as insurance goes, you could be the WORST driver in the world, and someone out there would still insure you, albeit at a higher cost.

You see, if you actually made it so that drivers had to pass a REAL skill test, half the drivers would never pass. The public outrage would be crazy.

No, I admit that my comparison was a poor analogy. But both lead to a great number of deaths. Why such ardent controls on one, and such a flippant attitude towards the other.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IsrAmeriPrius @ Apr 22 2007, 07:45 AM) [snapback]427770[/snapback]</div>

You might be surprised: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/2310tbomb.html starts with this quote for their 1997 broadcast:

Bombings have always been popular in America, and I remember some stats after Oklahoma City that bombings took more lives than the spree shootings like Columbine. I can't find that same stat now, but the study cited below says they take more lives at a time. Arson is another form of mass murder that takes far more lives per incident, but is less common.

I'm not sure it matters which is worse; even if guns are only half the problem, if you can save half the lives taken in senseless violence, shouldn't you do it?

There's a good article on mass killings at http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,660196845,00.html that shows the average age of the mass killer has racheted down quite a bit in recent years (since the mid-1980s). Its no longer the lonely, isolate 37 year old, but the 18 or 19 year old. But that conclusion is based on some very recent killings, so it may be a blip in the stats. Or, it could be the incredible violence of video games that provide a fertile test environment for the perpetrator. Banning violent video games would be less of an intrusion on civil rights than banning guns.

The story was in reaction to the "Trolley Square" murders in the shopping mall in Salt Lake City. One of the five killed was the daughter of one of my daughter's employees.

There's an abstract of a FBI study linked too; this link opens a 2.6MB PDF file: http://deseretnews.com/photos/study021907.pdf Pretty interesting, but I think they ignore the anti-Semetic and anti-Christian nature of some of the killers (particularly the church related shootings; the study was done before Columbine, where the killers sought out "jocks and Christians" overtly).

This study says that bombings are only 4% of the incidents, but claim on average 86.5 victims per incident (this is after the huge killings at Oklahoma City, and the study notes that but does not correct for it). Mass killing by arson claims 8.5 victims per incident. Shootings claim an average of 4.9 victims per incident (a stat that is probably now skewed up with Virginia Tech ... because we are dealing with such low numbers statistically, a single incident can skew the averages quite a bit).

What surprised me was the relatively low number of female victims in public mass killings. Women really should be represented at the same level they are in society, but they are at an average of 30%. That may lend credence to the idea that these killers are seeking out revenge, and while all of the victims are innocent and not deserving of death, in the killer's mind he may be shooting those who most resemble his supposed tormentors.

Mondays, as the Boom Town Rats have noted, are days that mass killers simply don't like. It also looks like schools should probably re-schedule spring break for the week that includes Hitler's birthday so no one is in the schools. Columbine was committed on his birthday, OK City the day before his birthday, and VT the week of his birthday.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Apr 22 2007, 10:24 AM) [snapback]427827[/snapback]</div>

First of all, I did make mention of Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber.

Secondly, "Bombing is on the rise across the United States." What does that mean? Please give me the raw data, not someone's conclusions. How many incidents? How many different perpetrators? How many victims? How many were committed by crazed individuals as opposed to "militia groups"? And, finally, how do those numbers compare to the number of mass shooting incidents.