Hard to prove something that hasn’t been tried here, isn’t it? The closest that can be done is to look at comparable experiences in other countries, where both gun availability and murder rates are much lower. Of course, that tends to cause the anti-controls crowd to fulminate about the validity of doing the comparison.
“Infrequently” is far from “never” - so is the argument invalid?
Which is open to a great deal of methodological criticism, as well as being against common sense.
A fair enough question, but the answer is a matter of degree. We sort of do have an idea who might grab a gun in a rage, just as we sort of do have an idea who might drive drunk. It’s a murky area, sure, but there are some good ways to make judgments. One of the ways not to address the problem is to fight any sort of registration or training or certification requirements at all, with the familiar old “Them lib’ral traitors wanna take away mah guns, mah symbol of manhood” stuff.
Another approach is in restricting the accessibility of deadly weapons to a person in a rage - locks, unloaded storage, aw hell, you can make up your own methods.
But do not equate any suggestion for better controls with being a foot in the door for banning. Taking an extreme, uncompromisable position does not mean that your “opponents” are doing so also - and that attitude has poisoned discussion of this issue for way too long.
I see that this has not been addressed yet here by any on the control side. I would like to know: if law-abiding gun owners of one category can have such a “success story” and still be subject to continued tightenings, restrictions, and bans, what hope does the rest of the law-abiding gun-owning public have?
I’d also like to see explained what specific incident prompted the 1986 ban.
Tens of thousands of machine guns, legally owned for 50+ years (by 1986), and only used in one crime during that time, committed by a criminal cop. And what is the reward for this “success story” - further bans.
The 1986 action was nothing more than further damning evidence that the real goal of the gun-control advocates is a total and complete ban, and that no amount of law-abiding behavior will save gun owners.
It’s an embarassing little incident for the gun control side.
You know, there’s a lot to be said for a government which rewards extremely law-abiding citizens with a certain measure of trust. Too bad we didn’t have that in the Congress which passed the 1986 ban.
Yes. Which is why a frequent little thing that appears in legislation (the evil Senator Metzenbaum was a fan of this) is 1) making it illegal to swap out barrels, and 2) mandating a marriage weld of the barrel to the receiver - such as is done in the case of the weapons falling under the “curios and relics” category.
I guess those Thompson contender owners are SOL.
(PS - nothing’s more fun than arguing ballistic fingerprinting with some technologically illiterate gun control advocates, who insist that ballistic fingerprinting of shotguns is not only possible, but that it should be implemented at once… :rolleyes: )
Anthracite, ya know I love you like the Lesbian Vampire sister I never had. But if you’re going to insist that “reasonable gun control” is just a subterfuge for total disarmament, we’re never going to get anywhere. It is not.
You mean, aside from a shitload of registered voters who also own guns? The overwhelming support of the voters for barely-restricted private gun ownership? The near-total lack of support for anything resembling a total ban on private firearms ownership?
You’ll pardon me if I can’t discern a slippery slope there.
And if I’m not mistaken, the impetus for the 1986 new-manufacture ban was the San Ysidro McDonald’s massacre, which highlighted the special dangers of nuts armed with military weaponry. I don’t think he was armed with full-auto weapons, but the lesson was still pretty dramatic.
And yet the “success story” you make several references to the complete ban of a certain class of weapons. We’re to believe that the most law abiding gun owners of all, those with title 2 weaponry, causing a ban of a complete type of weapon, is ‘success’, but, out of the goodness of your heart, you’d never call a banning of guns more frequently used in crime (say, handguns) a ‘success’?
On the contrary - what I’m saying is that the 1986 ban was a shining example of unreasonable gun control.
Let’s break it down to the basics, so I can try to explain why I think the control side is not being honest about this particular issue - forget that it is about machine guns. Forget that it is about guns period.
Can you think of any other system of regulation in the US that has many people trusted with a power, for so many years, and only one person step out of line in that whole time? I’d like to see some cites of similar levels of proper compliance.
What if we held every profession, every hobby, every law passed to this same level of stringency?
It would be ludicrous, of course, to think that we should. But I find it oddly ironic that, in playing just a little bit of a game with the statistics, you are safer to be locked in a room with a Class 3 weapon holder than a policeman.
The 1986 ban was, and is, indefensible as a matter of public policy. No Nation can really expect a higher level of compliance from its citizens on any practical issue.
And yet, it was those law-abiding owners who were singled out, and made to pay.
Is not the “slippery slope” bourne up by the legislative history of the United States and the States? Unlike stocks and mutual funds, past legislative performance can predict future results in Western Societies. Have not gun control laws only gone one direction since the 1920’s? Other than the rise of “shall-issue” concealed carry, the direction is one way. And a one-way directional tightening of restrictions certainly seems like a slippery slope, does it not?
Not a single registered owner of fully-automatic weapons did what he did, even though they had all that destructive firepower at their disposal. So why were they punished?
To use a little bit of hyperbole here, the law-abiding were made to pay, and the criminals laughed their proverbial asses off. I’m quite certain that T-Dog, with his illegal AK-47 in his closet next to his 5 kilos of coke, was really concerned about the crackdown on law-abiding citizens owning weapons manufactured after 1986. He probably woke up and realized that he was gonna be in trouble now, and he’d better turn his weapon in…
I’m sorry, but the 1986 ban is indefensible. It was the Gun Control movement at its absolute worst, and I think all Americans should look hard at it as an object lesson. Even the so-called “assault weapons ban” was a more honest effort than what happened in 1986.
Again with the “registered owners” fallacy. That one crime by a registered owner was not the only crime committed with a full auto weapon. The 1986 ban is a bit of an overreaction, IMHO, but the point was to keep an especially dangeours class of guns out of the bad guys’ hands. It does not single out law-abiding owners. It affects everyone equally.
Again, I really cannot understand how you get from a ban on new manufacture of machine guns to the idea that private gun ownership in general is under threat. It’s like claiming people are trying to an cars because the government required manufacturers to install seat belts and airbags.
Well that’s one heck of a big exception you’re trying to exempt from your thesis, you know. Concealed carry is a gigantic, virtually unprecedented expansion of gun rights in this country. No time to research legislative histories right now, but my recollection is that Texas’ ban on concealed carry goes back to the 1880s or earlier, as did other states. Heck of a tide change there, huh?
But the bigger question here is whether it’s even possible to meaningfully compare modern gun control measures–insignificant as they certianly are–with the historical record. I believe it is not, for the simple reason that technology has compelled greater regulation. Who the heck needed to regulate machine guns in 1900? Then the Thompson comes out in 1918 or so, and a decade later we’ve figured out how dangerous they are and regulated accordingly. Same thing with assault rifles–things the M16 and AK47 simply didn’t exist until 1960 or so. Same thing with submachine guns. It simply makes no sense to compare modern gun control measures regarding such firearms with 1920, because those things didn’t exist back then. Heck, in 1920, you could own all the nuclear bombs you wanted, right?
First, the police officer that commited the crime with his fully automatic weapon didn’t actually own it, it was on loan from his department. He is not subject to the 1986 ban. Therefore, his crime is irrelevant, because the ban didn’t affect him or other police officers.
Second, what the hell does it matter if people used illegal fully automatic weapons in crimes? The criminals didn’t get their weapons legally manufactured through a class 2 dealer, and registered as an NFA weapon.
**
What the hell are you talking about? What it did was prevent class 2 manufacturers from producing guns to sell to qualified civilians. How does this, in any way, prevent them from reaching the hands of bad guys? The only way I can think of is if things were stolen, and I seriously doubt that’s going to happen with a class 3 weapon, because that puts the owner in Deep Shit ™, and they’ll take measures to protect it.
How does the 1986 ban, in any way, whatsoever, affect criminals? Are you saying the fact that class 2 manufacturers can create fully automatic somehow makes them appear in the hands of criminals? If you make that odd leap of logic, it doesn’t matter, because class 2 manufacturers can still make machine guns - just for themselves and police/military only.
It didn’t ban the production of machine guns in the world, and not even in the United States - it just kept qualified people - the same people who’ve never commited a crime in 60+ years, from being able to own a machine gun.
You’ll have to explain to me how the 1986 ban in any way affects criminals, because you’re not making any sense.
What you’re saying is that what happened with machine guns is a “success story”, and I’m saying that “your success” story includes the banning of an entire class of weapons. Is it really unreasonable to think that more bannings wouldn’t be a “success story” in your book?
Btw, Minty, you said you were through with me in the other thread, not entirely. Does this mean your tantrum with me extends to the whole forum? That’d be unfortunate.
-No, it does not. A law only affects those who obey the law. Why do you not understand the distinction?
In Anthracite’s example, given just that information, how many laws is T-Dog already breaking?
Importation of cocaine is illegal, possession is illegal. How about intent to distribute? Possession of a firearm in conjunction with drug trafficking is illegal (whether or not the firearm in question is a “legal” registered and legally-purchased revolver, or a Soviet-surplus illegally-imported select fire rifle.)
Tell me, Minty old pal, since you like spouting citations so much, could you please tell me how many unregistered, illegalfull-auto weapons have been used in a crime in the US since the 1986 ban on further production? And, to be fair, compare that with the sixteen years previous to that.
Oh, and just a nit so’s you can update your files: The designation “AK47” means Autovmat Kalasknikov, Model of 1947. (Forgive me if I misspelled that, Russian is not my strong suit.) It was already well into major production and regular issue, even outside the USSR’s borders, by 1960. The M-16 came out I think as early as 1964, but it wasn’t until the closing years of Vietnam that any were available to suitably-paperworked civilians.
Unless, you know, ya happen to live in Washington D.C., or Chicago, or New York City, or Detroit, or . . . barely restricted my .45 caliber, stinking ass.
I fear that perhaps you prove my point for me - since it was already illegal for the “bad guys” to possess these weapons, how did passing legislation banning ownership of post-1986 NFA machine guns keep these out of the bad guys hands? Believe me, I’m not trying to be belligerent here, I honestly don’t understand how one affects the other.
Let’s once again break it down as simply as possible: the legislation prevented owners of Class 3 licenses from owning new (post-1986) machine guns. Given that:
*it has been proven that the owners of these Class 3 weapons are not the “bad guys”, and
the fact that the criminals had no further restrictions placed on them by legislation in question here,
how did this result in the owners of these licenses not being singled out?
Here’s a simple legal question that will solve this: if a criminal (T-Dog, in this case) uses an Uzi smuggled from Mexico, manufacturer in 1999 in a crime in the US and is caught, then can e be charged with a violation of the law specifically under the 1986 gun control provisions which were added?
The answer, mon ami, is no.
The change to the law only affected registered owners of these weapons. While T-Dog can be charged with a multitude of crimes, he cannot be charged with violating the legislation in 1986 designed to punish (my words) the legal owners of these weapons. They were singled out, and no amount of denial will change that fact.
I read this as saying “You can only legally participate in the NFA weapons program with machine guns manufactured before May 19, 1986.” I see nothing that says that there is an additional violation of the law for an NFA-unlicensed person having a weapon that is manufactured after May 19, 1986. (note the emphasis)
I read this as saying "If a registered NFA licensee owns a weapon made before May 19, 1986, they can keep owning it, and transfer it.
I see this as saying “The government and law enforcement agencies, as well as dealers samples, are exempted.”
I read this as being more notes allowing dealers to conduct business, if approved by the Government.
I read this as saying “If the Government asks you to make a post-May 19, 1986 weapon, you can.”
I read this as saying “If you go out of business, you turn your post-May 19, 1986 machine in to someone allowed to have it.”
I read nothing in here that restricts or applies additional punishments to a person not licensed to legally possess machine guns. The colorful and hyperbolic T-Dog may be guilty of many crimes, but he is not guilty of violating the provisions specifically added in 1986 regarding ownership of machine guns manufactured after May 19, 1986.
You may still not agree with me, but can you at least not see why I am taking the position that I am?
Perhaps, but concealed carry is only a widening of the legal forms of use, not the legal forms of ownership. So I’m a little unclear on whether it is a full step back or not…
But I think you will have to include “open carry States” in your analysis as well - there are quite a few of them, such as Kansas. And Vermont, which allows concealed carry with no license.
I do have a dispute here, I am afraid, and it is this: how is an AK-47, an M-16, or an HK MP3, or any other machine gun, functionally different from a 1918-vintage Thompson?
They all fire bullets in fully-automatic mode, have short barrels, pistol grips, and have removable magazines. What makes a Thompson essentially different from an M-16, when you break it down to function? I mean, the M-16 is black, has some plastic, and is cool looking (at least my HBAR is), but how does it’s function differ, exactly, from a Thompson?
I laughed out loud last year when a Typical Clueless Reporter here in KC reported on the “high-tech weapons used by drug dealers, like Colt .45 ‘Automatic’ (they are not automatic, BTW) handguns…” which, of course, have been around since 1911…guns and gun technology, for the most part, has not advanced appreciably over the 20th Century. They are very simple devices, which can be made by anyone with a lathe, mill, and some other hand tools. I have the technical skill to make a shotgun, and if the barrel is made by someone else, a rifle or pistol (rifled barrels are an absolute bitch to make). And I’m not any sort of expert, other than 6-credits of ‘practical’ machine shop classed in Engineering School.
Hard to get me to support restrictions on freedom without any evidence to show that those restrictions will do a shred of good, isn’t it? Let’s take registration - New York City and Chicago in the US, and the countries of New Zealand and Australia require complete gun registration. Those have been tried, in two cases here. One of the benefits of registration often touted is that it enables the police to arrest a criminal on ‘possessing an unregistered gun’ even if he’s not committing some other crime. How often is ‘possessing an unregistered weapon’ used to take criminals off of the streets in these locales?
That raises the question - is murder the only crime you’re concerned about? In other words, would it be consistent with your goals to cut the murder rate in half but double the rate of other violent crime (mugging, rape, beatins, etc.)? If it is, then that’s a position that’s pretty open to disagreement. If not, then is it really honest to compare only the murder rates and not the violent crime rates?
Of course, the anti-gun crowd tends to fulminate about the validity of comparing the murder rate in legal-handgun-free Chicago or DC with the murder rate in other parts of the US.
Also, the anti-gun crowd often tries to slip the comparison in dishonestly, for example by responding to the statement ‘violent crime rates are higher in Britain than the US’ with ‘what? the murder rates are X and Y’. Furhter, there’s the fact that they neglect to do before and after comparisons in these other countries - why not compare Britain’s murder rate pre-handgun-ban to the crime rate post-handgun-ban, for example?
Why ‘assualt rifles’ and not guns much more commonly used in crimes? If we assume that your argument is valid, doesn’t it also apply to shotguns and pistols (which are used much more often in crimes than AR-15s)? But, if that’s the case, then doesn’t your argument for supporting a complete ban on ‘assault rifles’ also support a complete ban on weapons used more comonly in murders? Do bear in mind that later on your said “But do not equate any suggestion for better controls with being a foot in the door for banning,” which confuses me - it seems that in one place you’re making an argument for banning all guns, and in another you’re saying that pro-gun types are falsely attributing an extreme, uncompromisable position to you (presumably a desire to ban all guns. Which is it?
Cite? I’m not aware of any criticism of Lott and Kleck’s work that holds up to scrutiny. Also, you neglected to provide instances of the ‘OK Corrall at the Circle K’ scenarios that are typically used as an argument against CCPs.
I’m not clear on this - how is it possibly against common sense? Are you defining common sense as ‘it involes someone using a gun, therefore it’s bad’ or something similar? Bear in mind that a significant chunk of pro-control types favor allowing police to carry concealed weapons when they’re off-duty, so I’m not clear why an argument for police carrying off-duty wouldn’t apply to other citizens.
I’m not clear at all on this alleged ‘matter of degree’. You made an argument that would support a general ban on all guns, and placed no qualifiers in it for the ‘matter of degree’ to come from. If you’re going to argue in such a way that someone agreeing with your argument would support any gun ownership restriction whatsoever, simply stating that actual restrictions are ‘a matter of degree’ doesn’t really asnwer anything. This looks to me like another case of open-ended gun control, where although you don’t support a ban, per-se, you also don’t have any objection to any gun-control measure that might come along.
When you can demonstrate exactly how your registration schemes are not going to turn into Chicago’s, your training and certification schemes aren’t going to turn into ‘literacy tests’ (yes, we offer the course, once per year at this one location, oh and it appears to be already be full.), I’d consider not opposing them. Of course, you’d also need to provide some evidence, or at the very least argument for why they’d do some good.
If gun-control types aren’t interested in banning private ownership of guns, why are they so reluctant to state limits on what they want to control? I’ve asked before (I started a whole thread on it), but I didn’t get clear answers. I heard ‘licensing and registration’, but no one would answer whether these would be shall-issue L&R, like is the case for cars, or whether they would be at-whim, like licensing in NYC or registration in Chicago. Combining the fact that gun-control types seem to never oppose new laws, no matter how absurd, and to rail against pro-gun types for opposing those laws, with their observed reluctance to state the limits of what laws they support, what do you think that ‘common sense’ says we should presume their motives are?
For example, it is incredibly common for gun-control types to state that they don’t have any designs on banning hunting rifles. Yet, sometimes in the same breath, they’ll rail against the NRA for opposing the ‘cop-killer’ ammunition ban. Since the initial version of the cop-killer ammunition ban would have banned pretty much all ammunition for hunting rifles (any round capable of penetrating a bulletproof vest, which includes virtually all rifles other than .22s), and that was the version the NRA opposed, I’d really like to hear an explanation of why the NRA is so commonly criticized for opposing a ban gun-control types say they don’t want to implement.
I think this is another example of the ‘creeping ban’ - sure, we just want to be able to identify your guns , well, now we want to make sure that those evil criminals don’t change the fingerprint, too bad if that renders your legal guns inoperable (I don’t think a 1911, for example, would be operable for very long with the barrel welded to the reciever, as you wouldn’t be able to disassembly it for cleaning or replace common parts without breaking the weld).
Eh? I think that welding only applies to a limited set of C&R guns (those formerly capable of full-auto and converted to semi-auto) and not to all of them, at least federally. I know that I’ve heard people talk about doing work on C&R guns including swapping barrels without complaining about welds.
And I’d note the sort of chain that flows from this. We require a ballistic fingerprint from shotguns, sure it’s not really useful (due to the way a shotgun works), but how can you crazy gun-toting types object to something that will help stop criminals? OK, now we’re passing a law to forbid people from changing barrels on fingerprinted weapons and requiring barrels to be welded to the reciever - surely you’re not going to object to that, you don’t REALLY intend to support criminals hiding their activities? Oh, now your shotgun is inoperable (most double-barrel shotguns, which are pretty clearly in the ‘hunting/sporting gun’ and not ‘military gun’ category’, are loaded by folding the barrels away from the reciever)? Well, that’s still not a ban, really, you can still own it, can’t you?
Certainly, this particular chain of events hasn’t happened (hell, double-barrel shotguns are still legal in Britain), but it comes from simply looking at the interaction of 3 pieces of allegedly ‘reasonable’ gun control that people have proposed.
Doc Nickel, you have just as good access to those statistics as me. Have fun googling, m’kay?
Anthracite, the 1986 ban has affected the bad guys by restricting the supply of fully-automatic weapons. If a thing exists in restricted supplies, it is more difficult to obtain and use, no? And I agree, there is little fuctional difference between a Thompson and an M-16. Again, that’s the point. It took 10 years to figure out how destructive they were, then they were regulated accordingly.
Can you provide a single example as to when a licensed title 2 weapon has fallen into the hands of criminals?
It’s not like the manufacturers were manufacturing machine guns and then selling them to anyone out of their garage. They transfer of these weapons was very highly regulated and the owners are accountable for such things.
How does preventing civilians from buying such weapons (and there was no stop of production, the class 2 manufacturers can still produce them) in any way affect criminals?
