# How much gun control do you really want? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 18, 2001, 3:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-gun-control-do-you-really-want/69186 "2001-06-18T03:40:50Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Weird\_AL\_Einstein](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c67d28/32.png) [@Weird\_AL\_Einstein](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weird_AL_Einstein)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2001, 6:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-gun-control-do-you-really-want/69186/61 "2001-06-20T06:41:07Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by CrankyAsAnOldMan \* > \*\*…consider driver’s licenses, for example. > > \ > > …they do impose some restrictions, designed to help increase the chances that the drivers on the road have some maturity, judgment, eyesight, and knowledge of basic traffic rules. > > \ > But I accept having to complete driver’s ed, submit to an eye test, and take a quiz about the rules o’ the road. \*\* I am so very glad you bought up the subject of driver’s licenses. This is an opportunity for me say something about the idea that gun licensing/registration is analagous to what we do with cars. **You do not need a driver’s license to own a car.** Repeat for emphasis: **You do not need a driver’s license to own a car.** You **do** need a driver’s licence in order to **drive** a motor vehicle on **public roads**. Not to merely **own** one. An valid analogy, then, would be a system in which no license is required to **own** a gun, but you need a license to carry it around with you. I would consider this a vast improvement over the gun control schemes in place in a lot of states presently. However: If you are implying that the state has a justification for restricting the right to carry (or own, for that matter) a gun because it has a justification for resticting driving privileges, I think you are off base. The act of driving a car in a place where there are pedestrians is inherently dangerous in a way that carrying a gun in the same place is not. If you lose control of your car, you can kill or seriously injure a bunch of those pedestrians. The only way a carried gun could become a danger to them is if someone actually takes the gun from you and shoots it, a situation analagous to a passenger in your car intentionally grabbing the wheel from you and using the car to run people over. Driver’s licensing is not designed or intended to prevent that sort of thing. Note to others who responded to me: I will get to you too, I just decided that responding to each person individually is marginally better than doing one super-long post. ---
**Author:** ![Weird\_AL\_Einstein](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c67d28/32.png) [@Weird\_AL\_Einstein](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weird_AL_Einstein)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2001, 7:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-gun-control-do-you-really-want/69186/62 "2001-06-20T07:13:00Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Darwin’s Finch \* > \*\* > But then, I don’t recall anyone (at least not me!) mentioning that a state could/should place limitations on certain rights _without_ justifying their actions. > \*\* You didn’t say it, but you implied it very strongly when you said: > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Darwin’s Finch \* > \*\* > > My point was that civilians don’t _need_ guns at all… \*\* > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Darwin’s Finch \* > \*\* …gun ownership is not really _necessary_ for the well being of the citizenry. \*\* It seemed to me that you were implying that citizens should have to demonstrate a “need” to the state before being permitted by it to own a weapon. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Darwin’s Finch \* > \*\* > …what I seek are measures which limit the legal possession of firearms (of any sort) to those individuals who can demonstrate that they can handle them responsibly. One must be tested and obtain a license to operate a motor vehicle; I feel that similar restrictions should be placed on gun ownership. I also feel that potential gun owners should be made well aware of the responsibility they have to handle firearms responsibly. Such is not the case presently. > > \*\* As to your comparison with driver’s licenses, see my above response to **CrankyAsAnOldMan**. You have every right to your opinions, but my position is, if the state is going to do what you feel it ought to do, then it must have a justification for doing so. Finally, you say “Such is not the case presently”. This is demonstrably untrue. The only state in the union with no laws governing gun posession is Vermont. Many of them have very strict gun laws, and states that have followed the popular trend of liberalizing their concealed-carry laws have been implementing licensing schemes very similar to what you want. ---
**Author:** ![Weird\_AL\_Einstein](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c67d28/32.png) [@Weird\_AL\_Einstein](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weird_AL_Einstein)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2001, 7:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-gun-control-do-you-really-want/69186/63 "2001-06-20T07:44:26Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by DonSkotus \* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*\*I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: in a free society, citizens are not required to justify themselves or their actions to the state. Rather, the state must justify it’s actions to it’s citizens. > > > > \*\* > > Congratulations, you have just completely nullified the social contract. > > In any ‘free society’ there is a tacit understanding between the citizens of that society that they are members of a greater union for their own sake, and hopefully for the sake of the common good. > \*\* I was never very good at interpreting poetry, and that’s what this looks like to me. What does this _mean_? > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by DonSkotus \* > \*\* > The fundamental flaw in your statement is that it completely divides the people from the state. Nonsense! No such division exists. > \*\* Nonsense! The President can order a nuclear strike on China. I can’t. Sounds like a **huge** difference to me. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by DonSkotus \* > \*\* > The most basic principle of representational, republican and democratic government is that it is of, by and for the people. > \*\* This was exactly my point. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by DonSkotus \* > \*\* > The members of a society continuously take part in an organic process of the state growing and responding to the needs of the present historical context through judicial and legislative means. What most of you rampaging liberals and die-hard libertarians seem to forget is that in this process of evolution, societies can justly apply the interaction between the individual and the state to curtail individual applications of personal autonomy as well as expand them. The process of the evolution of individual rights does not only go one way. > \*\* More poetry. Interpretation? > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by DonSkotus \* > \*\* > The right to own slaves, the right to exact lethal retribution against each other and an entire host of ‘fundamental freedoms’ have been limited and done away with in the name of the heightened sense of the common good, and the protection of the rights of others. > \*\* I am not sure about this, but it _looks like_ you may be comparing the right to bear arms with institutionalized slavery. If that is the case, if I choose to dignify it with an answer, it will be in the Pit, not here. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by DonSkotus \* > \*\* > The issue of gun control speaks to this directly, and it is in this light that the issue of gun control is best understood. The Constitutional argument for the ‘right to bear arms’ is somewhat anachronistic, for it demands a set of circumstances and geo-political truths that no longer exist. The framers of the Constitution could certainly not have envisioned a vastly urbanized society in which the proliferation of small arms had become one of the greatest threats to personal safety known to man. Their intent was to help the populace guard itself against the uprising of a similarly armed tyranny, in which a well-maintained militia would be an appropriate form of defense. Clearly, this is no longer the case, if it were the 2nd amendment would read ‘the right to bear Apache attack helicopters and nuclear submarines’. > > What is at issue here is whether or not the level or free armament presently available in the US constitutes a facet of providence or a clear and present threat to the common good, and the reasonable expectation of safety of the common man. It is the common man after all, not the NRA that the 2nd amendment to the Constitution was designed to protect. > \*\* Still more poetry, plus some stuff about the 2nd amendment. Please note that I did **not** mention the 2nd amendment. My position would be the same even if we didn’t _have_ a 2nd amendment. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by DonSkotus \* > \*\* > Given that the United States has exponentially greater gun-related deaths per year than the rest of the Western world, one needs to ponder if there’s much of a debate left to be had. > > Greater restrictions on firearms (I think level 3 would apply) and the aggressive prosecution of the illegal gun trade are the solution, not pointless libertarian rhetoric. > \*\* **You** accuse **me** of using “pointless rhetoric”? Oy! The chutzpah(sp?)! ---
**Author:** ![Weird\_AL\_Einstein](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c67d28/32.png) [@Weird\_AL\_Einstein](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weird_AL_Einstein)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2001, 8:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-gun-control-do-you-really-want/69186/64 "2001-06-20T08:05:51Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ModernRonin2 \* > \*\* > > \ > > Concealed carry is a tough one. > \*\* Have you read “More Guns, Less Crime” by Professor John Lott? A lot of insights there. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ModernRonin2 \* > \*\* > \ > > Thanks for reading through this entire long-winded post… > > \*\* Not a problem. Seeing as how I live in a glass house, I certainly wouldn’t throw stones, at you or anyone else 🙂 Seriously, I don’t know if your system is justified for simply _owning_ a weapon, and keeping it locked away somewhere. If the owner wanted to actually _use_ it on the other hand, to carry or shoot for recreational purposes, as most of them no doubt would, then I think you have a good case. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by vorfod \* > \*\* > I still maintain that a responsible, law abiding citizen should show cause as to why he feels it necessary to own a device that is purely designed to deal death in large numbers. \*\* And I still maintain that: In a free society, citizens are not required to justify themselves or their actions to the state. Rather, the state must justify it’s actions to it’s citizens. I guess we just disagree. ---
**Author:** ![SPOOFE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c5a1d2/32.png) [@SPOOFE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SPOOFE)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2001, 8:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-gun-control-do-you-really-want/69186/65 "2001-06-20T08:42:23Z")
> [@](#): > > Great argument for restricting semi auto weapons as well! Lemme get this straight… in your mind, a “great argument” is demonstrating that something else isn’t _as bad_?!? What twisted world do you live in that considers this to count as logic?!? ::sigh:: Basically, no, that’s a pathetic argument for restricting semi-automatic weapons. > [@](#): > > I still maintain that a responsible, law abiding citizen should show cause as to why he feels it necessary to own a device that is purely designed to deal death in large numbers. What would you consider to be “necessary”? If the person simply wants the reassurance of owning a certain type of weapon? If the person simply wants to excercise his natural rights? If a person really enjoys the sport of shooting? Or is the only valid reason, in your mind, if your life is currently being threatened by an attacker ten feet away? See, me bucko, we DON’T build our legislation on those wily little things called “opinions”. > [@](#): > > Modern society recognises that it is sometimes necessary to curtail individual freedoms for the good of society as a whole. Well, good! Then they should be demanding LESS gun control. (Note: Not NO gun control… just less.) > [@](#): > > I can’t see how semi/full automatic firearms enrich society, but I can sure as hell see how they don’t. I can see how they can enrich society. Bad Guy #1 breaks into your house. Bad Guy #1 tries to murder you and rape your wife. You shout to Bad Guy #1, “I have a gun and know how to use it!” Bad Guy #1 runs away, thusly preserving your life and your wife’s safety. And note that not a single shot was fired, and not a single person was hurt. Happens approx. 2 million times a year (see the aforementioned _More Guns, Less Crime_ by John Lott). Now, please list how semi/full automatic firearms can detract from society. Please include citings to base your conclusions on. T’would be much appreciated. ---
**Author:** ![Freedom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bc8723/32.png) [@Freedom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freedom)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2001, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-gun-control-do-you-really-want/69186/66 "2001-06-20T14:35:54Z")
\*\*DonSkotus \*\* > [@](#): > > It is the common man after all, not the NRA that the 2nd amendment to the Constitution was designed to protect. I get so tired of hearing this. The NRA is made up of everyday common people who happen to agree about the 2nd Amendment. It may piss you off, but the NRA is just the same as the JDL, NAACP, NOW, and GLAAD. **CrankyAsAnOldMan** **looks suspicously over his shoulder and then confides to CAAOM** I wouldn’t mind a different system and way of regulating gun ownership in this country. The real problem for me, and I think alot of other gun owners, is that we just don’t trust the Sarah Bradys of this world to stop until they ban all guns. I think any new gun laws need to include language that also offers our side something tangible. For example: I could go along with licensing and registration of handguns, increased MANDATORY prison sentences for criminals using firearms, close the so-called “gunshow loophole,” mandatory one-time training courses and in home storage requirements for firearms not being used for home defense. But… I would need to get…In the same bill… National “Shall Issue” licenses for concealed carry and ownership. National legislation protecting the firearms manufacturers from the frivilous lawsuits now under way. Gauruntees that all “instant” background checks are instant. Penalties from the gov’t to dealers when they lose sales because of delays in the system. A statement from Congress that the 2nd Amendment unilaterally protects an INDIVIDUAL right to own firearms. Otherwise I just see all legislation as another step towards eliminating all guns. \*\*Darwin’s Finch \*\* > [@](#): > > Yes, these sorts of measures would place limitations on gun ownership, which some may argue violates the letter of the Second Amendment. I do not, however, feel that they would violate the spirit (or, perhaps more properly, my interpretation of the spirit) of that right. Is that how you want a judge to decide the outcome in a case that invvolves you? Would you rather be able to read a simple law and know exactly where you stand, or go up infront of a man who arbitrarily gets to decide if you are right or wrong? **Spoofe** Chuckles…Bucko… What are we going to do with you?🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2001, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-gun-control-do-you-really-want/69186/67 "2001-06-20T14:41:01Z")
**WAL:** \*You do not need a driver’s license to own a car. You do need a driver’s licence in order to drive a motor vehicle on public roads. Not to merely own one. An valid analogy, then, would be a system in which no license is required to own a gun, but you need a license to carry it around with you.\* Invalid analogy. The reason you may own a car without a license is that (except in the rare case of people with vast private estates with private roads) you cannot actually **use** a car effectively unless you drive it on public roads. Going back and forth in your own ten feet of driveway is neither particularly useful for you nor particularly risky for the public at large, so there is little need to regulate it with license requirements. A gun, on the other hand, is perfectly capable of being used effectively on one’s own property, and in fact is often so used. Therefore, gun regulation should apply not just to carrying guns on public property or the property of others, but to ownership and use of guns kept on one’s own property as well. **SPOOFE:** \*“I can’t see how semi/full automatic firearms enrich society, but I can sure as hell see how they don’t.” I can see how they can enrich society. Bad Guy #1 breaks into your house. Bad Guy #1 tries to murder you and rape your wife. You shout to Bad Guy #1, “I have a gun and know how to use it!” Bad Guy #1 runs away, thusly preserving your life and your wife’s safety. And note that not a single shot was fired, and not a single person was hurt. \* This scenario is perfectly feasible with a handgun, of course (in fact, from your description it doesn’t even require you actually to have a gun, just to tell the assailant that you do), so it is useless as an argument in favor of the legality of semi/full automatic weapons in particular. \*Happens approx. 2 million times a year (see the aforementioned More Guns, Less Crime by John Lott). \* Extremely dubious statistic, as **ExTank** and I discussed in a long gun thread a while ago. See this [overview](http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/SmithT1.htm) by Tom W. Smith in the _Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology_ discussing a lengthy exchange in earlier issues on the subject of defensive gun use figures. _Now, please list how semi/full automatic firearms can detract from society. Please include citings to base your conclusions on._ They are very deadly weapons, and are used to kill people. Do you really need a cite for that? ---
**Author:** ![Freedom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bc8723/32.png) [@Freedom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freedom)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2001, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-gun-control-do-you-really-want/69186/68 "2001-06-20T14:43:01Z")
\*\*DonSkotus \*\* > [@](#): > > It is the common man after all, not the NRA that the 2nd amendment to the Constitution was designed to protect. I get so tired of hearing this. The NRA is made up of everyday common people who happen to agree about the 2nd Amendment. It may piss you off, but the NRA is just the same as the JDL, NAACP, NOW, and GLAAD. **CrankyAsAnOldMan** **looks suspicously over his shoulder and then confides to CAAOM** I wouldn’t mind a different system and way of regulating gun ownership in this country. The real problem for me, and I think alot of other gun owners, is that we just don’t trust the Sarah Bradys of this world to stop until they ban all guns. I think any new gun laws need to include language that also offers our side something tangible. For example: I could go along with licensing and registration of handguns, increased MANDATORY prison sentences for criminals using firearms, close the so-called “gunshow loophole,” mandatory one-time training courses and in home storage requirements for firearms not being used for home defense. But… I would need to get…In the same bill… National “Shall Issue” licenses for concealed carry and ownership. National legislation protecting the firearms manufacturers from the frivilous lawsuits now under way. Gauruntees that all “instant” background checks are instant. Penalties from the gov’t to dealers when they lose sales because of delays in the system. A statement from Congress that the 2nd Amendment unilaterally protects an INDIVIDUAL right to own firearms. Otherwise I just see all legislation as another step towards eliminating all guns. \*\*Darwin’s Finch \*\* > [@](#): > > Yes, these sorts of measures would place limitations on gun ownership, which some may argue violates the letter of the Second Amendment. I do not, however, feel that they would violate the spirit (or, perhaps more properly, my interpretation of the spirit) of that right. Is that how you want a judge to decide the outcome in a case that invvolves you? Would you rather be able to read a simple law and know exactly where you stand, or go up infront of a man who arbitrarily gets to decide if you are right or wrong? **Spoofe** Chuckles…Bucko… What are we going to do with you?🙂 ---
**Author:** ![DonSkotus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/858c86/32.png) [@DonSkotus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DonSkotus)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2001, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-gun-control-do-you-really-want/69186/69 "2001-06-20T14:43:13Z")
Hit it boys; ## Quote: Originally posted by DonSkotus The right to own slaves, the right to exact lethal retribution against each other and an entire host of ‘fundamental freedoms’ have been limited and done away with in the name of the heightened sense of the common good, and the protection of the rights of others. * * * Just to be perfectly clear, I am not comparing, in the moral sense, the ownership of guns with the ownership of slaves - I’m sure most pro-gun advocates are people of good intent who are clearly not participating in an evil and vile practice - sorry if you inferred otherwise. ## Quote: Originally posted by DonSkotus The members of a society continuously take part in an organic process of the state growing and responding to the needs of the present historical context through judicial and legislative means. What most of you rampaging liberals and die-hard libertarians seem to forget is that in this process of evolution, societies can justly apply the interaction between the individual and the state to curtail individual applications of personal autonomy as well as expand them. The process of the evolution of individual rights does not only go one way. * * * More poetry. Interpretation? I will try to be clearer - The government is a union between citizens, elected officials and the various arms of the state. The people form the government through their participation in it, and cannot therefor be considered to be distinct or separate from it as you statement seems to imply. Secondly, the process of determining the scope of a person’s civil liberties can go both ways - a just society can conceivably restrict freedoms in accordance with the Constitution as well as it can expand them. Slavery (once again, no moral comparison) was guaranteed by state constitutions and upheld federally for decades before being repealed by President Lincoln. In this example, the society chose to remove one right in favor of another. ## Quote: Originally posted by DonSkotus The most basic principle of representational, republican and democratic government is that it is of, by and for the people. * * * This was exactly my point. Then how can you consider the state and the people to be distinct? That was Lincoln’s point in using this phrase. ## Quote: Originally posted by DonSkotus The fundamental flaw in your statement is that it completely divides the people from the state. Nonsense! No such division exists. * * * Nonsense! The President can order a nuclear strike on China. I can’t. Sounds like a huge difference to me. Of course the President will have greater authority than a given citizen will in matters of state since a majority has elected him (usually). But all members of the Executive should derive their power from a mandate that you as a citizen have contributed to provide them. Also I didn’t say difference, I said division; again I would refer you to Mr. Lincoln’s statement. Quote: * * * Originally posted by DonSkotus Congratulations, you have just completely nullified the social contract. In any ‘free society’ there is a tacit understanding between the citizens of that society that they are members of a greater union for their own sake, and hopefully for the sake of the common good. * * * I was never very good at interpreting poetry, and that’s what this looks like to me. What does this mean? This means that representational, democratic, parliamentarian and republican governments all operate under the principle that society exists as a union of citizens with certain common goals and certain common values. The Constitution is designed as much to reflect this as it is the expansion of the rights of the individual. Something that is entrenched as a fundamental right can be done away with legally and justly if it is seen to present a real threat to the common good (again, the sum of common goals values and ideas within a society). The entire heart of the gun control debate is one of civil liberty versus the common good. To speak to your prior point, citizens are regularly called upon to justify and rationalize their actions before the state - its called going to court. The law sets down parameters of what is acceptable and then the give and take of appeal, new legislation etc… determines what the ‘reasonable’ position is. The fact that there is such a rampant debate going on in the US over gun control obviously indicates that some citizens and lawmakers feel the need to get some degree of justification for the mounting urban arms race that already exists. ## Quote: Originally posted by DonSkotus Given that the United States has exponentially greater gun-related deaths per year than the rest of the Western world, one needs to ponder if there’s much of a debate left to be had. Greater restrictions on firearms (I think level 3 would apply) and the aggressive prosecution of the illegal gun trade are the solution, not pointless libertarian rhetoric. * * * You accuse me of using “pointless rhetoric”? Oy! The chutzpah(sp?)! This is NOT pointless rhetoric; the appalling level of gun violence when compared to the rest of the industrialized world is well-documented fact. My only use of rhetoric is in implying that the situation is so bad, that it makes me wonder how the question of guns in the US can still be a question at all. Your statement, conversely, lacks factual background, ignores the basic principles of political history and the philosophy of government and implies a false division between the people and their government - hence, I refer to it as pointless. Finally, three things; 1. Thanks for not answering my points but simply dismissing them as ‘poetry’ - its nice to see a good strawman from time to time. You want poetry, read Shakespeare. 2. Not once did I use Iambic Pentameter 3. I don’t know how to spell chutzpah either. ---
**Author:** ![CrankyAsAnOldMan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crankyasanoldman/32/11670_2.png) [@CrankyAsAnOldMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CrankyAsAnOldMan)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2001, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-gun-control-do-you-really-want/69186/70 "2001-06-20T15:09:07Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Weird\_AL\_Einstein \* > \*\* > > However: If you are implying that the state has a justification for restricting the right to carry (or own, for that matter) a gun because it has a justification for resticting driving privileges, I think you are off base. > > \*\* You’ve got excellent points-- but no, I wasn’t implying this. I brought up this example merely as an analogy: intelligent, mature, responsible people _willingly_ submitting to pain-in-the-ass governmental oversight and inconvenient regulations before being allowed to legally do something they’re perfectly capable of doing safely even without all the paperwork. I’m saying we do it for the right to drive our cars (for reasons I’ve stated), why is it considered such an incredible imposition to do it for the possession of guns? ---
**Author:** ![Hibbins](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ce73a5/32.png) [@Hibbins](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hibbins)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2001, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-gun-control-do-you-really-want/69186/71 "2001-06-20T17:03:56Z")
Lightnin’ said: > [@](#): > > Very, very true, Hibbins. I don’t see a solution- but I don’t think that using that logic to keep pistols legal follows. Nowhere did I imply that my statements where an argument for the preservation of legal handguns. That was your assumption. I simply pointed out the faults with your presumption that doing away with pistols will also do away with concealed firearms. > [@](#): > > I don’t own a gun. I don’t want to own one. I don’t like the fact that since everyone else has one, I have to get one just to feel the same level of safety as those with guns. I am sorry you feel this way. I don’t own any firearms for personal protection and yet I feel safe. The firearms I own have no bearing on and aren’t considered when I judge my personal safety. You are not alone in not owning a gun, please try to avoid statements like “everyone else has one”, they detract from the quality of your argument. > [@](#): > > Right now pistols are very easy to get- heck, one night after work I found one in the dumpster behind the arcade I worked in. If you had taken that pistol from that dumpster you would likely be guilty of illegal possession (depending on local laws and ordinances). > [@](#): > > My ex-wife has one, a friend of mine has at least five or so. How does your ex-wife and the quantity of guns owned by your friend have any bearing on the ease by which they can be obtained? Is she a raving lunatic. 😉 Is he related to her and poor? 🙂 > [@](#): > > I don’t think it’s a stretch to think that any criminal who wants a pistol- _ **a device designed exclusively to kill and/or threaten other human beings** _- can get one with a little bit of work Why should this require the abolition of handguns? Especially since you shoot your argument in the foot again with the part I have bolded. I could introduce you to a few competitive pistol shooters that I know who own handguns that were designed for competitive shooting. It bothers me that most arguing for the abolition of firearms or handguns typically resort to the guns=death rhetoric to add significance to their cause. It is patently false and completely illogical. Guns have no exclusivity on death, and death is not the only result of firearms. Want to remove the significance from that argument, compare the number of deaths by firearm in a given time period to the total number of firearms in circulation during that same time period. I’m sure you will end up with a rather small percentage. DonSkotus said: > [@](#): > > This is NOT pointless rhetoric; the appalling level of gun violence when compared to the rest of the industrialized world is well-documented fact. And this is simply a result of citizens owning firearms, there are no other factors involved? The level of violence period in America is appalling compared to most of the rest of the industrialized world. Removing the guns will not remove the violence. > [@](#): > > Greater restrictions on firearms (I think level 3 would apply) and the aggressive prosecution of the illegal gun trade are the solution, not pointless libertarian rhetoric. I concur to a point. The system is faulty and needs to be repaired. The extremists on both sides of this issue annoy me to no end. Nothing meaningful or effectual will get done as long as large numbers on both sides try to be polar opposites. It’s current form is a good model of what is becoming of the Democrat and Republican parties (heck politics in general). > [@](#): > > The fact that there is such a rampant debate going on in the US over gun control obviously indicates that some citizens and lawmakers feel the need to get some degree of justification for the mounting urban arms race that already exists. Urban arms race? That is clever, completely inaccurate, but clever rhetoric. Try this: _The fact that there is such a rampant debate going on in the US over gun control obviously indicates that some citizens and lawmakers feel_… that the solution to the problem of violence in America can be solved by removing the guns. No guns=no violence. Laughable you say; there are plenty who by into it. ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2001, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-gun-control-do-you-really-want/69186/72 "2001-06-20T20:46:07Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by gorillaboy \* > \*\*Switzerland & Israel have common ownership of machineguns, and their crime rates are lower than that of the US. > \*\* I’d like to correct a commonly-held misconception here - while I can’t tell anything about the Swiss (besides the fact that they probably keep their weapons REAL clean), Israel does _not_ have “common ownership of machineguns”. Israel, in fact has pretty stringent gun control laws - to get a handgun, you have to present a viable reason, pay a hefty tax (usually about %100 of the value of the weapon), wait three months for a background check, and go through manditory training and firing. Civillian ownership of submachineguns and rifles is _very_ rare (unless you live in a “high risk area”); shotguns are almost nonexistant. On the other hand, most male army veterans (which is most of the adult population, considering the near-universal draft) belong to a reserve unit, which gets together once or twice a year. Every unit has an armory which is maintaned year-round by Regular Army troops, and is located in a regular military base. When a man shows up for duty he signs a couple of forms and is issued his personal equiptment, which usually includes an M-16 or a Galil. This is now his personal weapon, and he is expected to carry it with him. If he goes on leave he’ll take the rifle with him, locking it in his closet (with the magazine seperate) at home. When his service period is over he cleans it off and turns it in. It is not “his” rifle at all, nor is it “communally owned”; it belongs to the army. As for machine guns, they’re also in the armory, to be issued when needed. They never leave base unless they’re needed for training or operational duties - just like granades, radios, guided missiles and tanks. You’ll never see any of those things in anybody’s living room or attic, unless somebody’s broken the law (or just forgot they were there - a family member of mine once forgot a couple of grenades in his kitbag after a certain Middle-Eastern war. Kind of an embarressing story). In short, if you’re carrying a MAG then you’re working for the government, even if it’s on a temporary basis. ---
**Author:** ![Weird\_AL\_Einstein](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c67d28/32.png) [@Weird\_AL\_Einstein](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weird_AL_Einstein)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2001, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-gun-control-do-you-really-want/69186/73 "2001-06-20T22:32:27Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Kimstu \* > \*_ **WAL:** > An valid analogy, then, would be a system in which no license is required to own a gun, but you need a license to carry it around with you._ > > Invalid analogy. The reason you may own a car without a license is that (except in the rare case of people with vast private estates with private roads) you cannot actually **use** a car effectively unless you drive it on public roads. \*\* Valid analogy. A car that remains strictly on my property is hurting no one unless I use it to run over someone who enters my property, which is illegal, unless it is self defense. A gun that remains strictly on my property is hurting no one unless I shoot it, which is also illegal, unless it is self defense. ---
**Author:** ![Darwins\_Finch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darwins_finch/32/20304_2.png) [@Darwins\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darwins_Finch)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2001, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-gun-control-do-you-really-want/69186/74 "2001-06-20T22:40:58Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Freedom \* > **Is that how you want a judge to decide the outcome in a case that invvolves you? Would you rather be able to read a simple law and know exactly where you stand, or go up infront of a man who arbitrarily gets to decide if you are right or wrong?** Except the 2nd Amendment isn’t a law, it’s a right, and a rather vague one at that. However, I would expect that any _law_ which affects that right to be pretty darn clear as to what is, or is not, considered a violation of that law. I believe in the _spirit_ of a right, but the _letter_ of the law, if that makes any sense. ---
**Author:** ![Weird\_AL\_Einstein](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c67d28/32.png) [@Weird\_AL\_Einstein](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weird_AL_Einstein)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2001, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-gun-control-do-you-really-want/69186/75 "2001-06-20T23:12:23Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by DonSkotus \*\*\* > …a just society can conceivably restrict freedoms in accordance with the Constitution… \*\* I never said it couldn’t. I said if it wants to to so, it has to have a justification. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by DonSkotus \*\*\* > > ## Quote: > > Originally posted by DonSkotus > > The most basic principle of representational, republican and democratic government is that it is of, by and for the people. > > * * * > > This was exactly my point. > > * * * > > Then how can you consider the state and the people to be distinct? That was Lincoln’s point in using this phrase. > \*\* It was? Cite? > [@](#): > > ## \*Originally posted by DonSkotus \*\*\* Quote: > > Originally posted by DonSkotus > > The fundamental flaw in your statement is that it completely divides the people from the state. Nonsense! No such division exists. > > * * * > > Nonsense! The President can order a nuclear strike on China. I can’t. Sounds like a huge difference to me. > > * * * > > Of course the President will have greater authority than a given citizen will in matters of state since a majority has elected him (usually). But all members of the Executive should derive their power from a mandate that you as a citizen have contributed to provide them. > \*\* Yes of course. I am giving a mandate to someone else, not to myself. If “I” were the government, I wouldn’t **have to** give a mandate to someone else, would I? > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by DonSkotus \*\*\* > > Something that is entrenched as a fundamental right can be done away with legally and justly if it is seen to present a real threat to the common good (again, the sum of common goals values and ideas within a society). > \*\* This idea is problematic at best…who defines the “common good”? But assuming it is true, then consistent with my earlier statement, the state must show that “doing away with an entrenched fundamental right” will **in fact** enhance the “common good”, however it is being defined. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by DonSkotus \*\*\* > To speak to your prior point, citizens are regularly called upon to justify and rationalize their actions before the state - its called going to court. > \*\* As John McLaughlin would say, **WRONG!** In fact the court system is a perfect example of what I was talking about. In criminal court (in American ones, at least) you are **innocent until proven guilty**. If the state wants to infringe upon your rights, by putting you in jail, say, it must justify that action by proving in court that you are in fact guilty of a crime. **You** do not have to prove that you are **innocent**. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by DonSkotus \*\*\* > This is NOT pointless rhetoric; the appalling level of gun violence when compared to the rest of the industrialized world is well-documented fact. My only use of rhetoric is in implying that the situation is so bad, that it makes me wonder how the question of guns in the US can still be a question at all. Your statement, conversely, lacks factual background, ignores the basic principles of political history and the philosophy of government and implies a false division between the people and their government - hence, I refer to it as pointless. > \*\* And again, I say you have chutzpah (I looked it up, that’s the correct spelling). First, you wonder “how the question of guns in the US can still be a question at all”; the salient question raised by my statement is, what evidence is there that a given gun control law will reduce “the appalling level of gun violence” in the US? Second, my statement most certainly does **not** “(ignore) the basic principles of political history and the philosophy of government” and you have provided no evidence that it does. Third, as to this “false division between the people and their government”, see my statement above. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by DonSkotus \*\*\* > Thanks for not answering my points but simply dismissing them as ‘poetry’… > \*\* What points of yours have I not answered? > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by DonSkotus \*\*\* > Not once did I use Iambic Pentameter_\* It doesn’t have to be Iambic Pentameter to be poetry…these days, it doesn’t even have to rhyme. ---
**Author:** ![Weird\_AL\_Einstein](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c67d28/32.png) [@Weird\_AL\_Einstein](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weird_AL_Einstein)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2001, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-gun-control-do-you-really-want/69186/76 "2001-06-20T23:25:38Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by CrankyAsAnOldMan \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by Weird\_AL\_Einstein \* > > \*\* > > > > However: If you are implying that the state has a justification for restricting the right to carry (or own, for that matter) a gun because it has a justification for resticting driving privileges, I think you are off base. > > > > \*\* > > You’ve got excellent points-- but no, I wasn’t implying this. I brought up this example merely as an analogy: intelligent, mature, responsible people _willingly_ submitting to pain-in-the-ass governmental oversight and inconvenient regulations before being allowed to legally do something they’re perfectly capable of doing safely even without all the paperwork. I’m saying we do it for the right to drive our cars (for reasons I’ve stated), why is it considered such an incredible imposition to do it for the possession of guns? \*\* In the US, how much of an “incredible imposition” it is to get a gun varies widely from place to place. As I said earlier, in Vermont there are no laws at all; in NYC, you have to jump through multiple flaming hoops to even have a _chance_ to legally own a gun. Naturally, opinions among gun owners and gun rights advocates vary as to how much of an “imposition” it is in various places. Many gun owners are quite uncomplaining and tolerant of all the rigamarole they have to go through. My point, though, is that if the state wants to hold up hoops for you to jump through in order to get a gun, or drive a car, or whatever, it has to have a good reason for doing so. The reason it makes people get driver’s licences is (to oversimplify the matter) to prevent highway accidents. If the state wants to similarly impose on gun owners, it has to have a justification for doing so. ---
**Author:** ![vorfod](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/a87d85/32.png) [@vorfod](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vorfod)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2001, 4:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-gun-control-do-you-really-want/69186/77 "2001-06-21T04:37:54Z")
> [@](#): > > SPOOFE: “I can’t see how semi/full automatic firearms enrich society, but I can sure as hell see how they don’t.” > > I can see how they can enrich society. Bad Guy #1 breaks into your house. Bad Guy #1 tries to murder you and rape your wife. You shout to Bad Guy #1, “I have a gun and know how to use it!” Bad Guy #1 runs away, thusly preserving your life and your wife’s safety. And note that not a single shot was fired, and not a single person was hurt. > > This scenario is perfectly feasible with a handgun, of course (in fact, from your description it doesn’t even require you actually to have a gun, just to tell the assailant that you do), so it is useless as an argument in favor of the legality of semi/full automatic weapons in particular. **Kimstu** : Thank you for saving me the trouble of typing that out. As for how semi-automatic weapons do not enrich society, once again we come back to Port Arthur and Strathfield Square (I don’t know enough about the others as to whether semi-automatic weapons were used). This is the perfect example of what is wrong with allowing ownership of semi-automatic weapons. > [@](#): > > ## quote: > > ## Great argument for restricting semi auto weapons as well! > > Lemme get this straight… in your mind, a “great argument” is demonstrating that something else isn’t as bad?!? What twisted world do you live in that considers this to count as logic?!? > > ::sigh:: > > Basically, no, that’s a pathetic argument for restricting semi-automatic weapons. **SPOOFE** : Yeah, I know. That’s why there is an exclamation mark at the end of that sentence. The problem is that I’m trying to understand the point of view of less restrictions than what I think acceptable, but my true colours keep coming through - I’m yet to hear a logical reason for owning a semi-automatic weapon. **Should you want to be a member of a modern society, there will be times when you will need to justify your actions. Ownership of a device purely inteded to deal death in large number _is_ one of those times.** Now that I’ve got that off my chest, I fully recognise that it is my personal opinion. There is no reason why you should have to accept my opinion. We’ll agree to disagree. (This goes for Weird\_Al\_Einstein too). Where I live, that is the majority consensus. I don’t know what the figures in the US are, but from what I’ve read on this thread, the consensus seems to be leaning the other way. So, recognising the democratic process at work, I concede that my arguments are not valid for you, and concede that my preference for level 3 restrictions are not acceptable for you, and that somewhere between level 5 and 6 is. ---
**Author:** ![SPOOFE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c5a1d2/32.png) [@SPOOFE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SPOOFE)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2001, 8:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-gun-control-do-you-really-want/69186/78 "2001-06-21T08:13:15Z")
Kimstu… > [@](#): > > This scenario is perfectly feasible with a handgun, of course (in fact, from your description it doesn’t even require you actually to have a gun, just to tell the assailant that you do), so it is useless as an argument in favor of the legality of semi/full automatic weapons in particular. True, of course. My point is that there isn’t much distinction - in terms of threat to the populace - between the different variations of guns (automatic weapons, statistically, being the LEAST dangerous). So it seems silly to me to ban the least dangerous kinds of guns… then moving up to the most dangerous - and most potentially useful (handguns being more ideal for an untrained owner). Seems like evidence for a slippery-slope argument to me… > [@](#): > > Extremely dubious statistic, as ExTank and I discussed in a long gun thread a while ago. I’m aware of the dubiousness of the statistic. It varies wildly, from a few hundred thousand (I forget the exact number) to about seven million. However, even if we were to limit the argument to the lowest estimate, the number is still greater than the total number of gun-related deaths each year. Ergo, I see no reason why the statistic is invalid as an argument piece (especially when you consider that ANY cite in a Gun Control debate will likely be dubious). > [@](#): > > They are very deadly weapons, and are used to kill people. Do you really need a cite for that? Yes. What percentage of gun-related homicides involves a semi-automatic weapon, and what percentage involves a full-automatic weapon? And, finally, how does the final total compare to the number of estimated uses of a gun for protection each year? Vorfod… > [@](#): > > As for how semi-automatic weapons do not enrich society, once again we come back to Port Arthur and Strathfield Square (I don’t know enough about the others as to whether semi-automatic weapons were used). This is the perfect example of what is wrong with allowing ownership of semi-automatic weapons. And how often, pray tell, do instances like that arise each year? Here’s a hint… they are statistically negligible. > [@](#): > > The problem is that I’m trying to understand the point of view of less restrictions than what I think acceptable, but my true colours keep coming through - I’m yet to hear a logical reason for owning a semi-automatic weapon. I think you’ve heard many. You just choose to ignore it. Logical reason #1: They’re damn good for self-protection… even without being fired. Now, please provide a logical reason for BANNING semi-automatic weapons. Keep in mind that Kimstu’s “they cause death” reason has already been addressed. > [@](#): > > Should you want to be a member of a modern society, there will be times when you will need to justify your actions. Only when you perform actions that are wrong in the eyes of society. Until then, society has no business demanding that you justify yourself. The United States isn’t a 1st-grade classroom, you know. > [@](#): > > Ownership of a device purely inteded to deal death in large number is one of those times. What device would that be, that is “purely inteded(sic) to deal death in large number(sic)”? Surely not a gun. Again, take a look at John Lott’s stats (dubious though they may be). They indicate a HUGE number of gun uses, each year, that do NOT result in ANYBODY being killed. Your argument holds no water. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2001, 1:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-gun-control-do-you-really-want/69186/79 "2001-06-21T13:42:08Z")
**WAE:** \*“Invalid analogy [between driver’s licenses and gun ownership licensing]. The reason you may own a car without a license is that (except in the rare case of people with vast private estates with private roads) you cannot actually **use** a car effectively unless you drive it on public roads.” Valid analogy. A car that remains strictly on my property is hurting no one unless I use it to run over someone who enters my property, which is illegal, unless it is self defense. A gun that remains strictly on my property is hurting no one unless I shoot it, which is also illegal, unless it is self defense. \* Sorry **Al** , you still don’t get it. The point of licensing requirements, for cars or guns or anything else, is to attempt to weed out the people who are likely to use the item wisely and responsibly from those who aren’t. There is no point in requiring a license for a car that never leaves the owner’s property, because **it can’t be used** , i.e., driven, effectively (except, as I pointed out, for the tiny number of people who have significant amounts of private road). A gun that never leaves the owner’s property, on the other hand, **can** still be used effectively, so it makes perfect sense to require a license for it. What you’re saying about self-defense vs. illegal assault is a side issue: the relevant basic difference between cars and guns here is that the first is intrinsically much less capable of doing harm when confined to the owner’s property, while the second is emphatically not. Your far-fetched scenario about running over trespassers notwithstanding, very few people actually get hurt by cars that never leave their owners’ property. Many people **do** get hurt by guns that never leave their owners’ property. So it is a prudent public safety measure to require licenses for such guns. And **SPOOFE** , I still see two problems with attempting to support the legality of automatic weapons by means of defensive gun use (DGU) arguments: - There’s no evidence that an automatic weapon is more necessary or effective in a DGU than an ordinary handgun or long gun. So even if we were in perfect agreement about how many DGUs there really are and how much they really contribute to crime deterrence, it wouldn’t imply anything about the wisdom of banning automatic weapons. - Lots of DGUs don’t in fact contribute anything significant to the deterrence of crime. Jamming your gun to the head of a knife-wielding rapist and waving your gun out the window at a shadow in the back yard that you think might be a trespasser are both counted as DGUs if reported as such; since all the statistics depend on self-reporting, the true necessity for defensive use of a gun in any particular potential crime situation is completely subjective. Mind you, I certainly believe that there are many cases where DGUs do deter serious crimes; of course, there are also cases where they do no good and even have tragic consequences, as in the famous 1992 shooting of Japanese exchange student Hattori Yoshihiro. And many cases probably fall somewhere in the indeterminate middle, where it might have been possible to deter a serious crime without a gun or it might not. So I think that your attempt at estimating the social value of gun use by comparing some approximate annual number of DGUs to the annual number of gun casualties is wildly inappropriate: that requires the assumption that every DGU may be considered to have been necessary to save someone from death or serious injury, and that just ain’t true. ---
**Author:** ![pldennison](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/9fc29f/32.png) [@pldennison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pldennison)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2001, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-gun-control-do-you-really-want/69186/80 "2001-06-21T14:03:32Z")
> [@](#): > > Modern society recognises that it is sometimes necessary to curtail individual freedoms for the good of society as a whole. I just asked Modern society, and he doesn’t recall saying this. Maybe it was somebody else? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-gun-control-do-you-really-want/69186.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-gun-control-do-you-really-want/69186.md?page=5)