I'm all for gun control

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

You argue that the only worthwhile laws are those that successfully prevent as opposed to prohibit an action. I presume therefore that you oppose laws prohibiting murder, speed limits, child abuse etc and these do not successfully prevent people from breaking them.
Have I misunderstood your argument?

Since all those laws prohibit an illegal act, yes, you have misunderstood my argument.

If I behave illegally, arrest me, try me and imprison me.

In your examples of murder, speed limits (I have to think that you mean exceeding them), and child abuse, each of those is illegal because someone does something bad. In the context of current gun control thinking, prohibiting the owning and operation of personally owned vehicles comes to mind to solve the speeding problem.

The murder and child abuse are too broad in their implementation for some politician to say that we should prohibit something, saying it will stop all similar jackassulation, and have a significant amount of the citizenry to go along with it.

If someone does something illegal, put 'em in jail.

If someone does something illegal or criminally stupid with a gun, put them in jail for a very long time.

I have guns and I'm neither a killer nor an armed robber in exactly the same way that I have a penis and I'm not a rapist.

Punish the guilty and leave the law-abiding alone.

If you are going to punish the law abiding users of something by prohibiting that particular something in order to prevent an illegal action performed by a small percentage of the whole using that something, then, yes, I feel that I'm allowed to demand 100% (or damn close to it) effectiveness.

[ETA] I just went to WISQARS^TM and did some spot research.

There are about 65,000 firearm nonfatal incidents and about 30,000 fatal firearm incidents each year. That's about 95,000 total firearm casualty incidents.

There are about 75,000,000 firearm owners in the US, using the Brady people's estimate of percentage of adults who own guns.

If we assume that each and every one of those 95,000 casualties represents a formerly law-abiding firearm user who suddenly decides to step over the legal/illegal line, that gives us a jackassulation rate of about 0.00126.

One eighth of one percent of the total users.

Will you judge all dogs by the one dog that bit you? [/eta]

 

[Lothian]

I am not sure we are necessarily disagreeing. There are probably people we would agree should not have a gun. Unless there are laws limiting who can have a gun how are you going to prosecute them?

I accept that they may not get guns through legal sources but unless you have legal sources what have they done wrong?

 

[Yjacket]

I am not sure we are necessarily disagreeing. There are probably people we would agree should not have a gun. Unless there are laws limiting who can have a gun how are you going to prosecute them?

I accept that they may not get guns through legal sources but unless you have legal sources what have they done wrong?

I am having a difficult time understanding the second question in the quote above. According to the existing laws those who are unable to purchase a firearm legally are also prohibited from possessing one. For those who are in the business of selling firearms illegally it matters not whether the legally operated firearms dealerships are closed down or not.

 

[Ranb]

You are welcome to demonstrate how owning a Gun makes someone worthy of the Nobel prize for chemistry. Alternatively we could refrain from asking each other to justify comments we never made.

A Nobel prize is a rather lofty goal. I will settle for being able to own a gun without going to jail.

Ranb

 

[gumboot]

[ETA] I just went to WISQARS^TM and did some spot research.

There are about 65,000 firearm nonfatal incidents and about 30,000 fatal firearm incidents each year. That's about 95,000 total firearm casualty incidents.

There are about 75,000,000 firearm owners in the US, using the Brady people's estimate of percentage of adults who own guns.

If we assume that each and every one of those 95,000 casualties represents a formerly law-abiding firearm user who suddenly decides to step over the legal/illegal line, that gives us a jackassulation rate of about 0.00126.

One eighth of one percent of the total users.

Will you judge all dogs by the one dog that bit you? [/eta]

I suspect if you were to compare car user versus car accident statistics I suspect you might discover a similar, or even smaller, rate of jackassulation.

Bearing that in mind, I have a question:

Are you opposed to tight control on the use of motor vehicles, for safety reasons?

 

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

As I said, and seriously I might add, I am all for gun control.

Gun ownership should be treated as a right at all levels of government and, like any right, only be taken away in the case of direct abuse of the right. At the same time, it should be held to a high standard of compliance by the government and courts as, for instance, mandatory, and long, sentences for being convicted of using a firearm in the commission of a crime, and absolute loss of the right in cases of negligence-caused firearm death (like, for instance, being drunk while in possession of a firearm and causing the death of someone in a bad shoot or accident).

Guns shouldn't be allowed to minors, if for no other reason than liability issues. I've got no objection with minors actually owning and using guns (my brother quite enjoys hunting with his 12YO grand-daughter, but for that she consistently out-shoots him), but they should be held for the minor by someone that we can sue into the very depths of Hell in the event that the minor does something jackassular with the gun.

Guns shouldn't be allowed to convicted felons without their demonstrating that they are willing to commit to a crime-free life and special permission after rigorous review, and should never be allowed to felons convicted of violent crimes or intimate abuse. Violation of these no-possession rules should count as commission of a felony, and as it directly involves a felony while in possession of a firearm, those long mandatory sentence come into play.

People wanting to carry a concealed firearm in public should be required to pass a thorough background records examination of their criminal history, demonstrate a good working knowledge of the legal rules of self defense shooting, and a good working knowledge of which end of the firearm the little round hard thing comes out of, and be able to get said little round hard thing into a human-sized target more than two thirds of the time.

So, yes, I AM for gun control.

...but I'm for sane and realistic gun control.

 

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

I suspect if you were to compare car user versus car accident statistics I suspect you might discover a similar, or even smaller, rate of jackassulation.

Oh, absolutely. The horribly large number of automotive injuries and fatalities is due, mostly, to the unimaginable (... well... unimaginable to me, anyhow) number of cars on the road.

Bearing that in mind, I have a question:

Are you opposed to tight control on the use of motor vehicles, for safety reasons?

I am not opposed to tight control of possession and operation of anything dangerous, as long as the laws remain in the realm of do-the-crime-do-the-time type enforcement.

As soon as the laws approach those of the anti-gun people's, "you have the capability of causing death and destruction by merit of your possession and operation of a device, so you must not be allowed to own or operate said device, despite the fact that you, personally, have caused neither death nor destruction," the law-makers and I have a problem.

As I said, persons operating dangerous devices in public should be licensed to demonstrate the they possess at least the minimum competency to operate that device in a reasonably safe and sane manner.


If you collect firearms and keep them inside your house, I figure it's like having a collection of cars in the garage. It's nobody's business but your own, as long as they're legally acquired.

 

[Lothian]

I am having a difficult time understanding the second question in the quote above. According to the existing laws those who are unable to purchase a firearm legally are also prohibited from possessing one.

Yes, that is the point I was making. I was asking how you would prohibit firearm ownership without those laws. It was in response to Gagglegnash's post where he opposed gun controls. Turns out he wasn't being serious. Sometimes parody is difficult to distinguish from the real thing.

 

[Lothian]

Hi

As I said, and seriously I might add, I am all for gun control.

Gun ownership should be treated as a right at all levels of government and, like any right, only be taken away in the case of direct abuse of the right. At the same time, it should be held to a high standard of compliance by the government and courts as, for instance, mandatory, and long, sentences for being convicted of using a firearm in the commission of a crime, and absolute loss of the right in cases of negligence-caused firearm death (like, for instance, being drunk while in possession of a firearm and causing the death of someone in a bad shoot or accident).

Out of interest. What is your position on people who have their gun stolen because they haven't taken adequate measures to protect it?

 

[gumboot]

Gun ownership should be treated as a right at all levels of government and, like any right, only be taken away in the case of direct abuse of the right.

...

So, yes, I AM for gun control.

...but I'm for sane and realistic gun control.

I think one of the problems with "Gun Control" is that so many people seem to use it as shorthand for "banning guns". This tends to muddy the waters, and makes any discussion on the topic rather confusing.

It would appear we are in violent agreement

(Perhaps not entirely, I don't agree on the point that anyone has a right to own a gun - mainly because in my country no one does, however I don't think anyone has a "right" to own spaghetti either, yet would be equally against governments trying to outright ban either spaghetti ownership or gun ownership)

I am of the opinion that ownership to anything other than something you created yourself is not a right, but that governments should not ban the ownership of anything unless they can present some pretty compelling arguments for doing so, and "because it might hurt someone" isn't very compelling. I am sure I could hurt someone with spaghetti if I put my mind to it.

 

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

Out of interest. What is your position on people who have their gun stolen because they haven't taken adequate measures to protect it?

Approximately the same as people who have their car stolen because they haven't taken adequate measures to protect it.

It's not my fault if someone breaks into my place steals my stuff. I shouldn't even have to lock up my house if I don't want to.

If you look at any property protection equipment (safes), you'll see that they are all rated by how they're built, how long it will resist house-burning temperatures , how hot it will probably get inside the safe during a complete burn-down, and how long it will probably take an thief to break into it by prying, drilling, chiseling, and tampering, rounded off to the nearest 15 minute interval...

....

...which is to say that there is really no such thing as, "adequate measures." You can't stop 'em. You can only slow 'em down.

Having said that, I also think that both car owners and gun owners should have an off-site record of pertinent information about their property: Make, model, year, brief description, and serial number (the VIN if we're talking about a car), so that the owner can make an accurate report of the theft.

I don't see any advantage to making a firearms theft report mandatory because the sensible people will make the report for their own protection anyhow, the jerks won't have the information needed to make an accurate report, and the bad guys won't talk to the cops anyhow.

If you make it mandatory, you're making a crime out of negligence, and we're ALL in for it then. (Speaking of which! I have to rebuild my information!! My off-site storage moved to The Great White North recently.)

 

[Crowlogic]

Hi




Cool. A Nation-Wide Ad-Hom!

I'm all for gun control, crow. All you have to do is convince me that you can pass a law that will work.

As such I suggest that you start with making a law that will prevent illegal drugs from being sold and used in the US.



So: Convince me.

Simple lets legalize recreational drugs. Consider this... societies where drugs are leagal or decriminalized tend to be less violent. What if an opiate addiction only cost the price of an alcohol addiction and opiates could be procured as readily as alcohol. To the best of my knowledge there aren't many alcoholoics holding up people at gunpoint to buy booze. Leaglize drugs and you've elimated a huge segment of the crime culture. It too bad we're still saddled with the the reminats of the Puritian ethic.

 

[RandFan]

Gun control? No way! Unless I've got a big bore in the gun rack and a six pack next to me on the seat of my pickup truck I don't feel like a man! God, guts and guns made America great!

No wait a minute something's not right here... Ahh I got it I just realized I'm a Crow so I couldn't care less about what it takes for some to feel like a man. Yeah go ahead lets control the bejezees out of guns. Maybe if we really crack down with some decent gun control we'll end up with a sane amount of firearms in this gun addicted culture.

If you take away the ad hominem I gotta adimit, "maybe" is a great reason to do something. Maybe if we outlawed alcohol we could stop all of the death and destructive effects of alcohol.

There's a lot of room for error in maybe. Then again, maybe not.

 

[Lonewulf]

Simple lets legalize recreational drugs. Consider this... societies where drugs are leagal or decriminalized tend to be less violent. What if an opiate addiction only cost the price of an alcohol addiction and opiates could be procured as readily as alcohol. To the best of my knowledge there aren't many alcoholoics holding up people at gunpoint to buy booze. Leaglize drugs and you've elimated a huge segment of the crime culture. It too bad we're still saddled with the the reminats of the Puritian ethic.

*face palm*

Said in response to this:

Cool. A Nation-Wide Ad-Hom!

I'm all for gun control, crow. All you have to do is convince me that you can pass a law that will work.

As such I suggest that you start with making a law that will prevent illegal drugs from being sold and used in the US.



So: Convince me.

Which was in response to Crowlogic saying:

No wait a minute something's not right here... Ahh I got it I just realized I'm a Crow so I couldn't care less about what it takes for some to feel like a man. Yeah go ahead lets control the bejezees out of guns. Maybe if we really crack down with some decent gun control we'll end up with a sane amount of firearms in this gun addicted culture.

The answer to dealing with drugs? Legalize the hell out of it! The answer to dealing with firearms? Control the hell out of it!

And you don't see the irony?

But let's use your argument for drugs here (and I do admit to agreeing with you, at least, on how to deal with drugs):

Simple lets legalize recreational drugs. Consider this... societies where drugs are leagal or decriminalized tend to be less violent. What if an opiate addiction only cost the price of an alcohol addiction and opiates could be procured as readily as alcohol. To the best of my knowledge there aren't many alcoholoics holding up people at gunpoint to buy booze. Leaglize drugs and you've elimated a huge segment of the crime culture. It too bad we're still saddled with the the reminats of the Puritian ethic.

Well, there are many claims one way and another as to whether or not violence escalates or deescalates based on the amount of gun control in the area. I've seen it argued one way and the other.

To the best of my knowledge, there aren't many people that buy firearms holding up people at gunpoint to buy more firearms.

Legalize firearms and you've made a huge segment of legal citizenry able to defend themselves, whereas you've barely affected the criminal element that are willing to obtain firearms illegally.

I can't think of much comparison to the "Puritan ethic", though...

 

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

Simple lets legalize recreational drugs. Consider this... societies where drugs are leagal or decriminalized tend to be less violent. What if an opiate addiction only cost the price of an alcohol addiction and opiates could be procured as readily as alcohol. To the best of my knowledge there aren't many alcoholoics holding up people at gunpoint to buy booze. Leaglize drugs and you've elimated a huge segment of the crime culture. It too bad we're still saddled with the the reminats of the Puritian ethic.

While I almost agree with the legal drugs bit, it does not fulfill the parameters of the proof.

You are going to prohibit guns, right? I need some proof that legal prohibition can, in some way, work to prevent those primarily interested in DISOBEYING laws from doing whatever they damn well please. Otherwise, all you've shown is that law-abiding people are... well... law-abiding.

The bottom line is that prohibition, alcohol (which didn't work), drugs (which isn't working), or guns (which won't work... unless you're putting your money on that whole, "third time's a charm," bit), only works to restrain the law-abiding citizens who aren't prone to doing the things that you aim to limit by prohibiting guns.

The bad guys don't care what the law says.

So: Why are you so intent on passing laws to restrain people, who aren't shooing at you anyhow, from shooting at you while you're leaving the people who are shooting at you substantially unchanged?

 

[leftysergeant]

I legally pack a weapon. One is up in my armpit as I type. Twelve others and several thousand rounds of ammo are sitting in their normal storage place. I use all but the shotgun with good effect on the range. (I am an utter embarrassment on the trap range.)

I have no problem with the restrictions that Washington State puts on a CPL. No felons, wife beaters, addicts, lunatics or kiddy fiddlers need apply.

I would, further, not object to the addition of the requirements imposed under Texas laws that one be educated in gun use laws and qualify with your weapon. An incompetant shooter is every bit as much a threat to the neighbors as is a malevolent one.

I also think that there should be a requirement that there be a title issued for every weapon and a requirement that all transfers be reported, and reports of theft made mandatory.

Bear in mind that the 2nd Ammendment refers to a "well-regulated militia." I take that to mean that every citizen should be required to remain in a state of readiness to defend the country or community, including themselves.

I have only once even pointed a weapon at someone. He appeared to be trying to gain entry into someone's home under false pretenses. I showed him my Rossi, hammer back and five lead semi-wad cutters visible from the front, and told him to move along. He moved along. I was quite prepared to do him harm had he not done something appropriate to the situation. According to the police, I made the right decision. They knew who he was when the responding unit met him a half-mile away.

I have done physicall violence to persons hand-to-hand, but only when certain that they intended me harm. I fire all of my weapons frequently enough to be confidant that I can use them to some effect.

I will not use deadly force to defend property, other than, perhaps, a firearm or motor vehicle, and those only because of the potential that they might be used to commit other violent crimes. In the case of a vehicle, I might be satisfied to disable the vehicle, even if it is my own. (The liability insurance aspect alone would make it worthwhile.) No way will I allow a felon to get a weapon, regardless of cost to him, because of the public safety concern. He would be far more likely to use it to harm others than in his own defense, in my opinion.

I oppose requiring liability insurance just to own a weapon in that I do not like the idea of giving the investor class another way to squeeze money out of working people. Perhaps a victim's compensation fund paid for by a tax on ammo, run by the state, not a for-profit plan.

In a way, I also find firearms a useful stress management device. It requires a great deal of self-discipline and gives immediate feed-back on how well you are doing it. Stay calm, get the bullets into the intended area, learn to control your breathing, steady your hand...

Marksmanship is a matter of mastering yourself, perhaps more so than mastering the weapon. It can be as much a meditation as Zen archery.

Rifle (a tanka)

Relic of a war
Made in a land far away
Fired now in sport
Creates a dark mandala
Voids appear in fields of white

 

[Yjacket]

I also think that there should be a requirement that there be a title issued for every weapon and a requirement that all transfers be reported, and reports of theft made mandatory.

When I see a sentence like that noted above I have to ask one very simple question. Why?

What purpose would a certificate of title serve? Other than to provide the politician a record so that he could decided that a yearly fee would be an excellent source of income for the general fund. Or perhaps you want to hang license plates on the barrel of the firearms. Oh certainly we can expect the criminal to do that.

Requirement that all transfers be reported. Quite a few years ago California made it mandatory that all firearm changes of ownership be accomplished through a dealer holding an FFL. NICS background checks are required as is the mandatory waiting period before the new owner can take possession. Of course the black market sales of firearms are not reported. By the crime data for the State of California you will not be able to show that the legislative action requiring this impacted the criminal misuse of firearms in the State of California.

Mandatory to report the theft of a firearm. Truth is that that such action is CMA paper for the victim. If one or more of my firearms were to be stolen I am going to report it as soon as I am aware of it for the purpose of protecting myself if that firearm ever is recovered by Law Enforcement at the scene of a crime. I can say yes, that firearm was stolen a couple of years ago and the theft was reported when the ATF agents have arrived at my home following the form 4473 paper trial. The other reason for reporting the theft is for insurance purposes.

 

[Lonewulf]

Or perhaps you want to hang license plates on the barrel of the firearms. Oh certainly we can expect the criminal to do that.

Firearms have serial numbers. There is a reason.

 

[Yjacket]

Firearms have serial numbers. There is a reason.

What is your point? TV sets, kitchen ranges, and many other items have serial numbers. You want certificates of title for everything that is serialized?

 

[Crowlogic]

Bear in mind I said we should heavily control access to guns. We'll never stop guns from getting into the hands of criminals and lunatics but we may by intelligent enforcement limit the number of guns that do fall into the hands of that contingient. Hmmm I wonder how JFK and RFK post in this thread if they were able to be summoned up from the grave?