Are you a single woman, ** stofsky **? If not, how can you know what risks single women face when alone at a remote site? Or do you think that a woman simply should never go off alone by herself (never mind that she has the RIGHT to enjoy the outdoors, just as anyone else does, so long as she’s not harming another person)? Would YOU be willing to impose the same restrictions on YOUR right to go where you will?
The problem isn’t that this woman is paranoid - she’s not. The problem is that there are too many male assholes in the world who think that a woman alone is easy prey. You deal with THEM first, then perhaps your opinion about this woman’s self-defense choices might have some merit. Until then, you can stuff it where the sun don’t shine.
Well, gee, that’s not loaded language at all. I wonder why so many gun owners are worried about so-called “reasonable gun control” propositions.
Shouldn’t responsible, law-abiding gun-owners be the ones to define ‘common sense’ restrictions rather than paranoid, hysterical, fear-mongering gun-grabbers?
Well, gee, that’s not loaded language at all. I wonder why so many gun owners are worried about so-called “reasonable gun control” propositions.
Shouldn’t responsible, law-abiding gun-owners be the ones to define ‘common sense’ restrictions rather than paranoid, hysterical, fear-mongering gun-grabbers?
Criminals are notoriously bad at performing cost/benefit analyses, which is why people end up in prison for six years for robbing the cash register at 7-11.
Riboflavin thanks for clearing up some of my ignorance about gun laws. It is nice to know that some person-person sales are illegal, now I’m wondering how the enforcement of p-p sales is handled. For instance, if I were to sell my handgun to a felon, how would anybody know? The only way to know is to require detailed records of the sale to be kept for every single sale, and to make participating in an illegal sale a serious crime.
Guns do wind up in the hands of criminals. Every single one of them was legally manufactured and purchased at one time or another. At some point, they wind up in the hands of somebody who is not a legal owner.
I feel that the legal owner of a handgun should be responsible for the disposition of that gun when it is sold. If the gun winds up in the hands of a felon, the last legal owner has some questions to answer.
Says who, exactly? IIRC it is a part of the Bill of Rights that gives me the right to own such a weapon.
You are deluded if you believe that there is not a black market in illegal firearms sales. A person who does not possess the correct license can be jailed and fined for possession of a fire arm. Ex: Sean “Puff Daddy” Coombs.
So you would have people arrested preemptively for having a gun? As I said before, this is already taking place without your complicated registration. If you are not licensed to carry a firearm then you can be arrested for doing so. What exactly would be improved by forcing registration?
So? Now only telepaths who have precognition may be employed in a gun store? If you buy a gun from a legal source, there is a record. This may not be some sort of a big government record, but it’s not that hard to find based on sales reciepts and creditcard records.
Registration and such are dead-end plans. They do not do anything to keep the weapons out of the hands of criminals and they potentially restrict the rights of lawful citizens. Not all criminals get their firearms illegally, but that does not mean anything. How can any law enforcement agency predict exactly who will commit a crime before it happens? They can’t. All we can do is make it more unplesant for them to actually commit the crime.
It has been shown that states with more concealed handgun licenses have fewer of the one on one types of crimes than do those which leave their citizens without a good method of deterant to violent crime.
As a criminal I imagine that I would be more concerned that the person I am attempting to mug/rape/assult might be packing a firearm than whether or not I am committing the crime with an unlicensed firearm.
Forgot to address this… Yes, the dealer is also involved in these types of transfers. In an inheritance, things like property and vehicles have to have their titles transferred from the estate to the heir, at some point in time. Similarly, the ownership of a handgun would be transferred from the deceased to the heir.
Just because a felon is an heir (or relative) to someone who is/was a legal gun owner, doesn’t make the transfer of the weapon legal.
First of all, this idea of having an armed populous to protect us from the government is bullshit.
Our government has built-in mechanisms for non-violent revolution. Armed rebellion is not considered an appropriate method of reform in this country.
The government always has bigger and more guns than you.
The government has the law on its side.
Whats so hard to define? A belt-fed mini-gun is a military weapon. A fully automatic rifle is a military weapon. An Uzi submachinegun is a military weapon. Your dad’s bolt-action hunting rifle is a civilian weapon.
Why shouldn’t someone own one?
Because people are morons. People loose their temper and lash out at other people. If everyone had guns, we would probably all act a lot nicer - but there would also be a lot fewer of us around.
They are dangerous. Most pistols and shotguns can’t penetrate a bulletproof vest. Most high calibered weapons can.
There is no practical use for having one. I bet if I was a redneck, me Billy Bob and Cletus could grab jsleek and his female friend and have them both squeeling like a pig before they could get to their rifle unless they constantly keep it at the ready. A small modest pistol is probably a lot more effective.
Also, articulate is not proof of sanity.
Also, most women I know here in civilization do not carry guns around and they don’t have any problems.
Riboflavin - Since you went through the effort to reply, I’ll try to respond.
quote:
Don’t sell guns to criminals or the menally handicaped.
"What are ‘criminals’ here? Is that ‘anyone with a felony conviction’, or ‘anyone with any criminal conviction, including 30 year old misdemeanors’? Who are the ‘mentally handicapped’, is it people who have been involuntarily committed or declared not guilty by mental defect, anyone who has ever been to a shrink, or some other standard? "
Criminals - People found guilty of committing a criminal act. For the sake of relevence, I would limit it to violent crimes. That speeding misdemenaor you had 20 years ago is not relevant.
Mental defective - People diagnosed by a professional as having emotional problems or problems dealing with reality. ie a paranoid schizophrenic should not have a gun. An savant should not have a gun even if he can count the bullets if they spill on the floor.
quote:
Don’t sell guns to children.
What’s the age cutoff for children, 16, 18, 21, or something else? Also, does this include parents buying guns for their own children?
How about 4 or 5? We don’t allow children of a certain age to drive or drink or vote because the are not ready for the responsibility. What that age is, I leave to the professionals to decide, but I would say its around car-driving age.
quote:
Don’t sell military style assault weapons. A civilian has no business owning an M-60, a SAW, or a .50 cal Barette sniper rifle.
Is this a form or functional restriction? For example, an AR-15 looks like an M-16 but doesn’t function the same (it’s semi-automatic, not fully automatic), but is one of the two targets of ‘assault weapon’ laws. How are ‘sniper rifles’ determined, and what would differentiate a .30 cal sniper rifle from a .30 cal hunting rifle, and where is the caliber cutoff on them?
Also, does this include any weapon used by the military, such as the Mossberg 500 and Remington 870 shotguns used by MPs and also popular hunting guns? Would the ‘in use’ part go away after the gun is not used by the military?
The problem is, until about 50 years or so ago, there was not much diference between civilian and military weapons. A musket was a musket, a Garand M1 was just a big hunting rifle. Then came fully automatic weapons. The issue is functionality. Civilians have no business with weapons that can spray 500 rounds per minute or punch through a car. If peoploe want to defend their homes with a military style shotgun or pistol, I can accept that, since funtionally, they are not much diferent than the civilian variety.
quote:
Don’t sell guns to people when they are angry.
"
Are you proposing that anyone selling a gun must be telepathic, or is there an objective standard to be used? "
More of a “common sense” thing than something you legislate for. Basically, if a guy comes into your gun store like “I need to kill something right now” you should probably let that sale go.
quote:
Don’t sell guns to people who have demonstrated an inability to handle them safely.
What are the standards for this?
There are standards for handling firearms. “Don’t point at anything you don’t intend to shoot.” etc. If someone demonstrates a continued violation of the rules, they should not have a gun. Just like you can have your driving privlidges taken away.
I like some of the gun control suggestions in this thread.
I would just want to interject that I agree; we can’t prevent all criminals from getting guns if they want to. What we need to do is make it hard enough that if 10,000 criminals try to obtain guns, only about 5 or so actually get them instead of however many it is now. (Yes, I am pulling these numbers out of my @$#, but surely you understand the principle involved).
I want to reiterate that just because you fear registration of guns will lead to confiscation, doesn’t mean it actually will. I favor gun control, but I certainly don’t favor confiscation of legally owned guns. I also favor a person’s right to own a gun to protect themselves in their home. I suspect that the fears about confiscation are overblown, concieveably by NRA propaganda. After all, you register your car without fear of its confiscation, right? Can anyone provide a cite from U.S. history where legally owned and registered guns were confiscated without some crime having been committed?
That’s why it’s called a slippery slope argument. Can you positively say with 100% certainty that registration *will not * end with confiscation? Are you an NRA member, are you privy to NRA discussions concerning this issue? Have you been to the NRA website? BTW, you register your car because driving in this country is a privilege, not a right.
I’m glad to see the gun-control proponents (RTF, minty) state their case without the usual hyperbole in this thread. I, for one, look forward to reading more of your suggestions.
Just a few quick follow-up comments. First, several people sort of missed the point of my proposal for unique identifying marks on all rounds fired. I am aware that slugs (if they’re in good enough condition) can be matched to the gun that fired them . . . if that gun is available. What I want is something that can be used to trace the round to the gun regardless of the gun’s availability to law enforcement. Something where police can simply look at the bullet through a microscope, search a database to match it to the gun that fired it, then match the gun to its registered owner. Even if the weapon has been stolen, knowing who it was stolen from can be a big step towards locating who has it now.
Second, I see where many people also missed my plea to not invoke the slippery slope. I would remind those people that the question was what form reasonable gun control would take, not how bad you are capable of imagining things might get.
Third, the fact that many criminals use illegally obtained weapons in no way persuades me that further, “reasonable” gun control measures would be either ineffective or counterproductive. For one thing, illegal firearms were almost all legally owned before they entered the hands of the bad guys, so it stands to reason that certain reasonable restrictions on legal gun ownership would also limit the available pool of weapons available to those who are not entitled to own them. Further, a heck of a lot of the weapons used to commit crimes in this country are, in fact, legally held. Any sensible gun policy should aim to reduce crimes committed with both legally-held and illegally-held guns.
Of course not. This is why slippery slope arguements are silly. Can you say with 100% certainty that tax increases will not continue until 100% of income is confiscated by the government? Is that a valid arguement against a 5% tax increase?
No. My father is, and I’ve read some of the mailings they’ve sent to him regarding legislation in this state. Some of these mailings I would characterize as “alarmist.” To be fair, the NRA is a very large organization, and within it you will find many viewpoints; some of which I agree with, many of which I don’t. One thing I find especially laudable about the NRA is their encouragement of firearm safety and training. That aspect of the organization does a lot of good.
Yes.
I didn’t say anything about driving. You have a right to own a car even if you can’t operate it. For example, a corporation can legally register a car even though noncorporeal entities have difficulty reaching the petals :).
For the record, I believe that gun ownership is a right. Gun control is not synonymous with gun confiscation. The OP asked about “reasonable” and “common sense” gun control, which I think excludes suggesting that gun ownership is not a right.
Sorry, I didn’t realize my post was hyperbolic. What exactly did I say that pissed you off?
What mechanisms does it have for non-violent revolution?
And your second statement is just silly. You should go back in time and tell the founding fathers that armed rebellion is not an appropriate method of reform.
**
So? Do you really think that even if our army of a million can convince every one of it’s members to shoot it’s own citizens that they’re not going to suffer atrocious loss rates at the hands of hunters turned snipers?
**
What do you mean? The police? Or the actual law? Chances are if they’re doing something so horrendous that people are willing to rebel, the law is unConstitution, therefore null and void.
**
What about a semi-automatic weapon with a military action and appearance?
**
Replace “guns” with “crowbars” in that sentence and it remains unchanged.
**
I thought “Your dad’s bolt-action hunting rifle” is alright? A bolt action hunting rifle is far more capable of penetrating a bullet proof vest than most military weapons.
**
You don’t see a practical use for a cheap, reliable, rugged weapon as a method of self defense? What about people who simply enjoy collecting and shooting?
**
Good for them. I’m glad they’re not so crazy as to use weapons to defend themselves. They might shoot someone’s eye out.
**
Fair enough, except that I would never allow the testimony of a psychologist to determine a person’s criminality. A single agent can easily be corrupted to declare people unfit, working as an agent of the state. I find it hard to recommend restricting gun rights without a trial.
**
What about a weapon that can “spray” 300 rounds a minute and punch through a car? Say, a semautomatic hunting rifle.
**
Do we really need a law to say that?
So what do you do? Open government gun safety testing centers? Anyone who is deemed unfit has his rights infringed upon?
Gun ‘privileges’ are not akin to diriving privileges because they’re not in the same category. You have a right to defend yourself.
People, PLEASE start another thread for the arguments on whether X should be illegal, whether proposal X would do any good, and other points like that. What I want to discuss here is simply what is meant when gun-control types say they want ‘common sense’ gun control, especially the trickier parts (for example, Minty’s apparent desire to ban new semi-automatic weapons).
I could, but this sort of thing as well as the ‘I know a woman who carries an assault rifle when camping’ ‘Waco was gun confiscation’ and other tangents really don’t belong here.
I’m asking you for a definition, if it’s not hard then I’m not asking for much, am I?
That’s not a definition, that’s a few examples which don’t cover the weapons currently covered by ‘assault weapon’ laws. Are guns which look like ‘military weapons’ but aren’t capable of fully automatic fire weapons which should be banned under your proposed legislation (BTW, these are the weapons covered by current ‘assault weapon’ laws and proposals)? Is my dad’s semi-automatic hunting rifle or target rifle a civilian weapon or military one? If my dad’s bolt-action hunting rifle happens to be used by the military as a sniper rifle, is it then a military or civilian weapon?
This demonstrates why I’m asking for what you mean by ‘military style weapons’. Rifles routinely used for deer hunting (like the very popular .30-06) are also high powered weapons that can penetrate a bulletproof vest, and are in fact generally higher powered than weapons currently banned as ‘assault rifles’, so if ‘weapons capable of penetrating a bulletproof vest’ are what you want to ban, they’d be included. FYI, shotguns firing slugs (also commonly used for deer hunting) can routinely penetrate the common bulletproof vests, and the correct term would be ‘high powered’, not ‘high calibered’ - rifles tend to use smaller bullets with a larger powder charge than pistols, so although the bullet from a .30-06 is 2/3 the diameter of a .45 ACP round, it’s much more able to penetrate objects.
An M1 Garand seems to meet most of the requirements for being banned in your list; it’s capable of shooting through a car, is semiautomatic and ‘rapidly reloadable’ like an AR-15 or semi-auto AK-47, can penetrate a bulletproof vest, and has a bayonet lug (not on your list, but on ‘assault weapons’ bans. For that matter, an AR-15 could be described as ‘just a big varmint rifle’ (the round is too low-powered for most game hunting), yet is commonly what people wish to ban.
Again, a demonstration of why I’d like a definition of what is a ‘military weapon’; as I’ve mentioned ‘assault rifles’ as defined by legislation are semi-automatic weapons. And a .30-06 deer rifle will penetrate a car better than, say, a .223 AR-15/M16 or 7.62mm AK-47. For that matter, the .357 magnum pistol round was adopted by the police to better shoot through cover. If this is your standard for what should be banned, then you’re proposing a very wide ban, not one as narrow as you seem to think.
FYI, the shotguns and pistols used by the US army tend to be the same model (not just similar) as available to the civilian market; the Beretta the Army chose to replace the 1911 was straight from the civilian market, and the shotguns used by MPs are either an off-the shelf model or an off-the-shelf model with common replacement parts.
So you’d include violent misdemeanors, such as a 30-year-old conviction for a barfight, as a bar to owning firearms? Also, FYI, in all states that I’m aware of, speeding is not considered a crime (not even a misdemeanor), but an ‘infraction’ and so wouldn’t really be relevant to the discussion anyway.
So, it’s ‘diagnosed’, no courts involved? What are the ‘emotional problems’ that would bar someone from owning a gun - would homosexuality (defined as a form of insanity until recently) have been a bar to owning a gun until recently? Would someone be required to store their guns with the police during a time of greiving after, say, the death of a relative (when they’d be expected to be grieving)? Would someone who goes to a shrink for a few months to work out some childhood issues (which caused some emotional problems) not be allowed to own a gun until the doc certifies them as sane?
I’m not interested here in the extreme examples of your proposals, but in the full effects of ‘common sense’ gun control as you use the term. The point is not to examine extreme cases, but to try to determine the actual set of people who you would ban from owning guns.
So you’d support looser age restrictions on firearms than are generally the case now (federal is 21 for a handgun, 18 for rifle/shotgun for dealers, most states require parental permission to transfer a gun to someone under 18)?
quote:
Don’t sell guns to people who have demonstrated an inability to handle them safely.
What are the standards for this?
There are standards for handling firearms. “Don’t point at anything you don’t intend to shoot.” etc. If someone demonstrates a continued violation of the rules, they should not have a gun. Just like you can have your driving privlidges taken away. **
[/QUOTE]
I’m still not clear on what you’re proposing here. Are you talking about someone who gets a criminal conviction for some kind of bad action, or what? A store owner does not typically observe the day-to-day activities of his customers.
Also, does this apply to police officers, who currently can demonstrate absurdly dangerous gun handling (see any of the newspaper stories on negligent police shootings) and suffer only temporary administrative leave?
I’m not clear on your proposal here - would this be a ban on new purchases, or would there be a confiscation of already owned weapons? How does this compare to driving - aside from any right/priviledge bit (which isn’t relevant to this thread), I’m not aware of any driving offenses that result in a person not being allowed to privately own a car in the future. They can have their license revoked, meaning that they can’t drive a car on the road, but can still own a car as long as they have it towed or get someone else to drive the car when they’re off their property.
Thank god the delegates to the Constitutional Convention were heavily armed to protect themselves against the tryanny of the Articles of Confederation, huh? :rolleyes:
Armed rebellion is not an appropriate method of reform in a democratic republic that provides due process of law and legal protections for matters of individual conscience. End stop.
No, nothing remotely resembling “atrocious loss rates” would result. Anyone who says otherwise is delusional.
Tough luck, that. I simply enjoy many things that are legally prohibited based on the substantial interests of everyone else.
You have a right to free speech. Now go yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater and see what happens.
Nope. There’s a gigantic difference between “tightly regulated” (as per federal restrictions on machine guns) and a ban. Any law-abiding citizen can obtain a federal license to own a machine gun, though it is undeniably a pain in the ass to do so.
RTFirefly: as a rule-of-thumb, almost any semi-automatic weapon is theoretically capable of being converted to full auto. Some (an unknown number, perhaps Turbo Dog would have harder numbers) are more-or-less easy to do so than others. I have no breakdown on the “dividing line” between those that are and those that aren’t easily converted.
There is a law in place (IIRC, part of the Firearm Owners Protection Act) to prohibit the manufacture or importation into the United States semi-automatic firearms readily capable of being converted to full-auto. The person that decides what weapons get on that list is a carreer bureaucrat at the BATF, who may or may not have any real knowledge of firearms, depending upon the current occupant of 1600 Penn. Ave.
In my limited dealings with BATF Firearms division agents, they have been universally knowledgeable and professional acting. Whether policy wonks listen to them or not…
Stofsky: cheap shot. No points.
sqweels:
And another cheap shot. Still, no score.
Does the term “by administrative procedure” mean anything at all to you?
msmith537:
You don’t say.
wevets:
California’s “turn-it-in-or-take-it-out-of-state” laws regarding certain classes of “asault weapons.”
minty:
I won’t play the cite card, because “…a heck of a lot…” isn’t a quantifiable value. Still, it’s pretty broad. For some (and I’ve seen this with my own eyes, and heard this with my own ears), “…if even one firearm death can be prevented, it’s [proposed legislation] worth it!” So excuse me if I’m wary of such open-ended terminology.
How do you reduce crime committed with legally owned cars? Posting speed limit signs? Writing a law saying it’s illegal to commit a crime with an automobile? Preventing criminal intent in a person is a serious feat of social engineering, regardless of whatever instrument they may enventually use to facilitate a violent crime.
I agree that training (mandatory or voluntary) will reduce the already small number of firearms accidents, but not crime. Same with licensing, and registration.
In the hypothetical plans you envision, you are not preventing anything, unless you are implying that the assistance your plans render law enforcement in tracking down, apprehending, prosecuting and incarcerating criminals will have a deterent effect.
I would tend to disagree, using nothing more than the (admittedly subjective) feeling that draconian laws and punishments on alcohol and drugs have had little effect on keeping people from getting booze during prohibition, or drugs today.
However, I would admit that, probably, most criminal think that they aren’t going to get caught. If that can be shown to be otherwise (through the plans you envision), I would allow that, given time for “the word on the street to spread,” that a deterent effect would be eventually possible. I know you to be well-versed legally, if not a lawyer. Perhaps you have a better grasp of the criminal mind-set.
Have you considered the market effects such technologies as you envision would have?
I’ll give you a hint. It happens every four years and it isn’t the Olympics.
I’ll also ask Jefferson Davis while I’m at it.
This is a fantasy.
What scenario, other than a civil war, do you imagine will result in a sizable armed conflict between the US Military and its citzens?
From a strictly tactical perspective, untrained rednecks with rifles are not much of a match against a modern mechanized army.
Countries like Somalia and Afghanistan have heavily armed populations. Is this what you envision as a model for civilian militias keeping the power of the government in check?
I mean that in a society where we elect our lawmakers, we are oblidged to follow the laws they enact. If you don’t like the current leaders policy, you can vote him out of office. What you don’t want is armed minority who decides that they don’t like the way things are, overthrowing the government by force.
Don’t be thick. There may be a grey area with certain weapons but there are some guns that have no other purpose than military.
I’m sorry, but you will never convince me that owning a deadly weapon is a “right” that cannot be taken away. Like any other right, owning a gun comes with responsibility. If a person fails to live up to that responsibility, that right can be taken away.
There is no difference between current Federal restrictions on machine guns and a ban on the possession of new machine guns. If you don’t think so, tell me how I can legally purchase a machine gun manufactured after 1986 without becoming a LEO or joining the military (or is that what you mean by ‘a pain in the ass’?). Bear in mind 18 USC sec. 922(o), which makes it illegal for an individual to own a machine gun registered after 1986. Since this restriction applies only to machine guns (and not other NFA weapons like short-barreled rifles/shotguns), and you mentioned machine guns specifically in your proposal, I would presume that this was included in the ‘comprable to current federal laws on machine guns’ bit.
Also, the 1968 GCA (26 USC sec. 5844) makes it illegal for a (non-leo, non-military) individual to own any NFA weapon imported after it took effect, so are you intending your proposal to ban any imports of semi-automatic weapons? (I’m presuming you agree that your ‘possible to convert to fully automatic’ bit means ‘any semi-automatic weapon’ in real terms, since you haven’t disagreed with my statement).
It’s that simple. The goal of any honest Gun Control policy maker should be to make sure that those gun owners who are responsible and law-abiding are hit with as few inconveniences as possible when it comes to excercising their right, while at the same time making sure that those who act irresponsibly are deterred and/or punished as much as possible.
Stuff such as “registration”, “require gun locks”, “30-day waiting period”, etc. etc. etc. is just sloppy and lazy legislation. Why implement a law if there’s no need for it? Any potential gains brought about by the above mentioned policies can also be brought about WITHOUT hampering the rights of responsible people. Yet, those same policies - true Common Sense Gun Control - is ignored in favor of “hot button” legislation that does no real-world good, but scores major political points.
The only conclusion I can come up with to explain this discrepancy is apathy on the part of pro-Control types (those that propose the measures, at least).