40 Responses

  1. Syd Barrett
    Syd Barrett at |

    Honestly most laws on this list are unacceptable. However, the government not allowing firearms to be placed into a computer seems fine, and here is my line of thinking. It gives the government to much control. If we all the other laws presented were fixed, then only criminals (and other violence prone people) wouldn’t be allowed to carry a weapon, and you wouldn’t have to worry about tracking the weapons (for the most part) on any computer. Otherwise they might just track down all firearms and seize them. Anyway i believe in the right to bear arms, but unfortunately most of these laws or lack of law, are quite sad.

    Reply
    1. Dimitriy williamson
      Dimitriy williamson at |

      Judging by your post I think it is right for the government to try and keep a record of every gun in the system. Guns are only made for violence, people can’t be trusted with weapons because there is always someone that upset them and lastly people can be unstable and this unsafe.

      Reply
      1. Brother John
        Brother John at |

        Really? What about the last hundred years suggests to you that governments, even the enlightened European ones, can be trusted with all the guns? Anything?

        Reply
      2. 5minutes
        5minutes at |

        1. Why is it the government’s business to have a record of “every gun”?

        2. Guns are only made for violence? What about hunting? Sport shooting? Violence is certainly a purpose, but violence by itself is not bad. Violence freed Europe from Germany in WW2. Violence set the slaves free in America. Violence saves lives from criminals, daily. The issue isn’t violence so much as it is the reason behind the violence.

        3. People can’t be trusted with guns? There are 300,000,000 guns in the United States, and approximately 270,000 of these are used in some form of crime – either murder, assault, or as a tool in some other crime like robbery. That’s a rate of 0.09% – literally less than one-tenth of one percent of all guns in the US being used in crime, and most of those that are used are illegally acquired. That means that, literally, 99.9% of guns in the US aren’t used in crimes in any given year. Obviously, the problem here isn’t guns – it’s the extreme minority of people who misuse those guns.

        4. The reasoning behind most murders and assaults aren’t “someone upset them”. Most are committed in the course of other crimes, such as drugs. Additionally – why do you want to penalize people who are law-abiding and non-violent because of the misdeeds of a few who aren’t?

        Reply
  2. Bacon
    Bacon at |

    Author is clearly wrong on a few points, but as a gun owner with a strong tendency to ‘cling’, some of the laws here should be repealed in favor of regulation. Anyway, there are criminal background checks at gun shows, but it’s the elimination of the waiting period that is called the gun show loophole. Also, the kennesaw GA law was in response to a law banning them in IL around the same time. Like the author said, we all own guns anyway (norcross, GA, but right next door). No worries though. This whole debate is a non-issue IMO. There are too many out there and their all owned by one side of the argument – ie. there is no need to argue.

    Who would be up in arms if another constitutional protection was being propagandists against? Wait until ‘bullying’ starts to infringe on your ability to speak. Look back to this time, when people argue with you to take it away. Exactly the same.

    Reply
    1. Dimitriy williamson
      Dimitriy williamson at |

      Don’t see people’s rights to speak being violated in Western Europe. In fact if say we are more free

      Reply
      1. Brother John
        Brother John at |

        If you say you are more purple, are you more purple? If you say you can walk two feet above the ground, can you? You are not more free. You enjoy less of the fruits of your own labor, you have fewer choices, there are large portions of Western Europe where Europeans simply may not go any longer, and you have no chance at defending yourself, physically or legally. Free, my ass.

        Reply
      2. 5minutes
        5minutes at |

        There are other freedoms that Western Europe doesn’t have.

        Reply
      3. Bacon
        Bacon at |

        Yes, you are free to do hedonist actions that were decided in the past 20 years which for the most part I’m not against, but they’re not ‘rights’ in the natural law sense. I have a right to defend my country from its government – your ‘rights’ carve out no distinction between the two. Here’s a question – is your nation fiscally autonomous? Unlikely.

        I have an opinion of which is superior, but in the end, see it as two choices of ways to live instead of the right and wrong you feel forced to define.

        But also, it’s all theoretical. There is no argument. See above.

        Reply
  3. 5minutes
    5minutes at |

    Oh Lord…

    10. The reason most data is kept in file cabinets is because that’s how gun records are kept. Not every mom-and-pop gun store has a computer to store its records on, which is why background checks are often done by phone.

    9. The gun show loophole is a scare tactic used by anti-gun folks. However, statistics show that weapons purchased at gun shows are not the primary source for guns used in crimes. The US Department of Justice statistics show that less than 2% of guns used in crimes come via gun shows. The biggest places criminals acquire guns are from family members (39.5%) or from the street (37.5%). The other major sources are from FFL’s (11%) or thievery (9.9%).

    8. The reason criminal background checks are destroyed within 24 hours is because once the check is done, it’s a matter of privacy. A person whose background check passed is likely not a criminal, and there’s no real use in keeping those records, especially when a second background check can be done very easily and quickly on the phone. As for dealers who falsify their records – a dealer who does so will lose their license and can go to jail.

    7. “Stand Your Ground” does not mean “shoot first”. It means that if a criminal is coming after you, you don’t have to leave the place you’re standing in before you can resist them. As for the Trayvon Martin case, the defense is not using the Stand Your Ground law.

    6. Eek! People with guns! BTW: Kennesaw, GA has a crime rate that’s less than half of the US’ rate and has only had one murder in the past 30 years.

    5. I’m ambivalent on this. Violent felons should never get their gun rights back, IMO, but there many felons out there who are not violent, whose crimes include drugs, financial crimes, etc. Heck, in my own state for many years, gay men were given felony convictions if they went cruising for sex. The point being: restoration of gun rights needs to be done on a case-by-case basis, making allowances for non-violent people who served their time and have a history of proven good behavior.

    4. Guns in bars! Shocking! Except that criminals who go into bars aren’t overly concerned about the “no guns in bars” rule. I won’t make an excuse for Missouri’s law, but as far as I’m concerned, if you’re not drinking, you should be allowed to carry if you’re licensed for concealed carry.

    3. While the laws in Vermont allow 16-year-olds to purchase guns (and drive cars, which kill far more people every year, BTW), there are restrictions on ammunition purchases. Additionally, Federal Laws restrict the sale of handguns to juveniles.

    2. Eek! More scary guns – now on college campuses! Except that those laws were put in place because there are people who see gun-free zones as hunting grounds to prey on human beings. In fact, since the 1950’s, every single mass shooting – with one exception – occurred on a location that would have been considered a gun-free zone under the laws enacted in the 1990’s. The one exception was the shooting at the Gabrielle Giffords event. So having people on staff who are armed and trained seems, to me, like a good idea to protect those who are not.

    1. You’re shocked at the lack of laws requiring CCW permits, but you’re missing the bigger question: why should we need a permit to carry a concealed weapon? Additionally, your claim of being able to buy guns in states without a background check is patently false. Federal Law REQUIRES instant background checks when purchasing from FFL dealers. The only exception is in private sales. You’ll also note that the states you listed where guns are easy to purchase… also have very low violent crime rates. Just sayin’.

    in the end, this is a poorly researched list. The author should be ashamed.

    Reply
    1. Raven
      Raven at |

      *applauds*
      Well put.

      Reply
    2. Dannyexplosion
      Dannyexplosion at |

      5minutes comments are right on, Good job.

      Reply
    3. Brother John
      Brother John at |

      Ashamed, indeed. Bravo, 5minutes. Very well put and succinctly refuted. The title of this silly article alone is a dead giveaway for a load of dog squeeze.

      Reply
    4. MikeinLC
      MikeinLC at |

      Oddly enough the author’s name was nowhere to be found on this list of propaganda and misinformation.

      100% dead on on all points, 5minutes.

      Reply
    5. MLJ1728
      MLJ1728 at |

      Thank you for the comment. That was great. The biggest thing that I can take away from this article is that the author is a liberal who does not like guns. One thing that you missed is in the preface where he says “While no one is advocating repealing the Second Amendment”. There actually are groups that are calling for the repeal or change of the second ammendment.

      Reply
  4. Jeremy
    Jeremy at |

    5minutes, the author won’t be ashamed because it wasn’t intended as an objective list. It comes accross exactly as it was intended, a very biased, sensational list of laws (or lack thereof) that the author thought he could twist into evidence that people with guns must be crazy.

    TopTenz.net should be ashamed for allowing this on their website.

    As to the Vermont law, it is inconsequential. The federal law in this case supercedes it, and the federal law states:

    The following classes of people are ineligible to possess, receive, ship, or transport firearms or ammunition:
    •Those convicted of crimes punishable by imprisonment for over one year, except state misdemeanors punishable by two years or less.
    •Fugitives from justice.
    •Unlawful users of certain depressant, narcotic, or stimulant drugs.
    •Those adjudicated as mental defectives or incompetents or those committed to any mental institution.
    •Illegal aliens.
    •Citizens who have renounced their citizenship.
    •Those persons dishonorably discharged from the Armed Forces.
    •Persons less than 18 years of age for the purchase of a shotgun or rifle.
    •Persons less than 21 years of age for the purchase of a firearm that is other than a shotgun or rifle.
    •Persons subject to a court order that restrains such persons from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner.
    •Persons convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

    Reply
  5. .50
    .50 at |

    If I hear a window shatter, and see someone entering my house, you best believe they’re getting blasted. there is no reason anyone should be breaking into my house at 2am. I shouldnt have to wait for them to shoot me, or my family to fire on them. You come in, you get wasted. I think the shoot first rule is great, inside the actuall home.

    Reply
    1. 5minutes
      5minutes at |

      That’s an interesting thought, but depending on laws where you live, it may end up with you in prison. The advice I was given by a former cop was to do the following:

      1. Get your gun and your phone. Take cover, if you can, in a place you could potentially have a 2nd escape route from (like a bathroom with a window that opens to the outside.

      2. Call 911 – or get someone else to do it for you, like your spouse.

      3. Loudly shout the following phrase: “Get out of the house, I have called the police. I have a gun and I will use it.” If you have a pump shotgun, now would be the time to load a shell into the chamber.

      4. Allow them to make up their own mind. You may want to draw a line in your head that says “if they cross this line, I will defend myself”. It may be the entrance to whatever room you’re in.

      At this point, a criminal with an 85 IQ should figure out that you’re going to potentially end their life and will make a hasty exit. It will also give the chance to someone else – say, like your kids making a surprise visit home from college in the middle of the night – the chance to let you know it’s them.

      Here’s a good video by Massad Ayoob on the subject that I’d recommend all gun owners watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGe_G3HDKFQ

      Reply
  6. John
    John at |

    I was going to comment on this list since I feel very strongly on our RIGHTS as guaranteed by our Constitution and actually TRIED to do so this morning. Called the author some not so nice names and said he was a liar.

    Then, when I was ready to post the comment, the system actually kicked my comment out and said it was not going to be posted! Not because of the choice of descriptors I gave the author, but because I had used the word c r a p when I described the article as a whole.

    I then decided that since my right to write my opinion in an area that is specifically for comments was being censored, that it maybe his article was meant to be on this site.

    5minutes: BRAVO! Well written refute of the mess the author called a list. Well done. I’ll fight this fight where it needs to be fought.The author is small-time and undeserving of the attention I was going to give him.

    Your congress person, governor and state representatives are where your voice needs to be heard loud and long.

    Reply
  7. davidov26
    davidov26 at |

    In Australia,5% of people have guns.For every one murder in Australia you have fifteen.A Texas couple moved to our suburb in Sydney and were shocked at my daughters High school-Where were the armed police?When told there were none and there were no school shootings in Australian history they at first did not believe it.Also there if criminals want to buy an automatic pistol on the black market it will cost them $5000:an AK 47 rifle $20,000.From 1985 to 1996 115 Australians died in mass shootings.Since the mandatory buyback took 60% of guns out of private hands not one Australian has died in one since. ,In my home of Sydney a city of 3.5 million the murder rate has dropped from 66 in 1996 to 48 last year.How many other American cities of the same size have as many murders?8 out of 9 voters supported the buy back.The remark I often heard was”We are becoming like America.”To keep yourself safe from crime and violence in America you buy more and more guns..To keep ourselves safe from crime and violence in Australia we got rid of guns.

    Reply
    1. 5minutes
      5minutes at |

      There’s a lot of reasons getting rid of guns works in Australia, but wouldn’t work in the US. Primarily, the fact that getting rid of guns is LEGAL in Australia.

      Keep in mind that the primary reason that Americans have the right to bear arms isn’t for hunting or self-protection or sport shooting: it’s to allow the citizens to make armed rebellion against a tyrannical government. Basically, the 2nd Amendment is a reminder to the government that the authority flows, not from the government, but from the people, and if the government decides to use the militia (the army) to enforce tyranny, the right of the people to rise up against them shall not be infringed. It comes from our history as a nation formed in revolution.

      Additionally, Americans tend to have a lot more issues to deal with. Our violent crime rate is much higher, which necessitates potentially defending yourself from crime with deadly force. That’s the real issue in America – it’s not the number of guns out there (the vast, vast majority of which have never been or will be used against a human being, ever), it’s the culture of crime that’s risen up, usually in poverty-stricken areas.

      Reply
    2. Brother John
      Brother John at |

      What a shocking lack of imagination you have revealed. Why don’t you take some time to think it over, and then get back to us once you’ve discovered other differences between Australia and the United States besides the gun ownership rate.

      Reply
  8. levothread
    levothread at |

    David26;

    Well, first off you’re on an island bloody well easy to enforce your borders there is it not?
    Second the Texas couple must have been shocked here too since we do not have armed police at most schools, hence the Sandy hook controversy. Thirdly and it is the 800 lb gorilla NOBODY wants to talk about but when you chop up the gun crime statistics into demographics along race lines it is revealing to say the least.

    Reply
    1. 5minutes
      5minutes at |

      Racial statistics are revealing, since most of the violent crime in the US comes down to black-on-black violence. In 2010, while blacks represent only 12.6% of the population, they represented over 49% of the murders. Meanwhile, whites, who represent 72.4% of the population, represented 46.5% of all murders. If black murders were normalized to the population rate, the US’ violent crime rate would drop from 4.8 per 100,000 (which still isn’t bad – it compares to Belarus, Thailand, and is still lower than Cuba, Ukraine, etc.) to around 2.7 per 100,000 (about the same as South Korea and Luxembourgh).

      The question for me is: why? And again, I believe the answer comes down to poverty, namely poverty combined with urbanization and lack of family cohesion. While 13% of whites are under the poverty line, 35% of blacks are. Simply put: people who grow up poor tend to be jealous of those who aren’t poor, and have a stronger tendency towards crime due to lack of resources, lack of education, lack of other things to do. Combine this with the fact that 72% of black children born today are born into fatherless homes compared with 28% of whites (keeping in mind that . Stick them into a crowded urban environment where gangs represent family stability and crime’s easy to do and get away with, and you’ve got a recipe for disaster. This is confirmed with statistics that show that fatherless children are twice as likely to become criminals – and three times as likely if they are in a densely-populated urban area.

      The solution? I don’t know. Throwing money at the problem certainly hasn’t solved it and, honestly, I don’t think there’s a good short-term solution. The long-term solution, to me, seems to be to increase education and community opportunities in poor urban areas while simultaneously working to strengthen the role of the 2-parent family in the black community. While I don’t particularly care for President Obama, I have to give the Obamas credit for being a good example for blacks on a strong, stable family complete with mom, dad, and kids. Personally, I’d dance and sing if he announced that he was going to resign as President so that he could go push the gospel of being a good, involved dad for your kids to the black community.

      Reply
      1. 5minutes
        5minutes at |

        PS: take away the straggler “(keeping in mind that” in the second paragraph.

        Reply
      2. Brother John
        Brother John at |

        I was with you all the way until you seemed to blame poverty. I don’t see that as a cause of violence — it’s an effect. Poverty and violence and the pathologies that go with it are results of bad behaviour, poor decision making skills, the inability to learn deferred gratification, and a general lack of those traits that characterize successful people.

        Reply
        1. 5minutes
          5minutes at |

          Poverty and violence feed into each other, especially when combined with urbanization, high population density, and lack of education.

  9. Levothread
    Levothread at |

    Five minutes,

    A well thought out, researched, dialogue string, is re-vivifying to be a part of. I, like you, am mystified as to what we could do to reach out to the urban population centers of this country. Speaking from experience, if you are not from the hood or have street cred, you are ignored. Leaders of the black community (community activists, pastors, educators) are hamstrung by the very community they represent. To be too critical of the black community means and ostracization process that they cannot recover from. They then become irrelevant to the very community that they have tried cultivate.

    Reply
    1. 5minutes
      5minutes at |

      That’s a big problem and I think it’s why there is no real short term solution outside of magically creating new jobs. The real effort needs to be towards the medium-to-long term (5-15+ years).

      Reply
  10. William
    William at |

    As a resident and enhanced concealed carry permit holder in the state of Mississippi, I would like to refer you to the story of the Pearl High School shooting that occurred just a few miles from my house. One morning, Luke Woodham woke up, beat and stabbed his mother to death, drove to his high school with his brothers Marlin 336 hunting rifle, and shot his girlfriend, her friend and wounded 7 other students. He then decided (and verified in his official statement) that he was going to kill younger students and attempted to drive to the junior high. Luke was met in the parking lot by his vice principal. He was stopped because his vice principal had his Colt .45 pointed right at Luke’s head. The vice principal without a doubt saved many lives. The real tragedy is why the vice principal was in the parking lot. Since guns were illegal on school grounds, the vice principal was forced to run out to his car and collect his handgun. If the principal had the gun on his person or in his desk, the deaths of two teenage girls almost surely would have been avoided.

    Now, what I did not mention about myself is that I am a graduate student and will soon be going to medical school. And yes, while in class or at work, I carry a loaded Glock 19. It is much apart of me as my keys, wallet and cell phone. Yet, you question the safety of a classroom with guns in the hands of certified concealed carriers? Why don’t you question the safety of “gun free zones” where, save for one, EVERY SINGLE MASS SHOOTING HAS TAKEN PLACE. I am very understanding of a person’s fear of guns but it is very hard for me to tolerate the creation of a list of “shockingly lax gun laws.” How many more people have to die in gun free zones? Is it so hard to comprehend? Gun free zones and other similar gun restrictions only make the law abiding more vulnerable and the criminals more powerful. If schools “should be a safe place,” then why leave them most vulnerable? Just for your information, Kennesaw, Georgia, has seen a 50% decrease in crime since the symbolic must-own-guns law was passed. That means fewer criminals in jail using tax dollars and fewer victims of crimes. I hope I never, ever have to use my gun in a defensive situation. But I am very capable and ready if that terrible moment arises and if it does, once it is all said and done, I am going to be thinking of sheep like this guest author who worried that MY gun made me and the people around me less safe than the one the criminal had used against me.

    Reply
    1. 5minutes
      5minutes at |

      A very well thought out response. Thank you, William.

      Reply
  11. Christoph
    Christoph at |

    I scary how owning a gun in the USA works. It seems that people carry one in case someone else has one. A society that is in that much fear of one anothers neighbours is a frightening prospect. I understand why people carry a gun to hunt, but as a defence?

    Someone mentioned before that in Western Europe we do not live up our true humen rights. Well my counter arguement to that is a, Europe is more developed in terms of society because we have had a huge amount more war the the USA. More blood has been spilled over our lands and we don’t want any more. b) We don’t need guns. c) If your right is to pull a trigger on either an innocent or guilty party, then thats one right I don’t want. If the criminal was threatening me with my life, I would rather he did it without a gun.

    I do realise that its part of your heritage but surely when innocent children are being murdered in schools, its time to realise its a bit old fashioned. In western Europe you don’t see us with swords and sheilds anymore do you?

    Reply
    1. Bacon
      Bacon at |

      People carry them to defend themselves as well as those that aren’t carrying. I know it doesn’t hit the media often, but the overwhelming number of occurrences where guns are used, they are used to prevent the death of the shooter and often innocent bystanders.

      Anyway, the self defense is a peripheral benefit. The law is there because it is my right as a human to defend myself, my family, and my property from the current government. It is precisely your lack of arms that cause wars in your land. And on that note, depending on your nationality, your grandparents may have had the same right (and given that it’s a natural right, you do too). One of the first moves in the lead up to WW2 was dictators confiscating arms.

      Not going to happen to me. Cold dead hands.

      Reply
  12. Dale
    Dale at |

    Nothing shocking about these laws, guns should be readily available to law abiding citizens.

    Reply
  13. SRB
    SRB at |

    This post isn’t written well – meaning it is from an an anti-gun viewpoint.

    Reply
  14. The Annoyed Elephant
    The Annoyed Elephant at |

    This list is full of so many fallacies, it’s hard to know where to begin. So, let’s do it top to bottom, as “Guest Author” seems to be incredibly uninformed:

    10. The reason the ATF doesn’t have access to that information is because it’s not the ATF’s job to track common citizens and their guns. It’s there to faciltiate, and I quote, “the investigation and prevention of federal offenses involving the unlawful use, manufacture, and possession of firearms and explosives”.

    9. Bull. Dealers at gun shows have to maintain FFL’s, which require background checks. What isn’t regulated is private sales, which by the way, aren’t regulated on the street or at your home, either.

    8. Again, why should the FBI keep records of gun sales? Why should the government have the right to track who owns guns?

    7. Stand your ground is not “shoot first”. Stand Your Ground means that a person has no duty to retreat when being attacked by a criminal. They are able to stand where they are and do not need to hire a lawyer and prove to a jury that they tried to retreat, but didn’t. The alternatives are castle doctrine – which applies SYG to a limited set of locations and circumstances – and duty to retreat – which places the burden of proof on the defendant rather than the state.

    6. And it’s worked. Kennesaw, GA has seen exactly one murder in 30 years. Their crime rate plummeted because criminals don’t like to go into homes where people can shoot back.

    5. There is a great deal of debate on how to handle felons, especially non-violent felons. If someone committed a non-violent felony as a youth and has spent 10 years after completing their sentences as productive members of society.

    4. So 23 states allow guns in bars, 22 of them while not drinking, and one allowing one to be intoxicated, so long as it’s provable self-defense. And this is… bad? Because gun-free zones are working so well, huh? I mean, no shootings ever take place at bars.

    3. Not a problem.

    2. Again, not a problem. You know where concealed handguns weren’t allowed? At every single school shooting site.

    1. A permit is unnecessary, so long as a background check can be completed. And you know who helped to stop Loughner? 2 CCW holders.

    Next time you want to try to push your political agenda, try having facts instead.

    Reply
    1. NoLiberals
      NoLiberals at |

      thank you for posting this. Anti gun freaks 99% of the time don’t have their facts straight and still believe an AR-15 stands for assault rifle. They would rather we and our families all be victims rather than defend ourselves.

      Reply
  15. JIMMY3LEGS
    JIMMY3LEGS at |

    There are more than thirty thousand “gun deaths” each year. However, sixty percent of all gun deaths are suicides. Of the rest, eighty percent are drug or gang related. That means out of a nation of more than THREE HUNDRED AND THIRTY MILLION, of those of us not involved with gangs or illegal drugs, less than two thousand are murdered by guns each year. The United States is one of the most heavily armed, but safest countries on the planet.

    Reply
  16. JLac
    JLac at |

    The author was so embarrassed by the lies he/she was reporting that he/she wouldn’t even put his/her own name to it.

    Reply

Leave a Reply