Two immeadiately reasons I think of:
Gun ownership would be reduced to a privilege, offered by our Benevolent Leaders.
Licensing standards can become more and more strict, until only a select few, generally contributors to police political funds, can own a weapon.
Licensing with arbitrary and ridiculous standards can become de facto bans. If licensing is up to the consent of the government, and they have an interest in disarming you…
Elvis: while those spectres have been raised, how is it bad to consider the thoughts and feeling of somewhere between 40 to 80 million gun owners, if not more? Dismissing them outright does not engender mutual trust and respect, however unlikely you consider those points to be.
To legislate w/o consdering and addressing those points is, in mine and many other’s opinions, the very definition of tyranny.
There are two dogs in this fight; the pro-control side has no claim to any moral high ground as a default of their position.
I have been attempting (with less rancor than usual) to raise the niggling little questions concernig those aspects of “hypothetical gun control” raised in this thread that have, from the perspective of gun owners, certain potential unintended consequences.
I do this in an attempt to get those proposing different forms of gun control to more deeply consider their position.
To minty’s credit, he’s reasonably answered every point I’ve raised. Perhaps not to the detail that would pass muster for new gun control laws (which isn’t really the point of this thread, and would needlessly bog it down), but any dialogue is better than acrimony, and I’m satisifed as to the honesty of his motives thus far. This does not imply total agreement, however.
Note that, even though I haven’t played the “militia,” or “revolution” cards, that in no way implies that I do not agree, at least in part, with the concerns others have raised in those regards.
But of course, Tank. In case you’re interested, I’ve found a fabulous location for your revolutionary headquarters on the northeast coast of Cozumel. Just make sure you have a four-wheel drive to transport your stockpile. 
It’s only in common usage like that because the anti-rights movement, as a whole, has decided to try to scare people with it.
“Assault weapons… are a new topic. The weapons’ menacing looks, coupled with the public’s confusion over fully-automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons – anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun – can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.” – “Assault Weapons: Analysis, New Research and Legislation” Josh Sugarmann, March 1989, head of the VPC
Your misuse of the language is an attempt to further this strategy.
You understand that an M16 is different than an AR15, right? Yet, you still continue to use an inaccurate definition which makes no distinction between them. It is not a matter of you arguing and silencing my points, it is a matter of you being intellectually dishonest, and purposefully using a misleading term - not out of ignorance, as I’ve corrected you - but out of deceit.
If you decided that I’m too much of a hassle to deal with because you can’t respond to my criticisms of the definitions, and still wish to use that misleading definition, fine. But I want the truth about your intellectual dishonesty to be known.
I still don’t get it. You wanted to prosecute people “regardless of the availability of proof of any other crime” because they were “bad guys”. How does the government know they are bad guys, and we then reap the benefit of prosecuting them, if there is no proof that they are in fact guilty of anything?
You and I may know that Al Capone was a bad doer. But if there were no evidence of tax evasion, or of any other crime, I for one would not support his prosecution, for gun ownership or anything else.
Again, it sounds to me like exactly what many have objected to on this and other threads - gun registration is basically an excuse for the government to “get” peope it doesn’t like, but for whom no proof of wrong doing exists.
In other words, cut #673 in the Death of A Thousand Cuts we are currently undergoing in the name of personal security. A government who shows no concern for the rights enumerated in the Second Amendment is one which is not likely to concern itself with any of the other nine in the Bill of Rights.
Regards,
Shodan
Except, of course, for breaking the law by not complying with the law. Just so you’re clear on the subject, I am in fact proposing gun control measure that would be independently criminal when broken.
But if there was sufficient evidence he violated gun laws, then he’s broken the law. Bye bye, Al.
The wrongdoing would be violating the gun laws. Again, that’s like bitching about a 70 mph speed limit because you weren’t “doing anything wrong” by driving 110.
Am I more secure? Yay! That’s exactly what I was trying to achieve.
Nonsense. Go visit Western Europe sometime and see how terribly much they impose on those rights.
minty, forgive me if I misunderstand what you’re saying, but are you saying that it’s useful to pass new gun laws simply in order to see how many people you can get to break them and thus be prosecuted? That’s what it sound like, and I’m not sure how I feel about that, especially if the laws in question are administrative ones w/r/t registration and things like that. Those laws can become arcane enough that any schmoe can break them unknowingly, even those that pose no criminal threat otherwise.
And with this statement:
I know you don’t advocate an “any means to achieve the ends” policy, and I doubt that I have to point out that at a certain point the marginal security benefit of each additional law is outweighed by its infringement on otherwise law-abiding people. (Not that I’m saying we’ve reached that point–I’m fairly agnostic on the matter.)
And given that even you admit that (illegally owned) automatic weapons are used in a pretty small proportion of crimes overall, exactly what additional security do you derive from laws that stand to have little impact on that figure?
In a previous GC thread, UncleBeer or Extank (sorry, fellas I forget which of you wrote it) made a very succinct point. And that was as late as the early 60’s, you could purchase a firearm via mail order catalog. From Sears or what have you. As the crime rate started to go up in the late 70’s through the early 90’s, it seemed every politician who wanted to get elected said they were going to stop crime by regulating firearms. As crime rates soared and gun crimes soared, so did the legislation on restricting weapons. With the 1968 Firearms Act, the 1984 ban on imports of “assault rifles”, culminating in the 1994 Brady Bill, we saw hundreds, if not thousands of gun laws put on the books, yet crime rates still rose.
How is it that a law-abiding citizen has to jump through X amount of hoops to legally purchase a firearm, when criminals seemed to get them at will? Aren’t gun laws supposed to prevent this? These are the type of questions many in the guns rights community have been asking whenever new “sensible” gun laws are brought up.
In the last five to ten years, gun ownership has been documented as being at an alltime high, yet crime rates during this same period have dropped to early 70’s rates (see the DOJ or CDC web sites). So the question is, might it have more to do with societal mores or economic prosperity (or lack thereof) that are responsible for the crime rates, rather than the firearms themselves?
No, not at all. I propose those reasonable measures precisely because I believe they would be a net benefit to society. My comments about prosecuting violators of those laws applies only to the argument that I’m trying to send people to jail without committing a crime or just because I don’t like them or whatever. By violating that law, you undermine the purpose of the legislation. You do the crime, you pay the fine.
Certainly. Note that I am not calling for a ban on firearms, or even serious limitations on who can own them. I am saying that we should make a substantial effort to keep them out of the hands of those who are likely to misuse them, even at the cost of minor bureacratic annoyances to everyone who wants to own a gun. It’s not that difficult a balancing test, really.
I’m not arguing for greater restirctions on automatic weapons. I am arguing against those who would relax those regulations, for the reason that they are of little or no benefit for individual self-defense while posing a greater-than-normal safety risk for everyone else. Again, the balancing test comes out in favor of reasonably serious controls on the weapons.
BF, crime rates have fallen substantially since 1994, so your premise is factually incorrect. Further, I would strongly question your apparent hypothesis that gun control is either ineffective or counterproductive in that damn near anybody in this country can still legally purchase damn near any firearm in damn near any quantity without so much as an administrative record remaining of that purchase. On the grand scale of things, there is no serious gun control in this country.
Something that amuses me about anti-rights types is that they don’t realize that because something is “military” and “automatic” doesn’t automatically make it more “powerful”.
I assume they quantify “powerful” as it’s ability to commit murder, or for that matter, colombine-style massacres. People tend to equate ‘military’ with ‘most lethal’, when in reality, lethality is a peripheral concern when it comes to designing military weapons.
Automatic weapons are designed for very specific roles… machine guns can be used to set up firelanes, and final protective fires - their primarily purpose, really - but such things aren’t useful in commiting a massacre of unarmed people. In military rifles, the actual lethality is of far less concern than ruggedness, reliability, range, weight of ammunition, etc.
You can cause far more damage on a rampage with a 12 gauge shotgun than a real assault rifle.
But military weapons look mean, and scary. And we automatically correlate ‘military’ with ‘most deadly’. It doesn’t occur to us that grandpa’s hunting shotgun is a far more effective method of killing people - lots of people - in colombine-style massacre.
We’d rather rally around the idea of scary looking weapons being ridiculously powerful than realize the actual effectiveness in commiting murder and going on a rampage is outdone by firearms that aren’t even being considered for a ban.
It’s all hype, and emotion. “That looks evil… let’s ban it.”
I understand that part. What I thought you were saying is that you want to pass gun registration/control laws, so that the government has a tool to prosecute people that it doesn’t like, but against whom they have no other evidence of wrong doing.
I can’t think of a system more likely to be abused. Why not pass a law that all publishers have to have their magazines approved by a special panel before publishing to be sure they don’t have any kiddie porn? That way, if the newspapers say anything that the government doesn’t like, but have committed no other crime, the government has a tool that they can shut down magazines that they are sure are no good, but aren’t doing anything illegal.
I understand your example of Al Capone. The problem with the analogy is
Tax evasion is a genuine crime, apart from any other law. It was not designed as the sort of ex post facto law you seem to be advocating (“We know he is up to something, but we have no evidence. Let’s pass some law arbitrarily making citizens do something, so we can arrest anyone we please for not doing it.”).
The laws against tax evasion have a genuine purpose, and are not simply there to give the government power over its citizens that it wouldn’t otherwise have, and
Laws against tax evasion do not have the purpose of limiting a fundamental right of the Constitution.
Passing laws to force people to jump thru hoops before they exercise their rights under the Constitution, just because the government wants a tool to use against those who they can’t convict any other way? This just doesn’t sit well with me.
Unless you are arguing that gun possession is inherently evil, like tax evasion, so we need laws against it. A possible position, but it seems to derive from an attitude that I believe you have denied - that guns should be banned.
Certainly no one is arguing that tax evasion would be OK if tax evaders simply registered with the government. Tax evasion is banned, because tax evasion is inherently wrong. If gun ownership is inherently evil enough to justify laws against it, and if the purpose of gun registration is to mitigate against gun ownership instead of simply allowing the Justice Department to target its latest enemies list, then the tendency is almost automatically towards outlawing guns altogether - just like tax evasion.
Either you think that guns should be registered because guns are bad, or because you think gun owners are bad and you want them to go to prison, or because you think the government should be allowed to decide who is bad and who isn’t, and you want arbitrary laws passed to let the government do so.
I disagree with you on all three points. The first because guns are objects, and therefore not moral agents. The second, because of the Second Amendment. The third, because of things like the Sedition Act and the loyalty oaths of the 1950s.
Regards,
Shodan
Could the reduction of the crime rate be attributed to the enactment of the Brady Bill? Of which it banned firearms that were responsible for a tiny amount of crimes with a gun? Or could it be that greater economic prosperity made it easier to get a job and not turn to crime? Or was it harsher prison sentences for crimes committed with a firearm? Depending on your point of view, my premise is factual.
Obviously you have not tried to purchase a firearm for hunting or recreational use, let alone self-defense, in some of the northeastern states. DC has some of the strictest gun control laws in the country, yet it also boasts some of the highest incidences of crimes committed with a firearm. “Sensible” gun control should prevent criminals from obtaining firearms, not prevent a law abiding citizen from acquiring the means to protect themselves. Compared to the ease one could acquire a firearm 25 years ago, on the grand scale of things, this country has a tremendous amount of gun control.
Here’s another example of a “sensible” gun law (or tax in this instance):How is this law going to prevent criminals from committing crimes with a firearm?
Perhaps I misunderstood you, but you seemed to be asserting that crime rates still rose after the '94 Brady Act. In fact, they fell quite substantially afterwards. I don’t think there’s a significant relationship between Brady and the falling crime rate, but I suspect Brady has been responsible for more than a few gun crimes prevented. After all, the Brady-required background check has blocked many thousands of attempted gun purchases by convicted criminals, drug abusers, and other people who even the NRA says should not be allowed to possess them. Are you actually opposed to background checks?
And I said this country has no serious gun control “on the grand scale of things,” not in NYC or DC. And DC is a terrible example of serious gun control anyway, precisely because all you have to do is drive across the river to Virginia and load up the trunk with as much guns and ammo as you want.
Not even the sponsor of the bill you’re complaing about claims that it would have any such effect. It is intended to raise revenue, not put armed criminals out of business.
Heck no, they seem to work (and as long as the record is expunged within 24 hours as the law dictates.)
Come on minty, you know you can’t do that. If you purchase a handgun through a dealer you can only purchase one a month. Purchasing a long gun still means you have to go through the NICS.
Exactly!!! It does nothing to hamper the criminal, but it makes the law-abiding gun owner who purchases ammo foot the bill for treating firearm injuries, whether he was responsible for the injury or not. IMHO, the point you are missing is that many gun rights proponents want “sensible” gun control that impacts the criminal, not make it harder for the average citizen to acquire and use a firearm.
I think the point of the OP is to try to poll the teemings for a sense of what can be done to prevent the criminal from acquiring firearms illegally without adversely impacting the rest of the population. IMHO, most of the suggestions place an undue burden in the wrong place.
No, I didn’t know that handgun purchases via dealers are limited to one per month in Virginia. It took me a little efort to find the statute (it’s subsection Q), but it’s there. Note the exception for an “enhanced background check” that lets you buy as many as you want, however, with the record kept on file by the dealer (not, unfortunately, law enforcement) for two years. Looks like I was a few years out of date on that one. I also verified my previous impression that Maryland had such a limitation. Oh well, the basic point remains–if you live in DC and you want a gun, just drive outside the District.
So why the heck are you complaining that it doesn’t deter crime when you acknowledge that it is not intended to have any such effect? 
So what? That’s the way taxation works–the government takes money from people to pay for stuff, even if they wouldn’t otherwise have anty responsibility to foot the bill. If you don’t like the tax, fine, and I agree that it’s basically stupid. But at least have the courtesy to attack it in the merits, not on the grounds that it doesn’t deter crime. That’s just a complete non sequitur.
No, that’s incorrect. The OP asked what reasonable gun control meant. There was no limitation that such controls could affect only criminals, and not everyone else. In fact, such a limitation would utterly eviscerate even the entire concept of even the gun control measures that the NRA agrees with. After all, it’s not just criminals who have to undergo background checks, right? And even law-abiding citizens have to get a permit for concealed carry, correct?
True enough. Certainly the bulk of gun owners are reasonable, and can discuss them reasonably. But the more bellicose, black-or-white arguments seem to drown those views out, and tend to be the only arguments available to counter.
Uh-oh. I hope you’re not equating any attempt to have a reasonable discussion with “the very definition of tyranny”. That comes perilously close to sounding like up-front rejection and demonization of any position you don’t already have - which is not “reasonable”, and simply perpetuates the problem.
Care to clarify?
Well, I hope you can understand that it’s hard to see a moral equivalence between wanting to save lives in the here and now, and fantasizing about fighting off Soviet paratroops with sawed-off shotguns.
Oh, there are certainly valid concerns there, buried under bullshit though they generally are. I’ll certainly concede that. If, that is, you’ll also concede that there are valid concerns on the pro-added-control side. Can you do that?
I’d thank you for addressing the points I raised, except I don’t think you have done so. You have, however, kept the discussion on an adult level, and that’s a rare treat.
I’m sorry minty, the point I was trying to make was that here was another example of feel-good legislation that does nothing to the criminal and puts another burden on the law-abiding citizen (henceforth known as the LAC, geez, I’m tired of typing that). From where I sit, the purpose of gun control is to deter crime and prevent criminals from obtaining firearms to commit crimes.
I’ll agree. However,
I thought the purpose of the background checks, et al., were to prevent firearms from falling into the wrong hands, ie., person’s with mental disabilities, felons and such, and allow the LAC to purchase a firearm without undue processing time?
Well that “undue processing time” used to be five days.
[Homer]
Five days? But I’m angry now!
[/Homer]
Though the background checks are certainly intended to weed out the bad guys, they disproportionately affect law-abiding citizens, since the LAC’s (nice one) are the vast majority of gun purchasers, and they still have to fill out the same forms and submit to the same infringement on privacy as the bad guys. Only the outcome differs, not the process.
Similarly, a universal gun registration system would affect everyone equally (except, of course, for those who fail to comply with it, who would be subject to criminal prosecution). Everyone has to submit the same info to the same bureaucrats and give up the same (trivial, IMHO) amount of privacy. How is that “targeting” law-abiding gun owners? The only disproportionate impact occurs when a gun is used to commit a crime or when an owner subsequently becomes disqualified to own a firearm, which are not positions that we want to be privileged anyway. So what’s the problem. (Again, please don’t resort to the “prelude-to-gun-grabbing” argument. It’s not a goal of mine, and hardly anybody supports that extreme position anyway.)
Incidentally, my first proposal way at the top of page one was universal background checks on all transfers, i.e., closing the “gun show loophole” that doesn’t really have anything in particular to do with gun shows in the first place. Since you’re on the record as supporting background checks, would you support such a requirement for private sales, gifts, inheritance, etc.?
Quick reply minty gotta bolt (sorry, trap range opened at 3:00). I do not support BC’s for private sales, etc. I do not support universal registration with a data repository either. I hope to expand on this later…
Yes. You don’t license basic, Constututionally-protected liberty. Whether you think it should be or not is irrelevant. It is. That’s the facts. It’s called prior restraint of liberty, and it is illegal and unconstitutional.
But since you disagree, let’s see your speech permit, son.
Yes (since people around here seem to consider Cecil a higher authority than the actual Constitution).
And since minty will doubtless tell us once again, that the law is what the courts say it is, I will now quote the official position of the US Supreme Court, from US v. Miller:
Obviously, the court’s opinion was that there is an individual right (even obligation) to bear arms of military style and value. In that light, the court ruled that there was no protection for a shortened shotgun (as it believed - erroneously - that such a gun has no military use).
Also, the official position of the US Department Of Justice is that “the Second Amendment more broadly protects the rights of individuals, including persons who are not members of any militia or engaged in active military service or training, to possess and bear their own firearms, subject to reasonable restrictions designed to prevent possession by unfit persons or to restrict the possession of types of firearms that are particularly suited to criminal misuse.” [sup]cite[/sup]
But there again, you see the phrase “reasonable restrictions” and the determination to defend the validity of all existing gun laws. I don’t agree with that, and it all comes back down to where you draw the line.
Just for the record, I am against registration and licensing in any form.
I am against background checks, unless they are instant and pass no cost increase on to either the purchaser, manufacturer, or taxpayer. Think that’s unfair? Too bad. Under current law, if you want a gun badly enough, you are required to find a way to pay the extra administrative costs and jump through the hoops. Under my system, the onus is on the government. If the FBI wants a background check badly enough, they will find a way to pay for it out of existing budget.
And, I am against any sort of government intervention in private transfers.
Here is my version of Gun Control legislation:
I favor restricting the right of possession of anyone who:
(a) Has been convicted of a violent felony, and who has not had his civil rights restored;
(b) Is mentally incompetent and demonstrably incapable of either controlling his actions, or judging right from wrong;
© Has been convicted of using a firearm to commit a crime; or
(d) Is under the influence of alcohol or any judgement-impairing drug. If you shouldn’t drive or operate machinery, you shouldn’t operate a gun, either.
I favor severe criminal penalties, sentence enhancements, and restriction of possession rights for use of a firearm in a crime, and for any restricted person found to be in possession of a firearm.
Beyond that, I do not favor any legislation on arms. Especially restrictions based on cosmetic features, such as the list minty green posted on page 2 (from the 1994 GCA, correct? A rifle that can be fired one-handed is illegal, and so is a pistol that can be fired two-handed? WTF is that all about?). I draw no distinction based on performance (automatic vs. semi-automatic, etc). Nor would there be any restrictions based on appearance or modifications to the firearm. The sole distinction I would draw is that of arms vs. crew-serviced weapons and ordnance, so there is no “should we all have nukes?” strawman.
The sole factor determining whether a citizen can own and operate a (non-ordnance) weapon would be that person’s fitness to own a gun, based on the four criteria I listed above.