# Resolved: Gun control is unworkable and impractical **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 7, 2005, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-gun-control-is-unworkable-and-impractical/320532 "2005-09-07T16:03:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2005, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-gun-control-is-unworkable-and-impractical/320532/41 "2005-09-08T00:53:40Z")
I would love to own a tank. 😛 Actually…can’t one own a tank? I thought I remembered seeing something on Discovery or TLC or something like that about a guy that collects old WWII vintage tanks. -XT ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2005, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-gun-control-is-unworkable-and-impractical/320532/42 "2005-09-08T01:01:45Z")
> [@Bruce\_Daddy](#): > > :dubious: What’s the contradiction? I don’t favor prohibition. I do favor more responsible controls. > [@](#): > > To presume that one of the Amendments is a group right and the remainder are not is an interesting opinion, to say the least. The 2nd Amendment is unque in that it arguably specifies a collective. The other Amendments don’t don’t that. You first. [/QUOTE] Me first what? I haven’t even said what my opinion _is_ on whether the 2nd amendment applies to individuals, much less confused that opinion for settled law. For the record, I think it was probably intended to apply to inviduals…but that’s just my opinion. The Supreme Court has yet to back me up on that. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2005, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-gun-control-is-unworkable-and-impractical/320532/43 "2005-09-08T01:04:21Z")
> [@Bruce\_Daddy](#): > > :dubious: > > To presume that one of the Amendments is a group right and the remainder are not is an interesting opinion, to say the least. > You first. This opinion has plenty of distinguished company: Former Chief Justice Warren Burger in 1991 > [@](#): > > “the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word ‘fraud,’ on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime…[the NRA] ha(s) misled the American people and they, I regret to say, they have had far too much influence on the Congress of the United States than as a citizen I would like to see - and I am a gun man.” Burger also wrote, “The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon…[S]urely the Second Amendment does not remotely guarantee every person the constitutional right to have a ‘Saturday Night Special’ or a machine gun without any regulation whatever. There is no support in the Constitution for the argument that federal and state governments are powerless to regulate the purchase of such firearms…” And of course [the Supreme Court in 1939](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=307&invol=174) > [@](#): > > The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress power- ‘To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.’ U.S.C.A.Const. art. 1, 8. With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view. [Here](http://www.gunlawsuits.org/downloads/militiav.pdf) are the court decisions supporting the militia interpretation of the Second Amendment. The lone renegade decision in the opposing viewpoint is US v Emerson. Since that decision, two federal courts, one a higher Circuit Court, have upheld the militia interpretation. (Gillespie v Indianapolis) ---
**Author:** ![tim314](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tim314/32/3468_2.png) [@tim314](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tim314)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2005, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-gun-control-is-unworkable-and-impractical/320532/44 "2005-09-08T01:06:28Z")
> [@Bruce\_Daddy](#): > > It is equally revolting to wish to restrict the 2nd amendment rights of _the people_ as it is to restrict any of the others. I.E. “We don’t wish to restrict your speech totally, we just want to _control_ it.” If got bad news for you: your freedom of speech _is_ restricted. You can’t shout “Fire!” in a movie theater (unless there’s actually a fire). You can’t make slanderous claims about someone (at least not without risking a successful lawsuit against you). And so on and so forth. In fact, _every_ right is subject to some reasonable restrictions. In my opinion, reasonable restrictions on gun ownership would include prohibiting gun ownership by felons and minors, issuing licenses to own/carry firearms, requiring background checks, mandatory gun-safety courses, etc. Many of these restrictions are already in place, but in some places the restrictions are (in my opinion) too loose, while in others they may be too tight. Some gun control advocates may secretly (or not so secretly) support gun prohibition (I’ll admit I once did myself, in the “everything is black-or-white” phase of my youth), but many just support reasonable restrictions on gun ownership. ---
**Author:** ![Bruce\_Daddy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/85f322/32.png) [@Bruce\_Daddy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bruce_Daddy)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2005, 1:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-gun-control-is-unworkable-and-impractical/320532/45 "2005-09-08T01:12:34Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > This opinion has plenty of distinguished company: > > Former Chief Justice Warren Burger in 1991 > > And of course [the Supreme Court in 1939](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=307&invol=174) > > [Here](http://www.gunlawsuits.org/downloads/militiav.pdf) are the court decisions supporting the militia interpretation of the Second Amendment. The lone renegade decision in the opposing viewpoint is US v Emerson. Since that decision, two federal courts, one a higher Circuit Court, have upheld the militia interpretation. (Gillespie v Indianapolis) Who here is disputing Miller? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2005, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-gun-control-is-unworkable-and-impractical/320532/46 "2005-09-08T01:24:41Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Thats quite true. And if there were no people no one would ever steal anything. 😉 We can’t get rid of the people but we can make more responsible laws regarding how guns are bought and sold. > [@](#): > > Interesting. So, if the Supreme Court decides, thats it then ehe? Legally, yes. > [@](#): > > What were your thoughts on the Eighteenth Amendment? I wasn’t born yet. I’m glad it was repealed. While it was in effect it was the law, though. > [@](#): > > Will you be as glib if the courts decide in the future to re-interperate the 2nd to something less appealing to you? Will you simply shrug at that point and go ‘Oh well…its the courts. Guess they are right’? SCOTUS has yet to render a clear interpretation of the right bear arms one way or the other, so it can hardly REintepret something it has interpreted a first time. having said that, my personal opinion is the the amendment _was_ intended to apply to individuals so an intepretation in favor of militias is the one that would be less appealing to me. My response would not be “I guess they’re right,” but “I guess that’s the law.” Whether I agree with it or not is beside the point. I think I’m being misunderstood in this thread. I am not personally trying to make an argument one way or the other regarding the interpretation of the amendment, I am only trying to make the point that it is legally incorrect to blithely make statements that the right of individuals to bear arms is a matter of settled Constitutional law, At this point, it’s still unresolved. > [@](#): > > Not that I think it will happen, but one wonders how you will feel if a future Supreme Court decides to use similar logic on some of the more cherished Amendments and re-interperate them in interesting ways…or how you’ll feel if RvW is overturned, etc. I mean…if they say its so, it must be, right? Once again, I’m not saying that the Court’s decisions are necessarily RIGHT, just that they are the LAW. As it stands, the Supreme Court has not yet made a definitive ruling on who the Amendment applies to. That is my only point. It is not correct to state that individuals have a clear LEGAL right to own guns. It’s still an open question. Those who declare this “right” with such confidence are confusing their opinions for the law. I agree with their _opinions_ but I also understand it’s not quite the law. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2005, 1:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-gun-control-is-unworkable-and-impractical/320532/47 "2005-09-08T01:46:09Z")
Ok…fair enough DtC. At least you are consistant and I can definitely respect that. -XT ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2005, 2:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-gun-control-is-unworkable-and-impractical/320532/48 "2005-09-08T02:02:32Z")
> [@Bruce\_Daddy](#): > > Who here is disputing Miller? Anyone who maintains that there is an individual right to gun ownership. ---
**Author:** ![TokyoBayer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tokyobayer/32/13989_2.png) [@TokyoBayer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TokyoBayer)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2005, 2:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-gun-control-is-unworkable-and-impractical/320532/49 "2005-09-08T02:15:12Z")
> [@newcrasher](#): > > Katrina blew through 36 hours ago. You and your family . . . were smart and evacuated and are watching the mess on CNN from your sister’s house. My brother-in-law watches Fox News, so I’ll be at your sister’s place too. Any need for guns at your sister’s? Japan allows no private ownership of hand guns and heavily restricts shot guns and rifles. The angry crowd coming your way. . . doesn’t because they don’t do things like that here, anyway, but even if they did, they wouldn’t be armed with guns. A few outlaws have guns here, and every couple of years an innocent person get shot by mistake, but there’s no need to for a gun to defend yourself. Even in NO, it would have been more effective to have more national guard / police stopping the gangs than to try to out gun gungs yourself. It would be nice to turn the clock back and remove all guns from America but since there’s no wagic wands, I prefer gun controls. ---
**Author:** ![OliverTwistofLime](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/b487fb/32.png) [@OliverTwistofLime](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OliverTwistofLime)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2005, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-gun-control-is-unworkable-and-impractical/320532/50 "2005-09-08T02:17:17Z")
I see it this way: Gun ownership is made illegal for a private citizen. ``` Good guy and bad guy give up weapons Bad guy buys them illegally and pays more probably Bad guy attacks you brandishing a gun, rifle or what have you. Bad guy wins because Good guy has no similar weaponry. ``` ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2005, 3:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-gun-control-is-unworkable-and-impractical/320532/51 "2005-09-08T03:13:55Z")
> [@OliverTwistofLime](#): > > I see it this way: Gun ownership is made illegal for a private citizen. What does this have to do with gun control? Gun control is not synonymous with prohibition or seizure. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tooth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c67d28/32.png) [@The\_Tooth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tooth)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2005, 3:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-gun-control-is-unworkable-and-impractical/320532/52 "2005-09-08T03:16:28Z")
> [@newcrasher](#): > > You should have seen the line of hoods and rufniks waiting to turn in their guns when the city council passed that resolution! :rolleyes: Do you really think those who passed such a law were under the impression that hoods and rufniks would line up to turn in their guns? No, really: do you? And has it occured to you that the point of such a law was to keep guns from falling into the hands of criminals in the course of break-ins, muggings and car thefts? ---
**Author:** ![OliverTwistofLime](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/b487fb/32.png) [@OliverTwistofLime](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OliverTwistofLime)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2005, 1:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-gun-control-is-unworkable-and-impractical/320532/53 "2005-09-08T13:09:26Z")
> [@Fear Itself](#): > > What does this have to do with gun control? Gun control is not synonymous with prohibition or seizure. The same principle applies. Gun control comes in all degrees. Guns can be limited to one per household or none. The Bad guy will still be able to illegally obtain guns of all kinds on the black market where the good guy is no longer playing on level ground. ---
**Author:** ![newcrasher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/b3f665/32.png) [@newcrasher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/newcrasher)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2005, 1:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-gun-control-is-unworkable-and-impractical/320532/54 "2005-09-08T13:23:34Z")
> [@The Tooth](#): > > Do you really think those who passed such a law were under the impression that hoods and rufniks would line up to turn in their guns? No, really: do you? And has it occured to you that the point of such a law was to keep guns from falling into the hands of criminals in the course of break-ins, muggings and car thefts? I don’t suspect they really anticipated anything to happen. I would guess that the measure was put in place for use in future criminal prosecution of gun crimes. But to your second point…there are already guns in the hands of criminals. In fact most gun owners residing in DC are committing a criminal act. Passing the law did not remove any guns from their hands, only from the hands of those conscientious enough to obey. And if a criminal element wanted to break into a home to steal a gun, they could drive 1/2 mile out of the no-gun utopia of DC into Virginia, where guns are readliy available to private citizens. The criminal hellbent on stealing a gun does so in VA and Mr. Lawabider remains unarmed in DC. I see your point, but it only works on paper. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2005, 1:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-gun-control-is-unworkable-and-impractical/320532/55 "2005-09-08T13:25:17Z")
> [@OliverTwistofLime](#): > > The same principle applies. Gun control comes in all degrees. Guns can be limited to one per household or none. You have a very limited and draconian view of gun control. How about enforcing responsible gun ownership? Register and track all guns from the point of manufacture, through all sales, public and private, including gun shows and swap meets. It’s not that difficult, no more so than what we do with our automobiles. If a gun is stolen, it must be promptly reported, or the owner is liable a firearm offense. If a crime is committed with a gun, it makes finding and prosecuting the criminal easier. Gun owners and manufacturers should be more responsible for what happens with their weapons, and the law should enforce that. ---
**Author:** ![newcrasher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/b3f665/32.png) [@newcrasher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/newcrasher)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2005, 1:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-gun-control-is-unworkable-and-impractical/320532/56 "2005-09-08T13:27:59Z")
[QUOTE=TokyoPlayer The angry crowd coming your way. . . doesn’t because they don’t do things like that here[/QUOTE] I am not doubting this, but what happened after Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed? Was there looting or civil unrest? I am asking because I don’t know, not to be facetious. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tooth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c67d28/32.png) [@The\_Tooth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tooth)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2005, 2:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-gun-control-is-unworkable-and-impractical/320532/57 "2005-09-08T14:16:28Z")
> [@newcrasher](#): > > I don’t suspect they really anticipated anything to happen. I would guess that the measure was put in place for use in future criminal prosecution of gun crimes. So even though you realize that the intended result was not criminals lining up to hand their guns in, you deride the law because it didn’t have that result? > [@](#): > > Passing the law did not remove any guns from their hands, only from the hands of those conscientious enough to obey. As you said, it wasn’t supposed to. > [@](#): > > And if a criminal element wanted to break into a home to steal a gun, they could drive 1/2 mile out of the no-gun utopia of DC into Virginia, where guns are readliy available to private citizens. The criminal hellbent on stealing a gun does so in VA and Mr. Lawabider remains unarmed in DC. Maybe. There’s always a way around most prohibitions whatever they may be. But the law does prevent guns from being stolen in a city with a large amount of crime, making the problem worse. > [@](#): > > I see your point, but it only works on paper. My point was that you’re mocking a law for not having results that were never expected in the first place, which doesn’t make much sense. ---
**Author:** ![rayh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e79b87/32.png) [@rayh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rayh)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2005, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-gun-control-is-unworkable-and-impractical/320532/58 "2005-09-08T14:22:02Z")
> [@OliverTwistofLime](#): > > I see it this way: Gun ownership is made illegal for a private citizen. > > ``` > Good guy and bad guy give up weapons > > Bad guy buys them illegally and pays more probably > > Bad guy attacks you brandishing a gun, rifle or what have you. > > Bad guy wins because Good guy has no similar weaponry. > > ``` Good guy and bad guy both have guns. Bad guy attacks you brandishing a gun, rifle or what have you. Bad guy shoots you because he sees you going for your gun. ---
**Author:** ![OliverTwistofLime](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/b487fb/32.png) [@OliverTwistofLime](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OliverTwistofLime)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2005, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-gun-control-is-unworkable-and-impractical/320532/59 "2005-09-08T16:17:59Z")
> [@Fear Itself](#): > > You have a very limited and draconian view of gun control. How about enforcing responsible gun ownership? Register and track all guns from the point of manufacture, through all sales, public and private, including gun shows and swap meets. It’s not that difficult, no more so than what we do with our automobiles. If a gun is stolen, it must be promptly reported, or the owner is liable a firearm offense. If a crime is committed with a gun, it makes finding and prosecuting the criminal easier. Gun owners and manufacturers should be more responsible for what happens with their weapons, and the law should enforce that. Register all the guns you want from manufacturer to sales. The bad guy will still have UNregisted guns to use at will. You are making it more difficult for the good guy to have a gun while the bad guy has a field day. Lastly you should know by now that bureauracracy can’t even handle the registration of sex offenders much less their current habitat. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2005, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-gun-control-is-unworkable-and-impractical/320532/60 "2005-09-08T16:31:00Z")
> [@OliverTwistofLime](#): > > Register all the guns you want from manufacturer to sales. The bad guy will still have UNregisted guns to use at will. I disagree. Registration will control access to guns, though not immediately, but over time there with be fewer guns available to criminals. > [@](#): > > You are making it more difficult for the good guy to have a gun while the bad guy has a field day. I disagree. This approach does nothing to make the legal purchase of a gun so difficult that anyone who wants one couldn’t buy it. > [@](#): > > Lastly you should know by now that bureauracracy can’t even handle the registration of sex offenders much less their current habitat. I disagree. If we can successfully register our vehicles (and we do), we can register our guns. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-gun-control-is-unworkable-and-impractical/320532.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-gun-control-is-unworkable-and-impractical/320532.md?page=4)