Any law involving guns in any way is automatically "anti-gun"?

[neutron_star]

Look, I’ve got no problem with the Second Amendment. Buy all the damn guns you want. I do enjoy target shooting a bit, but not enough to want to own a firearm myself.

Just so we’re clear, I do not want to take your guns away. At all. Okay?

Now that I’ve got that little disclaimer out of the way, I’d just like to say that I’m getting sick and tired of the shrill, they’re-tryin’-to-take-our-GUNS-away, whining from firearms enthusiasts concerning every potential law regarding these weapons. The substance of the law never seems to count for shit with some of these idiots! I mean, why let common fucking sense get in the way of my thinkin’ when I got me a GUN, am I right?

Here in Pennsylvania, an amendment was recently shot down that required owners to report their guns lost or stolen to the police within three days of making the discovery that their gun is gone:

The measure was backed by police officers, district attorneys, mayors, doctors and other advocacy groups around Pennsylvania. The amendment was considered as part of a larger handgun bill being debated by the House.

“This is a commonsense proposal and I am disappointed it did not pass the House,” Parker said. "But we’re making progress. Two years ago, we couldn’t even discuss such a measure let alone debate and cast votes on the House floor.

What the hell is wrong with some of you people?!

“At the end of the day, Pennsylvania still has no requirements for handgun owners to file a police report when a handgun they own is lost or stolen, and that means hundreds of illegal guns still find their way onto the streets of Philadelphia and other communities across the Commonwealth,”

How the fuck does a bill like that not pass?

On Monday, rabid Second Amendment rights advocates held a rally in Harrisburg to support this landmark victory over… responsible gun owners who don’t want criminals to have their guns? Shit, I don’t know.

Keynote speaker Alan Keyes, the conservative commentator, said the fight is about more than owning guns. It’s about not losing “the courage, and the unwillingness to live in the shadow of fear, that the ownership of the gun represents,” he said.

Or, you know, the courage to file off a serial number, sell your gun to a felon, and never report it stolen.

“Say thank you to your friends. Say goodbye to your enemies. You should not be able to win a state race in … Pennsylvania if you’re running anti-gun,” said Jon Mirowitz of the Unified Sportsmen of Pennsylvania.

Yup. There you have it. Never in a million years will I understand the logic, but apparently reporting stolen guns as stolen is “anti-gun.”

[brazil84]

“At the end of the day, Pennsylvania still has no requirements for handgun owners to file a police report when a handgun they own is lost or stolen, and that means hundreds of illegal guns still find their way onto the streets of Philadelphia and other communities across the Commonwealth,”

I don’t understand how a reporting requirement would prevent stolen guns from ending up on “the streets.” Seems to me the burden is on you to show that the law would do some good. Not on gun owners to show how they would be harmed.

That said, if I were the victim of a gun theft crime, I would be reluctant to report it to the police, simply because I know that many police departments are hostile to gun owners and I would not want to do anything that might attract scrutiny.

[brazil84]

@neutron star

How the fuck does a bill like that not pass?

And by the way, maybe you can explain something to me: Many states have passed “Shall Issue CCW” laws. i.e. you have to be given a concealed carry permit if you have a clean record, etc.

It seems pretty clear by now that such laws do not increase crime rates.

So why is it that anti-gun activists are so opposed to Shall Issue CCW laws? How the fuck do bills like this not pass?

Just wondering.

[neutron_star]

I’m not an anti-gun activist, so I wouldn’t know. I thought I made that clear, but with some people you never can make it clear enough, can you?

ETA: I’m about to leave work, so I’ll have to respond to your other point in a bit.

[brazil84]

@neutron star

I’m not an anti-gun activist, so I wouldn’t know. I thought I made that clear, but with some people you never can make it clear enough, can you?

The problem is that your question is one that an “anti” might ask.

By analogy, suppose somebody said the following:

I’m not anti-Israel, but why the fuck do Israelis think its ok to occupy other countries’ land?

The fact that the person singled out Israel for flaming is the sort of thing an anti-Zionist might do.

The fact is that anti-gun activists regularly unreasonably opposing and supporting laws. So if you flame pro-gun folks for being (allegedly) unreasonable, while failing to mention actions of “antis” that are even more unreasonable, it suggests that you have an agenda.

Anyway, if you don’t know, you don’t know. I’m happy to leave it at that.

[Frank]

@brazil84

The fact is that anti-gun activists regularly unreasonably opposing and supporting laws. So if you flame pro-gun folks for being (allegedly) unreasonable, while failing to mention actions of “antis” that are even more unreasonable, it suggests that you have an agenda.

Why? There are plenty of people like you to offer the tu quoque. The OP is upset about one thing, and that’s what he wrote about.

[yojimbo]

@Frank

Why?

Because it’s the new get out of jail free card for arguments over the last few years. Someone is arguing against something that you agree with. Try to nail them down as having a bias and you then dismiss their point no matter what it is.

I see so much of this everywhere, on this board, on TV and IRL.

[catsix]

neutron star said:
How the fuck does a bill like that not pass?

There’s no evidence that this bill would do any good. It’s not going to prevent a firearm that’s been stolen from getting on the street, nor will it aid these owners in getting their property back.

This, combined with the asinine idea that a lawful firearms owner should be held accountable if a criminal breaks into his/her home and steals a firearm to use in a crime and attempts to pass laws regarding exactly how firearms may be stored in the owner’s home, place the burden and the blame in the wrong place.

There is nothing at all that is ‘common sense’ about this law, and no reason under the sun why it should be passed. It’s an election year puff-piece designed only to have Philadelphia liberals point at it and say ‘Look, we did something!’ and falsely paint their opponents as gun-nuts who lack common sense. It’s simplistic crap, and you don’t have to dig very deep at all to realize that it’s this bill that lacks common sense.

[brazil84]

@Frank

The OP is upset about one thing, and that’s what he wrote about.

Is there some rule in this forum that I’m not allowed to offer a tu quoque?

(Actually it’s more of a lemma quoque.)

[Frank]

@catsix

There’s no evidence that this bill would do any good. It’s not going to prevent a firearm that’s been stolen from getting on the street, nor will it aid these owners in getting their property back.

This, combined with the asinine idea that a lawful firearms owner should be held accountable if a criminal breaks into his/her home and steals a firearm to use in a crime and attempts to pass laws regarding exactly how firearms may be stored in the owner’s home, place the burden and the blame in the wrong place.

Do you think that’s what it was designed to do? I can think of two reasons right off the top of my head: so that if the police run across that gun, they know it was stolen; to make it harder for someone to murder and claim their gun was stolen a year ago.

I have a hard time seeing this law as a vehicle for blaming the victim of a burglary.

[Frank]

@brazil84

Is there some rule in this forum that I’m not allowed to offer a tu quoque?

Of course not, but it’s a bullshit response, and you know it. Look at catsix’s response for an example of one that addresses the issue.

[neutron_star]

@brazil84

That said, if I were the victim of a gun theft crime, I would be reluctant to report it to the police, simply because I know that many police departments are hostile to gun owners and I would not want to do anything that might attract scrutiny.

If you want to see a police department that’s hostile to a gun owner, try this:

Don’t report your gun stolen. Wait for it to get used in a murder and traced back to you. Let the SWAT team kick down your doors, drag you out of bed at 3AM, cuff you, and haul you away.

Let the cops waste time and resources that could be used to find the real criminal for a few hours interrogating you. If you can finally convince them that the gun was stolen and you knew it was stolen, let them ask you why the hell you didn’t report it. Grin like an idiot and say “It’s my right!”

@catsix

This, combined with the asinine idea that a lawful firearms owner should be held accountable if a criminal breaks into his/her home and steals a firearm to use in a crime and attempts to pass laws regarding exactly how firearms may be stored in the owner’s home, place the burden and the blame in the wrong place.

Hey, good job bringing up even more shit that’s unrelated to the proposed amendment. It’s exactly what this thread needed!

[brazil84]

@Frank

Of course not, but it’s a bullshit response, and you know it. Look at catsix’s response for an example of one that addresses the issue.

And see Post #2 in this thread. But I’m glad to know your position about “tu quoque” type points. I’m sure that you are even-handed in pronouncing them to be “bullshit.” (Yes, I’m aware of the irony of that point.)

[brazil84]

@neutron star

Don’t report your gun stolen. Wait for it to get used in a murder and traced back to you. Let the SWAT team kick down your doors, drag you out of bed at 3AM, cuff you, and haul you away.

And what if I’m willing to take that chance? Why should you care?

[Cheesesteak]

@brazil84

And what if I’m willing to take that chance? Why should you care?

Maybe if you told the police it was stolen, they’d have had a chance to find it before it was used in a crime. Sure, the cops don’t do jack shit when your car radio is stolen, but they may very well put a little effort into the crime that just put a new pistol on the street.

I care because a known criminal now has a gun he can use to commit crimes in my neighborhood. BTW, it’s laughable that you’re willing to “take the chance” that your gun will be used against someone else in the commission of a crime. Way to step up to the plate.

Reporting a stolen weapon is nothing more than exercising minimal responsibility for gun ownership. It’s sad that the pro-gun crowd doesn’t even want that applied to gun owners.

[brazil84]

@Cheesesteak

BTW, it’s laughable that you’re willing to “take the chance” that your gun will be used against someone else in the commission of a crime. Way to step up to the plate.

Want some extra straw to go with your strawman?

[VinylTurnip]

@neutron star

Don’t report your gun stolen. Wait for it to get used in a murder and traced back to you. Let the SWAT team kick down your doors, drag you out of bed at 3AM, cuff you, and haul you away.

All the more reason to ignore/abolish registration, the hypothetical gun rights advocate might then hypothetically reply!

[catsix]

Frank said:
Do you think that’s what it was designed to do? I can think of two reasons right off the top of my head: so that if the police run across that gun, they know it was stolen; to make it harder for someone to murder and claim their gun was stolen a year ago.

As to your second reason: The whole ‘you owned the gun used in the murder’ thing only works if the cops actually find the gun that was used in the murder.

Regarding the first reason: While it may be a good idea to report it if your gun is stolen, I don’t see any reason that it should be the law to do so. Given that stolen cars are often never recovered, there is no reason to believe that the police would have any more luck finding stolen guns, nor any indication that such a law would help the rightful owner recover his/her property.

I’m not sure exactly how you envision the police ‘running across’ a gun, other than in the course of searching and/or arresting someone for something else. In those instances, there are already a number of charges that can be brought against the person illegally possessing a firearm, or using one in a crime, and it is already possible to find out which FFL dealer sold that gun based on its serial number. Since the FFL is required to maintain records of purchase, they can certainly find out who bought it.

I just don’t see that there is any need for a new law here, nor any reason why this bill is anything more than a feel good piece of fluff.

I have a hard time seeing this law as a vehicle for blaming the victim of a burglary.

That is my own juxtaposition of this bill with sentiments I have heard expressed by anti-gun lobbyists who have professed a desire to punish those who fail to secure their firearms sufficiently to stop people stealing them and using them to commit crimes. I remember this sentiment being expressed loudly after Columbine, and after finding out that Harris and Klebold had stolen guns from a lawful owner. Throw in with that the sentiments I have heard that laws should be enacted to mandate ‘safe storage’ such as they have in countries like Canada or Australia where you can own a gun but it must be stored disassembled in an approved gun safe – laws which are impossible to enforce due to the Fourth Amendment – and I wonder if perhaps this means a person files the legally required report of a stolen firearm and that report is taken as evidence that they did not follow the safe storage procedure.

It may be a bit of a stretch now, but I see this possibility on the horizon because we have seen numerous examples of the ‘death of a thousand slices’ in California, Chicago, and Washington, D.C. where it began with registration, then progressed to closing the registration process, and resulted in de facto or even de jure bans.

Perhaps that is not the intent of thse Philadelphia politicians (and perhaps this is just my perception, but most of the anti-gun proposals in PA start there), but I do not think it is wise for gun owners to take that chance.

Would I report my guns stolen if someone broke in and took them? Yes, I’m sure that I would.

Just like I would still wear my seat belt if there was no law requiring it.

Cheesesteak said:
Reporting a stolen weapon is nothing more than exercising minimal responsibility for gun ownership. It’s sad that the pro-gun crowd doesn’t even want that applied to gun owners.

No different than motorcyclists who oppose helmet laws but wear helmets, or drivers who oppose seat belt laws but wear seat belts.

There is nothing irresponsible about the sentiment that it is not the government’s job to make people do what’s good for them.

[Airman_Doors_USAF]

The danger in this law is that a person, through innocent circumstances, can become a criminal.

Say you go to a police station and report your gun missing. When they ask you when it went missing, what do you say? “I don’t know, I haven’t seen it for a week. I put it away and I haven’t looked at it since. I don’t carry it everywhere I go, officer”, does that constitute a violation of the law? Think about it: if you don’t know it’s missing, how can you report it? If you report it, does that put you in violation of the law or doesn’t it?

It’s this sort of ambiguity that concerns me. If my gun (God forbid) goes missing, I’ll report it, but I have no desire to face charges myself over something that’s out of my control.

As for the rest, gun laws resemble the boiling frog analogy: you don’t know you’re cooked until it’s too late because they sneak up on you with one after another. As a result, there is a tendency to resist all gun laws, and something as poorly defined as this law is meets considerable resistance.

[Jamaika_a_jamaikaiake]

@catsix

No different than motorcyclists who oppose helmet laws but wear helmets, or drivers who oppose seat belt laws but wear seat belts.

There is nothing irresponsible about the sentiment that it is not the government’s job to make people do what’s good for them.

I believe the OPs point is that it is the government’s job to make people do what is good for everyone else. That is, these laws are supposed to help register stolen guns that might help some victim of some violent crime elsewhere.
(You may be right about the ineffectiveness of this law. I’m just saying this analogy is no good.)