Editions: e-Edition | Lite | Mobile | Subscribe | Twitter | RSS
Manage: My Account | Logout

TimesArgus.com - We Are Vermont

Northern New England given low marks for gun laws

9:57 a.m.

Toolbox

Print

Email link

Submit a letter

The Associated Press - Published: February 19, 2010

PORTLAND, Maine — Gun control laws in northern New England are being given low marks in the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence's annual survey of state gun laws.

The survey gave Maine a score of 11 out of 100 for its laws, while New Hampshire was given a 9 and Vermont was given an 8.

The Brady Campaign says laws in Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont allow the sale of guns without background checks, put children at risk and help feed the illegal gun market.

Utah was at the bottom of the survey with a score of zero, while California was given the highest score, a 79.

The Brady Campaign is a Washington-based group that advocates for stronger gun control laws.

Follow us on Facebook and Twitter.

READER COMMENTS

Mr. Shapiro
Check Pawn Stars tonight at 10 P.M. they are getting in a flame thrower look at these prices.
MPB

-- Posted by none none on Mon, Mar 1, 2010, 8:28 pm EST

report this comment

ML,

I do not know where you got your figures, but the drug dealers I knew in the city as a younger man (I was the only white boy in an inner-city neighborhood in D.C. and half of the kids I grew up with ended up going to prison,) wore pieces of gold that cost hundreds of dollars each, had a different pair of $300 basketball shoes for each day of the week, and supported large families on their incomes. I don't know how much they made, but it sure as h e l l wasn't $6,800/year. Heck, I was with a guy when he bought a $1100 bicycle once with cash- this was an expensive bike then. And this was in the first years of crack cocaine. I never dealt it myself, but it supported a whole crew of guys I played ball and rode bikes with as a kid. This would have been the early eighties as I was mostly out of D.C. by '85.

As for the "desperation" being "government's" fault... Come on, man. We live in a DEMOCRACY. That means who we elect is our fault. Do I agree that corporations have too much sway in elections? Sure. But its up to us to be smart enough to pick guys whose values and positions we feel closest to. If we don't like anyone running, we should run ourselves. Or we can shut the hell up. But condoning violence born out of "desperation" sounds like just a sad, befuddled excuse to excuse violence. Violence is wrong. That's why its against the law. Do you think that Ted Kaczynski or Terry Nichols or Tim McVeigh should be let out jail because they felt "desperate" about our government? Pardon my asking, but are you nuts? Just because we don't get the result we want from an election, doesn't mean that democracy isn't working- it just means that a majority (or a plurality) of people don't see things the way you do.

"Most violent acts are a cry for help, not a show of power."

I can't believe you said this. It is about the most bleeding heart liberal thing I have ever heard you say. Its also wrong. The VAST majority of violence IS exactly about power. Violence that comes from feelings of desperation is about power- its about feeling powerless and doing something ugly to feel re-empowered. Rape is about power. Domestic violence is about power. War is about power.

Most acts of violence on an individual level are about power, and not having constructive or effective means by which to achieve feelings of adequacy. On the political party level, lots and lots of parties struggle for decades upon decades before achieving even the smallest footholds in government. Progressivism reached its initial peak in the early 1900's and has struggled to establish itself since then. Do you see a lot of progressives who are really frustrated with the level of progress they have achieved? YES! Do you see ANY progressives even considering violent action if they don't get what they want through the democratic process? OF COURSE NOT. Because its not a matter of being shut out of the process- they're used to that- look how poorly they do year after year in the vast majority of states. Its a matter of understanding that violence is never an option in a democracy. That when you stoop to violence, you stop being a participant in democracy, and become a participant in something malevolent. Every step away from democracy is a step toward something more baleful. And at some point, the baleful will become baneful.

Mr. none,

I did not know that the public had access to any of these weapons. I seem to remember our tactical officer, in school, looking into their availability and running into roadblock after roadblock, eventually being told that these things weren't for civilian (or even pretend military) use. But maybe things have changed in 30 years... I would really love a flame thrower- you know- just for parties.

.

-- Posted by Bennett Shapiro on Mon, Mar 1, 2010, 7:50 pm EST

report this comment

Mr. Shapiro
I'm sorry that I wasn't clear on my post in regards to NFA weapons.
Tanks, cannons, grenade launchers, machine guns, flame throwers, and shoulder fired missiles.can be bought on the open market they are regulated by the BATFE
some web sites subguns.com or strumgewehr.com sell these type of weapons.
please check these out just. As long as you pay the NFA tax and a background check that takes about 6 months also willing to spend megabucks to purchase.
P.S. Nuclear weapons are not available on these web sites.
MPB

-- Posted by none none on Mon, Mar 1, 2010, 3:32 pm EST

report this comment

So your believe that because there were people who learned better than you in the way some person in D.C. thinks everyone should lean that you are not as smart as others? That is silly. Have you learned nothing?

The point I was trying to make about "desperation" is that it is governments fault for this desperation. It is a result of a broken education system that fails over 30% of the population in high school alone. This condemns them to a life of poverty and disparity once you combine it with redistributive policies, heavy regulation on commerce, and the demonization of the wealthy.

Why do you think people sell drugs in the slums? It is not to get rich. The average drug dealer in the bronx in first half of the last decade earned only about $3.40/hr. It is one of the most dangerous jobs in the country yet so many people still are willing to do it for $3.40/hr, less than half the current minimum wage (hmmm). If we abolished the minimum wage laws these kids would have more potential employers that would pay $3.40/hr besides the drug dealers. More jobs = a better future.

So you can call them psychopaths all you want, some are, but most are not. Most violent acts are a cry for help, not a show of power. And the echos of the cries are reverberating out of poor government policy (not unlike a single payer system).

ML

-- Posted by Jeff Perkins on Mon, Mar 1, 2010, 10:54 am EST

report this comment

I should have said "righteousness and/or sense of self-entitlement". Sorry. Thanks.
.

-- Posted by Bennett Shapiro on Mon, Mar 1, 2010, 9:55 am EST

report this comment

ML,

In our society, if one feels that their sense of "righteousness" rises to the level where it "justifies" violent action, we call that person either psychopathic and we lock them away in a mental institution or we ignore their illness and we send them to prison. Either way, its when you decide that violence is "justified" that you become anathema to the greater society. Whether you feel like it was "desperation" that drove you to violence, or you were having a bad hair day DOESN'T MATTER. Violence is unacceptable in our society. Get that straight. We established the democratic process so that violence would become a moot proposition. Or haven't you heard?

As far as us being thinkers... I'm not so sure. While I did alright in school, there were enough folks smarter than me, that I make no real pretensions at having any answers. I do notice that a lot of people's beliefs or understandings seem to be based upon false and/or incomplete assumptions. And I do like to point those out. Mostly, I just like asking the questions that get people to think about and rethink their beliefs. If that makes me a thinker, so be it, but I think it makes me more of a (central) scrutinizer (sic. That one's for the folks that get it.)

.

-- Posted by Bennett Shapiro on Mon, Mar 1, 2010, 9:33 am EST

report this comment

I'm all for way looser gun control laws or rather none at all. We should be able to purchase guns, without the bother of registration, at the supermarket next to the produce. Let it go on like that for a few years, do not allow law enforcement to answer calls in connection gun violence, do not allow emergency rooms to treat gunshot victims and do not allow to Vermonters to sue for gun injury to person or property. Oh, only one regulation on gun sellers, they must supply a case of whisky with each gun sold. Then let er rip!!! It would be great fun to watch and maybe it would clean out some of the hillbilly population!

-- Posted by AJ None on Sun, Feb 28, 2010, 7:26 pm EST

report this comment

Uhhh, I would call it an act of desperation more than a mental condition benny.

And the thinkers I was talking about are people like you, I, and everyone else here who participates in the discussion voluntarily. Not because some government order has been issued for them to do so, but because we all can identify a problem and debate the solutions freely (relatively) for our own benifit. If only people of all opinions could become more organized (see http://www.ted.com/) than we can be better suited to find the best possible solutions. Now you may be older than me but we can consider ourselves of the same generation. It will be our turn to run the country eventually, I simply argue that we had better know what to do once we are in charge or we will only do more harm to each other. When people pretend to have all the answers and are unwilling to break down political barriers then they become part of the problem and not the solution.....

Think about it.

ML

-- Posted by Jeff Perkins on Sun, Feb 28, 2010, 6:13 pm EST

report this comment

"It is not freedom if people feel that they must use violence to get what they want from others. That is the problem that needs to be adressed by a new generation of thinkers. "

MooLou,

Generally, "if people feel that they must use violence to get what they want from others," we call them psychopaths. Anyone who feels like violence is justified in getting what they want, is generally considered either sociopathic or psychopathic.

Who are these "thinkers" you mention? Would one of them be named "Hitler?" How about "Idi Amin?" "Ted Bundy?" Just wondering.

.

-- Posted by Bennett Shapiro on Sun, Feb 28, 2010, 5:34 pm EST

report this comment

much, thought*

ML

-- Posted by Jeff Perkins on Sun, Feb 28, 2010, 3:48 pm EST

report this comment

Bean E. Baby,

It is not freedom if people feel that they must use violence to get what they want from others. That is the problem that needs to be adressed by a new generation of thinkers. You can make all the laws you want about anything really, but until you adress the root cause of the particular action then you have adressed nothing. More than likely you have limited others freedoms in the name "security" or a solution. There are many such issues that must be realized before we can truely "live free". I believe a lot of the reasons we have so many issues is the top down planning that goes on in government. We need to some how figure out a way for a sort of "open source" government, in my humble opinion, that would allow the "users" to have more control. We must realze that there are many roads to Burlington, there is no one "right" road to take. That is why it should be left to each of us to figure out. Instead we just give the responsibility to someone else that never takes it to heart and do not give it mush thought ourselves.

Just a though.

ML

-- Posted by Jeff Perkins on Sun, Feb 28, 2010, 3:46 pm EST

report this comment

Smith Ted,

Sad story. And all too common. I hope your friend makes it. A lot of evil can happen in the name of FREEDOM, too.

.

-- Posted by Bennett Shapiro on Sun, Feb 28, 2010, 3:21 pm EST

report this comment

"If you were elected gun control czar by obama tomorrow, what would be your best idea benny?"

MooLou,

I think that thing are probably okay the way things are now. Tens of thousands of Americans die from handgun violence, but that might be the price that some Americans have to pay for other Americans' freedom. No one said freedom might not be messy.

"Allowing infringement of a lesser degree in order to prevent more "onerous" infringement should be unacceptable to citizens who value liberty."

LH,

When did I say that "allowing infringement of a lesser degree" would or might "prevent more onerous infringement?" Is that you don't speak or understand English? Or do you just jump to the nearest conclusion before fully comprehending what you just read?

What I was pointing out (and what was perfectly clear,) was that more onerous infringement HAS ALREADY OCCURRED. We have been limited ENORMOUSLY in what "arms" we are allowed to have. Of all of the "arms" out there, we have been limited to only the most piddling. It is as if of all of the alcohols that exist, we have been told that we can only have our choice of light-beers- no bourbon, no vodka, no rye, no tequila, no mead, no wine, no ale, etc. The Constitution says "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Our access to and "right to bear arms" has DEFINITELY BEEN INFRINGED. Why is this so hard for some of you to understand?

With the clear understanding that we have forfeited MOST of our Second Amendment rights ALREADY, why is there all of this fuss about registration? You're arguing over which light beer you get to have, when the real drinks aren't even at the party.

.

.

-- Posted by Bennett Shapiro on Sun, Feb 28, 2010, 12:16 pm EST

report this comment

If someone wants a gun to do something they will find one....it does not have to belong to them!

I have a friend, she had a Abuse Prevention Order. Her ex went to Maine to buy a gun. He lied on the application about the APO, and his mental history. He did not get the gun, but had someone with him, had a conversation with the guy and bought the gun under his name! ALL IN FRONT OF THE SALES PEOPLE. AFT was notified the FEDERAL Attorney contacted her......and this is the kicker, he was not suppose to be in Maine he was on probation! Nothing was never done......NEVER. He has a safe full of guns, he is a head case and threatens her and her boyfriend on a daily basis to kill them evern pulling in front of him, blocking the road pointing his finger like a gun, while having a gun in his vehicle!!!!! He still walks among everyone.....and he does what he wants and he NEVER GOES TO JAIL! HOW IS THIS POSSIBLE??????

She writes it all down and when he does kill her...... it is not the law that is responsible it it the people that run the system.....The Federal DA did nothing, the AFT did nothing, the VSP cant do anything....because you can threaten anyone all day long! There is no law for it as the Police told her!

He is a man with a long history going back 27 years...he has never been in jail for more than 1 day!

Vermont has many problems with their system...but it is not the Brady bill that will stop an insane person! They just work around it.......

-- Posted by smith ted on Sun, Feb 28, 2010, 9:07 am EST

report this comment

Handguns and rifles have been clearly defined by the Supreme Court as the "arms" in the right protected by the Second Amendment. Denying or limiting law-abiding citizens access to those arms is infringement. Arguing against the limitation of access to this right, or any other right, is not "moot" but, on the contrary, essential for protecting and preserving all of our rights.

Allowing infringement of a lesser degree in order to prevent more "onerous" infringement should be unacceptable to citizens who value liberty. Law already provides penalties and punishment to those who use any of their rights to the detriment of others.

In Vermont, we have an understanding and appreciation of our Second Amendment right. The Brady Campaign has neither.

-- Posted by LH Dickson on Sun, Feb 28, 2010, 8:02 am EST

report this comment

Benny,

You always have an opinion about everyone else's opinion, yet you never present an original idea or a far out concept. Why is that? For instance, If you were elected gun control czar by obama tomorrow, what would be your best idea benny? We know what you think about everyone else's ideas, now let us tell you what we think of yours.

ML

-- Posted by Jeff Perkins on Sat, Feb 27, 2010, 10:46 pm EST

report this comment

forgive me for what? Expressing myself? Having an opinion of my own? IAK I forgive you for being ignorant. It is your right.

Hand gun.

ML

-- Posted by Jeff Perkins on Sat, Feb 27, 2010, 10:39 pm EST

report this comment

Please forgive ML, he hasn't had his nap in quite some time.

-- Posted by I Am Kidding? on Sat, Feb 27, 2010, 10:34 pm EST

report this comment

Oh and ML,

I saw McFerrin do that live some years ago. Fun stuff. Thanks for that.

.

-- Posted by Bennett Shapiro on Sat, Feb 27, 2010, 10:14 pm EST

report this comment

And ML,

Is mark None talking about you, there? Or did you just have a little Pat Swayze man-crush?

.

-- Posted by Bennett Shapiro on Sat, Feb 27, 2010, 10:06 pm EST

report this comment

"First of all, your point is irrelevant. The most menacing force to any "establishment" is small arms fire from well organized and motivated defectors. Don't believe me? Look at the wars and our enemies of the past 50 years. It was not missiles or bombs that made them harder to fight, it was there ability to do damage at multiple locations with small well armed (again small arms) groups. So to say that "hand guns and rifles are not a threat to the establishment" is absolutely false and quite the contrary. "

MOOLOU,

I haven't said that "hand guns and rifles are not a threat to the establishment." I wouldn't say that (first, I would spell "handgun" properly to begin with) and why would you put words in my mouth? Are you posting before you read the thread, again? Come on, ML, we've been through this...

Second, if you think my point about the missiles is irrelevant, then you're just missing my point. I will spell it out for you, simply. My point is that the SCOTUS has decided that SOME limitations on the Second Amendment are perfectly legal. Privately owned surface to air missiles are but one example. A number of things fall into this category. Tanks, and their ammunitions. Anti-aircraft guns and theirs. Nuclear bombs, tactical and otherwise. Etc. Arguing that limiting access to arms is un-Constitutional is moot.

The next point I made is that I found registration of some weapons (handguns) to be LESS onerous and limiting the all-out prohibition of other weapons.

Those were my only two points. Now feel free to argue away. Thanks.

.

-- Posted by Bennett Shapiro on Sat, Feb 27, 2010, 10:03 pm EST

report this comment

I'm for gun ownership but I also support registration and limiting where guns can be carried.

It does make me uncomfortable when people propose guns as a solution. That just encourages gun violence.

Its always interesting to watch the debate on guns. Some gun control advacotes are extreme but some of the gun rights people watched Red Dawn a few to many times.

-- Posted by mark None on Sat, Feb 27, 2010, 7:16 pm EST

report this comment

I do not have time for "second of all" right now, ill see what I can do in the future.

ML

-- Posted by Jeff Perkins on Sat, Feb 27, 2010, 6:36 pm EST

report this comment

Benny,

You keep bringing up rocket launchers and missiles. First of all, your point is irrelevant. The most menacing force to any "establishment" is small arms fire from well organized and motivated defectors. Don't believe me? Look at the wars and our enemies of the past 50 years. It was not missiles or bombs that made them harder to fight, it was there ability to do damage at multiple locations with small well armed (again small arms) groups. So to say that "hand guns and rifles are not a threat to the establishment" is absolutely false and quite the contrary.

Also, I found this video the other day and though it was interesting. It is not political but rather about sound (synesthesia specifically). It is called, "Bobby McFerrin hacks your brain with music".
http://www.ted.com/talks/bobby_mcferrin_hacks_your_brain_with_music.html

ML

-- Posted by Jeff Perkins on Sat, Feb 27, 2010, 6:35 pm EST

report this comment

Bennett:

Like your web site; interesting music (Care-For-All), understand your left leanings a little more now. Don't always agree but...

-- Posted by Strange Land on Sat, Feb 27, 2010, 6:07 pm EST

report this comment

The problem with registering anything, is you lose your liberty by volunteering information, When u fill out a form voluntarily, DMV, E911, voter registr, register dogs, tolls for roads, everything comes with a price tag again, with the belief the money is to be used to support the cause for which u are paying.
With teh Porogressive liebrals, it never ends there, they want to know more, they want more money, more sales or use taxes, more and more and more.

When its for a cause they do not like, well they make permit fees and registrations cost prohibitive for many people, therefore, by the means of taxation, people are denied civil liberties for lack of money to pay fees or taxes, and therefore use.

In illinois, theres a $500 yearly fee per weapon to register, you default one year, they take all the weapons. What system. It didnt start off that way, remember they present their case as benign, jsut want to help people, says the wolf in sheepskin [favorite costume of a liberal] liberals can be sneaky peculiar creatures.

-- Posted by Are you Kidding? on Sat, Feb 27, 2010, 6:00 pm EST

report this comment

An example where Vermont has misused public trust and privacy was when the Enhanced 911 program was instituted.

In the late 90's people said NO to E911 databases, as many activists insisted the State would compile data and use it for other purposes. It started off each town verified and created teh new road system, numbers and making sure the peoples names and addresses were 100%, all on the premise of, oh its for your own good, ambulance etc. People finally complied.

Soon after, guess what? DMV required your E911 adress, not just PO Box, Fletcher Allen Hospital asked [u didnt have tot give it if u knew better, it was a guarantee to track one down to pay bills only], Lo and behold, Tax dept requires it as a means of household income, God forbid someone stays with u for a few months, because you are then liable for their income as household income required to calculated into yours . now too. Even when u register to vote, theres a line for address, then they want E911 address too.

Sorry, but they arent false fears of registering firearms. State of Vermont progressive liberals do this ins teps, this is how they operate. Little by little.

-- Posted by Are you Kidding? on Sat, Feb 27, 2010, 5:50 pm EST

report this comment

Bennett,
There is nobody to talk to then. lol

*car registration is not considered a tax because it is your choice not register it, only if you do not operate it on public roads. It would be considerred a tax if it was mandatory just to own it. A very old ruling from SCOTUS that defined taxes.

-- Posted by jim busch on Sat, Feb 27, 2010, 4:50 pm EST

report this comment

Just curious, folks... I've said repeatedly that I don't think that registration is probably a good idea. Why then are you guys (you know which one's you are) putting your questions to me as if I do? For me, this is an intellectual exercise- nothing more. Ever try to do that? Exercise your intellect? Maybe not. Anyway...

Jim,

The reason I didn't respond to the warrant-less search thing was because I didn't see the relevance. If when you sign up to be a dealer, you agree to be searched without a warrant, then you've made a conscious decision to forfeit those rights. Nobody is forcing anyone to become an arms dealer. People who work for the CIA and FBI and the military also forfeit rights when they join their respective organizations... I don't understand your point.

And what is the "fee on presses?" I'm out of the loop on this.

As far as double taxation goes, the SCOTUS has repeatedly ruled that registration fees are NOT taxes for the purpose of double taxation (otherwise car registration fees would be illegal, too.) As far as BATFE goes as opposed to the Staties- okay, whoever.

none none,

I did not know that. It explains a lot. Thank you for the clarification. I know you can have a cannon, we had one at my high school, that we used all the time. But there are still lots of weapons that are banned from civilian use- shoulder launched surface to air missiles, for example.

MooLou,

Forgive me. I've been out, earning a living. Silly, huh?

Strange Land,

.......

.

-- Posted by Bennett Shapiro on Sat, Feb 27, 2010, 3:22 pm EST

report this comment

The only reason for gun registration is to move toward gun confiscation. I needn't discuss the numerous principles supporting gun ownership, which the founders understood so well. Liberals are despots by nature who long to force everyone to comply with their wishes.

-- Posted by William Wolfel on Sat, Feb 27, 2010, 9:55 am EST

report this comment

Mr Shapiro
Doing ballistic fingerprinting changes with the wear of the barrel chamber and firing pin
after a few hundred rounds everything changes as in the lands and grouves
also check out the NFA act around the 30's this shows what can be owned or not
and yes you can own a live cannon tank if you got mabey seven figures or more.
All the ATFE wants is their tax payment.
MPB

-- Posted by none none on Sat, Feb 27, 2010, 7:27 am EST

report this comment

Oh Ben E. Boohoo, where art thou? Your silence is deafening.

Hahahahaha! I love it.

ML

-- Posted by Jeff Perkins on Fri, Feb 26, 2010, 8:27 pm EST

report this comment

Bennett:

It must be difficult being you. I mean, always having to have the last word and all...

-- Posted by Strange Land on Fri, Feb 26, 2010, 7:25 pm EST

report this comment

Yup ! We sure want to follow California. You dont like the gun laws here Move to CA. Please leave my rights alone.

-- Posted by carl None on Fri, Feb 26, 2010, 1:47 pm EST

report this comment

Sorry Benny-I can't see this morning!!! I apologize.

-- Posted by Tim Celley on Fri, Feb 26, 2010, 12:59 pm EST

report this comment

Bennett,
Back in the 1930's, a yearly tax and fee on firearms was passed but was killed by SCOTUS. They ruled it as double taxation,you can only charge if it changes hands. I'm away from desk,so can not cite the case #.

-- Posted by jim busch on Fri, Feb 26, 2010, 11:24 am EST

report this comment

Bennny- I just think drugs should remain illegal, you don't.

-- Posted by Tim Celley on Fri, Feb 26, 2010, 10:56 am EST

report this comment

Bennett,
Yes local LEOs could help,but some states laws bars local/state leos from enforcing fed law,eg vt does not enforce fed law on firearms, it is turned over to the BATFE.
As for spending in Canada, it already charges $57 per gun per year. $2 billion is the net after these fees were collected.
What about a fee on presses?
You never responded on the warantless searches?
Inspections?

-- Posted by jim busch on Fri, Feb 26, 2010, 10:54 am EST

report this comment

My stance?

-- Posted by Tim Celley on Fri, Feb 26, 2010, 10:53 am EST

report this comment

" I am surprised with your stance because only last week , you were arguing about the money wasted on the "War on Drugs". $20 Billion is A LOT more than what the govt wastes on the drug war."

And Jim (one last point- I've got a terrible memory, sometimes,)

Actually, the U.S. spends more than 15 billion a year on the drug war. The last year I could find numbers for (2003,) we spent 19 billion. That's almost 15 years worth of registration in one year. So you know.

.

-- Posted by Bennett Shapiro on Fri, Feb 26, 2010, 10:46 am EST

report this comment

Just to let people know. If you have ever been charged with anything other than a speeding ticket, do a background check on yourself. Call the V.S.P. and ask how. The Brady Law can send you to jail for 10yrs for something you didn't know about.

-- Posted by Tim Celley on Fri, Feb 26, 2010, 10:45 am EST

report this comment

And Jim,

I forgot to mention, if those numbers are looked at over a 15 year period, like Canada's- you're looking at 1/15 of 1 percent of healthcare's cost on a per year basis. Sorry, I forgot that before.

.

-- Posted by Bennett Shapiro on Fri, Feb 26, 2010, 10:25 am EST

report this comment

"As for firearm registration/inspection( as you put it), who will do this? BATFE?"

Jim,

How about the State Police accessing and contributing to a national database? They already have the network of connected computers. And to address cost: Canada spent 2 billion over a 15 year period. Now you've got to take into account that a lot of this cost is one-time computer program writing and time spent scanning serial numbers and filing ballistics tests. Say you're right and there are 261 million guns in private hands in the U.S.. Say it does cost 20 billion. Say you include an extra 2.5 billion raised by a one time registration fee of $10 per weapon, and it costs 22 billion.

That's not a lot (speaking in relative terms.) Health care in the U.S. costs us more than 2 trillion a year. That's ^$2,000,000,000,000. Or to put it another way- this 20 billion you're so worried about killing health care with is less than 1% of what healthcare costs. And that's not taking into account what registration would SAVE in medical costs, court costs, investigative costs, etc..

Not such a good argument, Jim.

I'm still not convinced registration is a great idea, but making the argument is so easy.

-- Posted by Bennett Shapiro on Fri, Feb 26, 2010, 10:19 am EST

report this comment

Bennett said:
"My problem is I can't figure out how having to register (and even regularly inspect) your gun makes you less free than having to register (and inspect) your car."

Bennett my argument is the cost and ROI.
1) Your car is register so to provide funds to build/maintain roads.

2) As for firearm registration/inspection( as you put it), who will do this? BATFE?
Currently the BATFE can not currently keep up with inspecting Federal Firearm License(FFL's"Dealers") They average 1 inspection every 4.8 years per FFL. FFL's total around 20k(rough estimate according to the Brady Center).
Now, using the estimate from the Brady Center has of 90 Million Households have firearm(s) and there is roughly 2.9 firearms per U.S. Citizen. How do you expect the Government to pull this off?????? Who is going to pay for this? Canada spent $2Billion and they only have 1/10th population, care think what it would cost here? Maybe $20 Billion?? There goes health care. I am surprised with your stance because only last week , you were arguing about the money wasted on the "War on Drugs". $20 Billion is A LOT more than what the govt wastes on the drug war.
Now if you want to make this a "Freedom" argument(I am playing devil's advocate on this): You have your registration/inspection in place, just like the FFL's. Now did you know that FFL's have one "Warrantless Inspection" a year clause? Yep, 24/7, the BATFE reserves the right to inspect a dealer WITHOUT notice. Now you are at home with you wife and kids and at 3am you get a knock on the door for an inspection? Does this not violate your own personal rights? They can search ANYWHERE and ANYTHING they want. Since this is a FED LEO, you are up the creek if you have ANYTHING out of place, e.g. a little Medical MJ, you protected by the state only, not the feds???
The "Warrantless Inspection" is legal because the holder of an FFL signs over his/her rights(just like posting bail) to the Govt. Its your choice to have a license and courts have ruled over and over that it is legal.

-- Posted by jim busch on Fri, Feb 26, 2010, 9:33 am EST

report this comment

"For such a smarty you should know better then to compare Canada to the US. Canada has a total population of 33 million people compared with 360 million US."

And BSA,

I mentioned this in my earlier post. Did you skip parts of the lesson?

.

-- Posted by Bennett Shapiro on Fri, Feb 26, 2010, 9:05 am EST

report this comment

LH,

The library thing was a METAPHOR. (That's why you only had access to 3 shelves.) Come on.

.

-- Posted by Bennett Shapiro on Fri, Feb 26, 2010, 9:03 am EST

report this comment

BSA,

You were right. It turns out I was UNDERESTIMATING the U.S. deaths.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_gun_deaths_are_in_the_US_every_year.

The Canadian one's I got right.

By the way, the Constitution doesn't specifically provide for HANDGUNS. In the same way that it doesn't provide for shoulder fired surface to air missiles. AND EVEN IF IT DID, requiring registration isn't an a legal INFRINGEMENT of a right. In the same way that banning firearms from courthouses and federal buildings has been upheld when it was claimed that those bans were an "infringement." The Supreme court has ruled that some "limitations" on the Second Amendment are perfectly legal. How is "registration" materially different?

Again, I don't myself think that registration is necessarily a good idea...

.

-- Posted by Bennett Shapiro on Fri, Feb 26, 2010, 8:55 am EST

report this comment

Library usage is not an enumerated Constitutional right nor is car ownership. Placing either on an equal footing with Constitutionally-protected rights devalues those inherent and inalienable rights by confusing them with mere privileges.

-- Posted by LH Dickson on Fri, Feb 26, 2010, 5:56 am EST

report this comment

Bennett, don't take the professor thing to heart. To be a professor you must first be capable of absorbing information. You apparently are not capable because you can't wait to talk. Cars are not covered under the constitution and driving is a privilege, firearms are a protected right. What is it that you don't understand about that? You love to express your 1st amendment right on this blog! You need to experience a little more of life then theorizing the way things should be. We have given you numerous examples here and you just don't get it. Your numbers are way off on the gun deaths and if you are concerned about death how about all those fatal car accidents? Should we ban cars, we already register them? For such a smarty you should know better then to compare Canada to the US. Canada has a total population of 33 million people compared with 360 million US.
You obviously don't want to learn anything or listen to any logical comments. You just want to be Bennett. Argumentative Bennett!

-- Posted by BS Avenger on Fri, Feb 26, 2010, 12:17 am EST

report this comment

should not*

ML

-- Posted by Jeff Perkins on Thu, Feb 25, 2010, 9:14 pm EST

report this comment

Benny boo,

Yawn. It is too bad that government should (technically does not) have any right to say anything about anyones private property. Whether that be a car, a home, a gun, a refrigerator, a bank account, or any other of the infinite possessions one may acquire. That is the simple fact that you are so willing to ignore. Regardless of any regulation or their well intended sponsors, regulations do not work and almost always increase the actions they were trying to restrict.

ML

-- Posted by Jeff Perkins on Thu, Feb 25, 2010, 9:13 pm EST

report this comment

Jim Busch,

Like I said earlier, I should be convinced fairly easily that registration is a bad idea as my general and first instinct is to never trade freedom for safety. My problem is I can't figure out how having to register (and even regularly inspect) your gun makes you less free than having to register (and inspect) your car. They're both items that if not taken care of properly, pose a threat to both you and your neighbors. Your financial argument against it is very pragmatic and thrifty, and while it definitely seems to put a price ($) on American lives, I can see your point.

By the way, Canada only has 160-170 gun murders a year (as opposed to the 11,000 plus gun murders in the U.S. Not to mention the other 100,000 woundings in the U.S..) That's a little more than 1% as many killings by gun even though they've got about 10% of our population. It might be why they have decided they don't think registration is necessary. Just a thought.

Student BSA,

If new gun purchases had to be registered at the original time of purchase, at which time their ballistic signature was also registered, then ALL guns (at least new gun purchases) would be registered. Add to that that you require all transfers of guns from one owner to another to be registered, as well. And you require all people who currently own guns to register them and their ballistic signatures, too. You have a maybe two year grace period in which everyone has time to get all of their weapons registered (during which the system gets ironed out,) and after the grace period, you know what's legal and belongs to whom and what isn't. When a gun get sold from one person to another, that sale has to be registered OR ITS ILEGAL. Regular (every three year?) inspections would assure that the guns had not been illegally sold. If a bullet shows up at a crime, you either know who's gun it from, or who's supposed to own it. Its not that complicated.

Does this turn anyone who chooses not to comply with the law into a criminal? Absolutely. But that is the definition of a criminal, after all- one who does not comply with the law. We ticket people for not registering their vehicles every day. Why should guns be different?

Do I think that this will ever come to fruition? Probably not, At least not until the number of people being killed by guns gets even higher than it its now. We are gun crazy here. I do mean crazy. We love 'em. And we're not going to let a little thing like the same number of Americans being killed every three to four months as were killed on 9/11, trick us into having to do the same paperwork for our guns that we have to do to drive a car. Even if that meant saving thousands of American lives a year.

Do I think that registration is a good idea? (Nobody's asked me that...) I don't really. There's something I personally like about the idea that there are thousands and thousands of weapons out there and nobody knows how many or who has them. I'm a romantic, like that. But I can see the other side, too. I can make the argument for it. Its not a tough argument.

By the way, weren't you claiming a while back that Obama was coming to take all of your guns? How did that go, exactly?

.

-- Posted by Bennett Shapiro on Thu, Feb 25, 2010, 8:07 pm EST

report this comment

Professor Bennett, The problem with the registration theory is that criminals (people for whom firearms possession is already illegal) do not comply with laws! Hello! People who live outside of the law don't care how many laws you think we need, they will not comply. So the only people to comply are not the ones who are a problem to begin with. There over 22,000 national gun laws on the books right now of which some have been struck down by the Supreme Court. How many more laws do we need in order to start enforcing the ones we already have? Gangs in LA or anywhere else are not going to register handguns because Bennett thinks they should. This is typical liberal thought pattern, you just can't understand why people won't do what you want just because you think it feels like the right thing to do. The constitutional protections do not apply to people who wage war against us. The constitution was written to protect Americans from their own government.

-- Posted by BS Avenger on Thu, Feb 25, 2010, 11:18 am EST

report this comment

Bennett said,
"The argument for registering weapons at purchase (along with their ballistic signature) would be to better be able to track the weapon down if the weapon was used in a crime."

Track them down eh? It really is helping Canada. 22 convictions in 14 years solved by registration at the cost of $2 billion.( I stated $1 billion earlier but that was from a 20004 study). Money well spent. Now you know why they are getting rid of it. Works in theory but fails in application.
California is the only state that uses registration and their own GAO wants to get rid of it because of the cost($93 million a year) and lack of convictions.

Registration does not prevent crimes, but the Brady Campaign sells it as such. It only creates an expensive bueacracy that does nothing. If you want to make a difference with $2 billion, give it to fight cancer, put more cops on the street, healthcare, vehicle and highway safety.

-- Posted by jim busch on Thu, Feb 25, 2010, 10:07 am EST

report this comment

""Did you really mean to say that we are hypocrites because our constitutional rights are not extended to terrorists?"

And Strange Land,

Even though I DO think that everyone who has been detained by American authorities should be afforded Constitutional protections (how do we KNOW they're terrorists unless there is at evidence enough to merit a warrant,) in my earlier post, I was referring only to "Americans" being detained and held without bond or trial, of which there have been MANY.

The vast majority of these detentions have been against brown-skinned, worshippers of Islam. I ask that you make yourself familiar with the actions of your government. If you are already familiar, and you just don't care- or you approve of these actions, then you've got bigger problems than talking to little 'ol me via the T/A blogs.

http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0905c.asp
http://www.soundvision.com/info/muslims/internment.asp
http://www.aclu.org/national-security/homeland-security-violates-civil-rights-muslim-american-citizens
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0627-03.htm

The second to last link there, tells about a story that happened years after 9/11, when we were supposed to already know better. Just pathetic. Trading freedom away for safety doesn't make us safer. It just makes us less free.

.

-- Posted by Bennett Shapiro on Thu, Feb 25, 2010, 9:56 am EST

report this comment

Strange Land,

Can you guess why the Declaration of Independence might have not wanted to differentiate between terrorists and non-terrorists?

.

-- Posted by Bennett Shapiro on Thu, Feb 25, 2010, 9:23 am EST

report this comment

Well maybe not "wholly" appointed. That may have been too strong. Confirmation mitigates, a little.

.

-- Posted by Bennett Shapiro on Thu, Feb 25, 2010, 9:21 am EST

report this comment

"Did you really mean to say that we are hypocrites because our constitutional rights are not extended to terrorists?"

Strange Land.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.-Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government."

The Declaration of Independence didn't differentiate between terrorists and other people. "ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL." Your caste system of justice is UN-AMERICAN. Its that simple. I realize that it is inconvenient to have to think about the worst people in our world as people, but that's who they are. If we arrest them, if we detain them, then they should be subject to our laws. We don't get to have different laws for different people. Otherwise, be careful when the government decides to call what you are doing terrorism, and sticks you in a dungeon and throws away the key.

"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out- because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out- because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the jews, and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me- and there was no one left to speak out for me."

Pastor Martin Niemoller

SL, every step away from democracy is step toward something worse.

LH-

So you have no problem with a wholly appointed body like the Supreme Court limiting the breadth of the 2nd Amendment by leaps and bounds. But if democratically elected representatives were to do the same thing (only much less drastically,) you would have a problem with that?

LH, your argument is not unlike a person who is told that of the entire library, she can only take from these 3 shelves, and has no problem with that, but then complains when someone tells her that she's going to need a library card to check out the books.

-- Posted by Bennett Shapiro on Thu, Feb 25, 2010, 9:19 am EST

report this comment

I think Bennett is right.

http://www.alternet.org/story/12065/rationalizing_racism:_panic_and_profiling_after_9_11/

Strange Land, just because someone has the same faith or comes from the same culture. Does NOT give anyone the right to assume they are a terrorist.

Guilty until proven innocent?

Fear can break our constitution and civil rights. Terrorism wanted to prove a point and they did.

To feel safe, we have allowed illegal and unconstitutional searches/seizures, etc... from Federal agencies and Local agencies.

Today, it doesn't effect you. But it could tomorrow. Just imagine that you feel the way you do but get discriminated against and have no constitutional freedoms wherever you go. Would you be O.K. with it because it makes the rest of the American's feel safe? Be honest with yourself.

-- Posted by CF Reality on Thu, Feb 25, 2010, 8:48 am EST

report this comment

Those who fear certain rights in the hands of others want to "tweak" those rights; those who don't fear such rights want to defend them.

-- Posted by LH Dickson on Thu, Feb 25, 2010, 7:31 am EST

report this comment

The firearms protected by the Second Amendment have been defined and affirmed by Supreme Court decisions for generations. They are handguns and rifles. Nothing else. The decisions are accessible using Internet search engines.

-- Posted by LH Dickson on Thu, Feb 25, 2010, 7:21 am EST

report this comment

Bennett:

I think it was Yamamoto who said after Pearl Harbor: "I fear we have awakened a sleeping giant and filled him with a terrible resolve." America knew its enemy then, Bennett. Today's enemy comes from too many countries to count. They lurk in caves and pledge allegiance, not to the flag of their country, but to Jihad. This is not a conventional enemy - they deliberately kill women and children with bombs strapped to their own bodies.

Terrorists are not worthy of America's constitutional protections.

Americans give much to the less fortunate of this country and AMERICA defends the weakest of our global society. I think Ghandi would say that America has lived up to its obligation.

-- Posted by Strange Land on Wed, Feb 24, 2010, 7:26 pm EST

report this comment

Bennett:

Thank you for the essay but could you answer the question?

Did you really mean to say that we are hypocrites because our constitutional rights are not extended to terrorists?

-- Posted by Strange Land on Wed, Feb 24, 2010, 6:55 pm EST

report this comment

By the way BSA,

The tank and nuke argument isn't ridiculous just because you say so. Do you have a refutation? And if so, will you share with the rest of the class?

.

-- Posted by Bennett Shapiro on Wed, Feb 24, 2010, 5:51 pm EST

report this comment

BSA,

Thanks for sharing your opinion in such a pleasant and respectful manner. For the record, I do not think the Constitution should be changed. I like the Second Amendment just like it is. I don't think the registration of handguns would violate it. I understand that you disagree. Hooray. Welcome to America. That's what we do here.
.

-- Posted by Bennett Shapiro on Wed, Feb 24, 2010, 5:45 pm EST

report this comment

Bennett, Were you raised by your mother or what? Stop crying for a minute and read what you said. We all know by now that you are not afraid of those mean terrorist! This has nothing to do with anything you said. We have a constitution with rights to guarantee our freedoms. If you think that I am a right winger because I believe in the constitution that must make you a Marxist or socialist for wanting to change it? But I really think you are trying to be that guy who wants to show everyone how brave he is with words and how shallow he is with history and common sense. Register your gun if you have one, mine are none of your business. Please drop the stupid tank and nuke argument it is ridiculous!

-- Posted by BS Avenger on Wed, Feb 24, 2010, 5:31 pm EST

report this comment

"It is a narrow, presumptuous and inaccurate view that sees all citizens that defend the Second Amendment from infringement as exclusively from one side of our political spectrum---especially in Vermont."

LH,

I hope you don't think I was doing that. I consider myself a lover of the Second Amendment and I definitely can't peg myself on traditional map of political spectrum. But I understand that the 2nd Amendment has limits, too. Or do you think that individuals should be allowed to have tanks or tactical nukes? No? Then you believe in limits on the Second Amendment, too. With the understanding that the Second Amendment ALREADY HAS PLENTY OF LIMITS, how is discussing handgun registration an "infringement?" Isn't more of a "tweak?" Compared to not being able to have anti-aircraft missiles, it seems pretty minor...

.

-- Posted by Bennett Shapiro on Wed, Feb 24, 2010, 4:57 pm EST

report this comment

"Has any of the above ever happened to you? FBI crashed your door down for no reason at all? Been held without charge?"

Strange Land,

What is your point? I think it was Ghandi who said, "the measure of a society is how it treats the weakest of its members." And it was Fredrick Douglass who said, "Until we are all free, we are none free." (Or if you prefer- Lynyrd Skynyrd - "None of us are free, if one of us is chained.") Surely there is no one weaker than someone who has been stripped of their Constitutional rights. You do understand that there have been American citizens held indefinitely without charge or bond or trial, don't you? What does it matter that it hasn't happened to me, personally? Are you saying that YOU would care more about it, if it were ME instead of someone who isn't writing you right now? How sweet of you. How you've missed the point, too. We can DEFINE FREEDOM by of how free we are is HOW FREE WE ALL ARE. Not just a select some. There can't be two sets of laws, two sets of freedoms. That's not democracy. That's a caste system. We don't play that way. We're America. You want crap like that- go to the middle east or the far east for that matter. We're better than that.

If I "had" you up to a point, SL, that's great. I appreciate your consideration. This conversation is WAY off topic, but so you know- I don't think you "win" against terrorism by giving up freedoms. I think that's the terrorists winning. I think "terror" is a tactic. You can't win a fight against a tactic. I think winning against terror means not being afraid. Not letting fear dictate how you behave. Or how you treat people. I'm going to let you on to a little secret, SL- There's no such thing as safety. So put it out of your head. All we have is how we choose to behave. I for one, choose not to live in fear and not to let my decision making be dictated by fear.

You can beat the enemy. The enemy is fear. Good luck.

.

-- Posted by Bennett Shapiro on Wed, Feb 24, 2010, 4:47 pm EST

report this comment

It is a narrow, presumptuous and inaccurate view that sees all citizens that defend the Second Amendment from infringement as exclusively from one side of our political spectrum---especially in Vermont.

-- Posted by LH Dickson on Wed, Feb 24, 2010, 4:15 pm EST

report this comment

Bennett:

You had me pretty much on your side until this:

"You could easily argue that the freedoms lost because of 9/11 have been MUCH MORE cumbersome and far-reaching (profiling, uninformed FBI searches of homes, warrant-less wiretaps, open ended detentions without charges, etc.) for some Americans than having to register your handgun when you buy it or sell it. But I haven't heard much outrage from the right on any of these. Leave it to Americans to never wallow in their own hypocrisy."

Has any of the above ever happened to you? FBI crashed your door down for no reason at all? Been held without charge?

Every person on this page can remember where they were on 9/11 and we can all remember the horrific images that followed. An identifiable enemy from a foreign country did not fly over NYC and DC dropping bombs. Terrorist hijacked innocent Americans and forced them to stare death in the face as they crashed four passenger planes on US soil. These murderers and all that follow have forfeited their rights as far as I'm concerned.

Wallow in our own hypocrisy? You have got to be kidding. What freedoms have been lost on you, Bennett? Did you really mean to say that we are hypocrites because our constitutional rights are not extended to terrorists?

-- Posted by Strange Land on Wed, Feb 24, 2010, 2:17 pm EST

report this comment

"What is gained by registering them? Why not register printing presses while we are it?"

Jim Busch,

The argument for registering weapons at purchase (along with their ballistic signature) would be to better be able to track the weapon down if the weapon was used in a crime. People kill each other with printing presses only so often.

"The Brady Campaign has provided no evidence in this "article" that guns have been purchased without background checks in Vermont for the sole purpose of committing crimes in other states. It has only provided its assumptions."

LH,

Just because they're "assumptions" doesn't meant they're not true. Doesn't mean they are, either. The only thing we know is that the guns are coming from somewhere and that law enforcement (through the investigative process) believes that they come at least in part through straw purchasers in places like Vermont (in addition to theft.) I certainly don't think that shotguns and rifles should fall into this category, but handguns I can see the argument for. If their ballistic signature was taken at manufacturing, and then all sales were required to be registered, there would be at least a starting place for an investigation in the event of the weapon being used in a crime. If weapons were "stolen" from the same person more than once, then the police would get an idea about who the straw purchasers were.

I can also very easily be persuaded that registration is a bad idea. That constitutional freedom should outweigh the safety of the public in this regard. This may very well be so. I just think its amusing that the same right-wing people who are pro- illegal detentions and torture and Guantanamo and the Patriot act are "WHOA! Hands off our open gun laws!" when it comes to something that, EACH YEAR facilitates the killing of 10 times as many Americans as died on 9/11. You could easily argue that the freedoms lost because of 9/11 have been MUCH MORE cumbersome and far-reaching (profiling, uninformed FBI searches of homes, warrant-less wiretaps, open ended detentions without charges, etc.) for some Americans than having to register your handgun when you buy it or sell it. But I haven't heard much outrage from the right on any of these. Leave it to Americans to never wallow in their own hypocrisy.

.

-- Posted by Bennett Shapiro on Wed, Feb 24, 2010, 1:31 pm EST

report this comment

For I Am Kidding, All of the ten amendments to the constitution are individual rights.
It is only the politics of the left that tries to debate the 2nd amendment's meaning. Why would it be placed 2nd in importance in the ten amendments that were required by the colonies to vote for acceptance of the constitution. Of course neither of you have ever read the federalist papers or for that matter the constitution or you would have an understanding of how the amendments came about. The problem with people like you is that you think things should be changed because of your feelings. The left never lets facts get in their way. Those who do not learn from history are bound to repeat it.

-- Posted by BS Avenger on Wed, Feb 24, 2010, 11:25 am EST

report this comment

The last two comments are about people control not gun control. That old rocket launcher argument is more BS. You are not going to confront a common criminal with a rocket launcher. When the amendment was written the state of the art PERSONAL firearm was a muzzle loader. Owning rocket launchers, machine guns, tanks and all other military hardware would be illegal for a person to own if fully armed and operational. But if there was another revolution against a tyrannical government small personal arms could be used to obtain more affective weapons and laws would not matter. You two obviously can not understand that an unarmed citizenry can be controlled as in the examples before. While you may think that those situations may not arise here again I'm sure that the people of history thought the same thing, it can't happen here. Aside from any of this, just making guns illegal will not stop people from having them. Drugs are illegal and killing people every day. And if the government makes bad laws or laws meant to control my natural right to defend myself and my family then I will become an outlaw with the stroke of a pen. While you may not like guns and believe that they are meant to kill people what about bows and arrows, knives, baseball bats, golf clubs, poison, swimming pools and anything that may inadvertently kill a person. What do we do with all these killing implements?

-- Posted by BS Avenger on Wed, Feb 24, 2010, 11:12 am EST

report this comment

I own guns...

Why are you making wild assumptions and attacking?

Unfortunately, I do agree that it wouldn't work unless it was done nationwide, and still. In the end it would just be another *Drug* worth buying. The only hope would be that it would drive the price up on the illegal market so high that your average *dead beat criminal* couldn't afford one. Unfortunately, 3rd world countries control much of the illegal markets and their prices could be manageable.

Comparing Utah and California only based on the Brady Statistics and it's effects?

2008 Populations (Within City Limits)......

Utah: (50% of their population is Mormon. 70% Religious. Pop Dens. 27 per sq mile.) Total Population = 2,736,424.

Salt Lake City = 181,698
West Valley City = 123,447
Provo = 118,581
West Jordan = 104,447
Sandy = 96,660

California: (40% is wooded and still has a Pop Density of 234 per sq mile. 30% religious.) Hold's 8 of our nations top 50 populous cities. Total Population 36,961,664.

Los Angeles = 3,800,000 (In the city)
Los Angeles\Santa-Ana\Long Beach Metro area = Additional 12,900,000 (over 1/3rd of the states entire population in this area. 4-6 times the entire population of Utah. In an itty bitty living space compared to the entire state of Utah.)
San Diego = 1,279,329
San Jose = 1,006,892
San Francisco = 808,976

(Many of the suburbs that house gangs, rival the population density of Utah's largest cities.)

And I didn't even getting into the racial or minority differences. Which, unfortunately, do affect crime rates.
Utah = 95% White, California = 42% White, 37% Hispanic/Latino.

And then some were comparing Vermont to California...... And assuming it's the laws that cause the crime.

Vermont has a population of about 640,000-680,000 TOTAL.

-- Posted by CF Reality on Wed, Feb 24, 2010, 4:55 am EST

report this comment

"There really isn't any room for debate, the second amendment means what it means. The right of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed."

I lol'd.

It's what the second amendment means which is debated. Of course it means what it means. Does it mean that people convicted of violent crimes involving guns should be allowed to legally possess guns after they have served their sentence? Does it mean that people should be allowed to own rocket launchers and assault rifles, for which there is no practical use besides killing people? There's a popular saying that guns don't kill people, people kill people, but what it leaves out is that guns make it a hell of a lot easier both mentally and physically.

I do wish they would amend the constitution so not everyone has the right to bare arms. There are people out there who have no business wearing a wifebeater or a tanktop.

-- Posted by I Am Kidding? on Wed, Feb 24, 2010, 2:01 am EST

report this comment

If you observe the 10 amendments of the constitution it is easy to see the pattern. The individual is supreme over the government. Humans are inherently free and natural law is the only factor. This government or any government does not have the right to restrict my freedom as long as I abide by civil rules with those who act in the same manner. No government has the right to restrict me of my natural right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Aside from being born with these rights our founders wrote a document to insure that Americans could continue to enjoy those rights. There really isn't any room for debate, the second amendment means what it means. The right of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed.

-- Posted by BS Avenger on Tue, Feb 23, 2010, 10:29 pm EST

report this comment

CF Reality thinks that gun owners are afraid of something. I'm not afraid of anything except excessive stupidity. Canada tried registration and over $2 Billion later, they're giving it up as a useless experiment. Sounds pretty stupid to me. I think CF Reality is afraid of the average gun owner. Maybe he doesn't know any. Maybe he should go observe a service rifle match at the Ethan Allen range. He'd see a bunch of serious, confident folks that like to shoot their guns at paper. Nothing more, nothing less. Better yet, he should take a clinic and learn to do it himself. Best $20 he'd ever spend. Details at http://www.vsrpa.org/

-- Posted by Captain Tenille on Tue, Feb 23, 2010, 1:23 pm EST

report this comment

Don't any of you get it?

The right to self defense is not granted by any government. It is given to us by our Creator. Our Forefathers wrote this down as an inalienable right to make certain to remember that no government could infringe on these rights.

End of discussion.

Don't even get involved in arguing crime rates, gun thefts, populations, and economic standards which might lead to crime with bloggers. Those are all arguments where the progressives want us to join in and start mediating. If you don't like guns, then don't own one. Leave the rest of society alone in their beliefs and stop trying to impose your wants on others.

If you want to better society and rid it of criminals, execute the bastXXXs. Punish the criminals, not the victims.

-- Posted by The Claw on Tue, Feb 23, 2010, 1:06 pm EST

report this comment

Private sales of firearms are permitted in Vermont. Background checks are not required in private transactions.

The Brady Campaign has provided no evidence in this "article" that guns have been purchased without background checks in Vermont for the sole purpose of committing crimes in other states. It has only provided its assumptions.

The view of the retired state policeman is a thoughtful and balanced one presumably based on experience.

If the variability of statistical crime data compilation among the states is set aside, the main difference separating the citizens of Florida and the citizens of California is this:

Both states have comparable per capita crime statistics but in Florida, the state with far less gun regulation, the citizens have enabled themselves to possess and use handguns as an effective, legal recourse for self-defense. Californians must depend on luck. Given its current disarray, California doesn't appear as example of anything worthy of imitation.

A crime can still be entered as a statistic even though the perpetrator may have been killed or wounded and stopped in the act by an armed citizen that refused to be a victim.

-- Posted by LH Dickson on Tue, Feb 23, 2010, 11:10 am EST

report this comment

VSP: I am not aware of any contribution that you have made that enhances my safety or security. My safety and security is for the most part an individual responsiblility. Our Constitution clearly affirms that contention.

My suggestion that a move to a more highly rated "Brady" state was made in light of their inference that those states are safer places to live as the result of more firearm restrictions.

Not long ago on WDEV an author made the argument that more restrictive gun laws have little to do with lessening the rate of violent crime. His study concluded that social, economic and political issues had a far greater impact on crime than the prescence of firearms in society. The interviewer (Equal Time) was clearly disappointed with his assertion, however, the author reinforced his argument with facts and figures related to violent crime (specifically homicides). That Texas, Mississippi and other states having higher rates of voilent crime may confirm his contention that factors aside from gun issues have a greater impact on crime.

Gun control has more to do with controlling people than guns. Politicians who support gun control typically don't trust the people they attempt to control and therefore attempt to disarm them. Once at a loss to defend themselves, people tend to become more pliable.

It is a tradgedy that any innocent individual looses their life as the result of a mindless crime, however, governments, including our own, extinguish more innocent lives (more efficiently) than any other concern. The Nazis eliminated gun ownership in Germany and then began to eliminate segments of their society soon after.

If you have enhanced my safety and security I am grateful, however, given the spate of break ins I'll keep an eye out for my family and my self. Undoubtedly the Brady Campaign has issues with our laws, however, I have an issue with becoming another victim or statistic when they compromise my right to security and self defense.

-- Posted by Ernest McDonald on Tue, Feb 23, 2010, 11:07 am EST

report this comment

If anything, Vermont has become susceptible to the violence from the dope dealers coming in from out of state and the riff raff they bring along.

-- Posted by Are you Kidding? on Tue, Feb 23, 2010, 10:18 am EST

report this comment

"And by the way, which states with few gun laws have the high rates of crime?"

Texas, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, to name but a few, EMcD.

-- Posted by VSP (Ret.) on Tue, Feb 23, 2010, 6:57 am EST

report this comment

Vermont's gun law Chapter 1, Article 16 is a constitutional right.

Vermont Constitution Chapter 1 Article 9 --That every member of society hath a right to be protection in the enjoyment of life, liberty, and property and therfore is bound to contribute the member's proportion towards the expense of that protection.

Point is government of vermont is ordered by our highest law to only raise tax money to protect our rights! Our right to own weapons is one. All other programs and services created by government are illegal.

Only the legislature can tax, Taxation cannot be delegated to municipalites!

Legislative powers, Chapter 2 section 6 ...and they shall have all other powers necessary for the Legislature of a free and sovereign State; but they shall have no power to add to, alter abolish, or infringe any part of the Constitution.

The legislature cannot make law to change our gun law.
and
The federal govenrment has no power to make law that will interfere with the 2nd amendment of the peoples bill of right or this sovereign states Constitutional right to possess weapons.

As the depression worsens will you be prepared for home invasions?

Can the debate; read and understand the Constitutions; its the law..

The law republicans and democrats have been destroying.

-- Posted by Bill Brueckner on Tue, Feb 23, 2010, 6:57 am EST

report this comment

BS and EMcD:

Both of you have misunderstood my position. I said I was not advocating for gun control one way or the other. In fact, I can recount a number of incidents when the good guys got the drop on bad guys because the good guy owned a firearm, albeit these incidents were relatively few and far between. My oath was to uphold the Constitution, which included the right to bear arms, so I fail to see how my experience tainted my view.

My point is that VT is not a "safer" state because we have little in the way of gun control nor is it a violent state for the same reason. I was also very clear when I said that VT, in my opinion, does not contribute to out-of-state gun violence.

By the way, EMcD, thanks for suggesting I move to another state. I am grateful for your appreciation of my contributions to make this a "safer" place for you to live.

-- Posted by VSP (Ret.) on Tue, Feb 23, 2010, 6:52 am EST

report this comment

Dear VSP: Once again althought the number of guns has increased the number of violent crimes commited in the USA is at a 45 year low. The murder rate in the country has been cut in half since 1991. Although the Brady Campaign's passing states include Cailfornia its violent crime rate is 10 to 15 times higher than the rest of the nation. Utah, by the way, with the campaigns lowest rating has a violent crime rating is 76 times lower than California's. Based upon reality, it would appear that a low Brady campaign rating would suggest that you are living in a "safe" state. Perhaps you should consider a move to higher ranked "Brady" state and take your chances there. And by the way, which states with few gun laws have the high rates of crime?

-- Posted by Ernest McDonald on Tue, Feb 23, 2010, 1:22 am EST

report this comment

Where in Vermont is there no background checks being conducted? Why are they trying to say we sell guns to other states and help their crime rate? I don't believe a word of this.

More Fear Mongering, I'm really really tired of fear mongering!

-- Posted by Melissa B. on Mon, Feb 22, 2010, 12:36 pm EST

report this comment

Here's a little reality for CF Reality. Hitler made the Jews in Germany register their guns after he was democratically elected. The Jewish people complied. A short time later Hitler sent the SS into the Jewish ghettos to confiscate all the registered firearms. After the Cuban revolution of Fidel Castro he told the people of Cuba that they no longer needed their firearms and he sent the military throughout Cuba confiscating firearms.

For VSP (Ret), You sir are tainted from your years as a police officer. Either we are going to live in a free country with the risks of doing so or we are going to give up our freedom and let the government make everything illegal. While I understand that their are bad people out there and the police confront them. You can not be everywhere and there is no constitutional requirement for the police to protect people all of the time. So as long as the bad guys have guns it is only right and beneficial for the good guys to also have them.

As an American I have not seen a government in recent times that can be trusted with my freedom. Those of you who wish to surrender every aspect of your lives to the government and be lulled into some warm and cuddly feeling that you are going to be safe are being duped into becoming another dependent of a huge a powerful central government that is out of control. Be careful of what you wish for!

-- Posted by BS Avenger on Mon, Feb 22, 2010, 11:19 am EST

report this comment

Drugs, prostitution and gambling are not enumerated Constitutional rights.

The right to keep and bear arms is an acknowledged right in our Constitution. The Second Amendment does not permit infringement of that right. Infringement can come differing guises including "control" legislation.

-- Posted by LH Dickson on Mon, Feb 22, 2010, 9:55 am EST

report this comment

CF,

Who are you addressing with your comment.

I was addressing registration where the cost greatly outweighs the results. It has been estimated by Justice Dept and GAO in 1993 that to start a registration program in the U.S. it would cost $15-35 billion(in 1993 funds) and take 20 years to register all firearms. California which has one of the most broad registration criteria annually spends $93 Million a year to maintain that bureaucracy and their A.G. in 2003 while addressing the Ca. Senate says that they still 23% of the firearms unregistered and don't ever expect to get it done by 2023.

Registration has proven it does nothing prevent or even solve crimes. Most successful was the Brady Check outside of that, nothing.

-- Posted by jim busch on Mon, Feb 22, 2010, 9:42 am EST

report this comment

It's not as simple as.....

Vermont has good gun laws and that is why we have less crimes with guns......

Again, Weigh out risk for reward.....

Where is the reward in a dieing state with very little money?

Where is the reward if you start down this path of crime by yourself. Or you are one of the only people the cops are concerned with. It won't take long for them to find you. You would become Public Enemy #1 and hunted down. It works like supply and demand in this respect. There is very little demand for it (Money), and the supply (Villains) would be very few. Risk is great with very little reward.

Are you incapable of understanding these truths?

With the way you defend gun laws.... Let's apply that simple understanding to other problems.

All drugs, prostitution, and gambling should just be legalized. Eventually it will even itself out and fix itself? Right? Control = problem, not the problem itself?

-- Posted by CF Reality on Mon, Feb 22, 2010, 8:54 am EST

report this comment

"What's the harm in registering all of our weapons?

Seriously, what's the issue? What are you afraid of?
-- Posted by CF Reality"

"What's the harm in registering all of our weapons?"
What is gained by registering them? Why not register printing presses while we are it?

Canada is moving away from registration. According to the study released from the RCMP in May 2009, it has cost the Canadian Gov't $1billion and with only 22 prosecutions for violations(over the past 6 years). The parliment is moving to scrap the whole program because it does nothing and they still have 2/3 of the long guns left.

-- Posted by jim busch on Mon, Feb 22, 2010, 8:53 am EST

report this comment

Ernest:

Actually, some of the highest violent crime rates in the country are in states that have little in the way of gun control. Vermont and New Hampshire are in the same "gun control" category as the high crime states. Many factors contribute to crime rates (read my earlier post).

-- Posted by VSP (Ret.) on Mon, Feb 22, 2010, 8:49 am EST

report this comment

What the Brady Campaign fails to mention is that Vermont and other states with high rates of gun ownership and few restriction to ownership have lower crime rates than states that rate well in their survey. Gun sales have soared under the Obama administration while violent crime has fallen significantly at a time when the nation suffers a severe recession. Go figure; I'm certain this is consistant with Global Warming and other liberal fantasies

-- Posted by Ernest McDonald on Mon, Feb 22, 2010, 7:43 am EST

report this comment

We have the best gun law possible, declared by our founders, july 9,1793!

Vermont Constitution Chapter 1, Article 16

That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State--and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept ups; ad that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and government by the civil power.

Why cant we get the republicans and democrats to follow Vermonts highest law.

We have a "legislature of a free and sovereign state; but they shall have no power to add to, alter, abolish, or infringe any part of theis Constitution."

Article 16 must stand as it reads!

The 2nd amendment is consistent with Article 16, "the right to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

The Brady campaign is obviously and attack on our Constitutions and the rights we have since our origin. Politicians supporting the destruction of the Constitutions must be taken out of office.

-- Posted by Bill Brueckner on Mon, Feb 22, 2010, 7:18 am EST

report this comment

I think we should continue the right to bare arms.

What's the harm in registering all of our weapons?

Are people afraid they may use it in a crime and be easily caught?

Seriously, what's the issue? What are you afraid of?

-- Posted by CF Reality on Mon, Feb 22, 2010, 1:04 am EST

report this comment

It is absolutely crucial to a free society to have a well armed free society. When you limit the ability of "law abiding citizens" to have weapons, you only encourage growth in the underground gun trade. When this happens, the "bad guys" make more money, when they make more money they gain more influences, and that is clearly not good. When you allow for anyone to have a weapon, the chances of getting shot would arguably be far less than today. The only reason why guns are dangerous today is because so few people own one. If most people owned guns, the "power" would be more equally distributed and thus the criminals would wield less of it. It is pretty simple and all goes back to simple economics.

We are an inherently free society. It does not matter what laws are put in place, our desire for freedom is demonstrated in the growth of the black market. The black market, in all aspects (guns, drugs, sex trade, and so on) are all as a result of government interferences in a free society. These interferences are funding gangs, drug lords, and terrorist. The very culprits that, ironically, yet a separate set of legislation and departments has been set up to deal with, which only further complicates the issue.

Everything is connected.

ML

-- Posted by Jeff Perkins on Mon, Feb 22, 2010, 1:02 am EST

report this comment

Jeff,

Are you that far out of touch?

The guns come from somewhere. With your idea's. Nothing makes sense.

How could people have guns if they couldn't get them?

If people, worth stealing from, didn't have guns to steal. Like you assume. How do they get them? According to your theory. There would be no guns to steal. No guns come from VT or other places with conflicting laws. So there should be no guns available. Once all of the guns currently there are taken away. Why do they keep turning up more guns?

Truth = they came from somewhere!

LH Dickson,

My sources said about 35,000... And that seems about right.

68,000 average? Are you thinking about NH? My sources are about equal to that for NH.

You are also comparing STATE to STATE. You need to compare CITY to CITY also. Of course NY's average will drop if you compare the whole state that doesn't share the same gun crimes as it's number 1 problem. The big City! (Yes, I didn't compare any one of Vermonts Cities. Since they just don't carry the population or crimes that of the BIG cities.)

Like Bennett, VSP, and myself agree on. Population definitely plays a role in crimerates. Populations increase and gather around "money" or some resource, commodity, entertainment, etc... that brings in "money".

Like Gold towns in the Wild West. It brought in money, population (people hoping to strike it rich or steal from those striking it rich), and tons of violence. As soon as the gold dried up. These towns and cities either survived on something else. Or the town itself was abandoned.

VSP and Bennett....

Obviously the only way to truly solve the problem is federally. To make all states require people to register all firearms when purchased, and to register current firearms.

If you are caught with a firearm that is not registered to yourself. Some fine would have to be discussed.

Personally, it wouldn't bother me.

It would only bother those that want to use their guns, for a crime someday, and not have their weapon registered in their name.

We register vehicles. What's wrong with registering our weapons?

-- Posted by CF Reality on Mon, Feb 22, 2010, 12:51 am EST

report this comment

Even if we did contribute, it would be as a result of the particular locations gun laws, not our own. Otherwise is equivalent of them saying, "you must be less free so we can maintain our restrictions on freedom".

ML

-- Posted by Jeff Perkins on Sun, Feb 21, 2010, 11:28 pm EST

report this comment

VSP,

Thank you for elucidating. I certainly hope you're right. At least we're not Utah, right?

.

-- Posted by Bennett Shapiro on Sun, Feb 21, 2010, 8:22 pm EST

report this comment

At the end of the day, teh 2nd ammendment [individual right] is in incorporated by the 14th ammendment.
Liberals can take their 'collective rights' and go hug a tree =)

-- Posted by Are you Kidding? on Sun, Feb 21, 2010, 8:12 pm EST

report this comment

Bennett:

The Brady Campaign web site lists about 27 other states in the exact same category as Vermont in terms of score. Vermont is no more contributing to gun violence in other states than New Hampshire or Texas if one goes by the Brady scorecard. There are no law enforcements statistics related to the Brady Campaign claim, nor do they (BC) cite specific data to back up the claim. As I understand it, they make the assumption that our lack of gun control makes it easy for out-of-state criminals to purchase illegal guns in Vermont.

To answer your question, why drive up to VT when you can buy an illegal firearm in Albany, Boston, or Manchester? Do gun thieves in VT sell guns in those cites? Of course they do, but they STOLE them rather than purchase them legally. I truly do not believe that Vermont contributes to gun violence in other places in any measurable way so it would be difficult to define what specific action could be taken to reduce or prevent such violence.

-- Posted by VSP (Ret.) on Sun, Feb 21, 2010, 5:22 pm EST

report this comment

"I do not think the Brady Campaign is suggesting VT contributes to gun violence in other states. "

VSP,

Actually, the Brady Campaign has said (as is mentioned in the article above) that Vermont's gun laws DO feed the illegal gun market in other states. That's, I guess, why they gave us such poor marks.

While I love where and how we live here, I don't love the idea of us contributing to gun violence in other places. Do you have any thoughts about how we can stop doing that without forfeiting Vermonters' rights? Are there loopholes that need to be closed or outdated laws that need to be updated?

.

-- Posted by Bennett Shapiro on Sun, Feb 21, 2010, 4:18 pm EST

report this comment

Bennett:

You are correct. Vermont does not have the total population or population density that are obvious contributors to the higher rate of gun related homicides in other states. That is exactly the point about not drawing simplistic conclusions and I appreciate your grasp of the concept.

I do not think the Brady Campaign is suggesting VT contributes to gun violence in other states. Gun dealers here are subject to the same federal regulations as in any other state, it's just that we do not have laws that require registration or non-concealment, for example. Once again, this is a broad statistical "score" that does not necessarily consider the variables I mentioned in the prior post.

-- Posted by VSP (Ret.) on Sun, Feb 21, 2010, 11:04 am EST

report this comment

VSP,

As I understand it, Vermont has the second LOWEST homicide by gun rate in the country (we're second to New Hampshire) with a rate of .48 gun homicides per 100,000 people (N.H. is .43.) That seems pretty good in a country flooded with handguns and semi-automatic weapons. (Louisiana's rate is over 10 per 100,000.) I understand that this doesn't necessarily mean we're "safer" overall, but it does mean that GUN violence isn't as big an issue here as it is in most of the U.S..

Is the Brady Campaign's only point that our laws contribute to violence in other states? And if so, how can we address that without compromising Vermonters' freedoms?

.

.

-- Posted by Bennett Shapiro on Sun, Feb 21, 2010, 10:24 am EST

report this comment

Actually, it is a misperception held by many that Vermont is the safest state in the country. Each year the FBI compiles data for the annual crime report based on information provided to them by law enforcement agencies across the country. Politicians, the media, tourism agencies, and others, then use the data to compile rankings such as the safest state or city.

In the first few pages of the crime report, the FBI specifically cautions people NOT to create "simplistic rankings" or draw conclusions by making direct comparisons between cities or states. There are any number of geographic, socioeconomic, or reporting variables that must be considered. "Valid assessments are possible ONLY with careful study and analysis of the range of unique conditions affecting each law enforcement jurisdiction." To the best of my knowledge, no one has done an in-depth analysis to prove or disprove Vermont's "claim" of safest state.

In fact, the crime report data comes from ONLY eight indicator crimes: Murder, Forcible Rape, Robbery, Aggravated Assault, Burglary, Larceny, Motor Vehicle Theft, and Arson. Crimes that fall within each category are assigned a series of reporting codes, which are then used to compile the crime report.

For example, in states that have vehicular homicide laws, a person who kills another in a drunk or drugged driving crash is charged with some form of homicide or manslaughter and the incident gets reported to the feds. Not so in Vermont. The same crash in Vermont is NOT reported to the feds, therefore, our per capita homicide rate is lower than other states.

Not all MV thefts in Vermont are reported to the feds either because we have a non-reportable category called Operating w/o Owner Consent, which is the most common form of vehicle theft in Vermont. There are many other examples where Vermont laws are not "equal" to those of other states which is why the feds warn folks not to draw simple conclusions from the data. There are so many variables affecting the data that a true apples-to-apples comparison for purposes of ranking would be extremely difficult to achieve.

The link between Vermont's lack of gun control and our "safest state" status is inconclusive and quite misleading. That being said, I'm not advocating for or against gun control in Vermont. I personally think homeowner's have every right to keep a gun on the nightstand if that's what they want. However, the right to own a gun comes with tremendous responsibility and gun owners should know how to properly store, handle, and use them.

-- Posted by VSP (Ret.) on Sun, Feb 21, 2010, 9:53 am EST

report this comment

According to the 2009 Federal LIHEAP definition of "median income", Vermont's median income is approximately $68,000. New York's is approximately $75,000.

The Bureau of Alcohol,Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives currently is perfectly capable of conducting undercover investigations leading to arrests for illegal gun sales. In Vermont, gun store personnel have successfully intervened when illegal purchases were attempted and arrest of the perpetrators swiftly followed.

"Stronger control" of firearms use and ownership, or restriction of any other Constitutional right, is bothersome for the single reason that incremental increase in control over individual rights can lead to total loss of those rights.

Initiating "stronger control" based on assumptions made from inaccurate data or from the Brady Campaign's extrapolations is unacceptable.

-- Posted by LH Dickson on Sun, Feb 21, 2010, 8:01 am EST

report this comment

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1963761,00.html

Crime Lowest in Decades
The Lock up Factor..............Simply put, more people are put in jail and left in jail, not allowed to get out to commit more crimes, About time, something Vermont needs to take a gander at

-- Posted by Are you Kidding? on Sun, Feb 21, 2010, 7:47 am EST

report this comment

When a criminal knows that any homeowner may have a gun, that is a deterrent first and foremost. And when a criminal knows most Vermonters would shoot first ask questions later, well thats even better, especially if they're inside the doorway.

The only thing Vermont legislators haven't skrewed up.

-- Posted by Are you Kidding? on Sun, Feb 21, 2010, 7:08 am EST

report this comment

I find it weird that Republican's are the way they are.

Seriously, you want to control everyone by your moral values, etc., etc...

But if someone can stop you, or your buddies, from making money unethically. Oh no, you can't do that. It's against our constitution and the US of A. It's our freedom......

It's my land. I should be able to dump anything I want on it.... etc...

So, it is ok for you to live unethically but it's wrong to live against your idea of morals?

What is up with that?

This is why I have a harder time with Republican extremists than Liberal extremists.

I just can't grasp your hypocrisy.

-- Posted by CF Reality on Sun, Feb 21, 2010, 1:39 am EST

report this comment

Jeff,

You do have a point.

But you guys are all missing something. Do you know what that is?

Understanding of the WHOLE equation.

Why is Vermont safer than much of California, NY, MA, and many other states?

Vermont has a population of about 650,000. Average median income of about 35,000.

Truth is....

It's not worth it, to risk death for the small profits that will be made from breaking the law. And with so few willing to do it. There is a greater chance you will get busted if you did.

Risk is MUCH greater than the Reward!

We have had small, little gangs try their stuff in Rutland. In the end, it wasn't worth it to them and they scattered.

Over 8 million people live in NYC alone. People are walking the streets in some areas that are worth millions. On average, in some area's, I'm sure some median incomes are well over 100,000. Some are even in the millions.

The same with LA, San Fran, San Diego, etc....

Can you get it through your head why they have gun problems that are more severe than ours?

Risk is still great, but the reward may be worth the risk. They have friends/members dieing everyday. But people still risk it. Risk must be worth some reward?

How about the chance of becoming famous? Many rappers are or were gang members. It's portrayed as a fabulous lifestyle. Media, music industry, and Hollywood are ALL guilty of allowing that picture to be painted.

The real questions are....

Can you understand why our laws make it easier to get guns, in the hands of criminals, in other states?

Just because we don't have the problems doesn't mean our "laws" are not affecting their problems.

I'm all about guns. I'm not a liberal. But I'm not ignorant.

Vermont should make sure that gun sales are legit and our guns are not ending up in the hands of others in another state. That's all.

And if anyone is supplying other state's criminals with guns. They should be sent to that state and faced with the crime.

It's just how I feel.

Unless you guys are making your living off selling guns on the black market. Why would you be bothered with a little stronger control to make sure this problem cannot be a product from our society?

Legally, in Vermont, the laws don't need to change much. We just need to make sure that all gun sales are legit. That's all.

It's a not a big deal. It doesn't affect the 2nd Amendment.

-- Posted by CF Reality on Sun, Feb 21, 2010, 1:30 am EST

report this comment

This must be why northern New England is one of the safest places to live...I recall a recent survey that reported just that...

The AP is like the Russian News Agency, TASS. Only report what the government approves, aka propaganda...

-- Posted by David Bingham on Sat, Feb 20, 2010, 3:13 pm EST

report this comment

The translation from "liberalspeak" is" Northern New England given high marks...".

-- Posted by coydog on Sat, Feb 20, 2010, 11:36 am EST

report this comment

More liberal nonsense. The state they listed above as doing the best (Cali) has the highest gun crime rate of all the states they mentioned. Main, Vt, and NH, "all scored low" even though all of these states are on the bottom third of the list in gun crimes per 1000 people. What does this tell you? Clearly, the states who impose "better gun control" are the states who will face more gun crimes in the near future.
http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-death-rate-per-100-000

The simplest way to put it is, you are a lot less likely to use a gun for "power" or "coercion" if there is a good chance that 90% of the "would be victims" were also armed. By further restricting "gun rights" you essentially make it harder for the people who are responsible to get guns, and easier for those who are not responsible to get them off the streets in the black market. As this happend the demand would go up, so would the prices, and eventually the supply of illeagal weapons into the paticular area would skyrocket. This in turn would make the area a breeding ground for gun crimes. Just look at MOST of the top 10 states on the list with the most crimes, they are the ones with some of the strickest gun control laws in the nation.

ML

-- Posted by Jeff Perkins on Sat, Feb 20, 2010, 10:11 am EST

report this comment

In this "article" the Times Argus has not included one shred of independent reporting that either verifies or clarifies the assertions presented by the Brady Campaign "survey". It simply has regurgitated a press release.

Reprints of this type showcase lazy and negligent editorial and reporting skill at the Times Argus.

-- Posted by LH Dickson on Sat, Feb 20, 2010, 6:54 am EST

report this comment

This gun crap is a bunch of crap. I moved to VT so I could have a gun. The place where I came from was crime ridden and you couldn't have a gun unless you signed your life away. Guns are necessary to control crime. These type of surveys should look at who's committing crimes with guns. You know who.

-- Posted by flathead on Sat, Feb 20, 2010, 6:48 am EST

report this comment

brady campaign who??

they say the tri-state area gets low marks as it relates to gun violence. low marks compared to what? big cities?

and then they say we are putting children at risk because we give arms to kids, basically(no background checks and illegal gun markets).

The TIMESARGUS are idiots for even printing this crap.

.

-- Posted by truth real on Fri, Feb 19, 2010, 10:26 pm EST

report this comment

We should be proud to be near the bottom of that list!

-- Posted by Darin on Fri, Feb 19, 2010, 6:24 pm EST

report this comment

Why don't the editors publish real news instead of things like this press release by the Brady Campaign. If they're going to do that, the least they could do is label it prominently "Paid Political Advertisement". Gun control advocates are the worst liars in the world. They love phony surveys and ratings. Every time I see one, I give more money to the NRA to counteract it.

-- Posted by Captain Tenille on Fri, Feb 19, 2010, 12:26 pm EST

report this comment

What a bunch of hogwash.

What do you care about more...
A ranking by a biased special interest group or safest place to live ranking?

Vermont is typically at or near the top of safest places to live...

Even Howard Dean used to agree that our gun laws are not a weak link in the public safety
spectrum. The Brady people don't get it and never will.

-- Posted by Buzz Lightyear on Fri, Feb 19, 2010, 11:34 am EST

report this comment

What is the percentage of deaths and violence due to guns in Vermont vs. California? That is what should be looked at.

-- Posted by Emile Lacasse on Fri, Feb 19, 2010, 11:27 am EST

report this comment

Who cares what the Brady Campaign says! where are their remarks on how Vermont has the lowest gun crime per capita. Wasn't it in California where people robbed a bank and then ensued in a standoff with police using armor piercing bullets. And they ranked number 1.....PLEASE leave us alone till there is an actual issue!!!!

-- Posted by Dave Erwin on Fri, Feb 19, 2010, 11:26 am EST

report this comment

Here they come again! Some crazy lunatic tried to assassinate President Reagan and Jim Brady was shot as well as the president so what do they do, they try to punish law abiding citizens and trash the 2nd amendment. Some people should not be allowed to have guns and some people should not be allowed to have cars. Cars kill people everyday but we do not try to take them away from people who use them responsibly. The northeast states that the Brady campaign scores on gun laws have negligible gun violations as opposed to those states that restrict firearms ownership. Vermonters have guns and it is one of if not the safest state in the country.

-- Posted by BS Avenger on Fri, Feb 19, 2010, 11:11 am EST

report this comment

Hmm, what is the score for violence reduction due to Vermonters being able to have guns? Registering guns and gun owners only penalizes the innocent. The criminal base will still find / steal / buy whatever weapons they need and will flaunt the laws.

-- Posted by Bob D on Fri, Feb 19, 2010, 10:28 am EST

report this comment

F*** the Brady campaign!

-- Posted by Jeffrey lyons on Fri, Feb 19, 2010, 10:25 am EST

report this comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Register | Log In

Los Angeles school in sex abuse scandal reopens with new staff

NRC approves first new nuclear plant in 3 decades

States, banks reach foreclosure settlement

Palestinian prisoner on 55th day of hunger strike

Serbia urges citizens to save power in big freeze

Stating the teachers’ case

Goddard adds board member

Workplace thefts bring jail time

Music Review: Philharmonic succeeds with Mahler

Vt. businesses find policies taxing