Gun Control—End Game Goals and Legislation

Great Debates
1

I’d like to devote this thread to what us gun rights advocates call the “slippery slope.” I’m fairly certain everyone here is familiar with the broad concept of the “slippery slope,” but allow me to give a quick introduction to set this up. I’ll begin with definition of terms and then present my thesis.

Defintions of terms and assumptions
Slippery Slope: Argument that if one event occurs, then a certain and unstoppable set of (usually bad) consequences will follow.
Technology: Since the vast majority of the guns now in production are made from designs first created nearly 100 years ago, we should consider the technology to be static.

Thesis: The preponderance of laws on the currently on the books, over 22,000 according to a 1992 BATF estimate, when considered with number of pieces of proposed legislation every year at the federal, state & local level, the statements of the various elected government representatives and bureaucrats, and the public comments of many of the leading figures and officials of the pro-control organizations argues that, in their view, the end game is indeed, a total, or near total, ban on firearms.

Here’s a listing of the major pieces of federal gun legislation enacted since firearms regulation began in earnest in the 1920’s.
[ul]
[li] Non-mailable Firearms Act of 1927 - Public Law 69-583[/li][li] National Firearms Act of 1934 - Public Law 73-474[/li][li] Federal Firearms Act of 1938 - Public Law 75-785 (repealed)[/li][li] Gun Control Act of 1968 - Public Law 90-618[/li][li] Firearms Owner’s Protection Act of 1986 - Public Law 99-308[/li][li] Armor Piercing Ammunition ban of 1987 - Public Law 99-408[/li][li] Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988 - Public Law 100-649[/li][li] Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 - Public Law 101-647 (void)[/li][li] Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 - Public Law 103-159[/li][li] Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act of 1994 (a.k.a. “assault weapons” ban) - Public Law 103-322[/li][/ul]
In addition to this wide variety of federal laws there are thousands of state and local laws which place even greater restrictions on the sale, ownership, use, possession and transportation of firearms. Here, you will find a synopsis state laws.

Also supporting this view, is the fact that no gun control organization has ever published the restrictions which they would consider an “end game,” that is, a description of a final piece of legislation, at which they’d be willing to cease their advocacy of more, and stricter, gun controls. The best any of them ever state in their publications, is “common sense legislation.” Every one of these organizations fails to describe the provisions of that “common sense legislation” which they would say, “Okay, we have what we want now. We’re done.”

Discussion: All right. We’ve gone ‘round and ‘round on this in many threads without, I believe, ever making it the subject of an entire thread; we’ve only dealt with it tangentially. Here’s your chance to convince me the slippery slope is indeed a fallacy. Give us the goals you seek and describe the specifics of the legislation you’d propose for an “end game” scenario The point at which no additional legislation would be necessary. Frankly, this may not even be much of a debate, but I have some specific uses in mind for a series of future threads on the information you provide. I’d like to take your proposed legislation and debate each of the features of it separately, much like we recently did in the handgun registration thread.

2

Is this restricted to US residents, just out of interest? There’s obviously a totally different legal and cultural framework for everyone else.

3

I am not a gun control advocate. I do not support the attempts to get guns out of peoples’ hands. However, just to get the ball rolling, this is (perhaps paradoxically) what I would like to see:

Legislation which would drastically reduce the number of accidental shootings or intentional shootings resulting from domestic disputes without necessarily drastically reducing the number of guns in circulation. My reason for this is an observation that many of the arguments for gun control have centered around the number of children killed each year by accident and the number of people shot over who gets to control the TV at Thanksgiving.

4

I’m not even going to attempt to convince you that the slippery slope is a fallacy in the gun control realm, UncleBeer. For many people who want to ban guns altogether, I’m certain it’s an integral part of their strategy.

In my mind, the more important question is whether the slippery slope has any chance of succeeding. Considering that America is a democracy (thanks, no doubt to the fine work of them fine boys in the militia ;)), you have to ask whether the voters themselves want a total ban on guns. Clearly, the answer to that question is no. Thus, I guarantee that at some point, the public would hit the brakes.

So what restrictions are the voters willing to accept? Beats the hell out of me, but I know it’s not what Chuck Heston wants. Only way we’ll find out for sure is seeing what the political process comes up with.

5

Anyone is welcome, Mattk. I posted a bunch of United States stuff, simply because that is what is most familiar and was readily accessible to me. I apologize to you and everyone else for my apparent cultural bias.

6

First and foremost I feel I need to say I am a gun owner and strong supporter of the Second Amendment. I believe the “slippery slope” of gun control legislation has already begun and I am doing everything in my power to reverse it.

BUT…to play devils advocate and possibly get the debate rolling, what does the other “slope of the hill” look like? If Moses et al was to win every battle in the legislatures of this country where would that end? Buy a gun at your local 7-11 and ammo out of a vending machine?

Like I said, I’m just trying to get the ball rolling.

7

No worries, UncleBeer, I didn’t mean to suggest that you were biased. In fact, I would’ve had no problem if you did want to restrict this to the US only. The legal and cultural context in the US (as opposed to, say, western European states) has a fundamentally different focus. Personal freedom and constitutional rights are not emphasised in the UK to nearly the same degree as the US, so I’m not sure how relevant my opinions will be. Time to start thinking.

8

I think the hard core of gun control advocates (ie not all of them) simply have a visceral dislike of guns. Their endgame is a total ban. Consider Rosie O’Donnell.

What they will admit to publicly is what I think the more moderate gun control advocates actually believe, that their goal in advancing gun control legislation is to reduce violent crime. They assume, of course, that gun control laws will in fact have that effect. Hence the “endgame” as such would be the reduction of violent crime below some ill-specified rate.

It seems to me, then, that this will make the “endgame” a target forever out of reach. If gun control laws pass, and the violent crime rate fails to go down, it is assumed that the laws already enacted are not strong enough, and more are needed.

If the violent crime rate does go down after the passage of gun control laws, then two things happen. First, since the principle that stricter gun controls are justified by the saving of lives has been conceded, and the effectiveness of gun controls appears to have been confirmed, more gun control laws are sought on the theory that even more lives can be saved.

Second, the sensitivity of the public, and hence the press, to violent crimes goes up, and so the “target” level of violent crime sought after by gun control advocates goes down.

The cycle continues until the level of crimes committed with guns is at zero, or there is a complete ban on guns in place.

I think a good example of this kind of cycle playing out to it’s logical conclusion is the UK. In the US, Columbine type school shootings are rare, and hence recieve a disproportionate amount of public and press attention, as compared to other crimes committed with guns.

At the time of the shootings in Dunblane, such shootings were less common in the UK than in the US (so I understand; please correct me if I am wrong), so they caused what can be characterized as a national convulsion, and led the British to replace their already very strict gun laws with a complete ban.

I would welcome an example of a modern industrialized nation that has not followed this pattern. As many other posters have pointed out, virtually every industrialized nation in the world, except for the US, has either very strict gun controls in place, or an outright ban. And in the US, there is plenty of political pressure for stricter gun controls.

9

I’ll try and give one gun control advocate’s opinion, Unc’. (Although I don’t think there’s any real consensus among pro gun control folks other than “let’s draw a line somewhere between personal nukes and no pea-shooters.”)

I’d like to see every adult citizen able to purchase effective weapons of self defense. I want one specific and detailed national standard for what constitutes a “weapon of self defense,” including details of acceptable ammunition, projectiles, etc. I’d like to see quick and easy licensing for any citizen who wants to own a personal weapon for self-defense. I want a license required for the possession or operation of any weapon of self defense, with no registration required. However, I want the licenses to be dependent only on a demostration of safe handling, usage and storage of those weapons, and I want very few restrictions on the issuance of those licenses other than failure to demonstrate safety (convicted felons on parole, anyone who’s been judged “incompetent” by a court, etc.).

I want all firearms to be serialized, and possession of an unserialized firearm to be a felony. I want a condition of licensing that each licensed owner be able to produce the serial numbers of any firearms they own, and failure to produce the serial number in the event of the theft of that weapon to be a misdemeanor, with fine. I want the use of a “self defense” weapon in the commission of a crime to be an “aggravation” of that crime, punishable by (non-mandatory) higher fines and penalties.

I want “shall issue” laws for concealed carry of weapons to be decided at the state level.
Any of that make you nervous, gun rights people? -I understand that might depend on the definition of “weapon of self defense”, but, as long as we’re speculatin’, let’s speculate that definiton includes semiautomatic weapons, but no full-automatic weapons, has no “cosmetic” restrictions, but has a few restrictions on ammo and clips.

10

I’m pretty much completely in agreement with you xeno, so that’s two. Any additional shootings after this sort of plan is implemented would be tough cookies.

11

Actually, I would like some examples of modern industrialized nations that have followed that pattern. My impression is that America is fairly unique for having ever had widespread private ownership of firearms. The fact that most European countries strictly regulate guns (esp. handguns) does not mean that there were ever very many guns to take away from the populace in the first place. Thus, I’m not sure they fit into your premise at all. There’s no slippery slope to worry about when the country is at the bottom of the hill to begin with.

The closest example I can think of is the recent enactment of strict gun control measures in Australia. But even there, I’m not so sure the guns that were banned or heavily regulated were ever very widespread in the first place.

12

Good point-I hadn’t considered this. I know Japan never had a tradition of gun ownership, but I had assumed that European nations did at one point, perhaps owing to the fact that they were all much more rural in the past, and gun ownership and rural life seem to go together.

Does anyone have any information on this?

13

Here is the endpoint for this gun control advocate. I would not want to go very far beyond this point.

Repeal the 2nd ammendment. Keep the rest of them. Add one which mandates proportional representation -oops, wrong thread. :wink:

Ban handguns for those who are not police officers. You can keep your rifle or sawed-off shotgun, just not a weapon that is easily concealed.

Ban unsafe firearms. By that I mean firearms that are likely to have so much recoil that they are likely to hit unintended targets. I’m thinking of the Tek-9. Make firearm manufacturers liable for faulty products. My understanding is that current law allows the sale of guns likely to blow up in your hand.

Ban machine guns. Oops, already did that.

Ban assault rifles, whatever the hell they are.

Keep hunting rifles. I’m an environmentalist, and I want to defend the interests of a potential coalition partner. Yes, I realize that the line between an assault rifle and a hunting rifle can be thin. Oh well.

All bow down to flowbark, the new czar.

The above represents myself at my most restrictive. I might add that if 2nd amendment advocates are serious about exploring the bottom of the slippery slope, they need only look to at the remainder of the OECD (and take a closer look at the Swiss situation, while you’re at it). AFAIK, all of them have provision for hunters.

My more immediate goals: Close the gun show loophole. The fact that you can buy a gun without identifying yourself in practice at a gun show reveals how thin the “22,000 gun law” argument is. Heck, we could have 100,000 gun laws and still allow easy access to firearms.

License mayhem providers and make sure they take out adequate insurance. I kind of like the idea that Americans willing to pay a reasonable entry fee have the freedom to machine gun automobiles and unload flame-throwers in the desert. I just think that the original owner of these items should be liable if they are stolen and misused. That would create incentive for them to lock these dangerous items up in a meaningful way.

Finally: I don’t pretend to be particularly informed vis a vis the gun control debate. This makes me particularly qualified to answer the “slippery slope” question, for I am your worst case scenerio.

14

Long guns, your rifles and shotguns, are fine, assault type weapons are out.

Handguns, I’d prefer strict controls rather than an outright ban. Licencing and registration, with the responsibility to keep documentation on every handgun owned. Responsibility is important, I will trust you with it if you agree to be responsible for what happens to it.

And similar to Xenophon, I want a clear line of ownership for every handgun. From the initial sale from the mfgr to the current owner, I want to know every person/company who has owned that gun. All gun sales, even used, must go through a dealer for processing / documentation. I feel that this would help keep handguns away from criminals, only registered users may buy handguns, and the last documented owner is responsible for that gun.

One last thing, an owner should produce the handgun for inspection when re-registering the firearm, which would be required on a fairly regular basis.

Reasonable? or not?

15

I would say that in Australia, we’re pretty much at the “end game” point Unca refers to in the OP. For our weapon control laws (and I keep making the point that guns are not the only weapons regulated here - in my state we have extremely strict laws relating to knives as well) to be further tightened, something major and unforeseen would have to occur (such as a rash of homicides being committed with registered firearms by licensed gun owners).

While gun ownership was fairly widespread here in the past - thus the government buy-back of firearms when our new gun control laws were introduced - ownership of firearms has never been a “right” here. The new laws firmly place the responsibility for demonstrating a need to possess a firearm on the person applying for the license.

Our gun control laws are still somewhat flawed, but overall I do feel somewhat safer as a result of their introduction. They don’t - and nor were they really intended to - significantly reduce the chance of my being injured or killed during the commission of another crime, but they significantly reduce the likelihood of a legally owned gun being used against me in a “reactive” situation.

The one change I would like to see to the existing legislation is more flexibility in terms of the “cooling off” period. At present, if a registered owners weapon need repair or replacement, the replacement weapon is subject to the standard cooling off period. I believe that where the owner is willing to surrender the old weapon, the new weapon should be able to be licensed immediately (which would safe security guards and other professionals who carry a gun as part of their job a great deal of trouble).

16

Actually xeno, no, you don’t make me nervous about your proposals. You claim no moral superiority, make no attempts to demonize or caricaturize gun owners, and utilize no junk science to make false or biased assertions in the presentation of your views.

In other words: you ain’t Rosie O’Donnell. There isn’t any cultural conflict issues inherently present in your position. If the folks at HCI had presented themselves like you from the get-go, then this debate would have been a moot point sometime in the early 80s.

flowbark makes me a tad nervous, having such definitive views while readily admitting to being not particularly informed on this issue. Very illustrative post.

hijack

I picked up a very good book this weekend, titled “The Gun Control Debate: You Decide”, 2ed, edited by Lee Nisbet, Ph.D. Basically a compilation of pro and anti-control positions, articles, and summaries/reviews of studies by various experts, with no discernable bias one-way-or-another that I can detect (so far), other than illustrating why some of the tactics of the pro-control forces are largely counter-productive (like, gag Rosie), but it’s a critique of their tactics, not their overall position.

I picked mine up at Borders Books and Music, so I imagine that it’s available at many of the larger independents, and certainly at any of the other national chain book stores.

/hijack

17

As well you should be. In my defense, I can only point out that the statements were used to define a worst case scenario for gun restrictions. If I was advocating a policy position, I would be more circumspect. Likewise, if the US had gun restrictions that were comparable to other democratic OECD countries, I would be more hesitant to advocate further restrictions.

18

My general impression (read: no cites for this comment) is that a significant amount of Gun Control legislation is proposed simply so that a certain politician can win points with the Pro-Control crowd.

Another good chunk is proposed simply in reaction to isolated tragedies.

I do feel secure in believing that only a tiny minority of anti-gunners aim towards the ultimate goal of completely banning guns.

However, I am nervous when I realize that a pseudo-ban can be achieved without actually seeming like a ban. New York springs to mind. How many people who claim to be “against a total ban” are protesting the notion that, for all intents and purposes, it’s already happened?

19

I think any weapon that can kill multiple people at once (grenades, mortars, rocket launchers) should require a background check to purchase, they should not be sold to the mentally ill or those with a history of violent crime. Anything else should be available to anyone who hasn’t had that right specifically taken away as punishment for violent crimes.

20

SPOOFE:

That’s ridiculous. I get the exact opposite impression.

That’s probably true, and it’s wrong. But it’s not as though guns were never a problem before or since.

That’s right. We need to stop exaggerating their power abd recognize that there is considerable middle ground on this issue, unlike certain others.

Damn straight I’d protest it if it were my town. How can municipalities violate people’s constitutional rights like that? I’d like some clarification as to what the anti-gun ordnances in New York, Chicago, etc. say and what their legal justification is.