Nonsense. First, the fact that there are gun crimes does not mean that gun are ‘on balance’ a serious problem. i.e. if they solve more problems than they create, then they are, on balance, a good thing.
#2 and #3 certainly can be debated and proven with satisfaction. If John Lott’s study had shown a firm correlation between gun laws and less crime, that would be a good start. It didn’t.
My instinct is that both numbers are pretty small, and probably balance out, roughly speaking.
But as you say, the burden should be on those who want waiting periods to justify them.
Another question to those who support waiting periods: If a jurisdiction enacted a waiting period bill, and careful study indicated that afterwards, the number of shootings did not go down appreciably, would you support repeal of the waiting period?
Why or why not?
(I’ve broken the proposals stuff off into a seperate post, people seem to prefer smaller posts than the monster posts I end up with sometimes).
The problem with simply declaring the ‘slippery slope’ argument a crock of dung is that, whatever you think or say on the matter, gun control advocates as a whole clearly want to move towards banning guns and not towards a definate set of laws. I started a big thread on here at one point to ask people what they meant by ‘common sense’ gun control, and the results were telling.
Really, the move to ban is best demonstrated by the attitude of the GC crowd towards machine guns. In 1934, the NFA was passed, requiring registration, the payment of a $200 tax, and fingerprinting and background check requirements to legally possess a machine gun. The ATF also began requiring a signature from a chief LEO at some later point.
After passage of the NFA, there has only been one single crime committed with a legally owned machine gun, and that crime was perpetrated by a police officer (generally exempt from GC measures). Does this mean that GC advocates called the NFA a success and decided to leave the legal MG owners alone, as we would expect from their position of not wanting a gun ban, only wanting to stop crimes, etc? No - in 1968 the GCA forbade import of any NFA firearms, and in 1986 it became illegal to own a MG not registered before the FOPA came into effect (though neither of those affects police officers, the only ones who have committed crimes with MGs post-34). And every time a discussion of what guns should be banned comes up, machine guns make the top of the list of what should be completely banned - despite the complete lack of any crimes committed with legally owned MGs.
If GC advocates can keep calling for a complete ban on a set of guns with which which legal owners have not used to commit a single crime since 1934, I don’t see how anyone can believe their cries that they only want to prevent crimes and suicides. BTW, what’s your take on machine guns?
So, they were stored pretty much like you probably store kitchen knives, matches, gas for the mower, sharp tools (saws, etc), car keys, houshold cleaning suppplies, and other dangerous items? Where they’re not locked away from kids except when said kids are around 2 and don’t know any better, and you teach the kids not to hurt themselves with them?
What good would ‘safe storage’ requirements about this? Having the guns in a safe wouldn’t keep him from getting them out drunk. It’s not like it’s impossible to open a safe while drunk, I’ve opened a more complex lock than those on a safe while barely being able to walk.
Also, I note that you don’t seem to be calling for safe storage on gasoline and matches, saws, knives, or car keys - wouldn’t it be just as bad if he started playing around with those while drunk?
Is this a phobia related to firearms, or do you ask similar questions about other common, dangerous items in their house, as detailed in the list someone else posted? (I’d add swimming pool to the list, more kids drown in pools every year than die in firearms accidents according to the CDC).
Do you store them with the same kind of storage you advocate for guns? I know I wouldn’t exactly feel comfortable near a drunk guy waving around a sword.
[/QUOTE]
It seems to me that for many types of gun-control measures, you can evaluate these in a reasonable way without implementing comprehensive, nationwide gun control measures.
For example, one way to show that a waiting period is likely to reduce shootings would be to look at a jurisdiction that implemented waiting periods, and look at its crime rates before and after.
If the number of shootings dropped, you’d have a pretty good piece of evidence.
Since many jurisdictions have implemented waiting periods, I assume that there’s data out there. Since gun-control groups are not trumpeting this data from the rooftops (and instead showing pictures of dead children, as Sam Stone points out), I assume that it does not favor them.
This is not ‘pretty much the case’ in the US as a whole, though it might be true for handguns. The vast majority of states do not require a permit to own a long gun (even NY state doesn’t), and I don’t think that the direct provisions of state laws qualify as a ‘loophole’.
As others have asked, what purpose will this permit serve? Do you have evidence of permits doing good in areas where they are required?
Further, how will these permits be administered? Will it be on a ‘shall issue’ basis like driver’s licenses, where you meet a set of objective standards at a testing location which is generally available, or will it be more like a literacy test in the post-reconstruction south? What will be my legal remedy if the local LEOs decline to process my permit despite having met the objective standards for one? Considering the history of concealed carry permits in California (even a direct statement that someone wanted to kill you believed by the police doesn’t qualify as a good reason to the cheif of police) and other places, it’s perfectly valid for PG people to ask how these permits are going to actually work and what the protections are against having them denied.
Oh, and will the permit administrators be required to issue a permit for any gun, or will they be allowed to deny particular guns on a whim? In Chicago, it’s not technically illegal to own a handgun, it’s just that registration of one will not be accepted, and possessing an unregistered gun is a crime…
How much is this battery of training going to cost - if I have a gun from before your proposal, and find that I can’t meet the training fees you’ve added on, is it going to get confiscated? How is this training going to be administered - will it be an objective ‘you must answer these questions’ in the law, or will it be up to some beurocrat’s whim, becoming a literacy test? There have been cases where the required training class for a concealed carry permit was only offered once per year and was always filled by friends of the local administration before registration was open to the public. Unless you can address these problems, you’re advocating a de-facto gun ban.
Cite, please. I don’t know of any state where it is illegal to own an automobile without a driver’s license. It IS generally illegal to drive a car on public roads without one, but that is very different from not being able to own one without a license. It’s generally perfectly legal for a person without a license to own a car and only drive it on their own property or on someone else’s private property with permission - which is not what you advocate for guns.
Further, a driver’s license is valid in all 50 states. Is the same going to be true of your gun license?
[QUOTE]
Third… before being allowed to buy a gun, anywhere, anytime, a permitted gun owner must prove that they possess the means to properly store that gun in a safe way, such as a gun safe, locker, or similar. This could be a condition of gun ownership permits, perhaps. No safe storage, no gun… very simple. People who are found possessing guns without the means to store them properly will be guilty of a crime and fined, similar to seat belt laws.
These are already generally illegal. While the specifics vary from state to state, it’s normally illegal to fire a gun inside of a city except at a range or in self-defense. ‘Brandishing’ a gun (waving it around) is also typically illegal, and handling a firearm in public wile intoxicated is also typically against the law. You’ve said that current firearms laws are a joke, do you even know what they are?
So, they shouldn’t apply on your own property (like drunk driving laws), should only apply to operating the vehicle (not carrying an unloaded, cased, possibly disassembled gun), and should require a significant BAC for prosecution?
The ‘permit law’ doesn’t exist, at least over most of the nation, and I really don’t see how you can call a nonexistant law ‘poorly enforced and a nightmare of disorganization’. The other laws you’re calling for generally already exist, in some cases in a more strict form that you’re advocating (NC’s CCP law, for example, forbids carrying concealed with any amount of alcohol in your system, unlike drunk driving laws, and forbids carrying concealed at any place that serves alcohol).
I don’t, your permit and training laws sound like literacy tests to me.
Please tell us how there are far more legal controls on automobiles. Can I have an automobile shipped to me from out of state without going through a car dealer? Are there laws banning scary-looking cars or high-capacity gas tanks? Can a felon or person who has been involuntarily committed own an automobile, and is there a background check to enforce this? Are there any states where openly displaying your car is illegal? Are there any states where issuing a license to operate an automobile in public is not shall-issue, and are there any states that forbid operating an automobile in public? Are there any states that require safe storage of automobiles (and if the keys are accessabile to kids, that doesn’t count)? Are there any states that don’t honor other state’s driving licenses?
Also, automobiles kill about 3 times as many people as firearms in the US, and firearms certainly have productive uses (self-defense, sport, hunting), so your ‘productive-destructive’ comparison seems a bit off.
But they will take police time and resources away from fighting real crime and into enforcing your new laws, won’t they? And I disagree with your sentiment above - there is already a law on the books that would do a lot of good in actually preventing murders, and it was passed in 1968. It makes it a federal crime for a felon to possess a firearm, and specifies a five-year sentence. It’s not generally enforced, but I think that taking someone who’s already broken the law off the streets for five years would do something for the crime rate.
Of course, the Brady bunch and other GC organizations would rather use such incidents to promote things like the ‘assault weapons’ ban, leaving the NRA as the only proponent for the federal courts to actually prosecute people for violating federal gun laws.
This is what I have found so far. There seems to be more information against stricter gun laws than in favor of more gun laws.
Cite
In summary, the FBI found that through the background check they had prevented thousands of criminals from purchasing firearms. This is the best I have so far. But, what I am looking for is information regarding the waiting period.
I do not want to be on both sides of the fence on this issue. I think people should be able to own guns. I would like to see background checks and waiting periods.
I am only pursuing this because I have the mandate from Sam Stone. I will continue to gather the data because I am a good sport.
I honestly believe that violent crime has more to do with severe character flaws, drug use, and mental illness, than the availability of guns. Still, I would take comfort in knowing that somebody on parole couldn’t just walk into a sporting goods store and buy a gun.
Meanwhile, back to Google. 
Do you have any statistics showing that waiting period laws actually have that effect? The only stats that have been presented on the topic show far show a small decrease in the number of suicides among the eldery, and no decrease in crimes.
I’d say that merely the inconvenience of going to a shop twice to buy a gun would warrant something more than ‘it seems like it might’ - and Bonnie Elmasri might think it more than an inconveience, were she alive today. She inquired about getting a gun to procet herself from her (seperated) husband who had threatened to kill her, but was told there was a 48 hour waiting period. The next day, she and her two sons were killed by her abusive husband. (Yes, it’s only a single case, but it’s a single case more than the pro-waiting-period types have presented).
And waiting period laws (such as the one in the interim provisions of the Brady Bill) don’t only apply to people who don’t own a gun at all, but to everyone. How, exactly, would a waiting period law prevent me from suddenly going off into a ‘sudden suicide’ or ‘rage homicide’? I wouldn’t go and spend an hour or two going to the store, picking one out, filling out the yellow form, and waiting for a NICS check, I’d just grab a 12-guage or 1911 from my apartment.
**BTW, what’s your take on machine guns? **
I can’t understand why someone would want or need one. But, I am curious about why the talk seems to be focused on the AK47 when this topic comes up. Why not the M16? Just curious.
In summary, crimes with guns have decreased with stricter gun laws. The Million Mom March group.
Anthracite is correct in listing the many things which kill children. They are not sexy issues but kill more kids.
Again, we recently had a triple drowning in Florida. The kids probably climbed a fence, broke in, and drowned in a pool. How three kids can drown is beyond me. Where are the adults?
Nobody ever protected their home, community, or nation with a swimming pool. I don’t recall pools in the Constitution either.
I doubt the left could drum up money by pushing anti-pool legislation. But guns really stir up the emotions.
Swimming pool legislation, by the way, is no joke. First, it is an attractive nuisance. This means is is incumbent upon the owner to keep kids away with fences, screens, locks, etc. Moreover, in Florida they just passed stringent new pool requirements which mandate 4’ fences right next to the pool - in addition to the aforementioned screens, locks, and fences most people have already. Alarms on windows facing the pool are now mandatory. There is more, but you get the drift.
I propose the following: enforce laws against gun crimes so people who shoot people stay in jail.
**She inquired about getting a gun to procet herself from her (seperated) husband who had threatened to kill her, but was told there was a 48 hour waiting period. The next day, she and her two sons were killed by her abusive husband. (Yes, it’s only a single case, but it’s a single case more than the pro-waiting-period types have presented). **
This is tragic. It seems that recently there have been numbers of these cases where family members kill each other. You don’t know if we need more guns or fewer guns. Your post doesn’t state how the husband killed his family. I mean, was it with a gun? Maybe that wouldn’t have happened if citizens didn’t have guns.
Domestic abuse is a huge problem in this society. I don’t believe it will be solved thru the existence of gun laws or the absence of gun laws. It is a sad commentary when we expect moms to buy and tote guns to protect themselves and their children.
That page is interesting, though, because it claims NICS prevented “179,000 felons, fugitives, domestic abusers, and other prohibited persons from buying guns”, but then goes on to say “The report shows that NICS prevented more than 2,400 wanted persons from buying guns, and that FBI employees identified those persons to federal, state and local law enforcement agencies – leading to the apprehension of dangerous fugitives from justice.” I’ll presume that all 2400 ‘wanted persons’ were arrested; that still means that just over 1% of the “felons, fugatives, domestic abusers, and other prohibited persons” who attempted to buy guns were arrested.
Since gun control is usually presented as an attempt to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, why are so few of them arrested for attempting to illegally buy a gun? I’m not sure how ‘attempted’ crimes work in Federal law, but those numbers seem to cry out to me that you could get a number of criminals behind bars by either making ‘attempted purchase of a firearm by a prohibited person’ a crime (and prosecuting for it), or by prosecuting them for it under existing law (if the rules for ‘attempted crime’ in federal would allow it now). However, I haven’t seen any kind of push this from the Brady bunch and other GC organizations - they do advocate retaining NICS records to create a national registry of firearms, but don’t seem interested in the “felons, fugitives, domestic abusers, and other prohibited persons” that we have legal proof attempted to purchase a firearm. Seems kind of odd; this seems like an easy way to target real criminals instead of just harassing legitimate gun owners.
We have no idea why crime dropped for 6 years straight. The answer is probably economic, not gun-control laws. Note that as the economy takes a slight turn for the less-good, crime is on the rise. The ‘million moms’ you cited don’t know either. Any good study would have sources listed, which they don’t.
Don’t be cheap. Sink the dime, and get yourself a nice Bushmaster ! Contrary to the hype, AK’s aren’t that great. Stick with the AR-15-type rifles, and you will be happy!
the ak-47 is a “foreign, commie” gun. The M-16 is American-Made, and the civilian version, the ar-15, costs around a thousand dollars.
Nobody robs liquor stores with a thousand-dollar rifle. Think about it.
My take? If people are licensing gun owners, I don’t see why we aren’t licensing everyone who votes, who owns a car, or who has children. All three of those things are more dangerous than a gun – and anyone who’s qualified (mentally, morally) to have either a vote, a gun, or a car, is realistically also qualified(mentally, morally) to own a much-less-dangerous gun.
So I have this wacky idea: I call it “citizenship.” If you’re a citizen, you get to vote, and you get to own whatever gun you want, as long as you can afford it. If you aren’t a citizen, you don’t get either.
Call me crazy, but I stole the basic concept from the Athenians. Worked for them.
That’s not really what I was asking; do you support an outright ban on private ownership of machine guns, a continuation of the current system, revoking laws to bring MG regulation back to the '34 law whcih seems to have done the job gun control is allegedly aiming for, or something else?
I’m not aware that it is; usually MG discussions talk about the Thompson or .50 cal in my experience.
Of course, the reason why the AK47 comes up in the topic of ‘assault weapons’ bans is that the federal (and most state) assault weapon bans only apply to semi-automatic weapons and not fully automatic weapons. Since the semi-auto version of the M-16 is the AR-15, while semi-auto AK-47s still keep the same name, GC proponents tend not to mention the M-16 because it’s not covered by any assault weapons laws so it would be easy for someone to point that out, and mentioning the semi-automatic AR-15 would tend to make people wonder why they’re calling a weapon not used by the military a ‘military weapon’.
In summary, crimes with guns have decreased with stricter gun laws. The Million Mom March group. **
[/QUOTE]
In summary, that page is full of it. As they state, there was a major GC law in 1968 (I wouldn’t call it the first as they do, I’d say that title goes to the '34 NFA, but that’s up to what you mean by ‘major’). In 1968, violent crimes occered at a rate of 298.4/100,000, and began a steady climb which lasted until 1991(with a few small downturns, never dropping below the 1968 rate). If we take their argument at face value, we’d have to say that the 1968 GCA led to an increase in crimes. Since we’re still not down to '68 levels, by their reasoning we should repeal the GCA if we want to drop violent crime rates.
Also, the drop in crime rates started before the passing of the Brady Bill (in '91, 3 years before brady went into effect), which leads me to wonder how the Brady Bill managed to reach back in time to reduce violent crime rates. (the ‘gun crimes’ rates follow a similar patten, though I don’t have a cite at the moment).
Then there’s also the problem that at the same time as the Brady Bill came into effect, states were also passing shall-issue concealed carry laws (Florida passed their concealed carry law in '87 and a lot of other states followed their lead through the '90s) which kind of muddies the issue - the shall-issue CCP trend does actually predate the violent crime rate drop, and covers the same time period that the Brady Bill was supposedly lowering crime. They don’t address that at all (MMM is opposed to shall-issue CCP, but according to their arguments they should favor it).
As far as ‘gun crime’ versus ‘violent crime’, I don’t have stats handy, and frankly don’t give a rats ass. I don’t see ‘well, she was violently raped, but he didn’t have a gun!’ or ‘he was beaten to death, but at least he wasn’t shot’ as anything vaguely related to a reasonable position.
(I’ve used http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm for these stats since I have it bookmarked, it matches other stats but has them in a conveninet format. Look at the lower table for rates (crimes/100,000), the top one is absolute numbers).
Why does it matter how the husband killed his family (I don’t know offhand, BTW)? What we have here is a case where someone needed a gun for protection against a credible death threat, but couldn’t get one because of a waiting period, and she and her two kids died while in the ‘cooling off’ period.
Are you now arguing that citizens should not have guns? Earlier you stated that you were in favor of private gun ownership but favored waiting periods, so that would be a big change in your argument - especially given the cries of ‘gun control is not about a gun ban’ that come up so often in these discussions.
Irrelevant. The discussion was about waiting periods. I’ve demonstrated one case in which a ‘cooling off period’ led to someone being without a means of defense and being murdered. Thus, a major drawback to waiting periods, and you haven’t provided any pluses to waiting periods, although you support them.
It’s a sadder commentary that some people would rather see the mom and her children dead than allow her to legally buy a gun.
Never accept Brady statistics at face value. The drop in crime rates started three years before the Brady law. Also, as they don’t see fit to mention, violent crime rates rose for over two decades after the passage of the 1968 GCA, which by the logic for the Brady law reducing crime means the GCA caused a massive increase in violent crime. Also, states started passing shall-issue CCP laws in '87 (actually before the drop started) and they were fairly widespread (and spreading more) once the Brady Bill came on the scene, which they don’t address.
jacksen 9
If guns were totally banned this would only drive the prices up. See, the (neverending) War on Drugs. People willing to break the law (criminals) will still always have guns. The real question is, are we willing to risk essentially guaranteeing all criminals that they will never run against an armed law abiding homeowner? There is a deterrent effect from gun ownership that protects everyone - even those who criminals think might have guns but don’t.
Guns have been around for hundreds of years. There are hundreds of millions of guns. An individual firearm can function properly for hundreds of years - if properly maintained and not overused. Guns can be manufactured by a skilled craftsman in a garage. How are we going to stuff this genie back in the bottle exactly?
One thing gun laws would do for sure is make criminals out of lots of presently law abiding citizens. But, hey, jail all the hunters and collectors - this should ensure a Democratic Congress in November. Oh, and jail all the people with pools, too.
lucwarm:
I will be the first to concede that the number of crimes prevented by a 5-day waiting period is probably so low as to be statistically insignificant. I do believe such laws would prevent a small number of crimes of passion, but not many. That is particularly true because guns are so plentiful and so easily available through perfectly legal channels. Don’t want to undergo a background check or wait a few days for a gun? All you’ve got to do is undertake a private sale, since few (if any) American jurisdictions impose such requirements.
And please don’t come back with the standard reply that it’s already illegal for a private seller to sell a gun to a person who is not eligible to own one. Fact is, it is only a crime to do so if you sell the gun knowingly or intentionally to a person not eligible to own one. And there are no requirements for private sellers to make any reasonable inquiry into who they’re selling to, so that “restriction” is utterly ineffective. [Generally speaking, of course. If some jurisdictions have closed that utterly insane end-run around background check requirements, I applaud them for doing so. But I ain’t heard of it if they have.]
Not to mention that it’s very convenient for many, many people to simply drive across state lines to buy firearms in a less restrictive state. Don’t want to comply with gun purchase regulations in New York? Hello, Pennsylvania! That kind of cross-jurisdiction leakage is precisely why inconsistent gun purchase laws make it exceedingly difficult to conclude whether any particular gun control measure would be effective from the example of a single city or state.
Well, it was required for a few years under the Brady Act, until the instant background check became available. But I don’t know whether any states still have waiting period limitations. My sense is it’s not too many, if any. A little help, anyone?
Three day waiting period in Florida, to name one.
Search: “firearm waiting periods by state” I got this as the first hit. I think it is actually eighteen states.
Minty, I don’t find it particularly compelling evidence that you and you alone “presume” (quoting you the other thread) that a universal registration scheme would not offend the Fifth Amendment. Skip down a bit to the third paragraph just above part V in the decision; you’ll note that Justice Harlan makes mention of the fact that there are circumstances, however rare, in which a person may be required to register a firearm without being in violation of the Federal Firearms Act; the example listed is “the finder of a lost or abandoned firearm”. As a result, the statute is not unconstitutional on its face, because the statute applies to felons and non-felons alike. Just as a universal registration scheme would.
So, what makes you think their decision, when based on a universal registration scheme, would be different?
example of waiting period working
Here is an example of the waiting period doing what is was meant to do. One could argue, however, that if Anne had been carrying her own gun, she could have protected herself.
Posted by Jacksen9 - Domestic abuse is a huge problem in this society. I don’t believe it will be solved thru the existence of gun laws or the absence of gun laws.
Response from Riboflavin -
Irrelevant. The discussion was about waiting periods. I’ve demonstrated one case in which a ‘cooling off period’ led to someone being without a means of defense and being murdered. Thus, a major drawback to waiting periods, and you haven’t provided any pluses to waiting periods, although you support them.
My point was in response to the previous post that described a domestic abuse situation. I think that it is necessary to remember that gun laws may or may not solve these problems.
**It’s a sadder commentary that some people would rather see the mom and her children dead than allow her to legally buy a gun. **
I think this is an unfair statement. If I were a “sign carrying gun control advocate”, that would not mean that I would rather see women and children dead than to see them buying a gun legally. It would mean that I was in favor of a law, not murder.