# How do you justify gun control advocacy? **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [December 15, 2012, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-you-justify-gun-control-advocacy/644132 "2012-12-15T20:23:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 15\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Shayna](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/shayna/32/17976_2.png) [@Shayna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shayna)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2012, 7:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-you-justify-gun-control-advocacy/644132/81 "2012-12-18T07:07:56Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > Because that is a moronic position. Millions of gunowners never harm anyone. They have a constitutional right to own their weapons. Violating their rights to make you feel safer is not a valid option. No one wants to violate anyone’s rights. But there’s not a reason in the universe why we can’t severely regulate the purchase and use of guns in this country just like we regulate the use of any number of other things, even everyday things like cars. If you want to drive a car in this country you have to study for, take, and pass both a written and practical exam; the same should be true for guns. If you want to drive a car in this country you have to register it with the state and pay a registration fee; the same should be true for guns. If you want to drive a car in this country you have to renew your license for it every 4 years; the same should be true for guns. If you want to drive a car in this country you have to have it inspected for safety periodically; the same should be true for guns. If you sell a car in this country you have to notify the state that you’ve done so by transferring the title to the new owner, even when the transaction takes place between two private individuals; the same should be true for gun ownership. You aren’t allowed to drive a car in this country if you’re mentally incompetent to do so; the same should be true for gun ownership. I think it’s reasonable to require that all guns be registered and their serial numbers entered into a national database so they can be easily tracked to their owners. I think it’s reasonable to have gun ownership forbidden for convicted felons who haven’t had their convictions overturned, for people with mental illness, and even for people who have a mentally ill person living in their home. And yes, I want to see an outright ban on all assault, automatic, and semi-automatic weapons. You don’t use them for hunting and they’re completely overboard for home protection. We don’t let you keep plutonium either; you’ll survive. > [@Oakminster](#): > > The Second Amendment says they can’t ban guns. The Fourth Amendment says I have a right to privacy, and the Supreme Court interpreted that to extend to my physical body, thereby making my absolute right to an abortion completely legal in all 50 states. But you rightwingers think nothing of setting up extraordinary restrictions that in many states have now made it literally impossible to exert my right to obtain a perfectly legal medical procedure. You think nothing of regulating the size of the janitorial closets, or hallways, or exam rooms themselves; of requiring all doctors to have privileges at the nearest hospital knowing the hospitals have refused to grant said privileges; require women to wait 72 hours between the first counseling session with her doctor and the abortion; be subjected to invasive transvaginal ultrasounds; to be _lied to_ about an increased risk of suicide — the list of outrageous regulations and restrictions is abominable. But you claim to be doing it all for the sake of this so-called “human life,” which in nearly all cases is little more than a few cells no bigger than an apple seed, with no nerve endings, no vision, no emotions, no nothing. Well dude, some of us would like to protect actual living, breathing, sentient human beings from very real, grisly, terrifying deaths as they attempt to live their lives with the **freedom** to congregate in malls, movie theaters, churches, and schools; the **freedom** to play the music in their car as loud as they damn well please; the **freedom** to walk home no matter whether the self-appointed neighborhood vigilante thinks they belong there. Your freedom to own a gun stops when it infringes upon the rest of our freedom to live without fear of being shot to death while attending a political rally or going to a spa. You may have certain guns, but you may also have to start living with some restrictions on them, just like the rest of us do with the restrictions you place on _our_ rights. ---
**Author:** ![Shayna](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/shayna/32/17976_2.png) [@Shayna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shayna)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2012, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-you-justify-gun-control-advocacy/644132/82 "2012-12-18T19:53:02Z")
Let’s also not forget the words of former Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger. "Warren Burger was a conservative Republican, appointed U.S. chief justice by President Richard Nixon in 1969. In a speech in 1992, six years after his retirement from the court, Burger declared that **‘the Second Amendment doesn’t guarantee the right to have firearms at all.’** In his view, the purpose of the Second Amendment was only ‘to ensure that the “state armies” – “the militia” – would be maintained for the defense of the state.’ “A year before, Burger went even further. On ‘MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour,’ **Burger said the Second Amendment ‘has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud – I repeat the word “fraud” – on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.’** Burger wasn’t in the habit of taking stands on controversial constitutional questions on national television. In using the word ‘fraud,’ Burger meant to describe what he saw as a clear consensus about the meaning of the Constitution.” [Gun Debate Must Avoid Crazy 2nd Amendment Claims](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-17/gun-debate-must-avoid-crazy-second-amendment-claims.html) ---
**Author:** ![Belowjob2.0](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Belowjob2.0](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Belowjob2.0)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2012, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-you-justify-gun-control-advocacy/644132/83 "2012-12-21T00:05:56Z")
> **[How Japan Has Virtually Eliminated Shooting Deaths](https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/07/a-land-without-guns-how-japan-has-virtually-eliminated-shooting-deaths/260189/)** > > In part by forbidding almost all forms of firearm ownership, the country has as few as two gun-related homicides a year. > [@](#): > > To get a gun in Japan, first, you have to attend an all-day class and pass a written test, which are held only once per month. You also must take and pass a shooting range class. Then, head over to a hospital for a mental test and drug test (Japan is unusual in that potential gun owners must affirmatively prove their mental fitness), which you’ll file with the police. Finally, pass a rigorous background check for any criminal record or association with criminal or extremist groups, and you will be the proud new owner of your shotgun or air rifle. Just don’t forget to provide police with documentation on the specific location of the gun in your home, as well as the ammo, both of which must be locked and stored separately. And remember to have the police inspect the gun once per year and to re-take the class and exam every three years. I’d allow all guns, not just shotguns. I’m on the fence about in-home inspections. On the whole, though, the above seems like a sane gun policy. ---
**Author:** ![jasg](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f0a364/32.png) [@jasg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jasg)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2012, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-you-justify-gun-control-advocacy/644132/84 "2012-12-21T01:02:42Z")
> [@](#): > > To get a gun in Japan, first, you have to attend an all-day class and pass a written test, which are held only once per month. You also must take and pass a shooting range class. Then, head over to a hospital for a mental test and drug test (Japan is unusual in that potential gun owners must affirmatively prove their mental fitness), which you’ll file with the police. Finally, pass a rigorous background check for any criminal record or association with criminal or extremist groups, and you will be the proud new owner of your shotgun or air rifle. Just don’t forget to provide police with documentation on the specific location of the gun in your home, as well as the ammo, both of which must be locked and stored separately. And remember to have the police inspect the gun once per year and to re-take the class and exam every three years. > [@Belowjob2.0](#): > > I’d allow all guns, not just shotguns. I’m on the fence about in-home inspections. On the whole, though, the above seems like a sane gun policy. The training is interesting. If handguns are allowed, I have been wondering why open/concealed carry does not require the same level of handgun training and periodic practice as police forces. One would think that the police would be backing this. ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2012, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-you-justify-gun-control-advocacy/644132/85 "2012-12-21T01:44:33Z")
> [@MsWhatsit](#): > > I think the statistics on number of violent gun crimes in countries that have banned handguns speak for themselves. The only real argument to that is, “But America is different.” Well, America is different, but I haven’t yet heard a convincing argument for why this particular solution would play out any differently here than it has in the UK or Japan. Those countries were starting from a different place, with far less gun violence _before_ their latest regulations. (Japan has had gun-control laws of some form for longer than the United States has existed.) > [@OldGuy](#): > > I wish everyone who thinks that nothing can be done about gun control (and note I said control not banning) would familiarize themselves with the case of Australia which enacted strict laws in 1996 and greatly reduced gun violence. Eliahna mentioned this back in post 26, but it’s been largely ignored here (and in the US in general). **Eliahna** ’s post was about the elimination of spree shootings, which for Australia seems to have been largely successful. But, compared to American rates, the reduction in _total_ gun violence wasn’t quite so striking. If the same rate effect were applied in the US (a decrease of about 0.6 homicides per 100,000 per year), the US would still be twice as murderous as Australia was before the new laws. ---
**Author:** ![Docta\_G](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/2bfe46/32.png) [@Docta\_G](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Docta_G)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2012, 3:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-you-justify-gun-control-advocacy/644132/86 "2012-12-21T03:45:07Z")
> [@Scotty Mo](#): > > Upon the wake of this devastating news in CT, I’ve found myself seriously re-evaluating my view on gun control in this country. I’ve always considered myself a deep-hearted liberal, but I was somewhat ambigous about this issue. It didn’t affect me personally because I don’t have a gun so I can’t say I took much time to learn about them. > > I’ll be the first to say that this issue runs deeper than simply gun control. Banning guns at this point in our society would be practically impossible. Some of the more underlying problems in our society that need focused on include income inequality, our justice system, the wars on multiple fronts we continually undertake like the drug wars and our actions in the middle east, and our lack of concern for healthcare and education. These should be our priorities. If these issues were better handled you would see less violence in our society. > > Now that may seem self-evident but unfortunately as we all know that is not the case in america. In fact, I’m almost suprised to see the amount of outrage that I do. I read about what goes on in palestine, syria, and many other countries around the world where children are being slaughtered. This happens everyday and people ignore it, but as soon as it involves american children it is front page news. > > Personally, I’ve used my knowledge of what happened to the jews during the holocaust to sympathize with gun enthusiasists. It is my understanding that jews were stripped of their arms before the arrests began to take place. Now, I understand that the idea of a violent overthrow of a tyrannical government is ridiculous. However, I deeply distrust those who are in power and although I know that I could not successfully win that fight were it ever to occur, I like to think that I could at least put up a fight. > > So, basically the gun right advocacy train of thought is quite clear and has been drilled into all of our heads. Their reasoning includes protection from the government and criminals, hunting, collecting, and sport. Fair enough. What is not clear, is why guns should be banned? That is my question. Don’t believe the hype. ---
**Author:** ![panaccione](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/94ad74/32.png) [@panaccione](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/panaccione)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2012, 8:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-you-justify-gun-control-advocacy/644132/87 "2012-12-21T08:01:43Z")
> [@Docta\_G](#): > > Don’t believe the hype. What hype? This is what I call reality. Why shouldn’t be restricting and regulating guns? ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2012, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-you-justify-gun-control-advocacy/644132/88 "2012-12-21T17:08:55Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > I also want the NRA’s influence to wane- it’s an excellent example of the “all causes and movements eventually devolve into rackets” principle- the NRA seems to exist for no other reason than to fund itself and feed millions of dollars to Wayne LaPierre and company. You were given the chance to make a case for this in another thread and you completely failed to do so. Just repeating something over and over doesn’t make it true, even if you wish it were so. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2012, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-you-justify-gun-control-advocacy/644132/89 "2012-12-21T17:11:05Z")
> [@Belowjob2.0](#): > > [How Japan Has Virtually Eliminated Shooting Deaths - The Atlantic](http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/07/a-land-without-guns-how-japan-has-virtually-eliminated-shooting-deaths/260189/) > > I’d allow all guns, not just shotguns. I’m on the fence about in-home inspections. On the whole, though, the above seems like a sane gun policy. Thanks for the reminder that people like you are out there. I’ll be cutting a check to the NRA-ILA to help fund them to fight you every step of the way. Posts like this and from **BobLibDem** in this thread are so over the top it almost makes you wonder if they are deep cover conservatives. ---
**Author:** ![Belowjob2.0](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Belowjob2.0](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Belowjob2.0)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2012, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-you-justify-gun-control-advocacy/644132/90 "2012-12-21T23:34:12Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > Thanks for the reminder that people like you are out there. I’ll be cutting a check to the NRA-ILA to help fund them to fight you every step of the way. > > Posts like this and from **BobLibDem** in this thread are so over the top it almost makes you wonder if they are deep cover conservatives. There’s no contradiction between being conservative and wanting stricter regulation of gun ownership. Requiring training, testing, and background checks is no more “liberal” than requiring the analogous for truckers and school bus drivers. The phrase “well-regulated” is right there in the Constitution. As Shayna pointed out, sane Republicans can see that no regulations on guns is a wrong-headed interpretation. Damn it, we place stricter regulations on barbers. It’s your position that’s radical, that’s extremist. What’s truly bizarre is that you can’t see this. ---
**Author:** ![Belowjob2.0](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Belowjob2.0](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Belowjob2.0)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2012, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-you-justify-gun-control-advocacy/644132/91 "2012-12-21T23:42:43Z")
I’m not anti-gun at all. I don’t get a chance to hunt these days due to money, time and living in the LA megalopolis where hunting land is far away. Not currently a gun owner, but I have been in the past, will be in the future. My Army officer dad taught me how to shoot, and we always had guns in the home when we lived in 3rd world countries. My Alabama grandad and several of my uncles were/are avid hunters. It’s actually my respect for guns and for hunting that makes me want to restrict access/ownership to trained, responsible people. And yes, you have to prove it to us - that is society. We shouldn’t have to take it on faith that you know what the hell you’re doing with your guns anymore than we take it on faith that the trucker transporting a tanker full of gasoline knows what he’s doing. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2012, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-you-justify-gun-control-advocacy/644132/92 "2012-12-22T00:17:19Z")
> [@Ethilrist](#): > > Anti-gun advocates want to ban guns because they think it will help diminish the effect or number of mass shootings, violent crime, and negligent incidents. They believe that if there are fewer guns out there, then fewer crimes will be committed. They believe that if there is a great enough penalty for violating gun control laws, people will not commit crimes with them. > > All of these ignore completely the point that the vast majority of guns are never going to be used to commit a crime, and violent crimes carry penalties greater than anything they conceive for violating gun control laws (_i.e.,_ if somebody isn’t worried that he’s heading out to commit murder, he’s really not going to worry that he’s going to get caught with no trigger lock on his handgun, or that he has an unregistered handgun, because the punishment for those crimes is going to be trivial compared to the punishment for shooting somebody). It ignores nothing. Vast majorities of many weapons produced aren’t used for offense. But the balance is whether the ones which are used to commit crimes outweighs the ones which are not. The vast majorities of nuclear weapons do not get used for offense, in fact its only happened twice in the entire history of the world, but that doesn’t mean its a great idea to let everyone have one. As our gun violence statistics show, the more guns there are, the easier we have access to them, the more they are used, or misused. ---
**Author:** ![Belowjob2.0](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Belowjob2.0](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Belowjob2.0)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2012, 12:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-you-justify-gun-control-advocacy/644132/93 "2012-12-27T00:14:55Z")
> **[A Smart Way to Control Guns: Force Owners to Buy Insurance for Them](https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/12/a-smart-way-to-control-guns-force-owners-to-buy-insurance-for-them/266648/)** > > It would help weed out irresponsible gun owners and force the others to bear the cost of violence. > [@](#): > > That clever idea has been buzzing around the internet for the past few days, picking up endorsements from New York University economist Nouriel Roubini, The Economist, and Robert Cyran and Reynolds Holding at Reuters Breaking Views, among others. > [@](#): > > But it would make gun ownership particularly expensive for those who are most likely to get caught up in some sort of violence. So lifetime hunters with spotless criminal history would get a great rate – the Economist notes that National Rifle Association members can already buy $100,000 worth of gun liability coverage for as low as $165. A jobless 19-year-old male with a disorderly conduct arrest on their record, on the other hand, would have to pay a whole lot more than they could afford. ---
**Author:** ![jasg](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f0a364/32.png) [@jasg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jasg)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2012, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-you-justify-gun-control-advocacy/644132/94 "2012-12-27T00:47:53Z")
A perfect, market based solution to encourage more responsible gun ownership - and to reduce the social costs that gun ownership imposes on the society at large. An added bonus is that is congruent with conservative values of everyone paying their own way instead of ‘mooching’ off society. [QUOTE=The Atlantic] \*It’s been a banner year for guns and ammo sales, and the gun industry is expected to make about $11.7 billion. Yet by one credible estimate, gun violence cost the United States as much as $174 billion in 2010 alone, once you factored in the lost work, medical care, criminal justice resources, and other expenses. \* [/QUOTE] Who could object… ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2012, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-you-justify-gun-control-advocacy/644132/95 "2012-12-27T01:08:47Z")
> [@Shayna](#): > > Let’s also not forget the words of former Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger. > > "Warren Burger was a conservative Republican, appointed U.S. chief justice by President Richard Nixon in 1969. In a speech in 1992, six years after his retirement from the court, Burger declared that **‘the Second Amendment doesn’t guarantee the right to have firearms at all.’** In his view, the purpose of the Second Amendment was only ‘to ensure that the “state armies” – “the militia” – would be maintained for the defense of the state.’ > > “A year before, Burger went even further. On ‘MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour,’ **Burger said the Second Amendment ‘has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud – I repeat the word “fraud” – on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.’** Burger wasn’t in the habit of taking stands on controversial constitutional questions on national television. In using the word ‘fraud,’ Burger meant to describe what he saw as a clear consensus about the meaning of the Constitution.” > > Gun Debate Must Avoid Crazy 2nd Amendment Claims DC v. Heller and McDonald v City of Chicago rulings say that Warren Burger is wrong. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-you-justify-gun-control-advocacy/644132.md?page=4)