Gun Control—End Game Goals and Legislation

[Cap_n_Crude]

Tracer wrote:

The Thompson Submachine Gun wasn’t available at all until 1919, and was only available during World War II in limited quanitities. It was not until the invention of the Grease Gun in the 1940s that fully-automatic rifles became inexpensive enough to be issued to every soldier in the field.

Interesting, but we’re not talking about military use of fully automatic weapons; we’re talking about civilian use of them. The Thompson submachine gun wasn’t used my the Army in great quantity for many reasons, price of the weapon and all the ammunition it would chew up being one of them.

However, that same weapon, capable of autofire, could be purchased by civilians at their local hardware store (yes, like TruValue or whatever they had then) without restriction. All you needed was enough money to buy it.

Now comes the reason for control of automatic weapons: When you think of any of the spectacular crimes of the '20s and '30s, what weapon springs to mind? Not grenades. Not tanks. Not M1 rifles. Tommy guns. The law restricted the easy flow of these weapons so that not just anybody could equip his own personal gang. Yes, the guns were still out there, and laws have never stopped criminals from getting weapons; but the law made it harder for them.

I’m not saying anything about whether honest citizens should be denied access to firearms; I just wanted to clarify the issue.

[xenophon41]

originally posted by Uncle Beer:
I’m gonna assume, xenophon, you wish to decrease the number of gun accidents and deaths. Without stating your goals though and telling us how each portion of your package would target those goals, it would be just as easy for me to assume your package has no purpose other than just adding restrictions to a hated product.

Oops; sorry for the ommission, Unc’. You are correct that a goal is the reduction in deaths and injuries due to gun accidents (hence, the safety competency requirement). The primary goal would be a nationwide acceptance that personal weapons are just that; personal, for the purpose of defending the life, liberty and property of individuals and households. My opinion, which I understand many staunch 2nd amendment supporters disagree with, is that civilian militias can be utilized without private ownership of military types of weapons. That is the reason I want a national definition for “self defense” weapons. As I said in my previous post, I just want a line drawn between nukes and pea shooters.

Another goal would be the traceability of stolen weapons (hence the requirement for gun owners to record the numbers), and yet another goal would be the ability of individual states to determine the feasability of concealed carry in their various districts.

Finally, I want one national code to make it less likely for independent precincts and districts to hinder their citizens’ abilities to defend themselves.

[mangeorge]

Freedom said;

If it makes sense to have sex education, then it makes sense to have a firearms safety course.

Hands-on sex education? Well, I don’t know about that.
Seriously, I have a real problem with forced hands-on safety training as you describe. Offer safety training? Sure, no problem. If parents want their kids to learn to use a gun there’s nothing stopping them from taking the kiddies to a pro.
And I’m still uncomfortable with the idea of easy C&C permits. I have (in my younger years) been in serious physical confrontations where the other guy really didn’t want to lose. I’m not at all convinced that a couple of these guys wouldn’t have pulled a gun if they had one. Sure, he’d have probably gone to jail, but that doesn’t do me much good.
I don’t know. C&C is a tough issue for me. Sitting in a bar next to an armed drunk makes me nervous.
Peace,
mangeorge

[Freedom]

mangeorge

We both know there is a world of difference between sex and guns. The way you educate someone about sex is different than the way you educate them about guns.

It’s similiar to the difference between an ethics course and woodshop. In an ethics course you sit around and debate hypotheticals, in case you ever run into a similiar situation. In woodshop, they hand you the tool and teach you how to use it properly.

Can you imagine an auto shop class where they didn’t actually touch any tools or cars?

I get the feeling that your idea of gun safety is “stop, turn around and run screaming from the area.”

If you want to stop accidents, then you need to hold a firearms and learn to use it.

I have a real problem with forced hands-on safety training

Is it possible that you missed this part:

Let parents remove their children from the program if they don’t like it

We recognize fire, drugs, cigarettes and sex as potential pitfalls for our children. We seek to educate them and hope that the education will better prepare them to deal with potentialy harmful situations.

If you support any of these education programs, could you explain the difference between them and firearms?

I don’t know. C&C is a tough issue for me. Sitting in a bar next to an armed drunk makes me nervous.

As far as I know, drinking while carrying is illegal.

So the theory goes…
If you are going to license law abiding citizens to carry concealed, then they are going to follow the law.

If it is against the law to carry while drinking, and someone carries one anyway, what makes you think they wouldn’t be carrying it without the license in the first place?

Which takes us back to mandatory prison sentences. Despite the scare tactics that try and convince us how big and scary guns are, most violent crimes are comitted by a tiny percentage of people. When they are out of circulation, we all have a lot less to worry about.

[mangeorge]

Well, reedom, it’s your analogy. I just ran with it.
I don’t think that kids need to become proficient with guns to learn that they can be dangerous. Sounds like recruitment to me. You know, the “Gun Agenda”.

Sorry, I think that was funny.
Driving while drunk is illegal. I know you saw that coming, so let’s hear it.
Peace,
mangeorge

[justwannano]

I’ve read a lot of gun control threads this last year and a half that I’ve been a SDMB member and I’ve even participated in a few. Not nearly as elequently as most of you. I’ve even been ignored throughout most of one.

I’m surprised that nowhere to my knowlege has the subject swayed towards a shooter being under the influence of mind or mood altering,“drugs” including alcohol.Quotes because I don’t think you need to be actually taking a substance to have your mood altered.

Someone above mentioned a thanksgiving shooting. Those kind of family get togethers where emotions can run high spawn fights of enormous consequences.

Does anyone know of a study where the use of mind altering substances is factored out of the gun deaths numbers?

I don’t think there is a way to preserve any right without constantly being vigilant and ready to fight to preserve it.

Slippery slope or not thats just the way it is.