I am no longer pro- gun control!

In My Humble Opinion
1

Yes, I know some of you are thinking, “are you going to start a new thread the next time you fart, too?”

However, silenus asked why I changed my mind, and I didn’t want to hijack the “Any Republicans Around?” thread. (although I did want to add a subtitle to it- “now let the stoning begin” )

Until about last month, I was strongly in favor of gun control. I’ve never had a problem with private possession of hunting rifles (hey, it’s hard to hunt with a spear, I get it), but handguns and fully automatic weapons are only useful for shooting people, which I’m against. In fact, while I’m okay with the police having handguns, I don’t think anyone else should.

Anyway, as a rational, clear-thinking individual, I take time to examine my beliefs every once in a while to see if they still make sense. Usually, I do this while smoking a cigarette. Unfortunately, this means when I quit smoking I will also quit growing as a person, so I’m waiting until my self is fully actualized.

So, I thought about why I believed in gun control. I grew up in Britain, where firearm possession is heavily restricted. The police don’t even carry guns upon their persons, or at least they didn’t nine years ago.
Violent crime in Britain is relatively low. Firearm possession in Britain is low. Therefore, less guns = less crime, right?

However, in recent years anecdotal experience has led me to believe that there’s more violent crime in America simply because there are more violent people in America.

Reading through all the forty-three bajillion threads in GD on the subject, I’ve never once read a statistic that I would hang my hat on regarding the correlation between violent crime and firearms. Some people introduced cites suggesting that imposing tighter restrictions on possession increases violent crime. Some people introduced cites suggesting the opposite. Pretty much all of them were contained in articles that had a fairly clear agenda, one way or the other.

Then I thought about my other stances on social liberties. I am (decidedly) pro-choice. I am more of the mind that “what consenting adults choose to do with each other is none of the governments’ (or anybody elses’) business” every day. I am also in favor of allowing anybody with a drivers’ license to own a car, with which you could kill a lot more people and are much more likely to do so accidentally.

In light of those convictions, I can’t really reconcile my decision to support gun control. I still feel that in order to obtain a gun, a license should be required, just as one is required for an automobile. I don’t, however, believe that once licensed you should be required to register each firearm, except possibly with the manufacturer in case of theft. The pro-gun arguments based on the Second Amendment are extremely convincing, but only if you can’t read, don’t have a copy of the Constitution, or watch far too many action flicks. Apart from anything else, there’s absolutely no chance that having your own private arsenal will make it any easier for you to overthrow the government, no matter how many of your fellow patriots join in. Still, there’s no reason to prevent people from owning them; it’s an unreasonable imposition on their personal liberties, unless they can be shown unfit to possess one. (Failing the licensing exam, shooting a toddler, etc.)

Sorry. That was a really long and rambling post. Essentially, my reasons for changing my mind are as follows:
-Gun control conflicts with my stances regarding other civil liberties, and…
-Nobody was able to reconcile my somewhat blind belief in gun control with actual facts, so…
-in the absence of persuasive evidence on either side, I am neither for or against restricting firearm ownership.

2

Does the current situation in Canada (Dawson College Shootings) help your decision a little? Gun control didn’t seem to be helping anyone on that one. . .

3

It takes a lot to periodically examine your beliefs and hold them up to the light, so congratuations on not closing your mind.

Now go and convince the others. :wink:

4

Never heard of Dawson College, and a quick Googling suggests that nobody outside their athletic department has either… (?)

The original kickoff for the soul-searching that preceded this thread was reading the “Any Republicans Around?” thread and trying to count how many planks my personal platform shares with the Republican Party.

5
6

It’s the top story as I post this at http://www.cnn.com/

7

Glad to have you aboard. I warn you though, you sound somewhat liberal and in the “pro-gun” lobby, we’re in rather short supply. But I assure you, some do exist. :wink:

8

Now that your air-tight logic has sunk in, I just wonder, why stop with guns? I say we each get our own nuclear arsenal. Talk about mutually-assured destruction! It worked for nation-states, why not neighborhoods? As you point out, all we have to do is make sure the bad guys don’t get the weapons. Details.

9

I believe full auto weapons are illegal as it is, save for Mid East weddings.

10

I wish there were more people like you! Heck, I sometimes wish I was more like that. Maybe it’s time to abandon the “Not” in your username.
Fully automatic weapons aren’t illegal in the US, but they are heavily regulated - here is some more info if anyone cares.

11

He can only do that after he quits smoking.
:wink:

12

I find most action flicks puerile, read extensively, and have read not only the U.S. Constitution (w/Amendments), but quite a bit about the ratification debates as well. “Militia” purposes were not the only purposes for lawful possession of firearms considered by the FF and various thinkers of that time, although I do admit it took precedent over most others in their thinking.

I have also read a good deal about military strategy overall, as well as some bits on asymmetric warfare, enough to know that even a minor insurgency can bring devastating results on an unpopular regime that lacks a sufficiently ruthless will to annihlate enough of its own population to squash said insurgency.

That said, I do agree that the overriding reasoning behind the 2nd is largely irrelevant in this day and age; not because any such “militia uprising” against the U.S. Government is automatically doomed out-of-hand to failure, but because the very need for such an action has been largely rendered irrelevant (the Left may bitch-and-moan about G.W. leading us into tyranny all they want, but what are they going to do about it? Vote! That’s what).

So that leaves us with the remaining lawful uses of a firearm: collection, hunting, recreation (various forms of target shooting, incl. just plain ol’ “plinking”), and self/home defense.

Really, take the time to look up the various gun control laws in the U.S., from Federal, down to State, even municipal, and you’d be surprised at the amount of legislation out there. The N.R.A. is one of the biggest proponents of enforcing existing laws; then, if those aren’t working adequately, perhaps crafting new/additional laws.

Also, perhaps take the time to familiarize yourself with some basic ballistics knowledge. Did you know that your typical, non-penaid enhanced hunting rifle round is pretty darned good at penetrating body armor? Does that make it a “cop killer” bullet? Of course not; it’s just plain physics. If you give even a feather sufficient velocity, it will go right through body armor.

But the pro-control crown would have you believe that the N.R.A. promotes “cop-killer” bullets because the N.R.A. torpedoed legislation that would’ve banned anything more powerful than a .22 shorty (and, conveniently enough, effectively put an end to most forms of hunting, as well).

One of my biggest gripes with the pro-control crown is that they tend to craft their gun control legislation with a plethora of unintended consequences, such as the previously mentioned attempted ban on armor-piercing bullets; whether they do so out of deliberate consideration or out of pure ignorance of firearms and physics is left for each individual to decide.

13

Heck, I change my mind daily, just not about gun control. I control mine just fine.

14

Drats. I opened this thread because I thought it was going to be about a recent ex-wife/girlfriend/boss/relative, and it’s just a bunch of boring crap about “statistics” and “logic”.

15

Me too. I hold mine in both hands (although, for some counterintuitive reason, I seem to be a better shot one-handed in a side stance. Maybe I have a shaky left wrist or something.).

And yeah, I’m in the school of thought that outlawing guns means that only outlaws will have guns. That’s not to say that everyone should get to own as many of any kind of gun they want, it just depends. Most people don’t have any practical need for a Ma-Deuce, and some folks do have a practical need for fairly powerful rifles (a guy in Arizona a week or two ago had to shoot and kill a bear that broke into his home for the second time). I can easily think of situations where owning a semiautomatic pistol might also be practical for someone. While a 9mm may not do much but piss off a bear, I can see it being very handy against smaller predators such as mountain lions while also being relatively uncumbersome if you are backpacking or hiking.

I can’t speak for self-defense in The Big Bad City™ since I have never lived in one, but it’s entirely possible someone living there might also have predators they need to defend themselves from (I’m a strong proponent of women defending themselves from would-be rapists with cute pink 357’s)

Also, when it comes down to it, target shooting is just FUN. Used to go to the gun shop in the town I lived in so I could rent a gun and go shoot some threatening paper targets. :smiley:

16

With reference to the OP’s car analogy:
not only must you have a car licence, but in order to get that licence, you have to pass a test on operation and safety. To drive a truck, or other commercial vehicle, you have to take a harder, more advanced test.

Also, here (not sure about the US) every vehicle must be registered with the Dept. of Transport, updated every year - not just with the manufacturer. It’s just a matter of filling out a form and paying a small fee, but if you don’t, they know where you were last year. (They are also talking about introducing periodic licence retesting, but I don’t think that works logistically.)

If that level of control was kept up for guns, then I am all in favour of anyone who can fulfil those conditions having a weapon/as many weapons as they can licence. Make the conditions more stringent for bigger guns. All you have to do is show competence and pay the registration fee. Sounds reasonable to me, and an acceptable level of control. But the OP seemed to equate driving a car to a lot less control than this, and I don’t see it.

17

As I made pretty clear, it was an absence of air-tight logic that led me to this decision.

I am certainly in favor of not giving crowbars to bears.

That’s the whole point. Gun control doesn’t fit in very well with most of the other things I’m for, even if “the Left” thinks it goes nicely with, say, gay rights.

Are there any states which require permits for firearm ownership (as opposed to concealed carry)?

18

Here in Illinois you have to have a FOID card (Firearm Owners Identification) to legally posess a gun and to purchase one as well. It’s basically proof of an ATF background check and they expire every 5 years.

19

Massachusetts has 3 levels of licenses, based on the firearm you own. You can’t own any firearm without at least a Firearms Idendification card (FID), which requires a clean criminal history and taking a state-approved safety course.

20

Do any citizens or criminals in Illinois and Massachusetts have illegal guns? If so, how do those laws promote safety?