How much gun control do you really want?

Great Debates
21

Admittedly, this isn’t really the thrust of the OP, but I haven’t really seen this topic brought up much. As far as I’m concerned, you can own anything that doesn’t explode (level 6, I guess), AS LONG AS YOU:

*complete an intensive government-sanctioned gun saftey course, with possible licensing checkups every few years (much like renewing a driver’s license);
*submit to a full background check;
*pay ehh, about 100% tax, or so.

In addition, I’d also strongly advocate a set of changes in gun manufacture, including:

*installation of a hammer or simiar device that stamps an individualized id mark on a shell casing or bullet itself (I’d assume the casing, since it seems impractical to do so on the projectile)
*installation of a personalization device that de-activates the gun without some unique piece of biological info (or, alternately, only allows a round to be chambered when the biometric sensor is activated)

Admittedly, the personalization device technogy isn’t there. However, fingerprint or galvanic sensors already exist, and though the electronics can get bulky, it seems that this would really solve both the accidental shooting and stolen-gun issues.

After those laws are enacted, all guns without both devices would be made illegal, excepting guns with strong historic or antique value, which would be registered to the owner. However, to compensate for the loss of guns, governmental authorities would be legally obligated to replace any gun legally surrendered to them with one of similar caliber/make posessing both items.

It seems to me that the debate shouldn’t be where the line is drawn, but how much care the government can take to link each gun with a responsible, caring owner. Guns are tools, but dangerous ones. There are a lot of responsible people who have legitimate needs for them, and should be able to make use of them. However, those people should have to prove that they’re responsible and committed to owning guns.

So, what’s wrong with that argument? It seems too simple- where am I going wrong?

M.

22

I would be comfortable with Level 6, if there were some conditions attached.
[ul]
[li]Background check for criminal record or serious mental illness.[/li][li]Thorough training in use, maintenance, safety, and the laws covering gun ownership. Attended by everyone in the house where the weapon will be kept.[/li][li]Enhanced penalties for use of the weapon in a crime. (Some crimes already have this enhancement)[/li][/ul]
Not much detail, but what do you think?

23

An excellent question Gorillaboy.

To answer the OP first, the laws we had, at the time, roughly five to ten years go, were as realistically achievable as possible.

In other words, up to level 5 with the filing of the yellow form, no real restrictions save for those labeled felons, dishonorably discharged, mentally handicapped, etc.

And also up to level 6 and 7 with the proper paperwork, transfer taxes, etc.

Level Seven? Yup. Mr. Dillon of Dillon Precision owns- privately- a Quad-50 anti-aircraft system on an electric traverse-and-elevate mount attached to his personal halftrack. He also owns a couple of “Vulcan cannon” type multi-barrel rotary miniguns… yes, the ones that can spit out upwards of 3,000 rounds per minute.
There’s a guy I read about that owns a French 75mm cannon, an early “Howitzer” type field gun. Quite a few still have fully-functional (and legal) flamethrowers.

I don’t know about bazookas and mortars, but there are privately-owned M203 40mm grenade launchers…

Getting back to the OP, as Gorillaboy mentioned, Switzerland all but requires citizens above the age of 18 to qualify with and own a military “battle rifle”, typically one that is capable of fully automatic operation. Silencers, grenade launchers, large anti-vehicle rifles (such as the 20mm Solothurn) and other military wepons are also available to the average Swiss citizen who wishes to jump through a few additional hoops.

By the way, silencers are all but unrestricted in France. They are, in fact, encouraged to reduce the noise of shooting practice and small competitions in populated areas.

But I digress.

For those, er, dissenting, ( :smiley: ) there is, fortunately, still the Second Amendment. It does not “grant” us the right to self-defense, it formally recognizes that it is a person’s innate duty to fight back against those who would do him or her harm.

As already mentioned, the criminally-minded will ALWAYS have access to a weapon. A stick, a table-leg club, a length of chain, a car, an icepick, a screwdriver, a pocketknife, a can of oven cleaner, a BIC lighter, a sock with a doorknob in it, a broken-off car antenna, a broken bottle, a slingshot, a cane, a roll of quarters, a length of rope or even just his (or her) bare hands.

Point of fact: Compare the number the kook in Japan killed with just a knife, with the number killed at any of the already-mentioned mass shootings.

Is it the weapon or is it the hand that wields it?

So as long as those bent on doing me harm- now or in the future- have access to a weapon, to deny me the use of an effective, proven counter-weapon, is simply morally wrong.

24

At the serious risk of turning this into yet another Great Debate, I suggest some light reading:

40 Reasons for Gun Control:
http://sightings.com/general10/reas.htm

Some selections, paraphrased:

Trigger locks save lives. Which is why you see so many cops with them on their duty weapons.

Gun Bans work. Which is why cops in Washington DC, Chicago and New York still carry guns.

And in spite of waiting periods, background checks, BATF forms, magazine restrictions and fingerprinting, guns today are too easily available, which leads to mass shootings.
As opposed to in the '40s and '50s, when guns could be bought cheap, by mail, in gas stations and hardware stores, with no ID, no age restrictions and no mass shootings.

And I especially like:
Handguns, with up to four seperate controls, are far too difficult for the average person to learn to use effectively and safely, as opposed to an automobile, which has upwards of twenty controls.

(Paraphrased, of course.)

25

**

Well it wasn’t a good enough reason to restrict gun ownership. At least not any more then the restrictions we’ve already got in place here in the US. One of the things you need to remember is that our government doesn’t necessarily work in the same manner that yours does nor are our histories all that simliar.

And I almost hate to sound like an insensitive prick but just because they have relatives who died doesn’t make their position any more or less valid. A friend of mine was murdered back in 1997 and the weapon was a firearm. And it doesn’t make my position any more or less valid.

Marc

26

Darwin’s Finch…

And the United States is doing just fine WITH guns. Obviously, the problem isn’t guns at all.

ITR…

If this were the Pit, I would call you many things. As it is, I will simply say that you’ve just taken the biggest, most outrageous leap in logic that I have seen in a long, long while. See, you’ve just fallen victim to the “No Limits” fallacy… assuming that because someone is in favor of one thing, he must be in favor of all things related to this, no matter how extreme.

Vorfod…

Actually, yeah, it is just bad luck. Or are you suggesting that we base our legislation on isolated, emotion-heavy incidents? Because if we did, I can sure imagine a lot of speech restrictions that would be in place due to the actions of the KKK…

Anyway, in response to the OP (which I forgot to do)…

I would be perfectly fine with up to level 6, and even level 7 with some strident measures in place (those items are “ordinance”, and shouldn’t be in the hands of an untrained person). I would like to see level 7 come with required authority certification.

Additionally, I would like to see a program designed to encourage people, through the use of tax breaks/refunds and other such voluntary incentives, to get training and education on the proper use and maintenance of their gun. Many of the problems which Gun Control advocates point to is a direct result of people being uneducated in the proper use of their firearm.

27

I’d be happy with level 3. Anything beyond that point is designed strictly to kill other people. Why do you really need a machine gun? You’re not going hunting with it (well, not if you expect to get any meat from the carcass), and just how useful is it going to be for personal protection? Isn’t a rifle enough protection? At what point do you feel safe?

I can completely understand the “coolness” factor, though- my mom found my switchblade when I was a kid, and it took me a while to convince her that I really only had it 'cause I liked the mechanism.

Now, that said, I think that a perfect society would have no restrictions on what its citizens could carry. I’m all for letting anyone carry anything- unless they can’t control it and keep it from killing the neighbors. Hey, if you want to have some Sarin gas, and you can control it safely, more power to you.

I, personally, don’t have a gun. I’ve never had one. I know enough about 'em to shoot one safely, though (and I think that if guns are available, everyone should know how to handle one). I’ve lived in some really bad neighborhoods- and I live in Texas, where it seems everyone has a gun. But you know, I’ve never felt the need to carry one- I’ve never felt that my life was in such danger that a gun would save my life.

Since I don’t have a gun, I wish nobody else did, either. It bugs me that a criminal breaking into my house might be carrying a gun- but I also don’t feel that my having a gun will necessarily make me that much safer. It simply doesn’t follow. Here in Texas, its been made legal for everyone to carry a concealed pistol- why? It scares the crap out of me that one of those idiots on IH-35 who’re having a bad day can carry weapons around with 'em.

I also can’t understand the argument that guns are necessary to keep the government in line. Frankly, that just sounds like so much B-movie bullshit- do you really think that if the government goes bad, your weapons’ll do you any good? I know that if I were to decide to become an evil overlord, I’d first find all those registered gun owners, and arrest 'em- or maybe just blow up their houses with my military’s tanks. The government’ll always have bigger guns than its citizens.

Here’s a question- suppose a completely reliable stunning weapon was invented. You know, a phaser. Something that can knock a person unconscious at range, and that can’t be blocked. Would anyone support outlawing guns then? I mean, it’d be just as effective at stopping a bad guy as a gun, but it wouldn’t kill him- and as an added bonus, it couldn’t be used to kill you. How would you feel about that? Personally, I’d be all over it.

All that said, though, I don’t think that guns should be outlawed. It’s simply too late- we can’t put the genie back into the bottle (even if we hold a gun to its head). But I wouldn’t mind living in a society where I don’t have to carry a bigger weapon than you just to feel safe.

28

Well crap, this has become yet another gun debate. I stay out of them, but since I voted in this one, I’ll open my mouth again.

EVEN if “Guns aren’t the problem, people are,” why not consider more restrictions? If we’ve got irresponsible people, or a culture which at the moment seems to encourage certain elements to solve things via gunplay, or however you want to frame the argument, what’s wrong with using gun legislation to try to address it?

This isn’t a perfect analogy (as I am sure many will delight it picking apart to show me) but I’m a sometimes reader of a dog breed list. Sometimes these dogs are mistreated and abused. Sometimes they are aggressive. Too many of them end up in shelters for selfish reasons or completely preventable ones, and others dedicate their lives to breed rescue to try to correct this problem. It’s not the dog’s fault–it’s the people who get them. It’s our society which generally thinks it’s cute to get a puppy even if you don’t have the time/house/training to deal with it correctly; and which believes that it’s everyone’s right to have a dog; and which believes it’s okay to dump a dog at a shelter when it gets inconvenience.

Now, we love these dogs. LOVE THEM. But the vast majority of the people who have spoken up on my breed lists would embrace stricter rules on who can breed dogs and who can own dogs. We’d gladly pay higher registration fees, and submit to considerable scrutiny from reputable breeders & rescues before being allowed to have one (our rescues often insist on home visits, for example). That’s right, we’d willingly bear the inconvenience and expense of tighter, tougher ownership laws because we believe it’s important.

Yes, it wouldn’t keep some people from getting dogs anyway, from disreputable breeders and fro the wrong reasons. But it might reduce the numbers. And it would also, over time, send a message to society at large, including the next generation of kids, that pet ownership is a serious thing. I’m sure there are some other ways to try to change the viewpoint of society, but this is one way–through the authority of law. Perfect? No. But it’s a firm message.

Let’s zoom back out to the gun issue. Why are so many gun owners apparently so resistant to rules which would make it harder for idiots to own guns? Why not welcome laws that send a message that gun ownership is a serious responsibility? I heartily applaud attitudes like Colonel Moose’s and some of the others on here. Why aren’t those voices louder from, say, the NRA camp?

29

You are quite correct - the problem is with those irresponsible individuals who wield the guns , not the guns themselves. But I think you missed my point.

Recall this exchange, back at the beginning:

My point was that civilians don’t need guns at all, and evidence of this comes from other free nations who do not allow everyone to own/carry guns - they get along just fine without them. Whether guns are, or are not, “the problem” isn’t what I was commenting on. I was making a point that the statement you gave as an argument against gun control (in effect, citizens need them for all the same reasons they need other rights) is, frankly, not a very good one. At least, it’s certainly not one that I would buy. Just as I would not buy any argument against gun ownership because they are unnecessary. In short, necessity is irrelevant.

And please don’t take any of the above personally - I was commenting on the statement, not the idea nor the person behind it.

30

**

I used to live in Texas and there were a couple of times that I did use a firearm without pulling the trigger. And I lived in Plano which is suppose to be one of the nicer cities around the D/FW area.

**

If wishes were fishes we’d never starve. Heh, I always thought that was cute.

**

Let’s just pretend for a minute. You have no gun and some guy breaks into your home. You think you’ll feel more secure with or without the gun? From personal experience I can tell you that you’d feel more secure with a firearm if something like that happens.

**

That’s a lie. You’ve got to be 21 or older, no felonies, and you’ve got to pass a background check, get your fingerprints taken, pass a written test, and then pass a shooting test. Granted it wasn’t all that difficult to pass but it did cost about 300 dollars to do it.

**

Beats me. It would sure beat using sling shots and spit wads.

**

Let’s pretend it cost about the same as a regular pistol. I’d be all over that in a heart beat but I wouldn’t bad regular guns. I might support making them the only type of “gun” that one could carry in public though.

You don’t need a bigger one you just need to be able to shoot straight. Despite the few problems I had when I lived in Texas I usually felt pretty safe. One of the reasons I did get a permit to carry was because night time photography was a hobby of mine. I would often go out well after midnight to Dallas or other parts of the city all alone with expensive camera equipment. Carrying a firearm seemed like a reasonable thing to do. And yes I had a permit.

Marc

31

Which is it? Do you feel safe or not?

Myself, I’d be in favor of going as far as 5 or 6 with special restrictions and licensing required for anything beyond level 4.

ColonelMoose seems to think that making guns prohibitively expensive will make them go away and is the answer to all of societies gun woes. Much the same thinking as what is being used against the tobacco industry right now.

Education, registration, and licensing for certain types of weapons and uses would be acceptable. As long as such determinations were made by each individual state. The roll firearms play and their place in society is very different here in Minnesota than it probably is in Massachusetts or California. I don’t think you can make one broad generalization that could be implemented on a federal level regarding gun safety/control.

I don’t buy the registration is the first step to confiscation argument. Especially from people who have no problem going down to the DMV for a drivers license and vehicle registration.

Also, not all gun owners own weapons for personal protection. I own a number of rifles, shotguns, and even a handgun, all of which are generally not stored in my home. None of which, even when in my home would be much use as personal protection, as they would be unloaded and under lock with the ammunition locked away separately. Why have all these guns you ask? Some are for recreational hunting and some are just for fun. I should clarify “just for fun”. That would be guns owned for target shooting (recreational and semi-competitive) as well as for novelty value and/or historic significance.

32

And my point is that you shouldn’t be placing restrictions on a natural human right because they may or may not “need” it. Again, people don’t “need” free speech, religion, press, etc. etc. People don’t “need” to be free of cruel and unusual punishment, they don’t “need” privacy… hell, people don’t “need” to be conscious. Let’s hook everyone up to a giant battery and, combined with a form of fusion, provide energy for our machine overlords…

It’s a natural right for a being to practice self-preservation. The best means of self-preservation is to have the ability to defend against great dangers. The best means - simplest, most cost-effective, and least likely to cause massive amounts of collateral damage (as opposed to, say, heavy explosives) - is a firearm.

See, you need to understand something (and I seem to find myself repeating this in every gun thread)… few pro-gun people are against a “no-controls” environment. There are just some controls that are believed to do much to hinder the law-abiding citizens and yet do little to hinder those who would choose to do harm. THOSE are the sorts of controls that are opposed… and, nowadays, those are the sorts of controls that are most widely brought to bill.

I never take these gun debates personally. If I did, I’d probably have snapped and gone on a shooting spree by now. :smiley:

33

sigh

I just knew anything I said would be misconstrued, when all I did was post my opinion.

Again. I grew up in a not-great part of Houston- around the Pasadena area. Not a necessarily safe place, after dark. And yet I never felt the need for a gun.

Congratulations, you felt threatened in Plano. What would you have done if they had pulled a gun back on you? Get yourself into a shootin’ match?

And would I feel safer with a gun or without if someone breaks into my house? Safer with, obviously. But what if they have a gun as well? I mean, they just might- since guns are so easy to get, it’s damn likely they will. They’re likely to be more ready to use their gun than I am- after all, they break into houses for a living, while I’ve just heard a strange noise that woke me out of my sleep (might be the dog or the kid, for all I know). Either way, one of us will end up shot, or dead, or both. Without guns entering the equation, though, the odds of that are a bit lower. You’ll notice I said I’d be happy with #3- recreational rifles. Rifles are a lot harder to conceal, just walking around, and tend to get in the way when you’re breaking into a house. Therefore, the would-be criminal is less likely to actually be carrying a gun- and therefore, the odds are in the homeowner’s favor. Pistols mean that both are just as likely to be packin’- and when I’m defending a house, I don’t want the odds to be even. I’m funny that way.

I’m sure someone will refute this answer, too. Whatever.

Just 'cause “you’ve got to be 21 or older, no felonies, and you’ve got to pass a background check, get your fingerprints taken, pass a written test, and then pass a shooting test”- and had 300 bucks to spend on the test- doesn’t mean you aren’t also an idiot. Yeah, I know I said “everyone”- but yes, I know you’ve got to do all of the above. Doesn’t matter- a guy with a concealed handgun license might be having a bad day, and road rage makes people do crazy things. Sure, it’s unlikely- but it’s even less likely if the concealed handgun permit doesn’t exist.

Cue the “slippery slope argument”.

So a rifle is just as good as an Uzi, in the right hands? Then why have Uzis?
Hibbins- Yeah, I feel safe. I’d feel safer if there were no guns in the world. The second quote was a sort of supposition, as if I was buying into the “guns equal safety” mindset. I do not believe that, personally- but it seems to me that that’s the way some people think. Sorry if it wasn’t clear.

34

The basic question that gun control laws raise is : how much of your personal freedom will you give up to be safer?

This is similar to the question of hate crime/hate speech laws. Will you give up your right to say hateful things because it will lessen the chance that others will say hateful things to you and infringe on your other rights in some way.

The sad truth is that the united states is no longer a descendant of it’s founders. We are soft in our old age.

People no longer want to, or feel they ought to have to, take care of themselves. We have welfare.

People think that they shouldn’t be responsible for the consequences of their actions if they’d not been nearly forcibly restrained from taking those actions. We sue tobacco companies for lying to us!

Our god damn populace acts like so much children. No wonder we’re willing to give up so many rights, like the right to not have to justify to the government what we say or do or possess, so that our playpen remains intact.

Give up rights and be protected from crazies with guns? I’d rather not let the actions of crazies dictate my rights.

35

**

Felt? I was threatened. On two seperate occasions someone attempted to break into my home. The first time it was broad daylight and I actually pointed a firearm at the guy and told him to leave. And yes had he reached for a weapon I would have pulled the trigger. Is defending myself and my property such a terrible thing?

**

Then you’d probably be rather thankful that you had a firearm and weren’t at the mercy of the other guy.

**

What a shame that we don’t take your word to be gospel. A thousand apologies oh magnificent one. I don’t know how likely it is that someone breaking into your home is packing heat. I don’t really care as I will assume anyone breaking into my home is armed with some sort of weapon.

**

Hmmmm…tell me, how many CCW permit holders have been involved in such shootings in the state of Texas? Road Rage is one of those sexy topics that gets attention but there are more serious problems on our roads.

Marc

36

Are you missing the point?

At what level do you feel safest:

  1. Nobody has guns.
  2. Everbody can have a gun if they want one.
  3. Everyone has a gun.

I, personally, would feel safest at the first level. If there aren’t any guns, you’re not likely to get shot, are you?

Granted, we’ve already got guns. There’s nothing we can do about that fact. If guns were limited to recreational rifles, and not allowed to be carried around without a good reason, gun-assisted crime would be reduced.

I’m not saying that’s what we should do- I don’t know enough about guns to say one way or the other. It just seems logical to me.

And then one of you would likely be dead. I don’t think that anything I own is worth my life- or even somebody else’s life. I’ll defend my loved ones to the death- but I guess that since I don’t own a gun, I don’t care enough about 'em, huh?

And, given the situation I proposed above, wherein recreational rifles are the only guns allowed, you are more likely to have access to a gun than the person breaking into your house. How can that not be a good thing?

Dunno. Beats me. I’m sure somebody can find that statistic. My point is that, if they don’t have those concealed weapons, that’s one less gun-related death.

Look. I’m not saying that we should erode civil liberties, just 'cause we want to be as safe as possible. I am asking, though, why anything beyond a rifle is necessary. Why do you feel the need to have a pistol? Getting into a shooting match, wild west style, is just gonna get somebody killed- and sooner or later, it’ll be you. Escalation never solved anything.

37

**

I feel safe enough as it is. I don’t know how my life would be improved by feeling any safer.

**

Would my semi-automatic M-1 Carbine be considered a recreational rifle?

**

He decided that whatever he could find in my home was worth risking his life over. I didn’t make that decision for him. And as I said had he reached for a weapon I would have pulled the trigger. Since I had the drop on him odds are he would have been the one that ended up dead or injured though I suppose one can never be sure. I’d rather the whole thing never happened.

**

That was uncalled for. Did anyone here suggest that about you or anyone else? I didn’t think so. Keep that crap to yourself.

**

And when I leave the house late at night with expensive camera equipment? What will keep me safe if a gang of thugs decides to use broken bottles to take my things?

**

Who is they? The people legally allowed to carry those firearms or those that illegally carry them?

**

Necessity isn’t relevant. Although I could argue that many people enjoy shooting pistols and that would make them necessary for their hobby.

Maybe you’re familiar with the saying “those who live by the sword die by the sword.” What that means is that those who make a living through violence will die a violent death. My basic means of living is not one of violence. I don’t get into shoot outs or fist fights on a regular basis.

Yes getting into a gun fight is just gonna get someone killed. Hopefully the only person killed will be the guy who started it. But I’d rather be able to get into a gun fight rather then sit there and be the victim with no means of defending myself.

Marc

38

::Sigh:: So very, very much to respond to. Where to begin?

Ok, once again, from the top:

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 am going to repeat this, for emphasis. It seems to be just slipping past people:

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.

ColonelMoose and BooBoo316: I could probably live with the systems you suggest, provided that’s how it stayed. I fear, though, that it wouldn’t. The argument about the slippery slope is going on in another thread, however.

Well. If you want to appeal to emotions, I guess I could bring up Suzanna Hupp(sp?) and others like her. You are familiar with her story, aren’t you?

According to the most comprehensive study to date on the subject of Concealed Weapons Permits, More Guns, Less Crime by Professor John Lott, the crime rate for the holders of such permits, including gun crimes, is much lower than that of the population in general, and the rate of gun accidents and misuse is substantially lower than that of the police.

So would I. So would any Evil Overlord worthy of the title. That is one of the reasons gun rights advocates oppose gun registration.

Very, very far fetched, but if it existed it would probably be banned in most of the same jurisdictions that ban guns. NYC for example. They won’t even let you have pepper spray, and that won’t even knock you out.

And who gets to decide who is an “idiot”? The idiots in the government?

Punishing people under the law for something they haven’t done, but might do, is called prior restraint. It is contrary to the US constitution, and, I would imagine, not permitted by the constitutions of other nations as well.

Finally, on a lighter note:

This would have been perfect for my MPSIMS thread: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=73955

39

Talk about silliness:

You’re forgetting to keep in mind which of those are the most realistic. Number 1 is, simply, impossible to carry out. As is Numer 3.

Guess where that leaves us?

Good.

Now, here’s a question for YOU…

At what level do you feel safest:

  1. Everyone (within slight limits) can have a gun if they want one.
  2. Only those who choose to do harm can have a gun.

Answer honestly.

40

Interesting responses…I posted the same question at talk.politics.guns, and results are considerably different thus far. The consensus over there seems to be that we should have access to at least level 7, probably level 8, and maybe level 9(!).

In that crowd, I’m the one calling for the most weapons restrictions; that feels…odd, to say the least.