Maryland shell casing law.

Great Debates
21

Thanks to Anthracite and Spoofe for making my points for me. They were much nicer than I’d have been, “Dude.” I will comment though that your silly pee tests do nothing to prevent the hotshots you work with from leadfooting it around on the forklifts. What I wanna know is why you didn’t just fire them for unsafe practices? I don’t see why drug tests even need enter the picture. Are you saying you’d tolerate this behavior from a sober person?

capacitor? Um, what the hell are you talking about? I see no one here advocating the personal possession of nuclear devices. How do stupid mischaracterizations advance your agenda? What I do see though, is the anti-gunners attempting to paint the wide stripe of rabid radicalism on backs of gun proponents in an effort to make them into the skunks on this issue. Again. I see this time and time again from the gun control crowd. And frankly, I’m getting damned tired of the deliberate demonization.

Again, capacitor, I’m not sure I know what this means, but I’ll take a stab at it anyway. Do I wanna know if my stolen guns are used? I don’t particularly care, nor do I see what this shell casing law (or any registration law for that matter) has to do with that. Would I round up my “posse” to effect its return? No. This is properly the job of the cops. And again, this shell casing law would do nothing to prevent a stolen gun being used in a crime. In fact, if a gun subjected to this law were stolen and used in a crime, it’s quite possible the wrong person could be falsely accused of the crime.

Now, I know you’re gonna say if my gun has been reported stolen, then the cops will ahve a record of that, and know that I’m not responsible. To that, I say, bullshit. By the cops own admission (in the article linked) they’ve only actually “fingerprinted” about 100 guns in nearly three months. This does nothing to imbue anyone’s faith in their ability to keep up with the necessary amount of paperwork, does it?

I’d like to add my weight to Anthracite’s request for further definition/clarification of “inexorable impetus.” Just what do you mean by this? I attempted a search and came up blank.

sqweels, the law as written is not a gun ban, I agree. However, I can see, and have already stated, how it could be employed as a de-facto gun ban. Even Casper Taylor, the legislator interviewed in the article, who supported the measure, says it’s a de-facto gun ban. And only one of the provisions of this law is actually in place currently, there are two additional, and far more restrictive, measures waiting in the wings. One more pedantic point I’d like to make, a ban is a totally different animal than confiscation. A ban merely outlaws the sale and/or transfer of something; confiscation requires a possessor to relinquish an outlawed item to the authorities. I said nothing here that shows I believe these laws to be part of a confiscation scheme.

22

Congratulations. You have fully accepted a complete loss of all freedom. I’m fairly impressed. I don’t think I’ve ever met an admitted facist before. (do you live in China?)

Sure…

Government mandated compulsory attendence at schools, and then take away a parents abilty to make decisions that effect their family. That sounds fine with me…

Start the kids out young so they are comfortable with state supervision their whole lives, just like you.

I will address the rest of your pee test rant by pointing out that there is a difference between a private employeer and the government. If an employer wants to make drug testing a condition of employment, then I have no problem with that.

I won’t even address the legalization of drugs issue here…
The DNA thing is crazy. Free people have no need to register with anyone at any time unless they so choose it.

The authors of the law already admit that this law will do NOTHING to prevent crime. Mind telling me how this prevent even ONE crime?

You are scary man. Scary.

Actually, I don’t.

But you do provide a good example of the slippery slope and how certain things have been demonized. Mind if I ask what is so inherently evil about ammunition and silencers in the hands of a law abiding citizen? Since you obviously think they are so easy to get, there would be nothing to stop a criminal from using them.

BTW…

I live in NJ. I don’t think any other state is as onerous as NJ is to get a license to own a firearm. Attacking my character is fairly ridiculous. To get a firearms ID card here you have to:

Wait about 6 months.
Get fingerprinted 4 times.
Have your prints run by the county, state and FBI.
Have two non-relatives write recommedation letters.
Submit to a medical records check.
Apply seperately for EACH handgun.(permits expire in 90 days)
Carry around an ID card whenever you carry your weapons.
There is not enough space here for me to list the way you have transport your firearms.

You are such a moron.

This is exactly the intention of the 2nd Amendment.

Ever been to Vermont?

Anyone can carry concealed anywhere they want to. It also has the lowest homicide rate in the country.

23

Freedom2:

[Moderator Hat ON]

NOT IN GREAT DEBATES. I know you know better; take it to the Pit.

[Moderator Hat OFF]

24

Just a little (un)civil disobedience.

Sometimes I just can’t resist. I’ll try harder next time:)

25

I think that aside from this, if you sell your gun and it is used in a crime, the cops will come to you, find out who bought the gun and start tracing it from there. All over the Internet, there are instructions on how to remove the serial numbers on a gun so no amount of technology can raise them. It’s harder to alter the lands and grooves in the barrel. So, having a record by having a bullet and shell casing on hand is a pretty good idea.

Besides, if you buy a gun legally, the registration is on file. So, what’s the big deal if they have a sample along with it? Don’t want to get shooting up your neighbors trailer?

Oh come on here! Any time something new comes along, the initial startup is slow. Eventually, the way I figure it, the data will all be fed into a police computer so all they need to do is scan in a suspect bullet and let a search program find matches. It took years for all finger prints to get into computer files.

Well, not all, but in my dealings with the general public, I’d not want most of them to have even a paint ball gun, as has already been demonstrated by a police video of some teens running around shooting people from a car with one. A whole lot of people I’ve been around in my favorite gun shop make me real nervous when I consider the fact that these individuals are actually allowed to buy a portable killing machine and freely run around with it.

I just love the Pop and kid combinations where the old man is determined to drag sonny out into the hunt with a 4/10 shotgun to blast birds into piles of feathers before he’s even out of training pants. Didja’no they have camouflage military fatigues for 2 year olds?

I’ll not quote the lengthy ‘if you’re not …’ riposte from Freedom2. It takes up too much space and is ludicrous.

Random drug tests in schools and jobs. I’m OK with that. I’ve been tested and I’m clean. They would not go through the expense of drug tests if stoned kids and coworkers were not a problem. BTW, if an employer fires a worker suspected of being under the influence without a pee test, that worker stands a good chance of fighting it in court. Employment laws and the ACLU make it harder for people to be fired. It isn’t exactly unusual these days to find kids in high school buzzed and in possession of illegal drugs.

You think these expensive procedures would be implemented if there was no need? While you stand on your ‘rights’ to the letter of the document, others are trying real hard to find ways to curb and prevent crime before it reaches a more serious stage. Look at the airlines. You think they wanted to instal metal detectors, X-ray machines and have drug dogs wandering around?

How many judges got shot before they realized that Joe Jerk public was fully capable of carting a weapon into the sanctity of a court room and exacting their own form of justice?

Remember when you could hold up a 7-11 with a portable cannon and provided you did not kill anyone too badly with it, get off with a few years? John Q. Public was exercising his rights to bear arms. So, they had to make the laws real tough for even showing up to hold up a store with a gun. I recall there being a fuss over that. The fuss was mainly made by folks who didn’t work the late night shift in these little stores, alone.

Shortly after, laws were passed in most States requiring such stores to provide 2 workers on duty in the late night shift and one should be male.

So, I guess that infringes on your rights to easily rob a store at night?

I own guns. I’d like more responsible control over the purchase of them. I used to live by a guy who was drunk most of the time who liked to wave his portable armory about. After a few convictions, he lost his right to bear arms, but the cops never took all of his guns away and it was too easy for him to get more.

I’m not a hunter, though I have no problem with hunters desiring various types of advanced weapons but in most States, they had to pass laws preventing these ‘sportsmen’ from hunting the wild deer with military machine guns equipped with night sights and lasers! I mean, some guys wanted to go out with ammo that could hit a deer right through a 24 inch tree! Some got caught trying to smuggle in explosive bullets!

Sport indeed!

When I was younger, there used to be spots where folks dumped old cars and it was rare to not find one of these wrecks shot all to pieces. Men can buy their 2 year olds guns that the kid can’t even hold up by himself, and do.

I thought about the school shootings when they happened and what concerned me most was the easy availability of the weapons, along with the obvious familiarity these kids had with their function and, in at least one case, the skill in shooting.

I agree with the right to own guns, but I would prefer that it not be so easy to have them fall into the hands of idiots and I agree with procedures being enacted to keep me and my loved ones from getting injured by freaks in the work place or schools using drugs.

If their ‘civil rights’ have to be bent a bit to accomplish this, then I’m all for it. They’re violating my rights by placing me in a position of potential danger and, in my opinion, my rights come first.

26

[Yoda]Do or do not do. There is no “try.”[/Yoda] :wink:

27

I don’t know a whole lot about this issuse even though I live in MD. I do know though that a lot of people are already saying that they will not buy a handgun here anymore because of this law AND that a few of the gun companies are not shipping here because they don’t want to go through the trouble of doing it.

I personally think the law sucks. I don’t think it’s gonna do a damn thing to prevent crimes it’s just another law. and I can see this getting worse. Why not take some blood from us, since as a guy I can rape someone so might as well have my DNA on file just in case. :rolleyes:

While not really on the subject it’s kinda close. I ride a motorcycle and this past weekend I was at a meeting, my first, for a new law that MD wants to pass not allowing children to ride on the backs of bikes. The law they want passed is one where only at a certain height can the child ride. Yes this makes since, BUTT there are already laws like this on the books so this one does nothing! The problem is that we, the MC population, basically got threatened and told that if we didn’t like this law that another law was going to be broght forward saying that NO children would be allowed to ride on the motorcycle. TO me both of these laws are saying that the MD gov doesn’t trust it’s populance.

I think that more education would help not more laws, we talk about this kind of stuff in the MC safty course, why not have a gun course? I think that even a quick few hour course would be much better than another damn law.

28

Please post a link then. Removing serial numbers is BS. If a cop really wants the serial number they can do an X-ray of the weapon and find out what it was through the “impact” the stamping left behind. This is much like the technology they use to see how an airplane was stressed after a crash.

Even if there was a difficult way to completely remove the serial number, everyone involved admits that circumventing this “fingerprint” idea is a cinch. A little file here, a little scrubbing there…

Technicaly it is not registered. In reality the ATF and State police have access to the records at the gun store. The FBI also (illegally) retains the records of their instant background checks in order to create another de facto registration database.

That’s why I now buy my firearms from private individuals.

The motivation behind that comment is no different than the motivation of a klan member, nazi or any other racist thug.

Notice it is mainly criminals that get fingerprinted?

Generalize much?

A read a story where some kids drowned another kid by accident in the local swimming pool because they were bullying him in the water.

I guess we should ban pools instead of punishing those kids.

Absent any evidence that those people actually killed anyone, I guess we will have to chalk it up to your paranoid elitism. This is more good evidence why we don’t want people like you determining who gets what freedoms.
…“I just didn’t like the way they looked”…

Keep setting precedents like these, and they won’t seem so ludicrous in a few years. Of course you will have neglected to stand up when it didn’t concern you, so no one will probably bother to notice when you get the shaft.

I don’t consider need the ultimate deciding factor. One man’s need is another man’s burden.

Please stop trying to protect people from themselves, you are turning yourself into a facist.

OOOOOooo…

I forgot it was illegal to carry a gun into a court room. I’m sure that will never happen now.
Let’s look at your logic…

The guy is a criminal, he is in court because he broke the law. He is considering killing the judge, which is already quite illegal, but he decides against it because they outlawed guns in the court room?

Am I missing something here?

You’re such a TheMoonGazer:)

Are you really going to try and equate the the right to own a firearms with the right to rob a store? This is more of the anti-gun crowd demonization rhetoric. Put your feet on the ground, take your head of the clouds and take a long hard look at the crap you are spewing. You stopped making sense a long time ago.

What concerned me most was that these guys ignored the fact that schools are gun free zones. C’mon, don’t you know having a gun in school is illegal? We made a law. This can’t happen, it’s not allowed.

Notice how these mass murders never happen in police stations or gun ranges? Ever wonder why? Maybe instead of the guns, it is the easy availabilty of certified victims.

You are almost as scary as themoongrazer.

29

Dude, New York has a tougher handgun licensing process.

If safety classes are required to own a handgun, then it is very, very easy to ban handguns. Just make the classes impossible.

“there will be one class held this year. It is limited to 10 students. It will be held over 5 consecutive days running 40 hours and will be held only in the state capital. And if the teacher is sick, class will be canceled.”

See, then they are not making handguns illegal. They are just making the classes tough to attend.
BTW, they did exactly this with hunter safety classes in New York.

30

avsc916

Hunting at night is already illegal. The law is meant to stop poaching. It is also illegal to have a loaded gun and a flashlight in a car at the same time. The law is meant to give the warden a way to arrest and ticket someone even if they don’t catch them with illegal game. It has nothing to do with the efficacy of the weapons.

Would it be preferable to require hunters to use ineffective weapons that are not certain to kill the game?

I am starting to wonder about your comment about owning guns. Care to elaborate on what kind and the purpose of owning them?

I also wonder how you can demand that guns be kept from those with no knowledge of them when you seem to have a pretty slim grasp of ballistics yourself. I imagine you may be the first to lose his guns.

31

That is what you have to go through to get a Firearm ID card, which is required to own a long gun, not just a handgun. The handguns are a seperate permit, per handgun, ON TOP of the Firearms ID card.
BTW…

I think you are refering to NYC. I don’t recall NY State being that crazy. I think you can even get a CCW outside of the city.

32

First evidence of ignorance of the issues and mechanics at hand - barrels can not only be swapped between guns, they are often done so by competitive shooters, and this is 100% legal, so long as the serial number is not on the barrel itself. Your first point is therefore invalid.

Second evidence of ignorance of the issues and mechanics at hand - I can buy all the guns I want legally from other private citizens.

Why do they make you nervous? Are they comitting crimes? Or is it their look and attitude you do not like? I just wonder how well you size up perfect strangers in a random meeting in a gun shop.

Group stereotype applied here.

And…?

This is not a valid argument at all - “the authorities would not do something if it was not right and necessary for them to do it”? Are you serious???

Fighting, yes. Winning, no.

The same argument quoted above - “if there was no need, then why do they do it”? Can you see how false this logic is?

(Very odd sidetracks on airline security, courtroom security, and the “right to rob 7-11’s” snipped)

This seems doubtful, given the lack of knowledge displayed on how they work (see first comment waaaaaaay at the top).

Bull. Please provide a reference after 1933. Please provide evidence that most States sportsmen wanted to hunt with “machine guns” :rolleyes:, night sights and lasers, and ammo that could shoot through a, ahem, “24-inch tree”.

Overall, I have seen this argument before. It is normally classified a “False Persuasive” argument, in where an opponent to an issue tries to build support for their side by claiming to be a “reasonable gun owner”, yet somehow has an interesting view on what Civil Rights actually are, and an ignorance on the actual mechanics and use of firearms. Thus such quotes as shooting through a “24-inch tree”, which sounds like it came right from Dateline NBC (which were the ones that claimed a .223 was an “armor piercing round”, and implied that it could “penetrate tank armor”.)

If your cause is a good one, try at least getting the facts straight. Otherwise, people on the other side, and yes some on your own side as well, will have no respect for your valid opinions.

33

In New York you need a permit to carry a pistol (not concealed carry, just to own one.) IIRC, you need 7 character references from non-family, an FBI and local background check, fingerprints, Photo, valid reason for needing a pistol, and some other stuff I can’t remember. The permit is not good for NYC. THere you need a special permit.

Then, If you want concealed carry, you have to go through another process.

IIRC, the decision on teh permit is up to the local sheriff, who can deny if he chooses. THere was a problem in one of the county’s upstate with a sheriff that would only issue to ex-cops. THey made a big stink and he issued a few permits.

My application was bounced and had to be repeated because a “5” looked like an “s” in my application. Then they made me re-do my app AGAIN because I used my business address instead of my home address. I was able to get around that one though.

34

Let me try this from a different approach. Niggling over the gritty details of this law(s) is getting us nowhere.

I’m going to delineate the three main provisions of this bill in order of their intended implementation. While I do this, I’m going to ignore the class of firearm this is actually applicable to since the linked article is unclear on that front.
[list=a]
[li]Register shell casings.[/li][li]Require prospective buyers to pass of a gun safety course prior to purchase.[/li][li]Require integral gun locks which allow them to be fired only by authorized users.[/li][/list=a]

Now let us look at the rationale for gun laws. As I see it, well-crafted and legitimate gun laws can be designed to do one, or more, of only four things.
[list=1]
[li]Prevent criminals from obtaining useable guns in the first place.[/li][li]Reduce the incidence of firearms used in crime.[/li][li]Aid the authorities in prosecution of criminals after a gun is used in the commission of a crime.[/li][li]Increase gun safety and reduce accidents of legitimate users.[/li][/list=1]

Now, let’s take a look at the effect each provision has on each of the goals of gun crime laws.

[list=a]
[li]Registering Shell Casings[/li][list=1]
[li]Registering shell casings will do nothing to prevent guns from falling into the hands of criminals.[/li][li]Registering shell casings can do nothing to reduce the incidence of the use of firearms in the commission of crime.[/li][li]Registering shell casings may have some positive effect on the ability of cops to trace firearms, but only after they are used in a crime. But, you must weigh the effects and costs of this provision. The preventable costs of criminal use must be outweigh the overall societal costs for this to be a valid and acceptable restraint on a low-abiding populace. There are no preventable societal costs addressed by this statute. Thus, this is a poorly crafted and illegitimate use of the law.[/li][li]Registering shell casings does nothing to promote safety.[/li][/list=1]

[li]Safety Courses[/li][list=1]
[li]Gun safety courses do nothing to prevent guns from falling into the hands of criminals.[/li][li]Gun safety courses can do nothing to reduce the incidence of the use of firearms in the commission of crime.[/li][li]Gun safety courses also cannot help the authorities trace weapons used in commission of crime, nor does it do anything to help prosecute a criminal once he’s indicted.[/li][li]Safety courses, by their definition, should help reduce accidents of legitimate owners. However, again, the benefits must outweigh the costs for this to be a legitimate law. I cannot address that at this time, since I do not know what would be required of a successful participant of the intended safety course. However, I can show, at least one of the potential costs. I’ve addressed that above, but I’ll do it here again. It’s possible for a law requiring the successful completion of a safety course to be abused by a state legislature intent upon doing so. Simply put, the requirements of that safety course could be made so stringent, that successful completion is exceedingly difficult. I’m not saying this would, or is going to happen here, but it is possible. Also, what happens if a portion your police force is unable to pass this test? Or are they exempt? I certainly hope not. Valid and well crafted laws should apply to the entire citizenry, and especially the authorities. Unless you are a fan of fascism.[/li][/list=1]
[li]Authorized User Integral Trigger Locks[/li][list=1]
[li]Integral guns locks that will allow only authorized users to actually discharge a firearm do nothing to prevent guns from falling into the hands of criminals.[/li][li]Integral guns locks that will allow only authorized users to actually discharge a firearm may have an effect on the use of stolen guns in crime. The criminal may not be able to easily defeat this lock and discharge the weapon. However, until a final design is approved, by whom only the deity knows, the efficacy of these locks on the unauthorized use of stolen guns cannot be determined.[/li][li]Integral guns locks that will allow only authorized users to actually discharge a firearm do nothing to aid the police in the apprehension, or prosecution, of criminals who choose to use a firearm during the commission of their crime.[/li][li]Integral guns locks that will allow only authorized users to actually discharge a firearm will probably have some positive effect on reducing the number of firearm accidents. Again, though, you must weigh the costs and benefits. These cannot be weighed at his this time for the same reason stated above; an approved design is not complete at this time. I can, however, show a couple potential pitfalls in this law if a poorly designed interlock is deployed. The first pitfall may prevent a legitimate user from defending him/herself with a weapon so designed. By any count, there are more legitimate defensive gun uses than illegitimate offensive shootings. Another pitfall I can foresee, I have stated above. This law already requires all handguns sold after January 1, 2003 to be equipped with these interlocks. It’s entirely possible that no technology, acceptable to the Maryland State Legislature, will be deployable at that time. See the quote above from Colt’s Manufacturing. It states that Colt’s does not believe a mass-producible, personal-interlock is feasible prior to 2005 at best.[/li][/list=a]
[/list=1]

So, this range of statues will have no effect on the ability of criminals to obtain firearms in the first place, little or no effect the incidence of the use of firearms in the commission of a crime, little or no effect on the ability of the authorities to trace, apprehend and prosecute criminals who choose to use firearms in the commission of a crime and only a marginal effect on the number of gun accidents by legitimate owners.

And for this marginal increase in safety, there are many societal costs placed upon law-abiding, legitimate owners, the total effect of which cannot be evaluated at this time. Not to mention the potential for abuse by a determined legislature.

It’s a bad law(s). Undeniably.

[Edited by UncleBeer on 01-08-2001 at 01:06 PM]

35

The following is from the NRA-ILA Fax Alert Vol. 8, No. 1 1/5/01. I realize many of you will see this to be a biased source and disregard it as such, but this should help clarify the article linked above. Much of it merely corroborates the MSNBC story, but there are also some interesting (to me) additional details. As evidence of the potential abuse factor that resides in this group of legislative provisions, I’d like to specifically point to the last quoted statement by the Maryland Attorney General, who incidentally, is responsible for interpreting this law for enforcement by the Maryland police community. I quote “Our public policygoal must be to rid our communities of handguns.” Frightening.

‘Maryland’s “ballistic fingerprinting” requirement has had a chilling effect on the lawful sale of handguns in the not-so-“Free State.” Many new handguns, perfectly legal in most states, are simply not coming into Maryland, which means the supply for any law-abiding citizen who hopes to buy a new handgun is drying up. It seems that many gun makers are not able or willing to comply with Maryland’s requirement that any handgun manufactured after October 1, 2000, that is intended to be sold in Maryland, include with the firearm a shell casing from a round of ammunition that has been fired from that handgun, along with identifying information on the handgun and the casing. The casing and information is then stored at the Maryland State Police Crime Laboratory, creating, in effect, a handgun registration system.

‘When the problem of gun makers and distributors not shipping new handguns into Maryland was brought to the attention of U.S. Rep. Robert Ehrlich, Jr. (R-Md.), last October, he immediately sent a letter of inquiry to Col. David B. Mitchell, the Maryland State Police Superintendent. Rep. Ehrlich, a solid friend of Maryland’s gun owners, asked Col. Mitchell for “a detailed accounting of handgun manufacturers or distributers who have given notice…of their intent to provide handguns for sale in Maryland.” The response, which came on December 13, confirmed many fears. Mitchell stated that his investigation found that nine manufacturers have “prohibited distributers from transporting their handguns to Maryland,” three others may comply with the new requirement, but have not begun to yet, and three more have stated they will supply “only limited models.” At the core of the confusion is the simple fact that the firearm distribution system employed by most manufacturers is not designed to segregate guns by state.

‘As the supply of legal handguns available to Maryland’s gun owners and gun dealers starts to diminish, even some of the sponsors of the legislation are beginning to realize there is a real problem. Maryland House Speaker Casper R. Taylor, Jr. (D-Allegany), one of the bill’s most powerful proponents when it was under debate, commented that the new law has actually created a “de facto ban” on some firearms that are completely legal. According to an article in the December 29, 2000 issue of the Washington Post, Taylor sent a letter Maryland Attorney General J. Joseph Curran, Jr. (D) requesting he “reinterpret the law to make clear that gun makers unwilling to supply shell casings may continue to ship their weapons to Maryland.” Curran responded by stating the state police can determine whether a gun dealer may sell a handgun when a manufacturer has not supplied a shell casing. But Curran’s office also stated any handguns sent without casings can be seized. This “Catch 22” should come as no surprise, as Curran is the same AG who stated in 1999, “Our public policygoal must be to rid our communities of handguns.”’

Now, tell me again, how the slippery slope is a fallacy and demonstrate that Maryland is not on it.

36

SPOOFE Bo Diddly

The Bill of Rights is a magnificent document, but I doubt if the authors ever expected conditions to become what they are today.

Did they ever anticipate people posting inflammatory messages in message boards on the Internet? No. Better take away our Freedom of Speech. : Slander and libel are already illegal.

Did they ever anticipate people gathering to protest a trade organization and “starting” riots? No. Better take away our Freedom of Assembly. : Riotous assembly is already illegal.

Did they ever anticipate people moving down to Jonestown and dying by the hundreds from poisoned Kool-Aid? No. Better take away our Freedom of Religion. :Attempting suicide is already illegal.

Did they ever anticipate mass corruption and unethical behavior among news and media organizations? No. Better take away our Freedom of the Press. :Again, slander and libel are already illegal.

Did they ever anticipate schoolkids making pipe bombs in their basement and not giving any evidence of their intentions until it’s too late? No. Better take away our Freedom from unreasoable Search and Seizure. : I don’t know the technical term for this, but I’m pretty sure that schoolkids making pipebombs in their basements is already illegal.

What’s the point of this post? Well, not every single law passed to curb people’s most harmful excess’ is a direct compromise of the constitution. The laws might not be 100% effective, but you don’t have to be Einstein to figure that they so some good. What is it all the time with the wild comparisons, on both sides of the gun control debate, that make these threads such onerous reading after the first twenty or so posts?

Now for some wild comparisons of my own, though I always swore I’d never get involved in gun control debate on the SD board. I’ve been living in England for a while now, though I’m not English. They ain’t got no handguns here, none, not one, and nobody seems to miss them much. The streets aren’t overrun with gun-toting madmen eager to rob me. They aren’t verging on a police state with the black helicopters coming for dissenters. I don’t feel any less safe now than I did before. Guns were banned on the back of one madman in Dunblane shooting a bunch of kids in a school with a buch of handguns. Are they impossible to get a hold of now? I honestly don’t know, but probably not. Has there been one single child shot with a handgun since they were banned? No. Not one. If you want black and white facts, there you go. Now, before yous get all nutsy, I’m not English so English-bashing rants will miss the point. And no, I don’t want the government to control every aspect of my life, I don’t want to have to carry an ID card like they do in France, I don’t want the police to be able to tap my telephone without a court order, I don’t want to have to pee in a cup to keep my job, I don’t want my DNA to be on record, and I don’t want any more nuts running into kindergartens shooting the place up. Sure, if they can’t get guns they’ll use something else. Barely five weeks after Dunblane there was a similar incident in Tower Hamlets, a London borough; another nut ran into a kindergarten looking for trouble. Maybe because he couldn’t get any handguns, maybe because he was just plain nuts, he was carrying three machetes and a carving knife. The teacher was pretty cut up stopping him in the classroom, but nobody died. So maybe, just maybe, not having any handguns made a difference, we don’t know for sure, but how can it be worth taking the chance.

37

Factual nit-pick. Jonestown is not in the US last time I checked. I have no idea if Guiana (sp?) has “Freedom of Religion”.

38

(condensed version follows:))

Then you follow up with…

Well…

surprise…surprise…

I agree. That is why murder, rape, armed robbery attempted murder, assualt and a host of other actions are already illegal. You do understand that those laws are the equivalent to the ones you cited, don’t you? Registration and licensing are in a totally different ballpark.

That is ridiculous. You are wrong. I will go find a cite.
Keep in mind that when they claim that 12 kid a day bullshit, they included gangbangers and drug dealers up to 20something.

39

…you have the same rights as everyone else. Back before I thought it through, I was okay with gun registration. Then it was pointed out to me that registration is a necessary step to confiscation.

This resounded with a memory I have of a quote Ronald Reagan (fer chrissake!). I’m sorry I can’t provide the exact words, but it was along the lines of “There is no reason to believe that a benevolent dictatorship will remain benevolent.”

Original intents can become lost, and a database can be used for things far removed from its original raison d’etre.
The steps, in order:[list][]The government doesn’t want to confiscate your guns - the (current) government finds that abhorrent. []a future government might find a little more restriction okay…and has this cool database…Hand it over, Tovarisch."

40

Is it really honest to call the law a “gun ban”, when it’s actually the manufacturers who are refusing to ship to Maryland? I’ve always assumed that guns were test fired at the factory before being shipped. Maybe not.
And;
This law wasn’t intended to be a safety law, but another tool for law enforcement. Many murders are committed not by criminals, but by unsophisticated fools who wouldn’t even think of altering the gun. A jealous lover, for example.
Also, I doubt that John Q. would allow the slippery slope to slide all the way to the bottom of the hill.
Peace,
mangeorge