On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 14:48:52 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


We don't always take care of them once they've shot somebody.

I could ask something about *when* we're supposed to do something about
them, then, but I'll restrain myself.

When they do it!

My point was that we don't even *try*
to do anything about it until they've shot somebody. That is, many gun
owners prefer it that way, although various gun controls, particularly
background checks, make at least a feeble attempt to do something about it.

Of course, the barn doors are still open in terms of private sales and gun
shows. Did you ever see the stats on guns used in crime, and where they come
from? In the large majority of cases their last legal or apparently legal
transaction was a private sale.

I kinda guessed that was the case. That barn door could be closed as
far as I'm concerned. We register automobiles. All of my guns were
either bought from an FFL dealer, or bought from private individuals
thru an FFL dealer if they were handguns.


If we
did there would be no repeat offenders.

How many cops do you think we'd need to reach a very high percentage of
arrests for those cases? How many do you want to see when you walk to the
corner store?

As many as it takes. More LE might be necessary, but it isn't
sufficient. We'd also need to demand less tolerance from the courts
and pols, and we'd have to pay the bill.

In any case, how many folks
have you personally known that have ever been shot at, aside from
military or law enforcement?

I think the answer is one, although maybe some of them aren't talking.

How about folks injured or killed by
other causes?

Lots. Now, what is the point of this? If it's to say the problem is
statistically a small one, we agree. If it's to say that it doesn't matter,
we don't agree. Because the larger issue is not the relative number of
deaths or injuries. It's *how* they occur. That's why it's a political issue
in the first place.

The point is that the number of guns extant is not the issue. The
issue is the misuse of guns by criminals -- and any person who misuses
a gun is a criminal by definition.

The disagreement is in what might be a workable remedy, and that's why
it's a political issue. "Make guns go away" is easy and cheap to
say, clearly impossible to do without impracticably draconian
measures. The remedy is to deal decisively and effectively with
violent criminals, not with such implements as they may employ. It's
a political issue because significant numbers of voters don't want to
pay for things like law enforcement, schools or libraries.

Sweden does not have zero or near-zero DWI because either automobiles
or alcohol are banned or are even strongly-regulated there. It's
because they have zero tolerance for abuse. Meanwhile, banning guns
in Washington DC has had zero to negative effect on reduction of
violent crime in that city.