I think reasonable controls need to be in place concerning weapons and their ownership.
What kind of controls do gun control activists want?
I am not going to address a), but I’ll reply to b) and c) thusly: you see DrNick, I think that the difference between the US and other nations is that we have a broad assumption…one that’s not always followed as it should be, mind you, but it’s definitely relevant to the gun debate…that before the government can pass laws that restrict people’s freedoms in any way, it (the government) must have at least some evidence that there will be a positive net benefit in doing so.
I personally do not see how there would be a positive net benefit from the US adopting European style gun control laws, and enough people here agree with me such that, at least on the national level, we do not have such laws.
Now, if you disagree with the premise that the state must show how there will be a positive net benefit before restricting freedoms…well, I guess we just disagree. But if you agree with it, then I would be quite interested in seeing any evidence you could provide, as opposed to simply a statement of your personal belief, that strict gun control laws have benefited your nation and its people.
emulsified
Well shoot. You’re absolutely correct. I must have confused the origin of the 2.5 million DGUs claim from another poster or perhaps from the original cite linked to by SPOOFE (though as you state certainly not from him). My apologies.
I still think, however, that it would be unwise to dismiss the Kleck study without a thorough examination of it. AFAICT it addresses the DGU issue more thoroughly than any other study in existence. Dismissing it like minty apparently has is, I think, premature.
One approach I like is to ba specific characteristics of guns – for instance, high cycle rate.
A gun with a high cycle rate can be made into a fully-automatic weapon – if only by affixing a small electric motor and a cam to the trigger.
(A gun with a lower cycle rate can also be mdified that way…but isn’t any more effective than it is as a semi-automatic weapon.)
Of course, this presumes that one favors the ban on fully-automatic weapons…
Trinopus
A full auto gun by it’s very nature is not very accurate. this is why the US Military has removed “most” full auto guns from its inventories and has replaced them with guns that fire three round bursts instead.
Banning a gun based on its cyclic rate would be impossible to enforce and ineffective at everything except pissing off a lot of otherwise law abiding citizens. Try again.
I’m skeptical that this is a common modification. Cite?
Skeptisism is warranted here. There is a gun show here this weekend. As I take advantage of the “gunshow loophole”, I’ll take a look for the small motor thingee.
There is a device called a hellfire trigger or something that simulates full auto fire utilizing recoil and spring mounted lever to depress the trigger. It is worthless, other than to quickly burn a lot of ammo, with no control.
Particulary using a 30 round magazine, which is the largest single capacity that most shooters are likely to ever shoot.
Prove what point? He didn’t mention what the current legal definition of militia was, but it hasn’t changed that much. It’s currently defined in Section 311a of Title 10 of the US Code:
… not that even that matters for interpretation of the 2nd amendment, as the word militia occurs in an explanatory clause which does not limit the circumstances under which rights apply.
I disagree, but more importantly, so does the United States Supreme Court, which held in U.S. v. Miller that the introductory clause placed a substantive limitation (i.e., the amendment only applies to arms suitable for militia use) on the guarantee of the second clause.
In short, you’re wrong.
I would like to chime in quickly with a note about so called “assault rifles.” Most of the characteristics that would give a make a weapon an assault rifle are purely cosmetic. Some of these characteristic are: a prominent pistol grip, bayonet lug, flash hider, or threaded barrel. So in other words, if it LOOKS nasty.
Actually, you’re thinking of “Assualt Weapons”. Assualt rifles are usally the select-fire, military firarms, while “Assualt Weapons” are always semi-auto with a perscribed number of “Evil” features.
You are absolutely correct, I took my little list from the AWB of 94 under the rifles section. An assault rifle is a select fire military rifle of intermediate cartridge.
I used to think so, too – however, the entry for assault weapon in the online Merriam-Webster dictionary claims that the term can mean a semi-automatic or a fully automatic firearm, incuding (but not limited to) an assault rifle.
However, from a legal standpoint, you are correct – “assault weapon” as used in Federal and State laws refers only to semi-automatic firearms, never to fully automatic or select-fire firearms.
Decisions of the Supreme Court may be legally binding, but that doesn’t mean we are not allowed to disagree with them, in either the legal reasoning or the conclusions. This is, after all, not the Catholic Church we’re talking about, with its doctrine of infallibility.
I just want to add a comment on an argument raised several times in this thread, that use of guns by criminals can be controlled by increased penalties for gun use in the commission of crimes. A number of studies of crime show that, rather obviously, adding more severe penalties has little effect on the crime rate. This is because criminals a) generally do not believe that they will be caught and punished (this would appear to be common sense - why would someone commit a crime when they expect to be caught and jailed for it?), or b) are acting impulsively with no thought of possible consequences such as length of prison term.
Sorry, no cites, as this is my understanding based on wide-ranging information intake rather than any specifically identifiable/rememberable source.
I agree somwhat because by extending your logic, more gun control laws will affect only the law abiding as criminals rather than lower violent crime rates. The same criminal who cares little about the penalty he will serve if caught will also not care about registering his pistol before he sticks up the local convenience store.
And… harsher penalties mean that those convicted of committing crimes with a gun will stay in prison longer. So the harshness of the penalty make not stop somone from committing a crime, but if caught, their butt being in prison certainly will stop THEM from commiting any more crimes correct?
Wow, if there was ever the need to edit a post…
more gun control laws will affect only the law abiding, rather than lower the violent crime rates.
And…
So the harshness of the penalty may not stop somone from committing a crime