Some people dislike gays, others dislike guns. We should not base our laws on personal dislikes.

[spin]

115. Very interesting post ...

I found your comments on drugs insightful. I largely agree. I feel we should have considered the failure of Prohibition in our nation between 1920 and 1933 prior to launching our War on Drugs. The results of our attempt to stop drug smuggling and distribution are disturbingly similar to the consequences of our efforts to ban alcohol.

Organized Crime and Prohibition

***snip***
The following are statistics detailing how much worse crime got:

Police funding: INCREASED $11.4 Million
Arrests for Prohibition Las Violations: INCREASED 102+%
Arrests for Drunkenness and Disorderly Conduct: INCREASED 41%
Arrests of Drunken Drivers: INCREASED 81%
Thefts and Burglaries: INCREASED 9%
Homicides, Assault, and Battery: INCREASED 13%
Number of Federal Convicts: INCREASED 561%
Federal Prison Population: INCREASED 366%
Total Federal Expenditures on Penal Institutions: INCREASED 1,000%


"Not only did the number of serious crimes increase, but crime became organized. Criminal groups organize around the steady source of income provided by laws against victimless crimes such as consuming alcohol or drugs, gambling and prostitution. In the process of providing goods and services those criminal organizations resort to real crimes in defense of sales territories, brand names, and labor contracts. That is true of extensive crime syndicates (the Mafia) as well as street gangs, a criminal element that first surfaced during prohibition."

"The contributing factor to the sudden increase of felonies was the organization of crime, especially in large cities. Because liquor was no longer legally available, the public turned to gangsters who readily took on the bootlegging industry and supplied them with liquor. On account of the industry being so profitable, more gangsters became involved in the money-making business. Crime became so organized because "criminal groups organize around the steady source of income provided by laws against victimless crimes such as consuming alcohol. As a result of the money involved in the bootlegging industry, there was much rival between gangs. The profit motive caused over four hundred gang related murders a year in Chicago alone."
http://www.albany.edu/~wm731882/organized_crime1_final.html

You state, "What is most likely is, some in the government in the past, current and future, make very large livings bringing it in (from foreign countries), and that those who do, make it impossible to get rid of (now)." Once again this reminds me of the Prohibition era.

Alcohol Prohibition Was A Failure

***snip***

Prohibition Caused Corruption

It was hoped that Prohibition would eliminate corrupting influences in society; instead, Prohibition itself be- came a major source of corruption. Everyone from major politicians to the cop on the beat took bribes from bootleggers, moonshiners, crime bosses, and owners of speakeasies. The Bureau of Prohibition was particularly susceptible and had to be reorganized to reduce corruption. According to Assistant Secretary of the Treasury Lincoln C. Andrews, "conspiracies are nation wide in extent, in great numbers, organized, well-financed, and cleverly conducted."[52] De- spite additional resources and reorganization, corruption continued within the bureau. Commissioner of Prohibition Henry Anderson concluded that "the fruitless efforts at enforcement are creating public disregard not only for this law but for all laws. Public corruption through the purchase of official protection for this illegal traffic is widespread and notorious. The courts are cluttered with prohibition cases to an extent which seriously affects the entire administration of justice."[53]

Prohibition not only created the Bureau of Prohibition, it gave rise to a dramatic increase in the size and power of other government agencies as well. Between 1920 and 1930 employment at the Customs Service increased 45 percent, and the service's annual budget increased 123 percent. Personnel of the Coast Guard increased 188 percent during the 1920s, and its budget increased more than 500 percent between 1915 and 1932. Those increases were primarily due to the Coast Guard's and the Customs Service's role in enforcing Prohibition.[54]

***snip***

Conclusion: Lessons for Today

Prohibition, which failed to improve health and virtue in America, can afford some invaluable lessons. First, it can provide some perspective on the current crisis in drug prohibition--a 75-year effort that is increasingly viewed as a failure.

Repeal of Prohibition dramatically reduced crime, including organized crime, and corruption. Jobs were created, and new voluntary efforts, such as Alcoholics Anonymous, which was begun in 1934, succeeded in helping alcoholics. Those lessons can be applied to the current crisis in drug prohibition and the problems of drug abuse. Second, the lessons of Prohibition should be used to curb the urge to prohibit. Neoprohibition of alcohol and prohibition of tobacco would result in more crime, corruption, and dangerous products and increased government control over the average citizen's life. Finally, Prohibition provides a general lesson that society can no more be successfully engineered in the United States than in the Soviet Union.
https://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-157.html

I definitely agree that we need to find a way to create worthwhile, well paying jobs in our nation. We also need to greatly improve our educational system in order to enable our students to be able to do these jobs.

I basically feel that it might be wise to make ammunition harder to get but ideas such as taxing ammunition to make it far more expensive may simply result in another black market. I have a far different idea which might be worth a try but will likely prove a failure.

I understand that scuba divers have to have a certification card prior to getting their air tanks filled at a dive shop. Sky divers also have a certification process. Perhaps an individual who wishes to buy ammunition or reloading components should be required to have a certification card that would require firearm safety training and perhaps even a background check to obtain. Of course the NRA would oppose this idea and supporters of strong gun control would say that it doesn't go far enough. My idea has little or no chance of ever becoming law.

You also state, "Get rid of the crime, and then the #1 reason it is said people want or need guns (to protect themselves) makes it obsolete." I agree!

I grew up in the 50s and the 60s and in the rural area of Ohio where I lived the only people who owned firearms were hunters, a few target shooters and gun collectors. My family never bothered to lock the doors to our house or our cars. Crime was low and almost non existent. I can't remember any of my neighbors owning a handgun. My mother did have a very small S&W LadySmith revolver well hidden away. She had at one time used it to defend herself against an attacker in Pennsylvania as she was walking home from work. (Of course I found it and played with it but fortunately my father had removed the firing pin making it non functional.)

I lived in a very peaceful time and place when I was young. It would be nice to return to those days but even though the violent crime rate in our nation has decreased to levels last seen in the late 60s, many people feel we live in a very violent society. Obviously the gun industry chooses to ignore the falling violent crime which is perhaps understandable. Of course those who support much stronger gun control also avoid this fact which again is understandable. Both sides have an agenda.

In the 50s there was little push for stronger gun control laws. The Kennedy assassinations and the death of Martin Luther King in 1968 were largely responsible for the modern gun control movement. While I am not overly fond of conspiracy theories I feel there are serious questions that can be asked about these murders. The truth may never be revealed in my lifetime, if ever.

The firearm industry has greatly profited by convincing many citizens that they need a firearm for self defense. Unfortunately those who push for strong gun control laws have also caused firearm sales to skyrocket. Every time another assault weapons ban is mentioned, such weapons fly off the shelf at gun stores. Often ammunition is hard to obtain and very expensive mainly because those who own firearms unrealistically fear that laws will be passed that make buying it far more expensive and difficult. (Somewhat like the Great Toilet Paper Shortage caused by Johnny Carson.) ref: http://baypaper.com/toiletpaper.html

Despite the fact that in the last decade or two firearm sales have skyrocketed and "victim rights" laws such as "shall issue" concealed carry, castle doctrine and "stand your ground" laws have swept across our nation, the violent crime rate has decreased. To a certain extent this defies logic. Of course the pro-RKBA side attributes this drop to the forumula that more guns = less crime. I refuse to do so as there are far too many factors to consider. Still it is obvious that more guns does not equal more violent crime.

I feel that a high percentage of the violent crime in our nation is due to our failed War on Drugs. It is highly unlikely that we will change our policy on drugs in the near future and also true that the civilian ownership of firearms will not stop turf warfare between competing gangs. This is a problem which has to be dealt with by law enforcement. I personally feel that drug gangs should be treated as terrorist organizations which they are. Even if we pour money into combating such gangs, I feel we will fail. Prohibition and bans rarely work, if ever.

I don't hold Eric Holder responsible for the Fast and Furious fiasco. One thing which does lead to conspiracy theories is any effort to coverup an event. In my opinion Fast and Furious was probably a poorly conceived scheme which failed. It is only fair to thoroughly investigate any such operation in order to prevent another such mistake in the future. Unfortunately often such an investigation turns partisan and the results are questionable. Perhaps an independent commission should have been appointed but still the results may have been questioned. It's often hard, if not impossible to find the truth.

You state, "Gun lovers say, they like the ability to have a concealed gun in case something happens in say the movie theatre situation
I say to that, better security(at affordable prices for the theater owners) and making it mandatory, would get rid of the need for any gun."

I totally agree. Gun free zones do appear to attract mass murderers. The solution is simple. Any gun free zone that would attract a large number of people should be required to have good security measures and armed guards. An exception could be granted to a Mom and Pop store where the owners oppose carrying weapons. Obviously requiring the owner of a small business to provide good security would be an expensive burden. Normally such stores do not attract a large number of people at one time and would not be viewed as a good target for some mentally disturbed individual who wished to rack up a high score of kills.

In Florida when "shall issue" concealed carry passed in 1987 many establishments posted "no gun" signs. Today this is rare. Store owners who posted such sings lost business to their competitors. In some rare cases criminals took advantage of the policy. The prime factor in a business owners decision to remove the sign was that he realized that honest citizens who legally carry a firearm pose no danger and he was losing profit. Over 800,000 residents of Florida have carry permits and any wise store owner doesn't want to lose their business.

You tend to blame the power of the NRA for the failure to pass stronger gun laws and admittedly they are a very strong lobby. The NRA is often used as an excuse by those who favor stronger gun control to explain why their ideas have failed however only 4.3 million gun owners belong to the NRA out of the estimated 80 million gun owners in our nation. Membership in this organization is fairly cheap and costs less then a box or two of ammo per year. I will suggest that the true power of the pro-RKBA movement is in those 80 million gun owners who do show up at the polls to vote against anyone who threatens to take away their "rights." The NRA is indeed a strong voice for gun rights but is also a convenient whipping boy for those who favor strong gun control. If the gun control side of the debate were able to convince the majority of those who vote to support their views, the NRA would be irreverent.

Many nations have been able to impose strong gun control on their citizens. Such nations do not have the strong gun culture that exists in this nation. Overcoming this factor is a daunting task for those who favor stronger gun control.

I don't personally believe that Obama has any intention of banning or confiscating firearms in our nation as I refuse to buy into right-wing propaganda and instead look at the facts. Obama has actually been friendly to gun rights and has received an "F" rating from the Brady Campaign because he failed to pass strong gun laws in his first two years in office despite the fact that Democrats enjoyed control of both houses of Congress. Admittedly Obama did support strong gun control when he was a politician from Illinois but that is hardly surprising. Illinois is probably the most gun rights unfriendly state in the Union and in Chicago which was run by Mayor Daley at the time it would have been difficult to get elected dog catcher if you favored gun rights. I actually agree with Obama's approach to gun control as expressed in this op-ed to the Arizona Star. http://azstarnet.com/news/opinion/mailbag/article_011e7118-8951-5206-a878-39bfbc9dc89d.html However I would go even further and require an NICS background check for ALL sales of firearms.

I don't totally disagree with Mayor Bloomberg on all issues. He has tended to alienate a lot of people with his problem solving approach mainly because they don't wish to live in a nanny state. Perhaps one day he will take charge of the Brady Campaign and turn into a formidable opponent to the NRA.