"Your dead kids don't trump my Constitutional rights"

Great Debates
261

I thought that the main reason was this Supreme Court case:

I know that case only relates to the gun rights of felons. But at this point, everyone who hasn’t been registering their machine gun is in violation of law. Then, if they registered, they would be incriminating themselves for not registering in advance. So violating the law is the only way to keep from incriminating themselves and thus perfectly acceptable. No?

I don’t think there are enough police available to enforce all of the enormous number of criminal laws on the books. The danger of enforcing a law is a reasonable consideration when you do realize they have to pick and choose. So it probably is best to choose not to confiscate machine guns, given how many police might be killed in the process.

Of course, you could also say that someone who let their car registration lapse can’t be required to register because doing so would bring to legal attention what came before, and thus be self-incrimination. I’m not saying I agree with that kind of reasoning, just that it sounds a bit like Haynes v. United States.

Or am I missing something?

262

Yes, that’s exactly what the NRA claimed. It’s an interesting thought experiment but it’s not actually legal analysis.

263

Perhaps it is because the price of entry on machine guns is so high, ownership is limited to the “cream” of gun owners who buy those firearms as collector’s items instead of “working” guns. The live a life mostly locked away, rarely seeing the light of day.

Also, in 80 years, there have been only a handful of crimes committed with these sort of registered weapons. There has been no reason for any of the anti crowd to get too excited over them.

264

You were wrong to treat it as the end of the debate when it’s exactly where the debate starts. And I didn’t criticize you. I disagreed with you.

265

I don’t really have a problem with firearm registration. The government already knows I own several handguns and long guns when a background check was run on me when I purchased them. I would assume they know I possess a firearm when I applied for and was granted a concealed weapons permit.

But the problem I have with firearm registration is that I really fail to see how enacting this will stop the illegal use of a gun. Anyone who is willing to register their firearms probably isn’t the person you have to worry about committing a crime with it. Also, how is the registering of any firearm going to prevent that firearm from being used in a crime?

As I’ve stated before, I’m not against doing something to solve the problem, but what’s the point of enacting laws that do nothing? The only thing it does is present us with a false sense of security. A good example of that is something I mentioned in another thread. There have been proposals to ban “assault weapons”, yet it seems that the intent of the law is to ban scary looking weapons instead.

I own a Mossberg 715T, which is a semi-automatic .22 rifle that happens to look like a M16. It has a magazine that holds 25 rounds and a collapsible stock. Under the proposed assault weapons ban this gun would suddenly be illegal to buy. If the ban is enacted you will hear cheers from the anti-gun crowd about how safer we all are, but are we? That 715T is based on a model from Mossberg called the Plinkster. The Plinkster is a semi-automatic .22 without a folding stock looks like a regular rifle and only holds ten rounds, but other than that it is identical to the 715T. The 715T is a Plinkster with a plastic cover that makes it look like an M16. I purchased the 715T instead of the Plinkster for a few reasons. First, the collapsible stock. I target shoot often with my three kids. All of them are different sizes and the collapsible stock allows the rifle to be instantly sized to each person shooting, a real convenience. The second reason was the larger magazine, when target shooting the larger the magazine the less time I spend loading and the more time I spend plinking cans. The third reason is quite honestly that the 715T looks really cool. The same reason I like sports cars over sedans.

So, the point being is that we pass a law banning assault weapons, everyone cheers and we all feel safe. Yet the next day a maniac can walk into a store, buy a Plinkster and do exactly what he could have done with the 715T, he just won’t look as cool/scary doing it. The law banned one firearm because of how it looked, but didn’t really do much to make anyone safer. This is how I feel about registration. Not against the idea, but I fail to see how we are safer. Once again we need to be looking for solutions that are going to make a difference. And banning weapons won’t do it either. We’ve banned cocaine, child porn and so many other things. But since we cannot keep illegal items from entering or country, those who want a weapon to cause harm will be able to get them. It might be a little harder to do so, but they’ll get them just the same.

I’ll stay the course and opinion that we have got to improve our ability to identify and help those with mental issues. A person hell bent on causing mayhem will do so with a gun, a car, an improvised bomb or a can of gasoline and a match. I submit that a firearm makes caring out their twisted fantasies easier, but banning them won’t stop this insanity.

266

The primary ojection to registration is that it is the first step towards confiscation. It gives federal authorities a roadmap to where to go to round up the guns. How does Haynes affect that fear? My pioint is that federal authorities have had a roadmap top some of the msot destructive firearms in civilian hands and they have not tried to use the roadmap to conficate these firearms.

The price of machine guns didn’t skyrocket to current levels until 1986 when they banned the sale of new machine guns.

The reason for the NFA registration requirement for machine guns was because they were being used by criminals to commit crimes. And then they pretty much stopped being used for crimes after the registration requirement was imposed. I’m not saying that there is perfect causation there but it became a lot harder for a criminal to get their hands on machine guns after that.

It won’t prevent criminals from using the guns they already have but it will at least slow the flow of guns into criminal hands. Almost every gun starts out as a legally purchased gun before it ends up in teh hands of a criminal. Some people turn criminal after purchasing the gun legally and registration will let us identify and confiscate those guns. Some guns will be stolen from lawful owners but this is a slim minority of guns that wind up in crimibnal hands. Most guns in criminal hands were purchased through straw purchasers and registration will prevent sales of guns to criminals because it will become extremely easy to prosecute the people that transferred guns to crimnals.

We leech guns out of criminals hands every day through arrests, confiscations, searches and seizures, etc. Just as an absolute gun ban will only really have an impact on crimnals after many many years by reducing criminal access to new guns, so too will a registration requirement have an impact after many years but with registration, we are not disarming civilians in the process. Or at least thats the theory. Minimal and constitutional infringement in exchange for long term benefits. I don’t think there is anythign that we can do to cut gun murders in half over the next ten years of anything like that.

Registration works differently than silly bans like the one you are talking about.

that
We can do that too. I don’t think anyone disagrees that we have to do a better job of idneitying folks who are sick.

Once again, registration is not banning and I don’t think even registration would prevent crazy nutjobs from taking out a kindergarten, no amount of gun control will do that.

267

Sounds like an argument for the effectiveness of gun control.

268

Historically, there never has been a huge demand for full-auto weapons among the American shooting community, even when barriers to entry were low. I was a gun dealer for most of the 80’s and into the 90’s. Prices on select fire weapons ran about fifty percent higher than semi-auto versions. I remember circulars from my wholesalers advertising dealer prices of $450 for an AR-15 and around $1000 for a NIB M-16A1. All manner of used, surplus, or just plain cheaper machine guns were available too. They didn’t exactly fly off the shelves.
As gun control, I wouldn’t class the NFA as much of a success. Criminals who were famous for using machine guns, like Bonnie and Clyde, typically stole them from police or National Guard armories.

269

Take an extremely small subset of guns out of circulation and add requirements of ownership that are so burdensome that most wont even attempt to purchase them. Add to that that it takes being almost a saint to pass the extended (currently 6 months wait) background check and yeah, it’s pretty effective.

270

Which is 30 years or so of the last 80. A significant amount of time that certainly is a part of the equation.

Many states simply do not allow ownership of NFA weapons as well. Another contributing factor.

271

Actually, it’s a necessary step, not necessarily the first. (<—that’s an oddly constructed sentence right there)

Another objection is that it inserts government in between a transaction that it shouldn’t be a part of. That wedge can be used for other purposes beyond confiscation. Deny your registration, and no sale. Reason for denial could be endless and no confiscation would be necessary.

272

To answer this specific question, 145 died from 200-8 averaging 19 a year. For 2009-12, 207 died averaging 52 a year. That’s 27 a year on average over those 13 years. cite: http://rt.com/usa/holder-mass-shootings-triple-519/.

I think that may be an undercount not going through the end of 21012 since 69 people were killed (excluding the killers) in that year alone according to Mass shootings in America: A history, 1999 through 2013 – New York Daily News
But the issue as I see it is that the strongest gun advocates seem never willing to talk about any controls even those favored by the vast majority of NRA members like stronger background checks. It’s not let’s not talk about them right after a mass killing. It’s let’s not talk about them ever.

273

I think many (not all) libertarians and libertarian conservatives emphasize the Bill of Rights over the totality of the Constitution. In addition to the Bill of Rights which outlines individual rights, there are collective rights in the Constitution. The preamble clearly states that the government it forms, as opposed to the Articles of Confederation, must provide for the general welfare of the people, and ensure domestic tranquility. While the term “welfare” did not mean permanent social programs to the framers, it does imply some duty on the part of the federal government to provide relief where private entities and local governments do not suffice. Likewise, the term “domestic tranquility” indicates that there is a constitutional right to public safety and order.The call for a “well-regulated militia” to secure a free state is in line with such a right.

274

By gun control, you mean reducing the number of firearm owners by any means possible. It doesn’t really matter that many of them were law abiding citizens until the government arbitrarily turned them into criminals with the stoke of a pen.

Maybe the owners of machine guns don’t play increasingly violent video games?

Unfortunately for the gun control crowd, many of their elected reps were forced to look for honest work after they lost reelection.

275

Yes. I am not saying it is constitutionally permissible; I am saying it is a counterargument to the oft-repeated claim that gun control doesn’t work.

276

So if we throw out the constitution, gun control works. I’ll make sure to add that caveat to my oft-repeated claim in the future.

277

Thanks for the respectful response. I apologize in the delay in answering, life got in the way. The only correction I’ll make is to clarify the above. I meant that I keep my firearms secure at all times because I realize the danger they pose in the wrong hands. What I meant was that the only realistic way for a so called “bad guy” to use one of my firearms in a crime, barring him stealing them by force, would be for me to either give that person one of my weapons or sell him one. If I were to do either I would fail in my responsibility to society as a firearms owner and for that there should be a huge penalty.

I have to say I have really enjoyed our conversation. Rarely can I discuss this issue with someone that has opposing views without it turning into a name calling argument. Very refreshing, perhaps if the rest of America would take notice and do the same well have this issue resolved. Thanks

Oh and FWIW, I own several firearms and do keep them for self protection of my home, but mostly my reason for owning them is to target shoot with my wife, kids and family. It’s a great sport and we have had countless hours of family fun plinking cans at our local range. I do have a CCW permit, but rarely carry. If I’m going somewhere that I might feel particularly uncomfortable I might carry, but I usually don’t. I hope that I’ll never have to use a weapon on another human, but I certainly know I feel more secure knowing that I can turn to a firearm if I find myself or my family in danger. If I were ever to draw my weapon against another it means they got through my locked gate, past my locked door and past my Great Dane. If they are willing to do all that I would have to believe they intend to do me or my family harm. I’m not a “gun nut”, just a friendly neighbor to all who happens to enjoy shooting soda cans like some like to play golf.

278

Were the AR-15s flying off the shelves? Were they selling much better than their full auto counterparts at the time?

Well they died in the same year that the NFA was passed. Before the NFA, organized crime seemed to use machine guns (see Valentines day massacre). Machine gun deaths were not common but they were not exactly unheard of before 1934. Since 1934, I think there might have been 2. of course there are ~250,000 machine guns and about 1000 times as many other guns but even if you multiplies those two deaths by 1000 or even 10,000 or 100,000, you would still have far fewer gun murders over the same period of time. Wouldn’t you?

The rate of machine gun murders was so low before the 1986 ban that you simply cannot attribute much marginal improvement to the ban. It also means that you probably cannot attribute outright bans in some states as having a significant effect. The fact of the matter is that there are enough states that allow machine guns that if the registry itself were not enough, you would see more than two machine gun murders over 80 years. So no, I don’t think the ban was necessarily part of the equation. Many states did not allow much ownership of guns at all and those states don’t seem to have much lower murders per capita.

If we wanted to deny sales, we could do it with NICs (its not like registration would be discretionary, we would be using the same prohibited persons standard in the gun control act), we don’t need registration to do that.

And considering that there are 30,000 gun deaths every year, I can make a case that the government has some business inserting itself in these transactions. The supreme court certainly seemed to think so.

What do you think we have been talking about for the last few pages? The gun control folks seem to think I am a gun rights advocate, and I’m not just willing to discuss background checks, I support licensing and registration. Sure there are some gun rights advocates that don’t see any reason to bargain when you have nothing to offer but not all of us. It sounds like you are beating on straw men.

If violent video games had anything to do with it, Japan and South Korea would be awash in murders tentacle rape.

We have a higher murder rate than the rest of the world and it has been high since before the invention of the computer, its hard to pin this on video games.

279

The AR-15 did sell well. There weren’t a lot of choices if you wanted a 5.56mm autoloader in those days and the Colt AR-15 was considered the best. It was also the most expensive,as Colt was the only maker and they charged every penny the market would bear.

280

I’ll include uber violent movies as well as violent video games as issues that should be considered when discussing how to lower rates of violent crime.