Georgia gunrunning case shows why gun owners resist more laws

Hahaha! As if prisoners on death row have an absolute right to be armed, huh?

Alan Gotlieb and Dave Workman are NOT gun grabbers. They are 2nd ammendment warriors of the first class.

Indeed. And we know they are not ideologues because they well-presented their case that gun ownership and selling is not an absolute right, that there are valid and Constitutional laws on the state and Federal books for the regulation of guns, and that drugs are a plague on society. If they were ideologues then they would have been advocating a Somali-style anarchic society.

He's a guy who not only ran guns, he ran drugs, which kill far more Americans -- and especially American youth -- than firearms in any given year.

This point, however, is factually incorrect. Guns kill more people under the age of 18 than illegal drugs do.

Overall, however, automobiles kill more people under the age of 18 than illegal drugs and guns combined.

Go here for death statistics. You will see that, for example, in the 15 to 24 age group deaths by automobile cause about 1/3 of the deaths in 1996 (about 11K). The deaths by homicide and suicide together make up about 11K. There is no breakdown on how many of those deaths are caused by guns, but it is less than the total, therefore gun deaths are in 2nd place overall. Deaths by illegal drugs are not broken out by category but could fall into the "all other causes (Residual)" which is about 4K.

For yet another cut at it, drug related death statistics can be found here. But note this site is for the UK. Using the UK statistics, the death rate from drugs, both legal and illegal (and in the UK, what is legal is not quite the same as in the US), including deaths from "accidents", has this breakdown (I have reordered the list in order of most to least deaths by type, also this listing is not by age but are totals):
(1) Smoking - Over 120,000 deaths in the UK (in 1995)
(2) Alcohol - 4,235 alcohol-related deaths (in 1995)
(3) Methadone - 344 methadone-related deaths (in 1997)
(4) Heroin - 167 deaths involving heroin (in 1997)
(5) Temazepam - 95 deaths (in 1996)
(6) Amphetamine - 29 deaths (in 1996)
(7) Ecstasy - 30 deaths (1994), 4 (in 1995), 12 (in 1996)
(8) Cocaine - 15 deaths (in 1996)
(9) Cannibis - 4 (in 1996)
(10) LSD - 0 deaths.

Note this gives the lie to those who say pot is totally harmless - some people manage to kill themselves somehow while stoned. And of course some of the long term smoking death statistics are presumably pot smokers also.

But to my point. When using the US statistics for the 15 to 24 age group, deaths are caused in order roughly as: cars accidents, homicides and suicides, non-car accidents, disease, and "residual" deaths. I suggest that if illegal drugs were legalized, the deaths by guns for homicides would go down sharply (no dealers shooting at each other or hitting bystanders) while gun deaths by suicide would go up a bit. Meanwhile the total accident rate would go up, both automobile and otherwise (due to some more people being wacked on drugs.) Note, however, the very low death rate in the UK that can be ascribed to pot. Presumably, only a few people getting stoned manage to kill themselves while doing so (probably hard to die while watching the telly and munching on chips.)

If the gun laws tighten, the profit will become too large to ignore and people will smuggle guns into America.

Then you'll see commercials about how 'you're sponsoring terrorism every time you buy a smuggled gun'.

hilarious show, oswald then said he was gonna be sick cause he had pieces of cardboard brain all over him...

funny show

(ping)

"My point is that "one gun a month" rules are ridiculous since they presuppose that the AG is not doing his job. A reasonable person would wonder why my second order (let alone the first) caused no concern. Evidently the state AG is guilty of multiple counts of misfeasance, nonfeasance, and malfeasance in performing his duties. So they slap a band-aid on it termed 'one gun a month.'"

It's a very good point you make. When one attempts the second purchase (or even if not) the AG can articulate reasonable suspicion to detain and interview the bulk-buyer. If the buyer can't provide a good story of what happened to the guns (or that he still has them), there may be probable cause for a search warrant.

Then again, the buyer could say that he is preparing to outfit an army in the event that public officials like AGs and judges try to overthrow the Constitution, and that the guns are secreted to avoid illegal confiscation by such officials. (This would be legal, if I'm not mistaken)

Of course, free citizens should not be denied use of guns anywhere, and there should be no requirement to identify a buyer or record purchase data, so any enforcement of these laws is improper, and the "problem" discussed above is a result of gun prohibition, not a justification for it.