I was making reference to the UN conference here in the states last year.
Perhaps I shouldn’t have said “influence”. “Noticeability”, perhaps? “Name power”? I dunno…
No, for me, those’re two different issues. Again, I mentioned the UN just because the hubbub that was going on last year, and how everyone was saying that it could “change things in America” (well, not everyone was saying it).
I guess so, but it undermines your point, insofar as I don’t think UN has any real influence over the US t’all.
Hmm, I see. Well, I don’t think the hubbub really plays out in terms of changing the USA. Poor old UN gets set up as a straw man by some folks.
How about a stun gun? I want stun guns! Inventers of the world, get busy! (Think phaser, as on Star Trek, but without the “kill” setting; “stun” only.)
Seriously, wouldn’t it defuse the gun debate if people wanting self-protection could carry a non-lethal gun?
Ok, maybe they did believe that gun ownership was protection from tyranny.
The question I have is ‘when am I justified in rising up against the government?’ Can I take up armed rebellion if taxes are too high? If I object to abortion laws? If they ban Napster? Can I start a rebellion if the government exercises ‘eminent domain’ to put a 6 lane highway through my house?
I’m not sure, but I think we agree on this point. I don’t see anything “magical” about guns. They are a mechanical tool, like a car or chainsaw. Used appropriately, guns can provide recreation (hunting, target shooting), protection, food (more hunting), or liberty. Just like a car or chainsaw (or any tool) they have the potential to cause a great deal of harm if used in a malicious, reckless or irresponsible manner.
By “jackasses”, I mean someone who uses a gun in a thoughtless and dangerous manner. (ie hunting for animals in a populated area or while drinking, leaving a loaded gun around where small children can pick it up). Just like driving a car, owning a deadly weapon takes responsibility. If a person is unable to handle that responsibility, they shouldn’t be allowed to own a gun.
If you can give me a good reason why someone who demonstrates a recklessness with firearms should be allowed to possess one, I would be interested in hearing it.
Why couldn’t gun ownership require training? We require people to take an exam before we give them a drivers license. The NRA seems to believe that ANY laws restricting gun ownership are unconstitutional. Personally, I see nothing wrong a few laws to make sure guns are handled correctly.
Perhaps, Hazel. I’m sure that most gun owners (myself included) would prefer not to have to shoot someone (a home intruder, or such) with a lead-chunking firearm, possibly killing them.
The nefarious types may as well, as there is no “Assault with a deadly wepon” charge to be tacked on if/when they are apprehended. If they think something like that all the way through (not a certainty).
But for recreational or hunting purposes, the stunner just wouldn’t cut it. How would I use a stunner in a Cowboy Shoot?
Would I shoot a dear with a stunner, and then use a knife to finish it off?
Even I will admit to a certain visceral thrill when I hear the roar of a firearm, feel the recoil, smell the burnt powder, and see the target go down. But I, and the overwhelming vast majority of American gun owners, do this safely at shooting ranges, and it stays there.
The few who hurt themselves or others accidentally are the targets of the mandatory training/licensing proposals; this creates a bureaucracy to train/license every gun owner to curb an extremely small fraction of unsafe gun owners. Especially when firearms accidents rank pretty low in the “accidental causes of deaths” lists.
Bureaucracies require funding, and many may feel that the onus is on the gun owners to pay for this bureaucracy. And once it is established that a right is subject to bureaucratic approval based upon an ability to pay…
The next step, advocated as a crime control measure, is to then register the firearms themselves, to their repsective owners, on the theory that it will aid law enforcement in tracking stolen guns. Along with that are some who advocate holding individual gun owners criminally liable for crimes committed with their stolen guns, and criminal charges for inadequate storage for allowing their guns to be stolen in the first place. Their arguments have some merit, sometimes considerably so. I can see the logic in their arguments, and agree that these measures may help curtail criminal use of firearms.
These measures, however, are immediately inadequate to curtail the spate of illegal/stolen firearms already on the “black market”, though they probably will be effective in curtailing a healthy majority of further increases in that supply from domestic sources, the more so as time goes by.
But if Prohibition and the war on drugs has shown us anything at all, it’s that where there is a demand for a proscribed commodity that can’t be met domestically, then someone will import the banned commodity to meet that demand.
So when these measure have no immediate (say, up to five years, max.) effect, there are too damned many people in the gun control crowd who will come back and say “Well, that didn’t work; I guess we’ll just have to start banning more-and-more types of guns, going door-to-door and confiscating them from registered owners if need be, to try and get the crime rate down.” These people know that these measures are long-term, and may need a decade or longer to show positive results, (if at all, as firearms smuggled in from abroad may take up the slack for firearms proscribed domestically). But hey, as long as we’re on a legislative roll, let’s just tack on some more restrictions.
All in the name of lowering crime, of course. :rolleyes:
I get accused of using “slippery slope” fallacious logic when I say these things. Oh well. But I have RL precedent for making these claims and voicing these concerns. Ask the gun owners of California about what they are going through with the “assault weapons” ban.
SO: when the gun control crowd comes back for more, will the moderates in their ranks now side with us, and say that “we have done enough; no more can be done without infringing”? This would diminish the ranks of the gun control crowd, thus lessening their influence. I would like to think so, but I ain’t countin’ on it!
By compromising, there are those who believe that we’re acknowledging the legitimacy of all of the gun control crowd, from reasonable moderates who just want to tighten things up a bit with some common sense restrictions, to the “Ban 'em all!” types.
And that you’ll never be able to effectively, fairly deal with one without the other.
I think we’re missing one key point given this scenario: The ordinary population has no effective way to organize themselves. Beyond mass hordes ranging from Bill Gates Billy Ray Cyrus, there would be no clear leadership and no way of communicating the needs or desires of the crowd.
And back to the OP:
I’ve often thought about it and like to put it this way. A gun is a tool for projecting the intent of the shooter.
Whether that intent is criminal or defensive is not at debate, and neither is the fact that a gun is an inanimate object. I personally feel that we should be doing more “intent reform” than “gun reform”. Just my $0.02
Tripler
And I intend to make a turkey sandwich. Please dont ban my lettuce and mayonnaise.
Make that
“from Bill Gates to Billy Ray Cyrus . . .”
Tripler
Damn keyboard.
the weapons banned in california were not confiscated from registered owners. there is still no precedent in this country for registration leading to a ban. what there is precedent for is useless, arbitrary legislation like assault weapons bans, the impetus for which could be reduced by an effective national gun policy. imo, the goal of a nationwide registration program should not be to prevent people from buying guns, but to prevent them from trading them anonymously. i don’t believe there’s any specific legislation on the table to ban guns outright, so i don’t see why the nra crowd is so afraid of a registration program. the nra obviously has the clout to influence gun legislation, so they could lobby to make sure that any registration bill has to include the stipulation that no guns are to be banned and none will be confiscated unless they are being used for illegal purposes. there could also be a time frame on it to prove effectiveness. if after a certain number of years there appears to be no reduction in the kinds of crimes associated with guns, then scrap the program. i am certain that if the nra acknowledged the public’s growing concerns and showed a genuine interest in controlling illicit gun proliferation, they would gain a modicum of credibility and the ‘anti-gun’ crowd would back down considerably.
Why not? Will they all be trapped in big tubes to act as a battery for our machine overlords? Will their brains be removed and replaced with Pentium processors?
We’re not talking about a government that completely isolates everyone from everyone else… we’re talking about a government that would take away our rights. Oppression breeds unrest, it’s as simple as that.
Think Monty Python: “Help, help, I’m bein’ repressed!” 
Mrs. Smith…
Where, exactly, are cars mentioned in the Constitution? Heck, we’ll even alter the statement to be appropriate for the time period… where in the Constitution does it say that people have the right to free transportation on public land?
Did you know that if you drove your car on your private property, you don’t need a license?
No offense, but that’s a blatantly incorrect statement. Do you know ANYTHING about the NRA other than anti-gun propaganda?
If I am not a criminal, and have no criminal record or even intent, what gives you the right to know what I do in my own home? What business is it of yours to know what I keep if it may be of practical value, and is not currently employed? If you want to get to the nitty-gritty, all OTC (over the counter) sales at firearms dealers already are registered. They take the Serial Number, caliber, and all the pertinent information and record it. So it is already in effect registered.
My point is, what right or reasonable need do I have to know what kind of toaster you are operating in your kitchen? How about your blender, bub?!?
For me, it’s not an issue of “so afraid of a registration program”, it’s more of an issue of “why do they need to know”?
Tripler
Just my $0.02
There have been about eight or nine statements made in this thread about how “NRA types” don’t want this law or that law, and are against any forms of gun control, yada, yada. I’m sorry, but as a life member of the NRA, I’ve yet to run across this dogma. Is there another NRA out there that I’m confused about?
We are talking about the National Rifle Association right? The one who supported the common sense portion of the Brady Bill (instant background checks?) Who helped draft the Project Exile bill in Richmond, VA? Who want current gun laws to be enforced, period, before trying to enact new gun laws? (If you’re looking for a cite, of course check out nraila.org)
I guess I should state that if you make a statement and include the NRA in it, then please provide a cite so this board’s NRA constituency can research where that particular statement was made and be able to argue it’s veracity.
I couldn’t even read 3/4 of these posts due to the apparent ignorance of some 'Dopers.
SOME guns MAY have been DESIGNED to kill, but not humans. We’re talking high-powered rifles like the 30-30, the 380, and some large-bore shotguns like the 10 and 12 guage, are commonly used for HUNTING. All you idiots seem to focusing your little tunnel visions on is the (weak) argument that guns were designed to kill PEOPLE only. NO.
Of course, this is coming from someone who lives in rural NJ where handguns aren’t used in crimes, but then criminals don’t regard laws.
I’ve lived in a house with guns since I was born…never misused them. I know how dangerous they could be and I know how to treat them safely. Never known anyone who has misused them. Many of the people I know have the same knowledge. Never had an accident in the house with a gun…or any of the several in my house. Ever think a little gun EDUCATION might help problem?
Consider Switzerland…1 in 3 people have AUTOMATIC weapons…crime rate? 33% of America’s. Maybe the potential offenders know if they try something they can be reduced to a smoldering pile of blood and guts in a few seconds by almost anybody.
The only reason gun lobbyists want more gun control is to avoid more Columbine incidents. Well, that isn’t going to help any until the current gun laws are enforced. Even then, all the precautions won’t help…there will always be someone out there with full knowledge of the damaging potential of a gun, and proceed to use it that way on other humans.
Everyone knows of the damaging potential of firearms. If they use them for hunting, or target practice, what’s the problem? Then it becomes a matter of misuse which leads back to EDUCATION.
Back to the ORIGINAL question…i.e. the first post. If the person does not have a knowledge of guns, nor any contact with guns, they will always be more inclined to side with the gun control lobbyists. People who responsibly use guns are more likely to be anti-gun control. Criminals won’t follow the laws ANYWAY, so why would they suddenly be inclined to say to themselves, “Boy, these new gun control laws really opened my eyes to the illegality of my actions. I better stop now.” Yeah, that’ll happen.
And how many of these gun control freaks have ever had such a poor experience with guns that they feel the need to devote their time and energy to banning all guns and making America “safe for future generations”? And how many own and use guns responsibly? I’ll bet the answer for both questions is “Very few”. Ask the same two questions for anti-gun control lobbyists, and the “yes” answers will be tilted WAY towards the “own and use responsibly” side.
Conclusion? More guns will be used for recreation than defense…and more guns will be used for defense (whether passive ar active) than for crimes…and guns used in crimes is minimal. Most people do not just carry guns around…but many poeple own them.
An elaboration on that (since you know that “some people” would LOVE to take that out of context and nitpick it to death) would be “when a gun is designed, the first thing on the designing team’s mind isn’t ‘how well will it kill a person?’”
A gun, in the hands of the wrong person, can result in a death. It can also, just as easily (or, if the stats are accurate, FAR more easily) result in a life saved. Any improvements or designs on a gun are meant to make it lighter, stronger, more accurate, etc., all of which are aspects which compliment a firearm’s primary purpose: “make projectile go fast”.
The reason I dispute the “guns are designed to kill” line of rhetoric is because it’s often used in a manner to create an implication of malice in a firearm, which, given the inanimate nature of a gun, isn’t possible.
Because, if you check out our history… Humans are designed to kill, too.
I find it necessary to disagree with the comments made in the opening post, and expressed by others, that “guns are only made to kill” (people is usually implied). A gun is an inanimate mechanical device designed to propel a projectile accurately.
As an example of another use, my own Mossberg 144SL is a .22 target rifle, with all of the characteristics that go with this specific use. This includes a heavy barrel, peep sights, adjustable trigger, and bolt action. It would be a very poor choice for most if not all types of hunting, home defense, or self defense. Its design is optimized to put small bullets very precisely in paper targets, and I use it regularly for exactly that purpose.
The “guns are made only to kill” statement is really an emotional appeal intended to sway opinions. It is one that is virtually garaunteed to raise the hackles of any firearms enthusiast or Second Amendment supporter.
You see, ma’am, one of the problems with this statement and position is that it simplifies the extremely complex subject of firearms. “Guns” as a grouping is no more informative or specific than terms such as “people” or “computers”. One basis of resistance to gun control comes from the fact that firearms enthusiasts do not want regulations imposed on them by people who know little or nothing about firearms. I have noted more than one comment in this thread made by people who state they "don’t know anything about guns, don’t own guns, etc.
Again, an example: I happen to collect cartridges (often improperly called bullets). It’s a fascinating field of study. I have many examples dating back to the Civil War, from the British big game period, etc. However, a few years ago there was talk about restricting the sale and possession of ammunition as a form of gun control, and some of the laws (arsenal licences, possession limits) that were proposed would have had a very negative impact on me.
I am a firm believer in GUN SAFETY EDUCATION. I would even put it in the school system, perhaps as part of the Social Studies curriculum. Think about it: in response to high accident rates among teenagers, we have Driver’s Education. Because of alcohol and drug problems, we have instituted AODA education and awareness. Because of high rates of STD and teenage pregnancy, we have Sex Education. Yet when there is a percieved problem with guns, the reaction is to impose more laws and restrictions in the belief that we as a society can legislate the problem away.
Note, historically, how well that approach worked with Prohibition, and with drugs.
i believe that reducing the amount of untraceable guns on the street will reduce the volume of gun related crime. i believe that a nationwide registration program which puts the responsibility on law abiding gun owners to make sure registrations are properly transferred before completing a gun sale or trade will have this effect. while some states require local records of sale for retail gun transactions, this doesn’t prevent people from anonymously buying guns privately and trading them anonymously. so ‘why do they need to know’? because under the table gun distributers will be less likely to sell guns to underage kids and criminals (convicted or new) if they know the guns can be traced back to them. since we’ve never had a national registration system, there’s no data to support my hypothesis. i think it’s something worth trying, and i believe the nra has enough political pull to make sure it doesn’t turn into a confiscation program. in fact, i think the nra would be a good group to handle administration of the database, along with controlling the disemination of information to authorities when necessary.
Zwaldd
Thanks a hell of a lot.
For suggesting that I give up my rights for what you believe would work.
I don’t know how many times people have said that registration is just the first step towards confiscation.
That just don’t soak in Huh?
I’m sure the NRA would consider being part of your scheeme as if you were asking them to carry the Bubonic plague.
Have a nice day
what right did i suggest you must give up? in no way did i suggest people should not have the right to bear any type of arms. and as many times as people have said that registration is the first step to confiscation, i have argued that this is not the case. i have given evidence (in other threads) that existing weapons bans in this country have not been dependent on registration programs, nor have registration programs led to weapons confiscation. as i have stated, there is no precedent in this country for registration of anything leading to confiscation and there’s no reason a registration program can’t include the stipulation that no weapons can be confiscated unless they are being used illegally.
I don’t know if registering guns would work or not. It seems that if you are a criminal, you could just file off any identifying marks, replace the barrel (so the grooves are different), etc. Voila! Now the gun is untraceable.
One possible advantage of registering weapons is that if Jed Clampet is buying up dozens of assault rifles, well that could set off some red flags. I mean, what possible use does a regular person have with 50 M16s and 10000 rounds of armor piercing bullets?
I see a lot of talk here about ‘registering firearms being the first step to confiscation’. Presumably the next step is oppressing the people.
Could someone give me an example of a government that confiscated all the peoples weapons and then proceeded to oppress them?
What good would that do?
Oooh, a “stun gun”. The ideal date-rape drug, without the drug. Betcha the Central Park Rapist would be one of the first on his block to buy one. A month after the things hit the market, the marching morons at HCI would be up in arms (figuratively) demanding that regular guns be banned for civilian ownership since there was a “humane” alternative for self-defense. Two months after that ban goes into effect, the marching morons of HCI would again be up in arms (figuratively) demanding that your “stun guns” be banned for civilian ownership because of their use in criminal activities, insisting that only police and the military should have them.
In 1991, I was stuck near New York City for a while because of work. NYC bans the possession of nonlethal defensive items, such as pepper spray, because they can be used to attack people as well – walk up behind someone, spray him/her in the eyes, grab purse or wallet and run like hell. Given the crime rate there, I’m not sure what the point of it was, other than denying victims even the least-effective available defensive tools.
[hijack]
Meanwhile, in California, some dumbf*ck inventor has created a sensor package for cars that allows police to disable vehicles remotely by beaming a laser at the sensors. State officials think it’s a great idea for reducing car chases, and were making noises about how wonderful it would be to make these things mandatory.
How much you wanna bet that criminals will get their hands on the “disabler gun” and use it for heinous purposes in rural areas in the middle of the night?
[/hijack]
Point: ANYTHING can be used for a criminal purpose.
Zwaldd
Quote
existing weapons bans in this country have not been dependent on registration programs, nor have registration programs led to weapons confiscation
But they have else where.
We can learn from history if we are not boneheaded enough to say It can’t happen here.
Oh what right?
How about privacy for a starter.