Is the Gun Control Battle Over?

Great Debates
21

has it gone away? dunno. For me, personally, 9/11 did not change my position on gun control.

what has changed for me personally is that I’ve come to the belief that there is no way for the two sides to come to any kind of agreement because they’re not arguing from the same set of data (and no, it has nothing to do with one side skewing it vs. the other). Just as w/the abortion debate (where if you believe that human life begins at conception, there’s not a whole lot of room to allow for abortion, and if you don’t believe that, you can’t see why it should be a problem), if the two sides aren’t even arguing with the same set of data, it’s hopeless to believe that you’ll change anyone’s position.

The bottom line is: each of us makes our own personal benefit/risk assesment.

A. how likely do we think it is that we’ll face a potential lethal threat (ie burglar in our home, car jacker at our car, total loon in the McDonalds etc.).

then we factor in:

B. How likely do we think we personally could get to our weapon, and either reduce the threat or have our weapon turned on us.

and factor in:

C. How likely do we think some one dear to us could potential harm some one/get harmed through mismanagement or carelessness or just plain mistaken identity.

and, most importantly,

D. how we would personally feel (level of guilt) for each of the above (ie, would we feel worse if we had a weapon and it was turned on us/loved one or worse if we’d not had one and the bad guy killed us/loved one)

While we might be able to come up with some data that would reflect the likelihood of “A”, B becomes problematical, and C tosses the entire thing into the trash. And D, is an absolute personal issue with no way to argue it one way or the other. There’s no way to independently weigh out those other factors or ascribe percentages to them - too many variables, and therefore no possability of coming to some agreement.

We cannot construct a perfect social experiment where the only difference between two areas is the availability of guns, to then compare crime/murder/accidents etc. If nothing at all else, there’s the ‘neighbor’ factor of ‘this locality is close to the other with different laws’, so perfectly analogous empirical objective data (I believe) will never be available.

So, while I might look at these threads from time to time, I don’t participate.

22

I don’t care whether “in the eyes of the pro-gun” she’s an alien from the planet Zorak. The assertion was that she is opposed to private ownership of firearms, and the evidence offered was that she supports licensing and a ban on Saturday Night Specials. The sweeping conclusion may not be fairly drawn from the evidence offered. In fact, if anything, the clear implication of the licensing proposal is that she does not oppose private gun ownership, for it is stupid to set up a system authorizing exactly what you supposedly oppose.

(Countdown to “Slippery Slope in Disguise!” claim begins . . . now.)

23

(Yes, I’m ditching my old non-response policy)

I call 'em like I see 'em. It’s incredibly routine in gun control debates to see people spouting the same old doctored statistics from the Brady Bunch (for example, the one that includes 24 year old gang members as ‘children’), or reacting in fear to various scare stories in the media (‘assault weapons’, ‘fingerprint resistant grips’, and ‘cop killer bullets’, to mention a few that one person was all antsy about in a previous thread on this board).

Also, I’d note that I said that people had been “suckered in by…” and didn’t say that they were “a bunch of suckers” - people get suckered in (as in, fall for untrue allegations) by various things without being what I’d call a sucker (one who is gullible overall). For example, while I wouled say that I got suckered by the allegations that Britain and France had negotiated temporary immunity from the ICC, I wouldn’t classify myself as a sucker. Now, perhaps you simply use those words in a different manne than I would, but by the way I would use those two words you reclassification of my statement was not accurate.

And if I’m to be called an ‘extremist’ for opposing laws that no one seems to be able to show do the least bit of good, then I’ll wear the ‘extremist’ hat proudly. For example, I’m still waiting for you or some other gun control proponent to show some evidence supporting the idea that a gun registry helps solve crimes - you’ve got countries like New Zealand, Britain (and I’ll gladly accept England-Scotland-Wales data, so as to remove NI and overseas possessions), and Australia to draw from, all of which have universal registration requirements and are islands (in one case a continent) so don’t have the ‘neighboring states’ problem you claim makes gun control programs in DC, Chicago, or NYC completely ineffective.

As far as I can tell, ‘Saturday Night Special’ laws are simply aimed at removing guns that poor people can afford from the market (except maybe the first one from the '60s, which targeted ‘cheap’ guns, defined as guns costing less than $10,000 - that would remove guns that anyone but the rich could afford). If they were actually based on safety, why would every one of the SNS laws proposed or passed exempt police from the restrictions? If they’re based on the idea that these guns are preferred for violent crimes, why don’t the proponents provide some statistics to back that claim up?

While I agree that supporting a SNS law by itself would not show that someone is opposed to private gun ownership, the desire to remove more affordable guns from the legal market without showing that a safety issue exists with said guns is certainly supporting evidence for such a position.

In that case, are there are any unreasonable restrictions on private gun ownership in the US today by your standards (that is, gun-control laws or regulations that you would be in favor of repealing)? Are any of the restrictions in the UK unreasonable by your standards (that is, if you lived in the UK, are there any UK gun-control laws you’d be in favor of repealing)?

I mean, it’s hard for me to believe that the end result your or Boxer’s ‘reasonable’ restrictions on private gun ownership would be anything but a ban on ordinary ciitizens when I’m not aware of a single gun control law that either of you would be in favor of repealing, or a definition of what you consider ‘reasonable’ gun control. (In Boxer’s case, I’m not aware that she’s made any such statement. In the ‘common sense gun control’ thread, you failed to provide enough information to tell what you meant by ‘reasonable’ gun control, never answering whether your proposed licensing and registration would be shall-issue or at-whim, or even what restrictions you’d place on ‘firearms capable of being converted to automatic fire’ (not an exact quote)).

While I wouldn’t make BF’s bald claim that Boxer is definately opposed to ownership of firearms by the general public, the only evidence I’ve seen supports that she is, in fact, opposed to private ownership of firearms.

That assertion (that being in favor of licensing means that the person does not oppose private gun ownership) is simply false. Private ownership of firearms without a license is already ‘authorized’ in the states that would be affected by the Federal licensing bill; that is, she would be restricting something that is already authorized, not authorizing something that is currently not allowed as you imply above. Supporting new restrictions on something in no way means that you do not desire a ban on that thing. If your assertion above was true, then it would mean that gun-control proponents in the UK did not favor a complete handgun ban, since they initially proposed a licensing scheme and only later banned all handguns.

24

And if you stick to actual argument instead of anti-opponent rhetoric from now on, I’ll be happy to engage you in discussion of these issues, Riboflavin. Not now, though. It’s bedtime.

25

Can someone post the codifed legal definition of a “Saturday Night Special”?

Seeing as the Senator is a Federal Senator, I searched the CFR.

I can’t find any definition.

I would love to see her personal definition of a “Saturday Night Special”. I’m certain it would be informative.

minty? Are you interested in commenting on point 2 made by BF? You commented on points 1 and 3, I just wondered what you thought of point 2.

Saying this unfortunately does not make it so - I fail to see how it is implied, or why a system is needed to “authorize” that which is already legally permitted. I fear that this boils down to your reasonable opinion versus others’ reasonable opinions.

And what of Feinstein? One cannot assume that she also does not oppose private gun ownership, based on the fact that she joined Boxer in S25 noted below. Because there is a 60 Minutes transcript of her views that is very telling on this subject.

26

Why not ask the Brady Bunch and other gun control proponents your question? Their current big kick is turning NICS from a criminal background check into a national gun registry, rather than (for example) making it a crime for a felon to attempt to buy a gun, or prosecuting felons for possession of guns. They also make a big deal out of requiring NICS checks on private sales and oppose the NRA’s proposal to require that convicted felons have a mark indicating that they are a convicted felon on their ID. For that matter, you might ask why the GC crowd used the 1989 Stockton shooting as a justification for the assault weapons ban, instead of as a justification for pressuring federal prosecutors to actually prosecute felons for possessing guns under a law already on the books. (The shooter in the Stockton case had been caught in possession of a firearm in '87 or '88, but wasn’t prosectued, which meant he was on the loose to murder some children instead of experiencing a five-year prison sentence).

First off, exactly what restrictions do you propose to make it ‘any harder’ for terrorists to get guns? Then, how many guns have terrorists acquired through the channels that your proposed restrictions would affect? Surely, if you’re going to talk about making it harder for terrorists to get guns, you’re proposing restrictions that have something to do with terrorists getting guns, right?

I mean, how many guns acquired in the US did the WTC attackers use in their attack?

27

I support licensing of automobile drivers. Is that supposed to imply that I want to end private car ownership?

Put another way, one does not establish a system to legitimize what one wishes to eliminate. If one wishes to eliminate something, one attempts to eliminate it instead of establishing procedures by which it may be continued.

Oh, and “Saturday Night Special” is certainly not a legal definition. It’s (presumably) just a somewhat useful description of the specifically-described class of weapons that her proposed legislation would regulate. Much like the “assault weapons” category, which also has a very specific legal description despite some people’s disdain for the broad term.

28

If you were calling 'em like you see 'em, you would note that gun supporters often repeatedly use worthless statistics as well. For instance, there’s the town where everybody is required to own a gun, and this has supposedly driven down crime rates (in various threads, this town has allegedly been in Georgia, Alabama, Oregon, and several other places). I and several others have shredded this ridiculous argument on numerous occasions, and yet it continues to pop up in virtually every gun control thread I enter. Then there are the repeatedly debunked stats about crime in Britain, the idiotic comparison between Pheonix and Detroit, and the false insistence that New York City has a relatively high murder rate. Claims like the one you made above are part of what minty called “anti-opponent rhetoric”.

29

Ok, minty, I gave a couple of examples and my opinion on why Boxer is labeled as anti-gun. Are you going to provide us with an example or two of Boxer saying/doing anything that indicates that she is not anti-gun? Other than just your assertion that she’s not?

30

I’m sorry, but I can point to an analogy that easily defeats this - power plant emissions. It’s safe to say that there is no positive aspect at all to emitting SO2, NOx, or mercury, so why weren’t they just elminated in one fell swoop?

Simple - for the same reason that guns are not eliminated in one fell swoop - there is too much societal opposition to it. And before we start into the “big industry wants to rape the little guy”, complete removal of these items under the regulated environment that the CAA and its Amendments was passed would have resulted in a direct pass-through of costs. And you can bet the average American would start to side with the industry and put forth a lot of societal opposition when their first $2000 electric bill came - in March.

So things are done slowly - in a gradual tightening - all under the guise of helping society, and working towards the ultimate goal of “0 emissions”.

There is a slippery slope, and saying there isn’t does not make that any less true. Start at 1934 and work your way forward through firearms legislation. Unlike most who try and debate this, I’ve actually done just that. Aside from the baffling reversal on concealed carry (which is a actually more a function of usage, not a function of ownership of certain types), it goes one-way.

I also know a bit about English firearms laws and their history. They go one-way as well.

Now calm down, minty, I know what you’re going to say next. I admit that a slippery slope does not have to be a “bad” thing. Sometimes a slippery slope is really a function of Society iterating or moving to a solution for balancing rights versus restrictions that best suits it. The problem is defining just exactly where the bottom is, and at what speed one approaches it.

Before the word “assault weapon” was codified clearly in 1994, the term was not only ambiguously applied, it was frequently lied about. At one time, gun control opponents claimed that any and all semi-automatic weapons, handguns, and even revolvers were “assault weapons”, due to the nature of their function. Just like at one time a double-barreled shotgun was termed a “machine gun” because it can fire more than one shot with one pull of the trigger (even though they are specifically exempted by the law).

We can also talk about the term “cop-killer bullets”, but that has been refuted absolutely in many other threads.

And never mind that the term “Saturday Night Special” is not only a purposefully inflammatory term, it’s one that is not in general use by the populace in this Century, including the criminals.

The problem is that the frequent bills about “SNS” almost always contain overly broad language that effectively bans most handguns. For example, IIRC, the evil Sen, Schumer’s latest SNS bill would have banned any gun with a barrel under 6 inches length (effectively making concealed carry difficult to impossible), under .30 calibre (ironically, like the 10-bullet magazine law of 1994, forcing criminals and civilians to move to much larger and much more deadly guns), under $500 of cost (thus making it a class warfare thing, as only people like me with higher disposable income can afford decent handguns), and incorporating “safety features” such as positive owner ID (a frighteningly untested and uncertain technology).

One recent SNS bill here in Kansas (which never made it out of committee) also had a clause that banned all semi-automatic handguns too, calling any semi automatic handgun a “Saturday Night Special” without reservation. I somehow feel that doesn’t even meet your definition of them.

But then, maybe Boxer never supported any such details in her measures. Until you and I see what exactly she was in support of, I don’t think we can honestly make conclusions about her position, can we? That sounds premature.

I would still like to know what your response is to BF’s (prior) second point, regarding the industry lawsuits.

31

Oh, and minty I’ll spot ya this one.

32

Puh-leez yourself.

As long as you’re using b.s. terms like “Saturday Night Special” you got NO cause to complain about anyone else.

A "Saturday night special simply a gun the speaker doesn’t like. Oh the lie is that they’re trying to ban cheaply made, dangerous guns, but a quick glance at one of the ordinances shows this for the lie it is. Cite for the lie from the Brady Campaign"

Calif. Ord. for “Saturday night specials” that would ban ‘cheaply made’, ‘dangerous’ the Wather PPK in .22 long-rifle, the Astra 400, and other $400-500 guns.

Hell, some “Saturday Night Special” laws include a clause that says that “Saturday Night Specials” are guns that can’t be imported under the federal “no-import” ban and others (including the one linked above, if I’m reading section C right) a no-‘blowback’ clause*. This would include such “Saturday Night Specials” as the Walther PPK and Sig Sauer P230 pistols, American Derringer, Semmerling LM-4. The Semmerling is arguably the best made pistol in the world. :rolleyes: (It’s also about [. So much for “cheaply made and inexpensive”)

[url=“http://www.concentric.net/~rweller/GNEWS10.HTM”]another cite](http://www.amderringer.com/prices.html"$2500.00[/url)

The only thing that that ordinance bans is “guns”. Not “unsafe” guns, not “cheap” guns.

Let’s face it. The anti-gun crowd either A) has no clue what they’re talking about or B) is trying to ban all guns and again is lying and making up scary-sounding terms to try to do so.

Fenris

*Blow-forward is type of action that’s designed to minimize recoil.

33

And before we start the same old dance, please consider this analogy:

If someone passed a law titled “Make Cars Safer for Babies” but the substance of the law was that “Bright red cars are an eyesore and are now banned”, it would be disingenuous at best. This is (IMO) precisely the same thing.

Fenris

34

My response is that gun indistry lawsuits are pointless, since they’ve pretty much all been shot down–especially the class actions and suits by municipalities.

35

Thank you minty. And believe it or not, I really wasn’t going to debate this one with you regardless of which side you come in on. There are almost too many competing topics and issues here in this thread. :eek:

36

The hell with the guns. What we need is a couple cattle prods to keep all the thread hijackers in line. :wink:

And Fenris? “Cheap” isn’t the only criterion, of course. As best I can tell without diving into the zillion volumes of the C.F.R. (I hate the C.F.R.), the defining feature of the affected firearms is short barrel length. Bad guys like easily concealed weapons. True, it’s fairly silly, but there you have it–Boxer’s bill wouldn’t touch the vast majority of handgun models.

37

“shot down”

LOL!

I just caught that!

:smiley:

Fenris

38

The subtle ones are the best ones sometimes. :slight_smile:

39

I disagree.

If you think you learned that from my posts, you misunderstood me. Firearms are actually very safe devices - the vast majority of what some call “accidental” shootings are actually due to human negligence. I do not consider it dangerous to be near a loaded gun. I’m near a loaded gun whenever I’m at home, and when I go out I often have one in my pocket or holster.

It is dangerous to be near a person who is operating any kind of power tool without knowing what they are doing, or to be near a person who doesn’t really care whether they kill someone or not!

40

Ok, Kalashnakov, point taken, and I consider myself further corrected. :slight_smile: