Getting Tougher On Guns

why do people continue to lobby for gun control because in the end it will only be the criminals who are armed. The laws handcuffing police these days make it so they have to hug the criminal and tell them its not their fault.

I don't see this as handcuffing officers. We limit how many concert tickets a person can buy at a time - I think applying that same rule to guns can't hurt.

And even if NJ were to ban the sale of handguns (which would be illegal), does anyone think that would have prevented this monster from getting one?

This is "feel-good" legislation, a chance for our elected Pols to "act" like they are doing something.

When we know, they are not.

The answer is much more difficult than enacting another gun law that will not curb illegal guns.

As THIS Op-Ed piece from the Ledger shows, we must work to support workable Domestic Violence programs.

It is here, not regulating legal guns, that perhaps, something could have been done to prevent this tragedy.

But that is hard and requires leadership--- which the NJ lacks!

We regulate the purchase and use of all manner of things so why not guns which time and time again have been used not just by criminals but by kids with emotional problems. The reason criminals find it easy to get illegal weapons is because the legal sales are loosely regulated and rarely enforced.

From The Star Ledger:

"They (the detectives) learned a lot about Duckett: He was quiet, liked go-go bars, didn't drink alcohol but loved Red Bull."

Perhaps what New Jersey really needs is legislation to limit the sale of Red Bull. Call me crazy, but don't be surprised if Duckett's defense team tries using an "energy drink" defense. Think I'm kidding? Those things are ten times more potent than Twinkies.

Further regulating the sale of hand-guns in NJ is pointless (I say further because it is already regulated).

For any impact to possibly be felt, they would need to enact laws on a Federal level (questionable legality there) or at least get states such as VA & GA with some of the loosest laws to tighten their gun-selling laws and then actually enforce said laws by revoking the business licenses of gun-shops who violate the law.

No "3 strikes & your out", not just a financial penalty, but actually shutting them out of their livelihood.

I agree with PW that more emphasis needs to be put on protection from domestic violence. I too found that S-L editorial to be a real eye-opener, and it seemed to offer some concrete steps toward preventing incidents like the Monica Paul murder.

I personally support tougher gun laws, and I totally disagree with Iceman's comment. Who on earth needs to be able to buy more than one gun per month for personal use????

prof-

Excellent point. Freakonomics would show that it has more to do with the people, then the laws. Address the reason why someone would shoot their wife- fix that

Jerseygurl

You are incorrect about legal sales not being regulated and not enforced at least in NJ. NJ has some of the most stringent gun laws in the nation. In NJ to purchase a handgun first you need a licence which includes a background check and a Psych eval, and then for each handgun you need a purchasing permit. This process doesn't happen overnight it usually takes months. The problem is criminals don't go through legal methods to purchase handguns they get them illegally. What we need to do is work on getting those of the streets first.

"why do people continue to lobby for gun control because in the end it will only be the criminals who are armed"

This statement is a fallacy. "Gun control" does not mean making guns illegal. Placing more stringent limits on gun purchases will not prevent law abiding citizens from obtaining guns and it will not reduce the existing stock of guns held by private citizens. A recent study shows some interesting stats on legal gun ownership and the base of privately owned firearms in the US (over 40% of US households have a firearm, 65% of the total number of firearms are owned by 20% of gun owners.)

You can argue over the numbers, but the point is that those households that want to have firearms are well armed. Additionally, individuals who purchase firearms for protection tend to hold on to those weapons for a very long time, and the replacement rate of legal guns is fairly low, so the 'inconvenience' posed by stricter purchase requirements should not be a strong deterrent to legal individual ownership.

Criminals, on the other hand, are more likely to replace their firearms frequently to avoid being linked to crime evidence. More stringent purchase and sale requirements will make it more difficult for to replenish the supply of illegal guns.

Haylon - I meant in general, across the country. It's easy to get guns illegally because it's still relatively easy to purchase guns legally - and large quantities of them at one time. Limiting purchases to one a month is a step toward keeping people from buying a stash and having them wind up being sold on the streets. Your average law abiding citizen tends not to buy 50 guns at one time. Programs to get illegal guns off the streets are only partially successful because they pretty much depend upon people turning them in voluntarily.

I do believe the rest of the country should enact similar laws like New Jersey. I am all for the registration of every handgun purchased, this would stop people from selling a legally register handgun to a criminal. I think the limiting purchasing a handgun a month is not going to make a differnce in NJ, because you need a purchasing permit for each gun and they only last 90 days. It usually takes at least a month or more for them to be processed.

Here's an idea... Instead of trying to limit the number of guns a person can purchase using the argument "only somebody who is selling guns illegally will want to buy more than one a month" why don't you take a look at the people who are buying 50 a month, and see what they are doing with them? If it turns out they are doing something illegal (and not stockpiling for armageddon), guess what? You can revoke their FPID and send them to jail!

It's not too hard you know... since you must apply for *every* handgun you are going to purchase... The applications go to your local police chief... When you finally do purchase a handgun, copies of the purchase paperwork (and purchase permit) are sent to the chief of police in your town as well as the state police....

Somehow, I have a feeling that if they wanted to find people who were buying handguns to resell them, it wouldn't be too difficult... They have all the paperwork... Just need to look at it...

Illegal search?

Here's an idea... Instead of trying to limit the number of guns a person can purchase using the argument "only somebody who is selling guns illegally will want to buy more than one a month" why don't you take a look at the people who are buying 50 a month, and see what they are doing with them? If it turns out they are doing something illegal (and not stockpiling for armageddon), guess what? You can revoke their FPID and send them to jail!

It's not too hard you know... since you must apply for *every* handgun you are going to purchase... The applications go to your local police chief... When you finally do purchase a handgun, copies of the purchase paperwork (and purchase permit) are sent to the chief of police in your town as well as the state police....

Somehow, I have a feeling that if they wanted to find people who were buying handguns to resell them, it wouldn't be too difficult... They have all the paperwork... Just need to look at it...

A man with that much rage (Duckett) would have, unfortunately, found a way to kill her even if he didn't have a gun.

Illegal search? If me denying the cops the right to search my car counts as "probable cause", somehow I think that if you are buying 50 guns a month, it would be reasonable for them to make sure you still have them...

(Somehow it seems a little funny, you're arguing to limit the sale of guns to somebody, but arguing against making sure they aren't selling them?)

(Sorry about the double commenting before, this site's becoming increasingly unresponsive)

The issue of how guns get into the hands of felons, would-be felons and gang bangers is a complicated tale. But very few, if indeed any, handguns or long guns alike coveted by such creeps have been stolen from the domiciles and gun safes of legitimate, licensed gun owners in the state of NJ. This much is fact.

The Star-Ledger op-ed piece offered up a familiar, chilling litany of incidents. (Including, I believe, the Iris immigrant bartender in Montclair who drowned his children.) But they have little to do in the main with gun control. It really is necessary to distinguish between the matters of gun control and of domestic violence; that CeasefireNJ wishes to automatically meld the two suggests exploitation and a hysterical form of response simply designed to draw public attention to its general agenda (which is now in conflict with the Supreme COurt, it should be noted).

It is also outright silly to offer up as a proposed "solution" the idea that legitimate gun owners should be limited to one piece a month. Mostly because, going by the legitimate gun owners I've met, they're quite happy with one firearm for home protection, one or two for hunting. Really, who among us save someone channeling the spirit of Colt-happy Jesse James wants to (can even afford to) buy one gun per month? So whether that suggestion by Ceasefire NJ is hyperbole or just a misread/mishear by the ace trained journalists at the Star-Ledger, it's ridiculous.

The issue of domestic violence in general is also far, far more complicated than the Ledger stories indicate. Sunday in Georgia, for example, a Muslim father from Pakistan strangled his daughter because she'd told him she wanted a divorce from her arranged marriage.

Such cultural "differences" have occurred with increasing frequency in the US, UK and Canada over the last 18 months or so. They are bona fide instances of domestic violence in the extreme, but they have had absolutely nothing (save in one case in Pakistan, where a young woman was shot and killed by a gunman hired by her parents while sitting in her attorney's office) to do with firearms, registered or otherwise.

The real challenge for family courts may then not be to somehow control even more so than is done today the access of abusers to firearms, but to deal with cultural and religious issues (which are to be expected among recent immigrants) which lead to and attempt to justify domestic violence. That UK and Canadian courts alike have suggested allowing the precepts of sh'aria into their consideration of marital matters is absolutely chilling. One can only hope NJ's own ace, highly capable family court judges will not be so "understanding." But this is a real, growing problem, and one more pressing than the questionable automatic linkage of guns to domestic violence as a means of satisfying a political agenda.

I'm no fan of guns being in the hands of "just anyone", but I too am alarmed by the linkage being made as to domestic violence/gun ownership. This is even more pernicious than the old discredited contention that domestic violence cases spike on Super Bowl Sunday. Law enforcement stats show that the great majority of domestic violence cases do not involve guns, but rather beatings with fists or objects, or stabbings and the like. This is even true as far as fatalities are concerned -- most kill their partners through other methods. So it is hard to see how any additional gun restrictions would substantially reduce domestic violence incidents -- this is a probelm that has to be attacked from many angles, and simple "let's ban guns" laws won't help those who most need help.
As far as cultural "customs", I can recall a case about 3 years ago in Ireland where a boy was circumcised at home, by some aged imam, because that's how it had to be done according to tradition. Of course, Muslims don't believe in infant circumcision so it is done after the boy can recite passages from the Koran -- aged 10 to 12 or so. This particular boy bled to death, and when hauled before the court the imam and his followers claimed that religious tradition mandated the practice and that wa sthat. The Irish justices disagreed, and ruled that if one chose to live in non-theocracy (some in the north might argue that), then one had to abide by the laws of the state and could not choose which to follow and which to ignore. This is how it should be.

I note, croiagusanam, that the old Super Bowl canard about domestic violence is still dragged out on a yearly basis someplace. I have no idea where it originally comes from, but it of course has no basis in fact. That tv stations in particular have repeated it just hints to me of the general level of intelligence at their assignment desks.

I never heard before of the incident in Ireland. That's a particularly saddening one.

A restraint order should be more than just words on a piece of paper.

As far as owning or not owning a gun ---- I would rather have a sign on my door saying "This is a gun-owner house", rather than "This is a gun-free house".

But that doesn't answer the question of domestic violence.

Not does it answer why the guy was allowed to roam the YMCA at will.

I heard on the news the other day that there was a correlation between handgun ownership and an increased likelyhood of using a gun to commit suicide.

NJ also requires the names and addresses of 2 character references and also the place of employment in addition to a background check and pysch evaluation. The pysch eval was a joke. A bloomfield detective said to me: "You're not crazy are you." with a joking manner and I affirmed that I was indeed not. This interaction left me with the feeling that the police will 'size up' an applicant and make that determination very quickly based on their own intuition.

I haven't purchased any new weapons since 2001. There is no need. However, if it were easier to purchase them in NJ, I would have bought a couple more, probably a 45 caliber and maybe a 22 target pistol.

Gun violence is a national problem and there should be national laws to ensure that only law abiding citizens can own them.

Jo-Mel, I am not sure why people continue to try to blame the Y (in part, anyway) for what Duckett did.

While it does sound like they can certainly afford to beef up their security measures (and I'm sure they'll do so now that they've re-opened), why would they have stopped Duckett from entering the facility in any case? He had 2 children who went there for classes, so he would have had every right to be there.

MB, it doesn't surprise me at all to hear there's a correlation between gun ownership and suicide by gun. I have a close family member who suffers with bouts of severe depression and I insisted he surrender his gun to someone else because it would have made it too easy to succumb during a dark moment. He agreed it was the right thing to do.

I have lived in states with and without strong gun control and I wasn't safer in either. Americans have an unusual proclivity for violence. Also, people want weapons and they will have them whether they use them for personal protection or crime.

The 2nd amendment was drafted to give states the ability to overthrow a tyrannical government. This interpretation has no place in America. For that matter, Americans will not defend their rights and liberties by vote, law, or non-violent protest. Americans are willing to suffer any injustice or loose of liberty. We just lost our 4th Amendment rights today and most of you are not even aware.

The 2nd amendment was drafted to give states the ability to overthrow a tyrannical government. This interpretation has no place in America.

How about tryrannical tax colectors?

For that matter, Americans will not defend their rights and liberties by vote, law, or non-violent protest.
Sez who?

Americans are willing to suffer any injustice or loose of liberty. Try an anti-diarrheal

We just lost our 4th Amendment rights today and most of you are not even aware. I was! I was! I looked in my purse and dey was gone!

So you have not problem with abandoning the 4th amendment? Are you saying we should only uphold the amendments we like?

We should uphold them all, INCLUDING the 2nd one!

So you have no problem with abandoning the 4th amendment? Are you saying we should only uphold the amendments we like? Is it a joy for you to know that you have no privacy so that some government employee can go through your personal records without any oversight or judicial review? What a trusting personality.

Mikeypal, you have in fact posted here previously, words to the effect that this Bush administration is a tyrannical goverment. And golly but I'd hate to deny you your Constitutional right to attempt then to overthrow it.

I'm also betting you're exactly the sort of crazo who only believes in upholding those particular amendments you, uh, "like."

Just how far gone a nutcase you are is indicated by your assertion that "Americans are willing to suffer any injustice..." Well, excluding your brave, progressive laserboyness, that is.

Is all this obstreperous idiocy on your part just an act? Are you truly THIS dumb? I mean, yes, you're clearly dumb, but.....

Well Mike, now we can secretly wiretap the homes of gun owners. Funny how the same people who want the government out of their business feel it's okay to be secretly wiretapped or searched without a warrant. Or to be held without due process if you have a funny name or happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Or if you're gay and want to make your relationship on a par with that of straight couples.

Early nomination for "Fun (But Also Fundamentally Joyless) Couple of the Year" : jerseygurl and laserboy.

Your stultifying pontification sucks all the joy out of the atmosphere, so excuse me for being joyless today.

But Cathar: Others have already nominated you and JG to be a couple on the Salmonella thread!

JG is married, unfortunately, but in a hypothetical world this is clearly your DESTINYYYYYYYYYY!!!

Cathar, you are great example of "America the Weak". There is not a liberty you would not give up for some poultry political gain or some yellow bellied fear. Your scheming cowardice is astounding.

jerseygurl and laserboy.... sounds kind of nice.

wanna go on a date? ;)

Mike - it's paltry.

Thanks... I'm chicken.

And I'm married.

The problem, jerseygurl, is that you're always so joyless, so dogmatic, so ready to rush in and offer up the most knee-jerk and uninformed and unnuanced of liberal reactions.

Which is why I really do think you'd make a perfect friend for mikey. (Who proves with every post he definitely could use some companionship.)

I can only wonder, Kate, how you happen to know that jerseygurl is wed. (You have adjoining slips? Berths?) Come to think of it, then, however, are you free for mikey?

more than 50% of marriages end in divorce, so maybe we'll see a JG/Cathar union in the future.

"Poultry political gain"...ROFL...that's rich. Right up there with "on the lamb." hey, maybe we can have a menu at our next Baristagig with some of these dishes on it.

joyless, dogmatic...

kettle, meet pot. you're black!

Wow, I was busy today and missed this whole thread. Just put me down as agreeing with Miss Marta and Cathar and against Jersey Gurl, Kate and obviously Laserdude. I didn't even read the posts, don't really know what it is about and I'll bet when I read it later it I end up exactly as I have guessed. It ain't rocket science...

Gee--I dunno, Cathar. For all of your vilification, I think JG tends to be one of the more thoughtful posters on the board.

We do have adjoining slips, actually, and we chortle to each other merrily as we raise a glass of Champagne in one hand, and a jar of Grey Poupon in the other!

Alas, I also am not free to date Mike. But thanks for thinking of me!

Mikey, one man's "poultry gain" is another's turkey in the straw. And perhaps another's poultice made of goose fat. I also apologize, sort of: yea verily, you ARE that dumb.

Jerseygurl, for you that was cruel to correct laserboy. For me it'd just be pro forma, but for thee.... You're slipping, lass, whatever your marital status.

No it isn't rocket science Cheese_with_your_whine - it's totally predictable that all you Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity fans would experience groupthink instead of actually taking the time delve a little further.

"...it's totally predictable that all you Air America and Noam Chomsky fans would experience groupthink instead of actually taking the time delve a little further."

Lurk Moar.

Cathar, And you are a yellow bellied coward. "oh no, the terrorists are going to get me!", screeching like a wus.

Respectfully, MellonBrush, I believe your assertion on the survival rate of marriages is somewhat mistaken. It is definitely skewed to marriages within the first 10 years of wedded bliss.

Yes, kate, alas you're not free to help socialize mikey (speaking of turkeys, of course). I sensed the relieved chortling in every syllable of your post.

Hi, Cheese_with..., thanks for the support.

Why is it that if I disagree with a liberal I am, by definition, a Fox News, Sean Hannity, and a Rush Limbaugh fan? There are actually people in this world with different views that are not brainwashed (believe it or not). I guess I could take the opposite tack and assume that all liberals are brainwashed by Air America and Moveon.org which would be equally dumb.

I have never once tuned in to Air America nor do I even know who Noam Chomsky is. Yes, I predictably listen to NPR and read the NY times and watch BBC. I also regularly read the Economist, Scientific American and the WSJ. Cheese, we assume you get your info from right leaning sources rather than centrist news organizations because you couldn't possbily believe some of that crap if you didn't.

Mikey, mikey, mikey, are you having fun vilifying me? Good, since you have so little else in your blasted, vastated little wormhole of an existence.

I also commend you for your claimed fearlessness of terrorists. Of course I doubt if you could tell a terrorist from a palmetto bug, but still.... So you keep on having fun here, laserkiddo, since I sincerely doubt you have much else going on for you. At least credit me, however, for trying fruitlessly to set you up, okay? With liberals, even!

Also, laserboy, it's spelled "wuss," with two s's. Such poultry efforts you put towards using the English language properly. Oy!

Personally, I don't actually think that *in general*, Cheese... but when you posted that neat little terrifically Rovian summary about What We Have Accomplished In the Iraq War yesterday, I couldn't imagine that you actually came up with it by doing any thinking for yourself.

(For those who didn't see it, here is the synopsis: Mmmmmm, Iraq War doubleplusgood!)

I'm not especially fond of being pigeonholed as a 'typical liberal' by some on this board, because I get information from a wide variety of sources and I think for myself. And I don't tend to sort people into 'liberal' and 'conservative' buckets, because they don't mean much to me. But you just come across as the epitome of a sleepwalking, propagandized Fox News zombie, and that kind of thing makes me sad.

you got the point.

Friends, nuns, priests and family members warned me about the sort of woman who remorselessly brags she reads The Economist, jerseygurl.

My best supposition is that you like that none of its articles are signed. It's probably the next closest thing to the joy you get from reading equally anonymous comments on washroom walls.

And if NPR and the BBC's newsreaders constitute "centrist" news sources, then laserboy is actually Thomas Hobbes writing from beyond (well beyond in mikey's case) the grave.

Now if you'll excuse me, it's back to my own perusal of both Biblical Archaeological Review and Hot Rod magazines.

The point, mikey, is at the top of your head, where what few brains you have narrow to let in the pigeon droppings that nourish you.

So Kate and JerseyGurl, the common theme to your threads is that I have to be brainwashed in order to believe what I do. You both said it yourselves in different words. You need to realize that there is a HUGE country out there and many of them (I won't venture a guess at numbers for fear of igniting conversations I don't have time for) have similar beliefs to mine. Being the local majority doesn't automatically make you a national one, nor does it make you right.

I used to like Biblical Archaeological Review, Cathar, but I didn't renew my subscription because they kept getting centerfold models with small breasts.

Gosh, it feels like we went months without any knockdown, dragout shouting matches. It's good to see that we have returned to our comfort zone of name calling and feces throwing. {{smile}}

What was the topic again??

Cheese, your point about being in the majority is borne out by the fact that GWB was elected *twice*. (Well, sort of.) Which is an embarrassment.

That you may be in the majority regarding your political beliefs (and, frankly, these days I think you might be hard-pressed to find a whole lot of people who identify as Republicans who have the same views on the Iraq war as you) doesn't mean anything at all to me.

It isn't what you say, exactly; it's how you say it. You're flippant and simplistic and this is the last time I'll write anything to you because I know your 'closed' sign is on.

I come on here to procrastinate, damn it. Not to argue with the likes of you. Next!

I love what this discussion has turned into, really, but i feel compelled to respond to something from about 40 comments up---

"I heard on the news the other day that there was a correlation between handgun ownership and an increased likelyhood of using a gun to commit suicide."

go figure... if you're going to off yourself, and it's either pills or a bullet, guess which one is more effective? remember, its not an increased likelihood of suicide, it's just more likely you're going to use a gun if you own one... (maybe an increased likelihood that you will succeed, given the track record of pills)

Kate is my new hero (heroine?).

Crank's Corollary To Godwin's Law:

As a Baristanet discussion grows longer, the probability that cathar will invoke "the nuns" approaches one.

It's nice to see yet another bit of supporting evidence for my Law. :=)

Weren't they small "cupped" sort of breasts, kate?

No matter, what do either of us need with Philistines, right? (Both upper and lower cased varieties.) Et tu, laserboy?

But if you knew Tanit like I know Tanit....

Spicoli, it's not the topic that counts, but rather the gesture.

Oh Brendan. And that's a pro-gun argument , that suicide attempts will actually be more successful if a gun is used? Has it really come to this? That's sad. As for being in the political majority, these days the folks with access to the podium and the loudest bullhorns tend to be the same ones who have most money. Keep saying something over and over and over again and use enough of your money and power to make sure as many people as possible can hear it and it will indeed become fact to a large number of people-- even if it's really a big lie. And if you're really angry when you say it, it's even more believable! Cathar, it's so easy to get you to spew.

The safred sisters' influence ebbs and rises at odd times, crank, it's that basic.

And here I thought your heroine would be Messalina, jerseygurl. Or La Voisin.

Conniving wench? Sorceress? Sorry to disappoint you, if I think really really hard maybe I'll come up with someone more impressive for you.

And you, jerseygurl, it's so easy to get you to be kind to the emotionally and socially homeless, viz, laserboy.

As for those with access to the loudest bullhorns, it's no one other than modest thee who has bragged of her sailing exploits, her wooden boat, even her ties to the, ah, "entertainment" industry and music producer friends. And come to think of it, I've known strippers who've made those same claims.

All I can offer, by contrast, is longtime patronage of Rutt's Hut.

I love Rutt's Hut. But - I don't have a wooden boat, my job is what it is, and I'm fortunate enough to enjoy what I do to earn money. And by the way, good strippers probably make a lot more money than I do too - look at Geroge Clooney's girlfriend. And if you really like good hot dogs - the original Nathan's is worth a visit before the developers take it over.

(Ummmmmm....... Perhaps you two should find a quiet message board to find some alone time.....)

This issue sure brings out the WACKS,,its ok marta,iceman,und das cathar. prof we expect better. marta we must get out more

Phyllis Steen. I think she lives down the street from me.

I don't know if they still make great Italian hot-dogs, but Jimmy Buffs is still operating from their original location in West Orange, just up the street from Star Tavern.

I went there in 1966 and several times thereafter to dine on their phenomenal product, sausage with fried peppers, onions and potatoes, stuffed inside a sort-of pita bread. It was a heart-attack-waiting-to-happen, but at age 14, who cares!

Mmmmm, hot dogs.

Also, Phyllis Steen has small breasts too. Unfortunately, for this reason we can't be friends.

Breast size is less of an issue for me, but I still could not be friends with her because of her political viewpoints.

I can be friends with people of various political viewpoints, breast size notwithstanding. As long as they respect my views.

True, Mrs. But in the case of Phyllis her materialism and disdain for the arts would make it difficult. Who knows though, she might be fun at parties.