Right. But gun control laws aren’t often followed by people already engaged in breaking the law.
That being true, at least to a point, any new regulations on gun ownership will affect the lawabiding gun owner more, and the criminal less. And lawabiding gun owners aren’t the problem here.
There are better solutions. Among these is using existing law to the fullest extent against people committing crimes with guns. Attorney General (and later Governor) Jim Gilmore did this in Virginia, with Project Exile. This program helped cut gun crimes in the city of Richmond dramatically.
Project Exile had the full support of the NRA and the law enforcement community here, as a program that actually worked. It demonstrates to me where the problem is, and where the focus needs to be.
Cite? Sorry, but besides the political positions and groups, I just don’t see this as happening. The cops I know, (anecdotal, I realize) don’t feel that way at all. You say that cops get shot “quite often” a very subjective term. While a cop getting shot is never a good thing, or an issue to take lightly, I would like to know what “quite often” means in your mind. Often times they are shot with their own guns, in fact I believe that is the case in the majority of shootings (I will find a cite for that). Gun control will not help that situation.
Then why are so many gun control measures endorsed by so many police chiefs? Did anyone lose their guns with the AWB? Was anyone not able to hunt? To defend their homes? If not, then why was it portrayed as such a bad idea? And aren’t some of the provisions, like not having threaded barrels for silencers, pretty innocuous to the average hunter?
Because so many big city police chiefs are part of the Democratic power structure. Oftentimes, they go along with conventional wisdom, especially in areas where liberal or inner city politics are in an adversarial relationship with the police.
The problem with the AWB was that it was meaningless. It was about equal to “banning red cars because the look like they are too fast.” We have too many laws on the books already. There is no need for more, especially ones that are such a joke. As others have noted for years, gun control laws don’t affect criminals, because criminals don’t follow the law. I for one would accept reasonable and proper laws regulating guns, if these were accompanied by guarantees that the rights to the guns I legally possess would never be infringed in any way whatsoever. Until that can be guaranteed, forget it. I’m tired of being the one who always gives in.
Police chiefs are infamous for being more involved in politics than in law enforcement. If you look at surveys, there is usually a huge gulf between the opinions of police chiefs and the average cop on the beat.
The AWB was a bad law. It had more to do with appearances and fears than facts.
The Second Amendment is not about hunting ducks.
Contrary to popular American belief, silencers are not a “criminal tool”. In many countries, their use is encouraged, so that people can shoot pests without annoying their neighbors.
I don’t buy the “since the law only affects law abiding citizens, why pass it?” argument. You could easily make the same argument for not paying your taxes on the grounds that criminals don’t do it. But I do like your idea- let’s agree what restrictions make sense, make them, then guarantee that if you follow those regulations we won’t change them- ever. Have a summit of gun owners and those that would like to regulate them. Let them hammer out an agreement, get it to Congress and into law. Then both sides stay away from gun control laws forever. I can live with it.
I’m worried about Senator Feinstein and her ilk, who would certainly find cause to revisit this agreement a few years down the road.
Few things are ever final in politics. I believe the only truly settled issues here in America are slavery and secession, and it took a war to settle those.
I don’t know. If it passed the House with 400+ votes and the Senate with 90+ votes, I don’t see how this would ever be overturned in the future. If we can just come to some agreement on this, on abortion, and other social issues we could get back to electing leaders on fiscal and foreign policies.
Sure. Maybe we can hash out a final farm policy, too. Then we’ll move on to energy. We’ll just take all of these contentious issues permanently off the table, one by one.
Forgive me if I don’t hold my breath.
Just because you desire finality on some issues doesn’t mean it’s going to happen. I would like the Democratic Party to endorse gun rights, but I don’t expect them to anytime soon, and I respect their right to oppose them.
The trouble is, too many people keep power by not finding final solutions. Every year the Republicans run on cutting taxes. Having control over the government for four years now, if taxes are too high it’s because the Republicans left them there. Everybody is for making the tax code simpler, yet keep their hands out for lobbyists to pay them to give them a special exception. Dems do it just as much as Pubs.
Bob, you are not getting the point we as gun owners are trying to make. We are satisified with the laws on the books, and more do not need to be added. The sensible laws area already on the books, and in fact, there are a few laws that should be eliminated, but that is for another thread.
You keep equating gun rights and hunting, but hunting is not the sole reason for owning guns, nor should it be the cornerstone idea in creating new laws. I said earlier that the dividing line for guns that are not available to the citizenry is drawn on functionality. Full auto guns are severely restricted at the federal level and outlawed in mnay states. Guns larger than .50 caliber are treated similarly for the most part.
Any other future limits imposed are based aesthetic only. The AW Ban banned guns on how they looked, nothing more nothing less. Tying this to the OP, it has been the general consensus that the “Republican Revolution” in 1994 was fueled in part by so many Democrats signing the AW Ban in 1994. My representative (D) was voted out of office after a career lasting 30 years or so. He attributed his loss to his “misguided” (his words not mine) vote on the AW Ban.
There may well be laws we don’t need on the books now. I’m just saying we need to be open to the possibility that others may be needed. I’m thinking from the perspective of the terrorist or mass murderer. If there are things we keep out of their hands that have no legitimate sporting or self defense purpose, then let’s do so. I’m open to the possibility that existing laws already do this- but I also recognize the possibility that they don’t. So let’s have the FBI and police agencies tell us what they say are the things we can or should do. If a plurality of law enforcement authorities tell us that the existing laws are as good as we can do- fine. Let’s move on. And yes, there are things besides hunting. I did mention earlier that if you sleep better with a pistol on the nightstand, I don’t have a problem with it. And there are those that have aesthetic interest just as coin collectors do- they can be accomodated as well.
So does every hunting law in every state of the Union. Hunting with fully automatic weaponry is proscribed.
Which is why fully-automatic weapons are the most heavily regulated in the United States, and why only one violent crime has been committed with a legally owned fully-automatic weapon in several decades.
Since it never happened with those weapons in the first place, your wish is granted.
Given the level of ignorance you have thus far displayed concerning firearms in general, and firearms and hunting laws in particular, and the loaded verbiage you have also employed, why should any pro-gun person give you the time of day?
Since incrementally increasing regulation has been the tried & proven method to ban and confiscate in other jurisdictions and municipalities, it’s hardly “paranoia” to think that that might possibly be the ultimate motive of any given person advocating more gun control.
Well, I’m glad I have your permission. Does anyone else deign to allow us hunters to hunt?
Again, considering your ignorance, don’t be too surprised if your definition of “reasonable” is NOT the one we want to accept.
Bob, you manner of “speech” is as offensive to gun owners as Archie Bunker’s was to minorities. If it is intentional, then congratulations.