# 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:** 7
**Author:** ![sjgouldrocks](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/47e85d/32.png) [@sjgouldrocks](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sjgouldrocks)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2001, 10:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-gun-control-do-you-really-want/69186/121 "2001-06-24T10:55:44Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SPOOFE \* > **At least, I’m assuming that you’re between the age of 18 and 45…** > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SPOOFE \* > \*\* > So? That is completely immaterial. You are a member of the Unorganized Militia (a valid body as far as the law is concerned) as soon as you turn _17_ (sorry, I had a typo in my earlier post). The draft and/or military service has **absolutely nothing** to do with it. > > I suggest you familiarize yourself with the law before you decide to comment on it. \*\* Umm, I checked the Constitution, and guess what? I didn’t notice the number “45” anywhere. I suggest you familiarize yourself with the Constitution before you decide to comment on it. ---
**Author:** ![SPOOFE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c5a1d2/32.png) [@SPOOFE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SPOOFE)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2001, 11:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-gun-control-do-you-really-want/69186/122 "2001-06-24T11:30:19Z")
> [@](#): > > Umm, I checked the Constitution, and guess what? > I didn’t notice the number “45” anywhere. Did I say it was? Please learn how to read before you make a feeble attempt at debating. According to U.S. law, every able-bodied man between the ages 17-45 is part of the Unorganized Militia, one-half of the “militia” mentioned in the 2nd Amendment. The Unorganized Militia is as recognized by law as the Organized Militia (National Guard, etc.). Again, please familiarize yourself with the **law** before you decide to comment on it. And keep in mind that there’s more to the laws of the land than what is found in the Constitution. ---
**Author:** ![sjgouldrocks](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/47e85d/32.png) [@sjgouldrocks](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sjgouldrocks)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2001, 12:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-gun-control-do-you-really-want/69186/123 "2001-06-24T12:16:19Z")
Umm, the Constitution is “Supreme” relative to any other “law” in the U.S. Thus, if Congress passes a law saying that “militia” means people between certain ages; or that “militia” means the merchant marines; or that “militia” means an ice cream sundae – it doesn’t affect the Constitution one bit. I advise you to actually look at the Constitution before you engage in feeble attempts to debate its meaning. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2001, 2:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-gun-control-do-you-really-want/69186/124 "2001-06-24T14:26:01Z")
**WAE:** \*I did make some other points, as I’m sure you’ve noticed. \* Fair enough. I’ll be gone for a week or so, however, so I will do what I can with them if they’re still here when I get back. ---
**Author:** ![Freedom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bc8723/32.png) [@Freedom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freedom)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2001, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-gun-control-do-you-really-want/69186/125 "2001-06-24T17:18:39Z")
**passes spoofe a cold beer** Walk away spoofe…walk away… This one is just to dense to absorb what you are trying to say. BTW… I just checked my handy dandy copy of the Constitution, and I’m off to speed around the highways at 120 miles an hour. Somehow those lame framers forgot to mention speed limits. When I run out of gas, I’m going to just take whatever car is closest to me. It seems they also forgot to mention theft. ☹ ---
**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 25, 2001, 2:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-gun-control-do-you-really-want/69186/126 "2001-06-25T02:00:44Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Kimstu \* > \*\ ***WAE:** \*I did make some other points, as I’m sure you’ve noticed. \* > > Fair enough. I’ll be gone for a week or so, however, so I will do what I can with them if they’re still here when I get back. > > \*\* Ummmm…well, no they won’t be going anywhere, I don’t think. They archive these threads for over a year. If it gets buried, I will be sure to bump it for you 😃 Enjoy your trip 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![SPOOFE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c5a1d2/32.png) [@SPOOFE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SPOOFE)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2001, 5:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-gun-control-do-you-really-want/69186/127 "2001-06-25T05:05:54Z")
> [@](#): > > Umm, the Constitution is “Supreme” relative to any other “law” in the U.S. But it’s not the ONLY law, genius. Other laws of the land, not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution (you DO know that things like traffic laws aren’t in the Constitution either, right?) are perfectly valid as long as they’re not directly contradicted by the Constitution. > [@](#): > > Thus, if Congress passes a law saying that “militia” means people between certain ages; or that “militia” means the merchant marines; or that “militia” means an ice cream sundae – it doesn’t affect the Constitution one bit. So? The Constitution also doesn’t affect that law one bit, since that law doesn’t directly contradict the Constitution. See, pal, other laws are designed to **elaborate** on the wording contained within the Constitution. The 2nd Amendment makes mention of the “militia”. A later article **elaborates** on exactly that “militia” is. > [@](#): > > I advise you to actually look at the Constitution before you engage in feeble attempts to debate its meaning. I wasn’t debating on the meaning of the Constitution. I was debating on other laws not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution. Did you know that the Constitution makes no mention of, say, child pornography? By your logic, that would make child pornography perfectly legal. ---
**Author:** ![sjgouldrocks](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/47e85d/32.png) [@sjgouldrocks](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sjgouldrocks)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2001, 10:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-gun-control-do-you-really-want/69186/128 "2001-06-25T10:36:05Z")
So let’s suppose Congress passes the following law: “We hereby declare that the word ‘arms’ in the Second Amendment to the Constitution refers to bananas and other tropical fruits.” I suppose that would settle things . . . :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Freedom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bc8723/32.png) [@Freedom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freedom)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2001, 1:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-gun-control-do-you-really-want/69186/129 "2001-06-25T13:47:17Z")
Well since you seem to be trying to define the word “people” as “State” then that line of reasoning seems to be tight up your alley. Would you mind trying to show where the original framers had a different definition of the word “militia?” BTW… You look awfully foolish with that kellerman quote. Please keep up the good work.🙂 ---
**Author:** ![BF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b5ac83/32.png) [@BF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BF)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2001, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-gun-control-do-you-really-want/69186/130 "2001-06-25T15:04:10Z")
Aw, come on, Freedom, it was either Kellerman or the “13 children die every day from gun violence” “fact”. 😃 ps. at least it’s not the original 43 number first bantered about… ---
**Author:** ![SPOOFE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c5a1d2/32.png) [@SPOOFE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SPOOFE)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2001, 8:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-gun-control-do-you-really-want/69186/131 "2001-06-26T08:17:34Z")
> [@](#): > > So let’s suppose Congress passes the following law: > > “We hereby declare that the word ‘arms’ in the Second Amendment to the Constitution refers to bananas and other tropical fruits.” > > I suppose that would settle things . . . Sure would. But good luck getting Congress to pass that law. But since we’re playing on your lowered level of consciousness… suppose the whole planet suddenly transformed into an exact replica of a zit on Pauly Shore’s ass! Wouldn’t that be amusing? Nyah, nyah, I won the debate 'cuz I posed an utterly ridiculous and senseless hypothetical that has no chance in ever reaching fruition! Nyah, nyah! (And your use of the “rolleyes” smiley… why am I suddenly reminded of **fatherjohn**?) ---
**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 26, 2001, 8:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-gun-control-do-you-really-want/69186/132 "2001-06-26T08:52:49Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by sjgouldrocks \* > \*\*So let’s suppose Congress passes the following law: > > “We hereby declare that the word ‘arms’ in the Second Amendment to the Constitution refers to bananas and other tropical fruits.” > > I suppose that would settle things . . . :rolleyes: > > \*\* So let’s suppose Congress passes **this** law: “We hereby declare that the word ‘press’ in the First Amendment to the Constitution refers to Q-Tips and other minor toiletry items.” Golly, we could have some fun with this game! ---
**Author:** ![SPOOFE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c5a1d2/32.png) [@SPOOFE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SPOOFE)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2001, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-gun-control-do-you-really-want/69186/133 "2001-06-26T23:17:29Z")
You know, I never would have considered Q-tips to be “toiletry”. Perhaps we should get Congress to pass a law describing what Q-tips are, too… and, for that matter, what a “law” is, what “Congress” is, and what “describing” is. Then we need Congress to pass a law providing a definition of what “is” is. Psst… **sjgouldrocks** … Congress’s laws seem to jibe with the definitions found in the dictionary. Crack one open (they contain knowledge, so be careful… it might be frightening for you) and look up the word “militia”. ---
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2001, 4:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-gun-control-do-you-really-want/69186/134 "2001-06-27T04:03:59Z")
Once again, from the talk.politics.guns.pro-gun FAQ: > [@](#): > > The 1986 Kellerman study, the source of the famous “43 to 1” ratio, is deceptive in several ways. The basis for comparison in this study is the ratio of “firearm-related deaths” of household members vs. deaths of criminals killed in the home (justifiable homicides). The “firearm-related deaths” in the study include suicides and accidents, neither of which are randomly distributed throughout the population, as the 43 to 1 “risk ratio” would imply. Both suicides and accidents are more likely to occur in specific categories of people than they are in the general population. Of the 398 “firearm-related deaths” included in the study, the vast majority (333, or, 84%) were suicides. > > The number of fatal firearms accidents in the study was 12 (or 3% of the studied deaths). Since sometimes a “gun cleaning accident” is actually a suicide reported under a name less likely to deny payment from a life insurance company, there may in fact have been even fewer accidents than are apparent from the reporting. When only the criminal homicides are considered, rather than including suicides and accidents, the “43 to 1” ratio disappears, and the ratio is far less dramatic, more like “4.5 to 1”. > > There were 41 criminal homicides reported in the Kellerman study, and 9 instances of justifIable or self-defense homicide. People who are violent, unbalanced, or involved in a life of crime are much more likely to use their home gun unwisely, and their chances of using it to harm another (or themselves) are higher than would be expected for the majority of the population. > > As criminologists know and can demonstrate, the fallacy underlying the work of researchers who treat “gun violence” as an “epidemic” or as an issue of “public health” is the idea that people are all at equal risk for becoming a perpetrator of crime, and lack only a deadly weapon. If a person is stable, and not suicidal, and not prone to extreme violence, their chances of becoming involved in “firearm-related death” will be far lower than the Kellerman “43 to 1 risk ratio” would suggest. Persons with these risk factors are not only more likely to abuse guns to harm themselves or others, but they probably can’t be trusted with knives, either. Aside from such obvious risk factors, the likelihood of being injured accidentally can be decreased further by training in safe gun handling, much as firearms accidents have declined in the U.S. population in recent years due to such safety education, despite an increase in the number of guns available. > > The Kellerman study, based on data collected in King County, WA from 1978 to 1983, is skewed towards violence associated with an urban setting, and makes little mention of the thousands of gun-owning households where no “firearm-related deaths” occurred at all. If gun ownership was the crucial factor in an “epidemiology of violence,” how to explain the fact that almost all gunowners’ households weren’t affected? > See\_Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America,\_by Gary Kleck, Aldine de Gruyter, ISBN 0-202-30419-1 (1991) [Dr. Kleck’s book is a valuable resource for all participants in the “gun control” debate. \_Point Blank\_received the American Society for Criminology’s highest honor, the Hindelang Award, at the ASC’s 1993 annual meeting, for the most important contribution to the criminology literature in the preceding three years.] > > also\_Criminal Victimization in the United States,_1992_ A National Crime Victimization Survey Report,\_Bureau of Justice Statistics, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Dept. of Justice SuDoc# J 29.9/2:992 (1992) > > Kellerman, Arthur L. and Reay, Donald T., “Protection or Peril? An Analysis of Firearm-Related Deaths in the Home” New England J. Medicine, v.314, n.24, pp.1557-1560 (1986) > > Kleck, Gary and Gertz, Marc, “Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun,” J. of Criminal Law and Criminology, v.86, n.1, pp.150-187 (1995) You can change your sig now, **sjgouldrocks**. Score??? ---
**Author:** ![ExTank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@ExTank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ExTank)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2001, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-gun-control-do-you-really-want/69186/135 "2001-06-28T01:08:24Z")
One of the problems I see, regardless of the level of control desired by the various posters or any organization, is that the control/restriction/ban has to be enforced to be effective. **Lightning and Cranky** are both in the “need some more restriction” camp, and have valid points, but I feel their arguments need to be taken to the next logical step: implementation. Show how their goals can be implemented, reasonably and fairly (maybe those caveats make this a loaded question), the have the effects they desire with a higher order of probability that 50/50. **Cranky** made a point in what I think was his first post in this thread about increased restrictions stemming the criminal violence. To this I say: **unfounded correlation and erroneous assumption.** The erroneous assumption is that widespread gun ownership has an automatic inherent criminality attached to it; the unfounded correlation is that removal will automatically reduce criminality or criminal impulses by those with criminal intent. Anti-controllers, such as myself, have long held that reducing criminal impulses, or removing the criminals altogether (about as probable or realistic as gun bans), is the way to go. It is the criminal who breaches the peace and rightful activities of the law-abiding by breaking the covenants of society to trespass in people’s homes, steal their property, forcibly rape other individuals, etc. Gun Control Measures and their anti-control counterparts of tougher penalties are both Band-Aidssub[/sub] on sucking chest wounds and arterial bleeding; addressing the underlying causes of crime and criminal mentality will have a better chance of instituting truly rehabilitative penal measures, or possibly of identifying the criminally inclined _before_ they become criminals. **Wierd-Al:** you are my newest personal Straight Dope Super Hero! Your side debate with **Darwin’s Finch** is probably the real crux of any Gun Control Debate. Controllers fear, generally, the otherwise normal-seeming citizen going berserk. Their arguments, as represented here on the SD for several years, would leave me to believe that they are nervously scanning their surrounding environments constantly for “some whacko” with a gun. Anti-controllers, as we feel that control measures won’t impede criminals (and secretly believe that total-gun-banners _know_ this as well) fear incrementally more restrictive measures, each as equally unsuccessful as the preceding, all in the pursuit of “common sense gun control” so as to “reduce violence in our communities”. **Don Skotus:** > [@](#): > > 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. And is their need any more valid than their fellow citizens who disagree with their logic? Why aren’t these people you mention seeking to address the true causes of violence and criminality, rather than its gross symptoms? Might not equality in education, professions and income alleviate the desire to seek profit through crime, specifically violent crime? Might not better programs be instituted to identify, at an earlier stage of development, individuals with violent tendencies, and get these people the help they need before it’s too late? This is essentially the “other side of the coin” that Sarah Brady and her ilk refuse to acknowledge and address; even the mass media ignore it in pursuit of “more gun control”. **Lightning:** > [@](#): > > 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. Did you bother to call the police? **[Rambling Rant]** There seems to be a mistaken impression, especially among foreigners, but also disturbingly frequent among my fellow Americans, that we are in a “no control” state, vis-a-vis gun control. That anybody can walk into any gun store and load up on an arsenal of firearms. While containing a kernel of truth, it is grossly misrepresentational. At the Federal Level: felons, the mentally defective, habitual substance abusers, the dishonorably discharged, convicted spouse abusers, non-resident aliens, persons under restraining orders against domestic violence, and expatriates are a few of the categories that come readily to mind as being proscribed from purchasing firearms. Note the word: **firearms.** All-inclusive coverage of powder-projectile weapons. There is a national database of such individuals, maintained and operated by the F.B.I. When anyone, in any state, attempts to purchase a firearm at a gun store, a form is filled out, with some simple yes/no questions. This form also contains personal information like full name, address, and social security number. The dealer then calls up this national database and runs your personal info by them. Within a few minutes (this is, after all, The Age of Information) an answer is given to the dealer as to whether or not they may proceed with the transaction. The individual states, though, vary widely. Some, like Texas, Virginia or Vermont have no real restrictions other than the federal; others, like California and New York, have considerably tougher restrictions in addition to the federal. A citizen, simply by crossing a state line en route from point A to point B can become a felon. Let’s say I have a scheduled hunting trip in Maine, and I choose to drive. The moment I cross the New Jersey state line headin’ north, I become a criminal for possessing a rifle without a permit for that state, _even though my home state doesn’t require it!_ So, in addition to **Freedom’s** list of wants, I’d add: **Federal Preemption Law** to restrict states from imposing tougher levels of restrictions over the federal level, -or- **Travel and Tourism Clause** to allow legal carry across state lines, regardless of state restrictions (as long as that state isn’t the **final** destination) **Six Feet Under** is on, I’m gonna go watch it and get back to this later. ---
**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 28, 2001, 7:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-gun-control-do-you-really-want/69186/136 "2001-06-28T07:47:50Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ExTank \* > \*\* > **Wierd-Al:** you are my newest personal Straight Dope Super Hero! \*\* Thank you **ExTank** 🙂 I try my best. I don’t think I have any super powers though, except for very brief periods after I drink some strong coffee 😉 Actually, I meant last night to stand up and salute (as far as that can be done on a message board) another poster, namely **Anthracite** , for being willing to go and dig up the cite on the Kellerman study, the sort of thing I am generally much too lazy to do. Hey **Anthracite** , I heard somewhere that vampires have whadayacallem? like, human flunkies that work for them and do stuff for them during the day when Vampires can’t go out. Can I be your flunky? 😃 Oh and BTW, you have no doubt noticed that **Darwin’s Finch** and **Don Skotus** appear to have abandoned this thread, leaving me the last word. So, do I win on points? Or do I have to wait until **Kimstu** returns and see how that turns out? What are the rules? **ExTank** , **Anthracite** , you’ve both been here longer than I have…fill me in 😉 ---
**Author:** ![SPOOFE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c5a1d2/32.png) [@SPOOFE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SPOOFE)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2001, 8:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-gun-control-do-you-really-want/69186/137 "2001-06-28T08:57:51Z")
What you win, Mr. Einstein, is the privilege to participate in the next gun thread… Yeah, I know… kind of a lousy reward. But, hey, it’s better than some cheap toaster oven. ---
**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 28, 2001, 9:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-gun-control-do-you-really-want/69186/138 "2001-06-28T09:08:13Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SPOOFE \* > \*\*What you win, Mr. Einstein, is the privilege to participate in the next gun thread… > > Yeah, I know… kind of a lousy reward. But, hey, it’s better than some cheap toaster oven. \*\* Lol that’s what I thought…it’s a neverending battle… ---
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2001, 11:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-gun-control-do-you-really-want/69186/139 "2001-06-28T11:48:10Z")
It’s like killing a hydra. Chop off one head and two more appear. Sometimes the use of fire (flames) will seal things off, but here in GD that is not the way to conduct oneself. I stopped participating in these gun debates for a while…well, actually, I stopped participating in GD altogether because of one Ass Goblin who made me unhappy. Now he is gone, so I will be visiting quite a bit more often. ---
**Author:** ![Freedom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bc8723/32.png) [@Freedom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freedom)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2001, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-gun-control-do-you-really-want/69186/140 "2001-06-28T14:32:15Z")
> [@](#): > > Let’s say I have a scheduled hunting trip in Maine, and I choose to drive. The moment I cross the New Jersey state line headin’ north, I become a criminal for possessing a rifle without a permit for that state, even though my home state doesn’t require it! It’s always been my understanding that you COULD travel through states without fear of this sort of situation. I’m 90% sure that there is a federal pre-emption of this sort of thing. I think there is also a clause covering your time spent in a state if you are there for a short time to compete in a shotting match. However… If you go through NJ on your way to Maine without stopping by for a Dopefest Shootingfest, then I’m going to register a sockpuppet and hound every gun thread I see with Kellerman quotes:) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-gun-control-do-you-really-want/69186.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-gun-control-do-you-really-want/69186.md?page=8)