IIRC, the 1968 Gun Control Act gives an exemption. However, IIRC, New Jersey was illegally jailing hunters and sportsmen for a couple year, under the orders of their State Attorney General under their last Democratic Governor. The American Rifleman had an article that gave details and case numbers I will try to find.
Scary, when a State commits illegal acts against citizens of another State.
That blows me away. I just can’t believe it.
Are you sure that you have your facts straight?
I mean, I believe that NJ was acting without regard to people’s rights.
I just can’t believe that any sportsmen or hunters would willingly come to NJ:)
Freedom:
{Moderator Hat ON]
Do not flat-out call fellow posters stupid in Great Debates.
{Moderator Hat OFF]
I guess you guys have a couple day backlog:)
Sorry about that…
Anthracite is right about the multi-headed hydra. Just as it seemed my local liberal rag had taken a more middle-of-the-road stance on gun control, I read this in this morning’s paper, letters to the Editor. <<self-edit, that really reads weird>>
A lady writes in and identifies herself as a member of the million mom march coalition, and goes on about how proud she was to meet the Brady’s last week during the official name change from HCI to the BRADY something or other. She then goes down the list: Columbine, closing the gun show “loophole”, protect the children, NRA won’t listen to reason, the majority of the people want gun safety and sensible restrictions, and (drum roll please) you have to have a license to drive a car, why not guns? To really bring the letter home, of course they have a little cartoon with a baby, teddy bear in one hand, and a pistol in the other.
Actually, I believe the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 86 (which, IIRC, is an amendment to the original GCA 68, just like the Brady Bill) has the relevant “traveller protection” clauses. I had just forgotten about that particular law when I posted previously. :o
Of course, your only guilty until proven innocent in a court of law, and public opinion, where guns are concerned.
Freedom: it sounds like you’re approaching the “Gun Control Debate Saturation Point” that I have long surpassed. I don’t even really try here anymore.
Good folks like you, Spoofe, Joe_Cool, Max Torque, TechChich, Uncle Beer, Thinksnow, Weirddave, BF, Anthracite and now Wierd-Albert-Einstein keep me sane on this particular topic. (I know I’m forgetting someone here; I beg your forgiveness in advance
And, in all fairness, good people like Kimstu, xeno, and usually mintygreen, who intelligently and thoughtfully represent moderates and sometimes “the opposition”. Thank you for not making it personal.
I guess the best saving grace of the internet is that if I go apeshit over a GD GCD, the only thing I can shoot is my computer. 
Maybe we oughta scare the heck out of some folks with a Straight Dope Shoot-a-Palooza?
“Come One, Come All, And Bring Your Favorite Firearm(s)!”
“The Straight Dope Shootfest And Full-Auto Rock-and-Roll-a-Thon IS Coming Soon To A Location Near YOU!”
I wanna scored match between me and Anthracite with mini-14’s.
One more plug for a book titled The Gun Control Debate: You Decide (2ed). compiled and edited by Lee Nisbet, Ph.D. Essays, articles and studies from both sides of the debate. Remarkably enough, well balanced perspectives from (generally) moderates of both spectrums. It breaks down the various aspects of the debate and analyzez them quite well, even if the conclusion is that more study is needed to draw any meaningful conclusions.
[sub]this is an unpaid, unsolicited endorsement of what I think is a great book[/sub]
Kimstu: as you well know, I have already admitted to a severely limited knowledge of statistics and statistical methodology. What little I do know I have you and a few math programs to thank for.
Just about anyone can run some pseudo-scientific sounding statistical gobbledygook by me and I’ll just go “Huh?” (except for Kellerman). Well, at least until I read it very slowly. Several times.
Yet Kleck is mentioned prominently, and generally favorably, by both pro- and con- sides of the debate in the aforementioned book.
I’ve heard the same thing about Mass. Sure, you’ll be found innocent in a court of law, but your guns, and your vacation, and your lawyer’s fees are long gone…
Fsck 'em. MOLON LABE, MOFOS!
Bump
Thanks fer the bump, WAE, I was too tired from my hiking trip to go looking for this thread. 
But as long as it’s here… I think Freedom cuts to the heart of the licensing issue when he says:
*[K:] “But a car cannot be so used if confined strictly to one’s own property (in the overwhelming majority of cases, at least), whereas a gun can be. That’s why it doesn’t make sense to treat them as analogous when it comes to licensing requirements.”
But you are not licensing them just because they can be used, you are licensing them because they have risk associated with them. *
Exactly. I’ve been trying to stress that the point of licensing is to regulate the use of dangerous things when they are usable and therefore dangerous.
*So my point remains…
Is a gun on an owner’s personal property dangerous enough to require licensing. (note: I am including shooting the gun, not just possesing it)
You can talk all day about how much more useful a gun is in a particular situation, but that doesn’t matter. The relevant fact is how DANGEROUS [is] it.
So lets see some numbers that show how legally owned guns, on the owner’s personl property, pose enough risk to society that they must be licensed.*
Well, here’s a Bureau of Justice Statistics press release on their 1994 report about non-fatal handgun crime. According to them, in the surveyed period there were about 80,000 DGUs annually for crimes in the categories considered, plus more than 340,000 annual instances of firearm theft. (About 2/3 of the gun thefts were during household burglaries.) How the fatal-crime numbers fit into this, they don’t say.
Let’s suppose that only about a quarter of these particular DGUs involved “a gun on an owner’s personal property”; we know from the stats that at least 200,000 of the thefts did. That’s 20,000 cases annually of a gun owner using a gun in self-defense (usually, according to the press release, against an offender without a firearm), and nearly a quarter of a million thefts. Twenty thousand people annually waving guns at criminals certainly sounds dangerous to me. And firearm theft is also definitely dangerous to society, since it puts more guns into the hands of people who are likely to use them dangerously.
And according to the CDC, there are about 115,000 firearm-related injuries, both fatal (about 30%) and non-fatal, annually. About 20% of the non-fatal kind occur in the home, so I suppose that a similar proportion of the fatal kind probably do too; it seems reasonable to estimate that at least some 20,000 of these injuries involve “a gun on an owner’s personal property”. I don’t know how much overlap there is between these injury stats and the DGU stats mentioned above; I didn’t find numbers from these sources specifically separating out non-criminal accident injuries from the other kind, and I know that other estimates of firearm accident rates are considered suspect.
Nonetheless, any way you slice it, that’s a good deal of dangerous stuff directly related to the existence of “a gun on an owner’s personal property.” Nowhere near that kind of trouble is generated by automobiles confined to their owners’ personal property. That seems to me like an excellent reason why, as I said in the beginning, it’s extremely prudent to require a license to keep a gun on one’s own property, even though that’s not exactly parallel to the licensing situation for cars. Moreover, unlike swimming pills and aspirin or whatever else WAE mentioned as being more fatal to six-year-olds than guns are, guns have no practical advantage or purpose except their dangerousness. (Exceptis excipiendis, of course, as in the case of antique flintlocks and other guns valued more for their beauty or historical significance than their actual effectiveness as weapons.)
As xeno points out, if you don’t agree from square one that guns are inherently dangerous and should be dealt with cautiously by individuals and society alike, we are not likely to find much common ground to debate on. I don’t support banning private use or ownership of guns, but I definitely see the wisdom of restricting and regulating them.
No problem 
Ummmm…I don’t think Freedom actually said that…I think he was quoting.
In any case, whoever said it, my response is something I said in a previous post:
Yes! Yes! Regulate the use! The use! That’s what we do. We don’t (or shouldn’t) regulate posession. This is what I have been saying all along.
And I am most emphatically NOT including shooting it. I think that should be illegal in almost all circumstances.
A gun is not of itself dangerous at all. Only people are dangerous.
Yes. Dangerous to the criminals. Is this supposed to be a bad thing?
The same can be said about automobiles, and as I pointed out, you don’t need a license to get one of them.
Once again, the only way you can have an accident with a gun is if you fire it, and that’s already illegal.
No, there is a good deal of dangerous stuff directly related to the firing of guns on an owner’s personal property, which is, once again, already illegal.
How is it relevent whether or not guns have any advantage or purpose?
I don’t, as I said above.
This OTOH I do agree with.
WAE, I’m afraid you misunderstood my citation system there: my fault probably, it wasn’t very clear. Everything I in italics in my most recent post was indeed quoted from Freedom’s remarks, except for the sentence at the beginning in quotation marks with a [K:] for “Kimstu” to indicate that I said it. Sorry for confusing you.
Using that same annotation system, I’m going to quote your reply to me:
*“Nonetheless, any way you slice it, that’s a good deal of dangerous stuff directly related to the existence of ‘a gun on an owner’s personal property.’”
No, there is a good deal of dangerous stuff directly related to the firing of guns on an owner’s personal property, which is, once again, already illegal.*
That, of course, leaves out the question of theft, which is also not parallel to the analogous phenomenon for cars, since a stolen car is generally quite a bit easier to detect than a stolen gun. (It is also usually much less risky for society, since most stolen cars, being destined for stripping or resale, are not significantly more dangerous in the hands of a thief than in the hands of their legitimate owners. A stolen gun, on the other hand, is frequently used to commit crimes with and hence is much more dangerous after the theft than before.)
*Yes! Yes! Regulate the use! The use! That’s what we do. We don’t (or shouldn’t) regulate posession. This is what I have been saying all along. *
And what I’ve been saying all along is that it is much easier to disentangle possession from use in the case of a car than in the case of a gun, which is why we cannot really regulate gun use effectively without regulating gun possession.
*“As xeno points out, if you don’t agree from square one that guns are inherently dangerous…”
I don’t, as I said above.*
“…we are not likely to find much common ground to debate on,” as I said above. So I guess this discussion is at an end.
The one, and only one reason you need to discourage you from owning a gun is the fact that your gun is 5 times more likely to be used in a crime of violence than it is likely for it to be used to defend someone.
No matter how safe you are, your gun could be stolen or used by someone you know or yourself to commit an act of violence. Not to mention the accidents that occur when kids get hold of guns.
If you own a gun you must believe that the statistically less probable chance that you will defend yourself or someone is more important than the reality that your gun is more likely to be used in an act of violence or accident.
In other words, " I want a gun for the miniscule chance that I will use it for defense even though I am putting myself, my family, and the public in greater danger than if I didn’t own a gun.
You haven’t been involved in many gun debates, have you, jdavidpope?
WAL, Freedom, et. al.
I think y’all takin’ this gun / car analogy way too seriously. The comparison as I understand it simply provides an example of a case in which society regulates the private ownership and operation an item for the sake of its own perceived common good. The laws concerned with the ownership and operation of a motor vehicle express the general will of a democratic society and very few people see them as infringing upon their personal freedom (even though, technically, they do). It’s a case of straightforward common sense – cars can be dangerous to innocent bystanders when misused, and therefore the majority of people support a regulatory framework around their ownership and use. The analogy implies that if this can be done when it comes to cars, there is no logically intrinsic reason why it cannot be done when it comes to firearms.
As far as I know the only person claiming that we should regulate guns in exactly the same manner that we regulate cars is the aptly-named Weird Al. The “car example” was meant to elucidate a simple principle, not guide policy-making. It illustrates the idea that there must always be a balance struck between the demands of individual freedom on the one hand and the perceived good of the social whole on the other. Detailed comparisons of the regulation of cars vs. guns, which are really two completely different items, is sorta like missing the forest for all of the trees. The real point of the example is metaphorical, of purely heuristic value. (I’m not sure, but I think Kimstu has tried in vain to express this point on numerous occasions in this thread, but you guys still aren’t getting it.)
[personal rant mode]
In this thread, or a related one, Anthracite makes the observation that arguing with advocates of gun-control is like fighting a hydra – as soon as you manage to strike down one of their arguments, two more rise up to take its place. Strangely, I had almost written the same thing about pro-gunners in previous thread.
I must honestly say that as far as I can see the pro-gun crowd takes some of the most extreme and untenable positions imaginable. It is exhausting to have to constantly meet such low caliber arguments on a regular basis. Not long ago in another thread for example, Uncle Beer posted shrill demands that amrussel provide statistical evidence to support his claim that firearms were more effective weapons than swords. UB was actually prepared to state that he would not accept the argument without some sort of evidential proof that it was true, blithely ignoring the obvious fact, for example, that no modern army equips its troops with swords anymore. (And for the record, I think Unk Beer is one of the best informed and most rational pro-gun advocates on this board.) Anyway, I think most of us can see the absurdity in demanding statistical proof to back up such an obvious and common-sense claim.
Additionally, while I have seen numerous examples of gun-control advocates reevaluating their position in the light of arguments proffered by their opponents, I can only think of a single example of the opposite occurring – when Spoofe changed tact slightly here.
It is as if the pro-gun debaters here cannot give their opponents right in a single instance, for fear that if they do, their entire argument will collapse. Thus, they must take the most extreme, unsupported, illogical positions imaginable and then demand of their opponents that we somehow provide irrefutable proof that we are correct and they are not. And much like the mythological hydra, once we have managed to dispense with one such argument, two more spring up to take its place.
There. Sorry, I just had to get that off my chest.
[/personal rant mode]
Unfortunately, I’m writing a paper at the moment and working under a deadline so I don’t have the time to participate as much as I would like to. Bu do I follow these discussions with interest, so I’m still out here, Freedom, don’t you worry.
Spoofe:
Enough with the drive-bys, already. You got something say – spit it out, man.
Sorry. In the post above, the following sentence:
should read something more in the way of:
I understand, of course, that WAL is against such regulation.
SnD
I’m sorry Spoofe, I was under the impression that this debate was open to all levels of debating skills and experience.
Maybe I should just lurk until I’ve mastered the “drive-by” and the sarcastic one-liner quip.
Should I e-mail you privately my thoughts on the issue and you can inform me when my debating skills are up to your standards ? ( dripping with sarcasm )
I’ve heard it said …
“The government should not be able to take something away from me just because other citezens mis-use it. As long as I use it responsibly, and don’t hurt anyone else, I should be able to keep that right. Yes, when in the wrong hands it can cause death and injury, but I should not be punished by having my access taken away because of the inability of other to use it properly.” Now, are they talking about guns…or drugs ?!? It only seems logical that if you are pro-gun , you must be for the legalization of all drugs. ( a stretch here, I know, but as pointed out above, I’m an amateur debater).
For me, the issue comes down to this. I refuse to empower the criminals by living in fear and having to own a gun. I win, they lose.
Good for you, jdavidpope. (Oh, no, Anthracite, another one?!?!) I won’t speak for Spoofe re your debating skills, or lack thereof, but when you are in the GD, and you make statements like (and I paraphrase) “5 times more likely to have it used against you”, then the teemings are usually looking for a specific cite to determine the veracity of your statement.
There have been numerous substantiation/debunking of statistics in this (and the other 4,234,876 gun debates last month alone) thread, so be prepared to provide such, if you please.
We now return you to your previously scheduled debate…
Actually, it was mattk who made the claim “Swords: swords are less commonly owned and less lethal - sword massacres or sword snipers not being commonplace, AFAIK.” I was also at that time accused of being disingenuous. After that accusation I posted my reasoning and a clarification of my request and as I will show, you’ve grossly mischaracterized my call for substantiation.
Allow me to quote my post in full:
Now, perhaps I could have chosen my words better, specifically when the words, “murder rate,” but what you say I “shrilly demanded” is not really the case.
Looking back, “murder rate” seems to imply some absolute value, like X number of deaths per 100,000 population. Actually, I was looking for a relative value, like X number of deaths per Y number of incidents occur from criminal use of swords vs. X number of deaths per Y number of incidents occur from criminal use of guns. “Relative or comparative lethality” would likely have been a better term than “murder rate.” Anyway, I still maintain, that within these constraints, swords may actually have a greater lethality than guns.
And finally, I don’t really give a damn about military use as your post seems to imply I do. Military use has nothing to do with this. The military doesn’t equip their regular forces with swords as technology has rendered them obsolete. The military prefers to kill from a distance, hence the use of firearms.
And over 99% percent of all guns are never used in the commission of any crime. Even if what you state is true, so what? This statement sounds like the bastard brother of the claim that “handguns are 43 times more likely to kill a family member than a criminal,” which has been debunked many times. I’d like to know the source from which you’ve taken that statistic.
However, let us take a quick look at that statement anyway. The estimates of defensive gun use (DGU) that I’m familiar with range, from a high of 2.5 million uses per year (likely overstated) to a low of about 108,000 per year (likely very understated). The best numbers I’ve seen indicate around 1.5 million DGU’s per year and come from a 1994 Department of Justice survey. This would indicate between 15 million and 540,000 violent criminal gun uses per year with a likely figure being 7.5 million violent criminal gun uses per year. Is that a reasonable number? Probably not. The National Crime Victimization Survey of 1997 claims a total of 3.483 million incidents of violent crime and further states that criminals were armed during the commission of only 15% of these. This gives us only 522,000 violent criminal gun uses per year which as we’ve seen would only be reasonable for the low-ball estimate of DGU’s and that study has some very serious problems. The other 13 recent studies of DGU’s, besides the ones that have generated the high and low numbers I’ve mentioned here, estimate DGU’s at no less than 800,000 per year; this alone makes the 108,000 DGU estimate very suspect.
As you can see, none of this even allows for the likelihood of a person using a gun defensively to actually possess more than one gun. What happens to that 7.5 million figure if the average number of guns owned by defensive gun users is significantly greater than one? I believe the average number of guns possessed per gun owner is 2.25, or something like that. Assuming that DGU’s are represented in the same proportion as guns/owner, your claim of 5 criminal uses per defensive us should indicate greater than 16.5 million instances of violent criminal gun use per year and as we can see, that just isn’t the case. It’s not even close.
C’mon in. Join the fray. All we ask is that you are prepared to back up claims of fact with sources and opinions with demonstrable logic.
UB: *Assuming that DGU’s are represented in the same proportion as guns/owner, your claim of 5 criminal uses per defensive us should indicate greater than 16.5 million instances of violent criminal gun use per year and as we can see, that just isn’t the case. It’s not even close. *
Remember, Unc, that the high-end estimates of DGUs (in the 1M+ range) also have severe flaws that have been discussed at length on these threads. Basically, we can’t rule out the possibility that the low-end estimates are indeed more accurate; unfortunately, all the studies are so incomplete in various respects that there’s simply no way yet of knowing which is right.
More to the point, remember that DGU studies depend on self-reporting and so the resulting totals are extremely indiscriminate: as I’ve pointed out before, shoving your gun against the temple of a knife-wielding rapist and waving your gun out the window at a shadow you think might be a trespasser both count as DGUs if you report them as such. We do not know what sort of “defense” incidents are referred to in jdp’s soundbite about a gun being “5 times more likely to be used in a crime than to defend someone”. We can’t just assume that it is based on self-reported DGU statistics, as you’re doing, rather than on some more narrow set of data such as police reports. In short, we don’t know enough yet about what that statement is actually claiming, and what evidence it’s basing that claim on, either to debunk it or to validate it.
As you wish. It looks like some others have joined this thread though, just in time, so I may be here a while yet.
Arrrrgh. Once again, society does not regulate the private ownership of automobiles. Only their operation, on public roads.
Yes, yes, fine. Regulate the operation of guns on public property. Regulate the hell out of it.
Well that’s an interesting way to interpret it. Another equally valid interpretation is that “gun-control advocates (reevaluate) their position in the light of arguments proffered by their opponents” because we are right.
ROFLMAO! No shit, Sherlock?! Rarely has the word “duh” been more appropriate. If there is one thing I feel as passionately about as gun rights, it is this goddamned, insane, assinine, so-called “War on Drugs”. It makes me sick. But that is for another thread…
Of course, it only seems logical to me that if you favor drug legalization, you should also favor gun rights.
Explain to me exactly how or what criminals “lose” if you refuse to own a gun.
PS Sorry about all the profanity here. It has been a long day, I’m tired, and getting sloppy…