What is 'Common Sense' or 'Reasonable' Gun Control?

Great Debates
81

Me too, generally speaking. The OP asked what form reasonable gun control would take, not the exact wording of the legislation, and “assault rifles” captures the concept well enough for the OP’s purpose.

Of course. I think I’ve explained my proposals w/r/t most of those questions, and would be happy to do so with any I’ve missed. What we got instead was a pointless debate over whether SenorBeef’s secret identity is Merriam Webster. If I have not adequately explained any of those questions, please feel free to ask for clarification of the reasons for my position.

Nag, that’s pretty far beyond what I’m saying. First of all, any regulation on any good is going to lead to a price increase, and price increases are always going to be felt more strongly by lower income people. That doesn’t invalidate the concept of regulation (though the wisdom of any particular regulation is always open to question, including its effects on pricing).

Second, I’m not talking about regulations that would dramatically increase the price of most firearms (with the previously-noted exception of assault rifles, however that broad term may eventually be specified in legislation). You had asked about the market effect of the technologies I’d been proposing. Even if it added up to $20 per gun (which is on the high side of my internal guesstimates) the effect on the market would be basically trivial. Demand for firearms is relatively inelastic, after all–if you’re frightened enough to think you need a gun for defense, or enjoy their recreational uses enough to want one for target shooting or hunting, you’re very unlikely to be deterred by an extra 20 bucks. Certainly, fewer guns will be sold at (for instance) $320 than at $300, but not very many fewer.

I don’t either. Of course, one of the primary reasons why violent crime so rarely occurs with automatic weapons is undoubtedly that they’ve been so tightly regulated that most ordinary criminals can’t get hold of them. I recall that full-auto weapons were highly favored by organized crime before they were regulated to the point of irrelevance. Considering the social benefits of private machine gun ownership are basically nonexistant, I would certainly oppose any lessening of their regulation.

I don’t care who’s doing the enforcing, personally, as long as they’re effective at it. Whoever it is, however, had better have access to the administrative records that I’m talking about creating.

Again, I largely agree. I’m not in favor of increasing transaction costs through pointless administrative complexity. Each of the administrative steps I would support would be there to serve a legitimate purpose, not just to increase aspirin consumption and decrease gun ownership.

82

The defining characteristic of an assault rifle is that it is capable of firing in either semiautomatic or full automatic mode. It has a selector switch to switch between semi and full auto. Thus, the military M16 is an assault rifle. The civilian AR15 is not.

If it’s not capable of select fire, then its not an assault rifle.

Assault rifles usually, but not always, share these other characteristics: carbine length. intermediate size round, removable magazine, bayonet lug. pistol grip.

Now “assault weapon”, on the other hand, is a made up term that describes civilian, semiautomatic versions of military assault rifles. Of course, the mainstream media and the gun grabbing politicians and their lackeys are always trying to confuse the two terms.

83

Also, it’s not easy for a person to get an assault rifle. They are very expensive, the buyer must undergo an extensive background check, many states prohibit them altogether, and there is also a 200 dollar federal tax.

84

**

Anti-rights activitists use loaded words with ambiguous or false meanings, as a habit, because it tends to influence those who are ignorant about the subject and work up an emotional frenzy about it.

Clearly, you’re not trying to scare me, but anyone who is reading this. It’s a habit that anti-rights activists develop, because they want to capitalize on the emotional sentiment and confusion between real assault rifles and “assault weapons”.

**

Pot : kettle black my ass.

You posted an incorrect definition. I said that it was incorrect. You said ‘whatever! it’s in the dictionary! It’s whatever the dictionary says!’.

I said ‘if you want to get technical, by the dictionary’s definition does not classify an m16 or ak-47 as an assault rifle’ as a way of pointing out the flaw in the definition, and an attempt to make you accept intellectual honesty and drop it.

Understand?

**

I’ll leave this one for more knowledgable people. You may be right. But even so, the tyranny of the majority can be as bad as the tyranny of one.

If respect for rights is not given because mob rule dictates it should not be, then you have violated one of the core principles of a Republic.

**

Are you suggesting that America will never become more oppressive? That the government will not become larger and more invasive? That this hasn’t been the trend in the last 50 years?

Are you saying that at some point the politicians will say “That’s it, we have enough control over the country, let’s stop getting more.”?

Perhaps I’m pessimistic, but I see this country as spiralling down the drain, with increased government size and control of every day lives. Has there ever been a case where a government has not grown larger, more powerful, and more invasive and commanding of it’s citizens? Has the government ever ceded control back to a populace after it has taken it?

I’m supposed to give up my right to self defense because I believe politicians are fundamentally good people, and will not try to be more powerful and invasive… contrary to a few thousand years of recorded history.

**

Hitler, as a whole, would not have been prevented, because he was generally popular. However, do you think the Gestapo would be so effective at silencing opposition groups if they were armed?

If a people are willing to tolerate oppression, it will happen. There are two components to resisting oppression: A will and a means. Because, historically, some people have not have the will does not provide a logical reason to retract the means.

85

Beef, I’m through with you in this thread. This dictionary vs. you thing is just too stupid to support rational discussion, and your assertion that I am intentionally trying to scare people by using a term in common usage in accordance with that common usage is almost as stupid as it is insulting. You may now return to your regularly scheduled paranoia.

86

**

Why is it that you want to ban them, anyway?

**

Give me a break.

You used a definition that you KNEW was faulty. When I reminded you of why it was faulty, you said “nyah nyah it’s in the dictionary!”. YOU were being a little, intellectually dishonest, brat about it. You were blatantly refering to a weapon by the wrong term in an attempt to further the confusion of people in general, the people reading this. I called you on it, and instead of being honest about it, you pulled the ‘nyah nyah, in the dictionary!’ card.

And so, from there, I criticized the dictionary definition, because you decided to cling at it, and I ONCE AGAIN had to explain why it was faulty.

Don’t make it look like I’m being an ass. You’re the one instrigating this.

87

You, msmith537, are the one who stated that banning ‘military weapons’ was part of your idea of ‘common sense’ gun control, so you are the only one who can possibly know what you meant by it. Why is it so hard for you to tell me what guns it is that you want to ban? I would consider a Garand a military weapon (it did, after all, see us through WW2), but you explicitly said that you considered it not a military weapon. I’m not interested in what I’d cover with the term ‘military weapon’, I’m interested in what you mean by the term.

It’s especially silly for you to keep dodging the question by effectively saying ‘this fully automatic gun is military, this non-fully-automatic and non-scary-looking gun isn’t’. I have already stated that I understand that fully automatic weapons are included in what you want to ban; what I’ve been asking for is clarification of what the set of weapons you want to ban other than fully automatic weapons. I’ve even thrown you simple questions that you’ve skipped over, for example asking directly whether you think AR-15s should be banned and whether you think that ‘military weapons’ is a functional or appearance difference, though your mention that ‘the remington guns look like standard hunting rifles to me’ suggests that you want an appearance-based ban.

88

How about this one, Riboflavin?

Some of the criteria are pretty pointless, but hey, at least it’s precise, right?

89

Ok, minty. So a rifle with a pistol grip and detachable magazines is alright. Or a gun with a pistol grip and a folding stock. But one with a pistol grip, detachable magazine, and folding stock is evil and banned.

Correct?

90

I would say that minty green’s criteria is a good place to start.

In any event, I do not wish to debate every criteria of what makes a gun “military”. Nor do I wish to sort every gun ever made into catagories. That is not the point of this debate.

Common sense means guidelines that are generally accepted by civilized society. It does not include extreme viewpoints like “all weapons are dangerous and should be banned” or “I should be allowed to own a howitzer”.
Why don’t you answer some of my responses to your “guns are there to protect the people from their government” posts.

91

Interesting article that appears to be topical. From a Richmond paper.
From the article:
“The right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against this tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible.” The arch-conservative loose cannon who shot off his mouth in such fashion was not Attorney General John Ashcroft, but Hubert H. Humphrey.

92

Very nice. Instead of providing even a single example of a stable democracy descending into tyrrany, we get an apocryphal quote from Hubert Humphrey. Guess that clears everything up, huh?

93

I found this interesting.

If there is no proof available that the person in question is a criminal, he or she should go to prison anyway - because he owns an unregistered firearm.

How then is the government going to distinguish between the nasty drug dealer who is going to use his gun to murder old ladies, and the average citizen who owns a gun, but is just causing trouble for the powers that be by objecting to something they want to do?

It sounds to me very much considering gun ownership to be proof of criminal intent. Guns, by their very nature, contaminate the mind and lead to crime, drug addiction, child abuse, and littering.

Just like other forms of ideologically incorrect thought.

Regards,
Shodan

94

Ok, minty from now on it’s only decaff for you… :stuck_out_tongue:

95

They should not make such distinctions. I am very serious about that. If you break the law, you should be subject to applicable legal penalties.

Think of concealed carry, for instance. How are we supposed to distinguish between the drug dealer who is going to carry a concealed weapon without a permit, and the average citizen who carries a concealed weapon, bit is just causing trouble for the powers that be by not getting a concealed carry permit? A: We don’t distinguish.

Not at all. If a gun owner complies with the applicable rules and regulations–which are really quite minimal in my proposals–no crime has been committed.

96

So do YOU have such an example, BF? I’d dearly love to see whether one exists.

97

Nope. Sure don’t.

98

:frowning:

99

Yay. Because I upset Minty by calling him (her?) on their little dishonest definition games, they won’t respond to ANYTHING I say on this thread.

Woohoo.

100

Could we at least get a cogent explanation as to why guns, and gun owners, should not be subject to at least the same registration, tracking, licensing, and training requirements as automobiles and automobile owners?

And could we also please get a position statement that doesn’t enter into fantasies about people’s militias repelling armed invaders, or overthrowing the tyranny of their own elected governments, or of any regulation at all automatically meaning the confiscation of all weapons? It is very difficult to give someone credit for reasonability when the only thing they’re leaving out is the black helicopters, ya know. Can we get some acknowledgment from the gun-rights contingent that there is something they might not like could still be reasonable? Please?