How Gun Makers Can Help Us

[volatile]

Then I go to jail for a very long time. Last time I looked, it wasn't legal nor a right granted in the Constitution.

Why did you frame that post about bullet lethality as "look what it does to bad guys", when the effects of bullets on flesh care not a jot for the moral fortitude of those whom they pierce?

I just think it's rather telling that your gun fetish manifests itself in seeing yourself as a slayer of bad guys. Your linguistic usage belies your weird ideology is all I'm saying.

 

[Ziggurat]

Mainly, though, I recognize that there IS a problem with gun ownership in the US,

I agree: too many criminals own them, and not enough law abiding citizens do.

 

[volatile]

I agree: too many criminals own them, and not enough law abiding citizens do.

You're forgetting one really, really obvious thing that utterly undermines your argument: all criminals were law abiding citizens at one point in their lives.

If more "law-abiding citizens" have guns, all you're doing is tooling up future criminals. As I pointed out above, there really is not very much difference between "bad guys" and "good guys", even if Hollywood would like to pretend there is. There certainly isn't any evidence that gun ownership reduces crime or offers individual protection from criminality, and this kind of naive arguments are considered entirely ridiculous everywhere other than in America.

For the record, though: the measure proposed in the OP is silly.

 

[Axiom_Blade]

Then don't buy a gun. Easy enough. Everyone's happy.

Well, I haven't bought a gun. I don't know if I ever will.
This doesn't stop somebody else from shooting me, though.

HAHAHAHAHAHA!! That's cute. "For God's sake won't someone think of the children" is no longer an argument from emotion.

What are you referring to here?
I didn't say that ALL anti-gun arguments were logical; just that most were.

Most of the pro-gun arguments I hear are
1. "We need guns for the coming revolution when we overthrow the government" (No kidding)
2. "It's a constitutional right" (Even though we know that the Constitution is a living, changing document, and amendments can be altered or removed)
3. "I need my gun for self-defense" (I don't have any statistics, but I'm betting this is pretty rare! How often does a gun owner use his/her gun for self defense? Really?)
4. "I need my gun for hunting" (Probably the best argument...but you don't need handguns for hunting)

 

[Ziggurat]

If more "law-abiding citizens" have guns, all you're doing is tooling up future criminals.

Since not all law abiding citizens turn into criminals, that would not be the only expected effect.

As I pointed out above, there really is not very much difference between "bad guys" and "good guys",

Oh, but there frequently really is. "good guys" don't break into my house in the middle of the night, or threaten me with violence. It does not take intellectual gymnastics to know that, but apparently it does take a certain sophistication (or more properly, sophistry) to conceal that.

There certainly isn't any evidence that gun ownership reduces crime or offers individual protection from criminality,

In the sense that nobody's ever run a controlled experiment to make such a determination, yes, you are correct. But that runs both ways: there's no evidence that gun control does so either. In the absence of definitive empirical knowledge, I will go with principle: namely, it is better to have the freedom and the ability to defend myself.

and this kind of naive arguments are considered entirely ridiculous everywhere other than in America.

Appeals to international norms will get you nowhere with me. The rest of the world doesn't respect free speech the way America does either.

 

[volatile]

Since not all law abiding citizens turn into criminals, that would not be the only expected effect.

I did not suggest they do. However, you are the one that is trying to suggest that arming "good guys" is a great idea, and that criminal records are the best way of distinguishing between these two groups. That's an absurd idea, precisely because every single person with a criminal record on the planet was once a "good guy" by your model. I note too, with incredulity, that in the US, there aren't even records of who owns which gun, such that guns can be confiscated from those convicted of crimes.

Oh, but there frequently really is. "good guys" don't break into my house in the middle of the night, or threaten me with violence. It does not take intellectual gymnastics to know that, but apparently it does take a certain sophistication (or more properly, sophistry) to conceal that.

Until that "bad guy" gets caught and prosecuted, by your model he is a "good guy" and able to buy a gun.

Or: all criminals were law abiding citizens at one point in their lives.

 

[Ziggurat]

Most of the pro-gun arguments I hear are
1. "We need guns for the coming revolution when we overthrow the government" (No kidding)

Where have you been hanging out?

2. "It's a constitutional right" (Even though we know that the Constitution is a living, changing document, and amendments can be altered or removed)

This argument is completely valid, and will remain so until the constitution is ammended. If you want to argue that the constitution should be ammended, that's one thing, but that's traditionally NOT been the path taken by gun control advocates.

3. "I need my gun for self-defense" (I don't have any statistics, but I'm betting this is pretty rare! How often does a gun owner use his/her gun for self defense? Really?)

Often enough that it should be an option. Without that right, you are completely dependent upon the state to protect you. Which can be a very bad place to be, because the state isn't always competent. And guess who tends to get the short end of the stick when the government is incompetent? It is interesting to note in this regard that in the 1870's the KKK was very much in favor of gun control. I think you should be able to figure out why.

 

[Drudgewire]

3. "I need my gun for self-defense" (I don't have any statistics, but I'm betting this is pretty rare! How often does a gun owner use his/her gun for self defense? Really?)

Depending on which study you choose to use, the numbers of people who use successfully use a gun in self defense are somewhere between 108,000 (for the study who went into it with a blaring anti-gun agenda)* to 800,000-2.5 million (average of 13 old studies)** to 1.5 million (Dept. of Justice study)*** to 2 million (the most famous study).****

Taking the most biased low end numbers, 108,000 instances a year is still somewhat of an impressive number. So... umm... yeah...


*Source
**Source
***Source
****Source

 

[Drudgewire]

Why did you frame that post about bullet lethality as "look what it does to bad guys", when the effects of bullets on flesh care not a jot for the moral fortitude of those whom they pierce?

I just think it's rather telling that your gun fetish manifests itself in seeing yourself as a slayer of bad guys. Your linguistic usage belies your weird ideology is all I'm saying.

Ummm... I don't plan on shooting anyone, but if I do it's going to be someone who is presenting an immediate threat to my life.

Sorry if considering said someone a "bad guy" doesn't vibe with your retarded sense of moral relativism where he might have had issues growing up which caused him to present an immediate threat to an innocent person's life, but I'm just a scumbag that way.

 

[volatile]

Ummm... I don't plan on shooting anyone, but if I do it's going to be someone who is presenting an immediate threat to my life.

Sorry if considering said someone a "bad guy" doesn't vibe with your retarded sense of moral relativism where he might have had issues growing up which caused him to present an immediate threat to an innocent person's life, but I'm just a scumbag that way.

I think you missed the point. I wasn't talking about people attacking you, or about moral relativism. If someone's trying to harm you - sure; he's a bad guy.

I was just pointing out that describing that bullets do not discriminate, and that it's so telling that you chose to describe that bullets would do to "bad guys", without any sense whatsoever that those same bullets do exactly the same things to the good guys - you, and the guys these "bad guys" are shooting at.

You seem to want to frame this in the light of a Hollywood movie, where the good guys shoot the bad guys dead, escaping with nary a scratch. Fact is, Drudge, those bullets melt *everyone's* insides that they encounter. They don't distinguish between good guys and bad guys. That means they melt your insides when that guy comes to your house. They melt the insides of those kids who get shot at school. Of the convenience store clerk.

All this waving of guns as the tools of the bold, brave hero is so comic book. It's so naive. It's so wrong. It strikes me that your use of language belies a very base, very simplistic and very unconsidered attitude to this whole issue.

It's such a fantasy land you seem to live in, where making brutally dangerous ammunition widely available makes you feel safer! I, for one, don't find it endearing that these things are designed to kill in the messiest and most horrific way possible, or that someone can walk into town and buy them. I find that terrifying.

 

[Drudgewire]

The fact is bullets are bullets, ambiguous tools which do a lot of damage to insides when they perform properly.

My bullets aren't going in the normal defintion of a good guy. So I can say that's what they do as far as this particular user of them goes. I'm not saying criminals have a different anatomy than law-abiding people, but it doesn't give paint some imaginary picture of a cowboy mentality to say "look what they do to bad guys."

Because if mine are fired rather than sitting in the magazine looking pretty until I replace them with target ammo for the trip to the range, that's where they'll go.

Semantics, really.

 

[robeeb]

I am a "Gunmaker"

I'd like to share some insight with you all from the point of view of someone in the business. I recently retired after a 20 year career in the firearms industry spent in the areas of firearms design, manufacturing, and retail. The idea of making manufacturers "responsible" for the neglegent and criminal use of their product is quite problematic. The big problem is the fact that I have no control over what a person does with their firearm once it leaves the retail store. I cannot stop any individual from making the personal choice to use my guns in an illegal or neglegent manner any more than auto manufacturers can control how people drink and drive. With regards to having a person with a clean record purchase a firearm for a convicted felon, that is indeed known as a "Straw Purchase" as another person here mentioned. A Straw Purchase is a violation of federal law, and is a felony punishable by 10 yrs in prison as well as a $10,000 fine. The BATFE works very closely with FFL holders on different methods to spot and prevent such purchases. And there are alot of people who do get caught and convicted. It's not a difficult thing for a sales person at a retail shop to spot a straw purchase. Also, those employees jobs depend on the FFL holder/owner keeping their license. They are protecting their own job by scrutinizing a potential customer. Many, many people are asked to leave gunshops and to never return for attempting an illegal purchase. The BATF (now called the BATFE) drastically cut down on FFL holders who were hobby/garage dealers. There are about 420,000 FFL holders in the US right now. Before the crackdown on shady/grey area dealers there were over 1,000,000 FFL's being held. All the retail dealers I know, and I know alot of them, follow the federal regs TO THE TEE. They keep excellent records, and do not consider the BATFE an adversary, but rather an agency who assists them in keeping the firearms they sell from being purchased by prohibited persons. Also, people in the firearms industry are a tight knit group, and as such, we police our own. A single shoddy dealer can reflect very badly on an industry that is already demonized in the news media. In regards to which type of firearms should be allowed, and which one's should not, well that's a completely irrelevant matter as firearms, are firearms. One person here asked if they could own an UZI Submachinegun. If you reside in one of the 38 states that allow ownership of Class III weapons, you can can buy a fully automatic weapon. But first you must fill out a lengthy application, get a fingerprint card done, have the Chief Law Enforcement Officer in your area sign off on the form attesting to your character and status as a law abiding citizen. You then send the paperwork, and pay a $200 transfer tax on the weapon. After six to nine months the BATFE will complete a thorough background check and if approved, send you your transfer tax form. Only then can you take posession of the weapon you purchased. I've heard many people say that you can just walk into a gunshop in the US and walk out with a machinegun. That is 100% incorrect and untrue.The dealer keeps it until all is done and approved. And, since there are only a fixed number of legal, registered, and transferable automatic weapons in the national pool, you will pay a small fortune for your automatic weapon. The Average prices for an IMI Uzi in 9mm is between 18 and 20 thousand dollars. A weapon like a B.A.R., or Thompson SMG can fetch anywhere from 20 thousand to over 100 thousand dollars. No legally owned automatic weapon has ever been used in a crime since the Gun Control Act of 1932 and 1936 went into effect. As for the ownership of items such as an RPG, LAW rocket, small artillery and such, there is no legal way for a citizen to acquire these items known as "Destructive Devices". So the questions about owning rockets and howitzers is completely irrelevant-you cannot have one. Finally in regards to people buying multiple guns, purchasing more than 2 firearms in a 7 day period will cause the dealer to submit a multiple sale report directly to the BATFE via fax, and the original sale report via mail. This law was recently expanded to include all firearms, not just handguns. The purpose of the report is to stop firearms being purchased in bulk from a dealer and then sold via black market to prohibited individuals. Anyway, I hope I've answered some questions and cleared up some confusion on the subject.

 

[dudalb]

I guess the idea of Individual rights does not have much menaing for Axiom. He is willing to sacrafice individual liberty on the Alter of "doing good."

 

[Axiom_Blade]

I guess the idea of Individual rights does not have much menaing for Axiom. He is willing to sacrafice individual liberty on the Alter of "doing good."

Please explain what this has to do with "individual liberty".

 

[Ziggurat]

Please explain what this has to do with "individual liberty".

In the recent Heller case, the court split on whether or not the DC gun ban infringed upon the 2nd ammendment. But both the ruling and the decent agreed that the 2nd ammendment protects an individual, not a collective, right. Do you need further explanation?

 

[Drudgewire]

Hope you don't mind, robeeb. I split up your posts into paragraphs to make it a little more readable.

I'd like to share some insight with you all from the point of view of someone in the business. I recently retired after a 20 year career in the firearms industry spent in the areas of firearms design, manufacturing, and retail.

The idea of making manufacturers "responsible" for the neglegent and criminal use of their product is quite problematic. The big problem is the fact that I have no control over what a person does with their firearm once it leaves the retail store. I cannot stop any individual from making the personal choice to use my guns in an illegal or neglegent manner any more than auto manufacturers can control how people drink and drive.

With regards to having a person with a clean record purchase a firearm for a convicted felon, that is indeed known as a "Straw Purchase" as another person here mentioned. A Straw Purchase is a violation of federal law, and is a felony punishable by 10 yrs in prison as well as a $10,000 fine. The BATFE works very closely with FFL holders on different methods to spot and prevent such purchases. And there are alot of people who do get caught and convicted. It's not a difficult thing for a sales person at a retail shop to spot a straw purchase. Also, those employees jobs depend on the FFL holder/owner keeping their license. They are protecting their own job by scrutinizing a potential customer. Many, many people are asked to leave gunshops and to never return for attempting an illegal purchase.

The BATF (now called the BATFE) drastically cut down on FFL holders who were hobby/garage dealers. There are about 420,000 FFL holders in the US right now. Before the crackdown on shady/grey area dealers there were over 1,000,000 FFL's being held. All the retail dealers I know, and I know alot of them, follow the federal regs TO THE TEE. They keep excellent records, and do not consider the BATFE an adversary, but rather an agency who assists them in keeping the firearms they sell from being purchased by prohibited persons.

Also, people in the firearms industry are a tight knit group, and as such, we police our own. A single shoddy dealer can reflect very badly on an industry that is already demonized in the news media. In regards to which type of firearms should be allowed, and which one's should not, well that's a completely irrelevant matter as firearms, are firearms.

One person here asked if they could own an UZI Submachinegun. If you reside in one of the 38 states that allow ownership of Class III weapons, you can can buy a fully automatic weapon. But first you must fill out a lengthy application, get a fingerprint card done, have the Chief Law Enforcement Officer in your area sign off on the form attesting to your character and status as a law abiding citizen. You then send the paperwork, and pay a $200 transfer tax on the weapon. After six to nine months the BATFE will complete a thorough background check and if approved, send you your transfer tax form. Only then can you take posession of the weapon you purchased.

I've heard many people say that you can just walk into a gunshop in the US and walk out with a machinegun. That is 100% incorrect and untrue.The dealer keeps it until all is done and approved. And, since there are only a fixed number of legal, registered, and transferable automatic weapons in the national pool, you will pay a small fortune for your automatic weapon. The Average prices for an IMI Uzi in 9mm is between 18 and 20 thousand dollars. A weapon like a B.A.R., or Thompson SMG can fetch anywhere from 20 thousand to over 100 thousand dollars. No legally owned automatic weapon has ever been used in a crime since the Gun Control Act of 1932 and 1936 went into effect.

As for the ownership of items such as an RPG, LAW rocket, small artillery and such, there is no legal way for a citizen to acquire these items known as "Destructive Devices". So the questions about owning rockets and howitzers is completely irrelevant-you cannot have one.

Finally in regards to people buying multiple guns, purchasing more than 2 firearms in a 7 day period will cause the dealer to submit a multiple sale report directly to the BATFE via fax, and the original sale report via mail. This law was recently expanded to include all firearms, not just handguns. The purpose of the report is to stop firearms being purchased in bulk from a dealer and then sold via black market to prohibited individuals.

Anyway, I hope I've answered some questions and cleared up some confusion on the subject.

To touch on one thing:

Many, many people are asked to leave gunshops and to never return for attempting an illegal purchase.

I've seen people banned from a gun store simply for taking a picture of the inventory with a camera phone. Reason is they could be sending the picture to a felon who wants them to make a straw purchase. Gun dealers take their responsibilities very, very seriously.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

…and this kind of naive arguments are considered entirely ridiculous everywhere other than in America.

We did not get to be the greatest nation on Earth by looking to the rest of the world to show us how to run our own country. If anything we are setting the examples that the rest of the world ought to be following.

Until that "bad guy" gets caught and prosecuted, by your model he is a "good guy" and able to buy a gun.

“Innocent until proven guilty.” That's a major principle upon which our justice system is based. We don't properly treat someone like a criminal until he has proven himself to be a criminal. Apparently, you live in a world in which everyone is to be treated as a criminal, or at least as a “potential criminal”; and to have his freedoms abridged as deemed necessary to keep him in check.

 

[dudalb]

In the recent Heller case, the court split on whether or not the DC gun ban infringed upon the 2nd ammendment. But both the ruling and the decent agreed that the 2nd ammendment protects an individual, not a collective, right. Do you need further explanation?

It would'nt help; Axiom had made it clear he is willing to junk individual rights to bring about his Utopian vision.

 

[robeeb]

Drudgewire,

I don't mind one bit, thank you. After coming back and looking at my "finished product", it looked like one long sentence. Most shops, as well as gun shows do not allow photography at all, and as you mentioned, for a good reason.

Some of the people attempting a straw purchase are really quite comical. The typical scenario is for two people to come in together, one of them very interested in looking at various firearms, and the other seeming to be bored out of their mind, and totally disinterested in looking at anything. They leave together, and the real purchaser is usually seen in the parking lot handing a wad of cash to the disinterested friend. The friend comes in, points to the last gun looked at, and with no questions plops down the money and asks for the paperwork.

Sometimes the real purchaser can be seen anxiously peering into the windows of the shop like a kid waiting for his mom to buy him an ice cream cone or a new toy. When you ask the disinterested friend if this firearm is being purchased for their own personal use, instead of simply saying yes, they stutter and sweat. They both leave empty handed and their digital photographs have been posted on the shop bulletin board for all employees to see, in case they come back. Most never do. Not exactly criminal geniuses, but very entertaining!

 

[senorpogo]

Very informative post. Welcome aboard.

And, since there are only a fixed number of legal, registered, and transferable automatic weapons in the national pool, you will pay a small fortune for your automatic weapon. The Average prices for an IMI Uzi in 9mm is between 18 and 20 thousand dollars. A weapon like a B.A.R., or Thompson SMG can fetch anywhere from 20 thousand to over 100 thousand dollars.

So there's a limited number of automatic weapons that are available? New ones aren't made?