steve1 5
Recommended Posts
jfields 0
quit harassing honest gun owners with laws that don't work.
Steve,
Please define "honest gun owner", and explain how they differ at the time of gun purchase from people that legally buy guns and then later commit murders with them.
Which of the differences could be partially identified and used as screening factors to make sure the "honest gun owner" can purchase guns and the would-be criminal can't, or at least, not as easily. I can think of some right off the top of my head:
Substantial waiting period.
Gun registration.
Considering that neither of those remove your ability to buy a gun or defend yourself, what valid reasons are there for not implementing them fully?
steve1 5
To me an honest gun owner is one who has no criminal record and abides by whatever laws are in place, at the time. Oh sure there have been some honest gun owners who have later gone on to commit a murder with them. With the millions of people who legally own guns, is this any wonder? What should we do make it impossible to buy a gun because this possibility exists?
What good is a substantial waiting period? Background checks shouldn't take that long to find out if you have committed a felony or have a history of mental problems. Again substantial waiting periods would hamper an honest gun buyer who is playing by the rules. Do you think criminals are going to play by the rules? This is not an idealistic world, and never will be, no matter how many ridiculous laws you want to pass. One legal means to obtain a gun without any background check is to just buy a gun from another gun owner without any background check or registration. (At least here in Montana this is possible.) The newspapers are full of guns for sale. Another method favored by criminals is just to go into someone's home and rip one off. Again there is no paperwork involved here.
I'm also against registering guns. I can not see how this is doing much to catch gun criminals. It does let the government know exactly who has legal weapons and they can go on to harass these honest gun owners, but registration also overlooks millions of guns that are not registered. Do you think a criminal is going to go in and volunteer to register his firearm?
We also talked earlier of how governments can become too powerful and controlling. If you have a weapon and it's registered, the BATF knows exactly who to harass. Did you know the BATF even has it's own airforce now? That they have been known to storm and ransack people's homes because they had suspicion that someone had something illegal. One fellow was suspected of having a fully automatic weapon. The BATF knocked his door down and stormed his house like a typical SWAT operation to find nothing. The guy was innocent. They left with his house in shambles.
Then there was the Randy Weaver incident in Idaho. The government spent millions investigating this guy, eventually stormed his home, killed his wife, and tried to kill him. What brought all this on. Sure he was defending his home and probably shouldn't have been firing back. But it all started over the fact that he had a shotgun with a barrel that was too short. They also had suspicions that he was plotting against the government, but I don't think they even had much evidence to support this. Is it any wonder that honest gun owners are starting to fear the government. I'm sure someone can poke holes in some of these ideas, but this is how things look to me. Steve1
What good is a substantial waiting period? Background checks shouldn't take that long to find out if you have committed a felony or have a history of mental problems. Again substantial waiting periods would hamper an honest gun buyer who is playing by the rules. Do you think criminals are going to play by the rules? This is not an idealistic world, and never will be, no matter how many ridiculous laws you want to pass. One legal means to obtain a gun without any background check is to just buy a gun from another gun owner without any background check or registration. (At least here in Montana this is possible.) The newspapers are full of guns for sale. Another method favored by criminals is just to go into someone's home and rip one off. Again there is no paperwork involved here.
I'm also against registering guns. I can not see how this is doing much to catch gun criminals. It does let the government know exactly who has legal weapons and they can go on to harass these honest gun owners, but registration also overlooks millions of guns that are not registered. Do you think a criminal is going to go in and volunteer to register his firearm?
We also talked earlier of how governments can become too powerful and controlling. If you have a weapon and it's registered, the BATF knows exactly who to harass. Did you know the BATF even has it's own airforce now? That they have been known to storm and ransack people's homes because they had suspicion that someone had something illegal. One fellow was suspected of having a fully automatic weapon. The BATF knocked his door down and stormed his house like a typical SWAT operation to find nothing. The guy was innocent. They left with his house in shambles.
Then there was the Randy Weaver incident in Idaho. The government spent millions investigating this guy, eventually stormed his home, killed his wife, and tried to kill him. What brought all this on. Sure he was defending his home and probably shouldn't have been firing back. But it all started over the fact that he had a shotgun with a barrel that was too short. They also had suspicions that he was plotting against the government, but I don't think they even had much evidence to support this. Is it any wonder that honest gun owners are starting to fear the government. I'm sure someone can poke holes in some of these ideas, but this is how things look to me. Steve1
billvon 3,089
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>I agree with that, with the one minor change. I'd say "as long as it
> doesn't hinder responsible people from getting guns." I don't
> understand the objections to reasonable changes that may
> dramatically reduce accidental and rage-induced deaths while still
> allowing gun ownership.
My objection to that is that 'responsible' is a subjective interpretation. There have been times, for example, that any homosexual was considered a security risk, and had a harder time getting a security clearance since their sexuality could provide a 'lever' to blackmail them into giving out classified information. There have been times that anyone who belonged to a communist or socialist political organization was considered untrustworthy, and of course there was a long time when any black man was essentially subhuman here in the US.
Now, I will admit that today we're better about that. But what criteria do we use now? Keep guns from Arabs who practice Islam? Keep guns from people who drink? Who have had traffic accidents? Who admit to smoking pot? Who are members of black or hispanic gangs/clubs? Who the 'Armor General' doesn't like?
Not only would such restrictions not help much with gun crime, they would be contrary to (I believe) one of the purposes of the second amendment. If the government can restrict ownership of guns to a group of people because they fear they will use them, the very time that militias most need guns (i.e. our government has become so draconian and tyrannical that we need to resist its influence with armed force) will be the very time the government has the tools to remove those guns from the people.
I have no problem taking guns away from people who have _proved_ they cannot use them responsibly i.e. anyone who uses them in a crime or even anyone who accidentally injures someone else with their weapon. But I also believe that you cannot restrict access before the fact, even if they are a heavy-drinking, evil looking Arab who prays to Allah, likes guns and lives in a bad part of town.
Gun ownership carries with it risk. Tools can be misused, whether the tool is a gun, a car, a chainsaw etc. That misuse in all three cases can injure and kill people. It is a sad but unfortunate result of the freedoms we enjoy. We can certainly reduce those risks by public education of gun owners, car drivers etc and by making sure that people who do abuse those rights lose them. I'm all for that.
But we cannot eliminate those risks even with more draconian laws; I don't think that we could even significantly reduce them without an outright ban. And while a ban might reduce criminal use of guns, I think it would be a classic case of the ends not justifying the means.
> doesn't hinder responsible people from getting guns." I don't
> understand the objections to reasonable changes that may
> dramatically reduce accidental and rage-induced deaths while still
> allowing gun ownership.
My objection to that is that 'responsible' is a subjective interpretation. There have been times, for example, that any homosexual was considered a security risk, and had a harder time getting a security clearance since their sexuality could provide a 'lever' to blackmail them into giving out classified information. There have been times that anyone who belonged to a communist or socialist political organization was considered untrustworthy, and of course there was a long time when any black man was essentially subhuman here in the US.
Now, I will admit that today we're better about that. But what criteria do we use now? Keep guns from Arabs who practice Islam? Keep guns from people who drink? Who have had traffic accidents? Who admit to smoking pot? Who are members of black or hispanic gangs/clubs? Who the 'Armor General' doesn't like?
Not only would such restrictions not help much with gun crime, they would be contrary to (I believe) one of the purposes of the second amendment. If the government can restrict ownership of guns to a group of people because they fear they will use them, the very time that militias most need guns (i.e. our government has become so draconian and tyrannical that we need to resist its influence with armed force) will be the very time the government has the tools to remove those guns from the people.
I have no problem taking guns away from people who have _proved_ they cannot use them responsibly i.e. anyone who uses them in a crime or even anyone who accidentally injures someone else with their weapon. But I also believe that you cannot restrict access before the fact, even if they are a heavy-drinking, evil looking Arab who prays to Allah, likes guns and lives in a bad part of town.
Gun ownership carries with it risk. Tools can be misused, whether the tool is a gun, a car, a chainsaw etc. That misuse in all three cases can injure and kill people. It is a sad but unfortunate result of the freedoms we enjoy. We can certainly reduce those risks by public education of gun owners, car drivers etc and by making sure that people who do abuse those rights lose them. I'm all for that.
But we cannot eliminate those risks even with more draconian laws; I don't think that we could even significantly reduce them without an outright ban. And while a ban might reduce criminal use of guns, I think it would be a classic case of the ends not justifying the means.
jfields 0
Bill,
I was saying "responsible" for purposes of our debate. I would also want more concrete details before anything went further. I'm not advocating anything that isn't basically common sense. I'm not suggesting we screen by ethnicity, color or any type of religious affiliation.
First off, lets do a better job of keeping convicted criminals from legally buying guns. That seems like a fairly easy distinction that shouldn't upset honest gun buyers, as it won't apply to them.
Next, how about some other measures. When you apply for a driver's license, you need to take a vision test. I'd like to think that people buying guns would also have to see. When you want a driver's license, you also have to take a driving test, at least, you do where I live. Would it be unreasonable to want prospective firearms owners to stand a better chance of hitting their target than hitting bystanders? Maybe that one only applies to CCW candidates, as people can be as off the mark as they want in their own home. We'll just hope they don't hit anyone through a window or a thin apartment wall.
Another limitation that has been vehemently resisted is the limit of buying one handgun per month. While you didn't specifically mention opposition to it, it appears reasonable to me. How many handguns does an individual need to defend themselves? That law is probably a bigger problem for potential gun smugglers than anyone else. It slows the flow of weapons from their legal owners into the gray and black markets, and therefore to criminals.
A waiting period between initiating purchase and actual posession of the firearm also seems reasonable to me. Once again, it doesn't prevent law-abiding people from purchasing weapons, and therefore doesn't violate what they feel is their second amendment right.
I guess I feel that a few relatively minor checks in the system would be a good thing. I know many of the gun advocates feel that it is a god-given right to be able to walk in to any gun store, buy as many weapons as they want, take posession of them immediately, and do the whole thing anonymously without background checks or registration. I personally don't see the right for every private individual to purchase guns as a constitutionally-guaranteed right, but that is a difference in intepretation of the second amendment. That aside, I definitely don't see those qualifiers in the purchase process as a constitutionally-guaranteed rights. Neither does the supreme court.
My objection to that is that 'responsible' is a subjective interpretation.
I was saying "responsible" for purposes of our debate. I would also want more concrete details before anything went further. I'm not advocating anything that isn't basically common sense. I'm not suggesting we screen by ethnicity, color or any type of religious affiliation.
First off, lets do a better job of keeping convicted criminals from legally buying guns. That seems like a fairly easy distinction that shouldn't upset honest gun buyers, as it won't apply to them.
Next, how about some other measures. When you apply for a driver's license, you need to take a vision test. I'd like to think that people buying guns would also have to see. When you want a driver's license, you also have to take a driving test, at least, you do where I live. Would it be unreasonable to want prospective firearms owners to stand a better chance of hitting their target than hitting bystanders? Maybe that one only applies to CCW candidates, as people can be as off the mark as they want in their own home. We'll just hope they don't hit anyone through a window or a thin apartment wall.
Another limitation that has been vehemently resisted is the limit of buying one handgun per month. While you didn't specifically mention opposition to it, it appears reasonable to me. How many handguns does an individual need to defend themselves? That law is probably a bigger problem for potential gun smugglers than anyone else. It slows the flow of weapons from their legal owners into the gray and black markets, and therefore to criminals.
A waiting period between initiating purchase and actual posession of the firearm also seems reasonable to me. Once again, it doesn't prevent law-abiding people from purchasing weapons, and therefore doesn't violate what they feel is their second amendment right.
I guess I feel that a few relatively minor checks in the system would be a good thing. I know many of the gun advocates feel that it is a god-given right to be able to walk in to any gun store, buy as many weapons as they want, take posession of them immediately, and do the whole thing anonymously without background checks or registration. I personally don't see the right for every private individual to purchase guns as a constitutionally-guaranteed right, but that is a difference in intepretation of the second amendment. That aside, I definitely don't see those qualifiers in the purchase process as a constitutionally-guaranteed rights. Neither does the supreme court.
billvon 3,089
>I'm not advocating anything that isn't basically common sense.
Hmm, that's even harder to define objectively, but OK. In addition, keep in mind that law is the opposite of common sense - the law says "you may not xxx" even in cases where common sense would tell you it's OK.
> . . .keeping convicted criminals from legally buying guns.
Agreed.
>I'd like to think that people buying guns would also have to see.
Not sure about that. Prevent a farmer with poor eyesight from buying a shotgun? Especially if he needs one due to the occasional wolf?
> Would it be unreasonable to want prospective firearms owners to
> stand a better chance of hitting their target than hitting bystanders?
I would be against mandatory training and marksmanship standards, as that's a way to deny people with no prior record use of a gun. I would be OK with a more basic requirement, like must demonstrate ability to assemble and load the gun, eject a round and use the safety. As you cannot use the gun without knowing that, requiring that knowledge does not restrict anyone's ability to obtain and use a gun.
>While you didn't specifically mention opposition to it, it appears
>reasonable to me. How many handguns does an individual need to
> defend themselves?
Not sure about that. Like Kennedy, I would fear the slippery-slope effect i.e. next year the anti-gun lobby starts with "No one needs more than one gun a year! Someone please PROVE you need a gun a month to defend yourself." I would also have to see some evidence that illegal arms dealers really walk into stores, present their unaltered ID and buy 100 Glocks to resell illegally before I'd believe that that would make a difference.
>A waiting period between initiating purchase and actual posession of
>the firearm also seems reasonable to me. Once again, it doesn't
> prevent law-abiding people from purchasing weapons, and therefore
> doesn't violate what they feel is their second amendment right.
I am ambivalent about this one as well. If you could produce statistics that, say, 10% of gun crime occurred less than a day after purchase of a handgun, you might have a good case for a _short_ waiting period, but again I'd have to see those stats. Some states have waiting periods - has that decreased illegal use of guns there?
Hmm, that's even harder to define objectively, but OK. In addition, keep in mind that law is the opposite of common sense - the law says "you may not xxx" even in cases where common sense would tell you it's OK.
> . . .keeping convicted criminals from legally buying guns.
Agreed.
>I'd like to think that people buying guns would also have to see.
Not sure about that. Prevent a farmer with poor eyesight from buying a shotgun? Especially if he needs one due to the occasional wolf?
> Would it be unreasonable to want prospective firearms owners to
> stand a better chance of hitting their target than hitting bystanders?
I would be against mandatory training and marksmanship standards, as that's a way to deny people with no prior record use of a gun. I would be OK with a more basic requirement, like must demonstrate ability to assemble and load the gun, eject a round and use the safety. As you cannot use the gun without knowing that, requiring that knowledge does not restrict anyone's ability to obtain and use a gun.
>While you didn't specifically mention opposition to it, it appears
>reasonable to me. How many handguns does an individual need to
> defend themselves?
Not sure about that. Like Kennedy, I would fear the slippery-slope effect i.e. next year the anti-gun lobby starts with "No one needs more than one gun a year! Someone please PROVE you need a gun a month to defend yourself." I would also have to see some evidence that illegal arms dealers really walk into stores, present their unaltered ID and buy 100 Glocks to resell illegally before I'd believe that that would make a difference.
>A waiting period between initiating purchase and actual posession of
>the firearm also seems reasonable to me. Once again, it doesn't
> prevent law-abiding people from purchasing weapons, and therefore
> doesn't violate what they feel is their second amendment right.
I am ambivalent about this one as well. If you could produce statistics that, say, 10% of gun crime occurred less than a day after purchase of a handgun, you might have a good case for a _short_ waiting period, but again I'd have to see those stats. Some states have waiting periods - has that decreased illegal use of guns there?
jfields 0
>I'd like to think that people buying guns would also have to see.
---------------------------------------------
Not sure about that. Prevent a farmer with poor eyesight from buying a shotgun? Especially if he needs one due to the occasional wolf?
Maybe that only applies to handguns, or maybe just concealed weapons permits. If people only use weapons on their own land, I don't really care what they do there. (Well, as long as they don't accidently kill the neighbor's kid or something.)
I would be against mandatory training and marksmanship standards, as that's a way to deny people with no prior record use of a gun.
Honest question... can't you walk into a firing range and rent a "house gun" or something without owning one yourself? Just like having some requirement for driving with an instructor (driver's ed) before getting a driver's license, I don't see a problem requiring a basic weapon familiarization course, provided facilities exist. They could cover the basics of assembly, loading and safeties, as you noted, plus the chance to put a few rounds downrange.
Not sure about that. Like Kennedy, I would fear the slippery-slope effect i.e. next year the anti-gun lobby starts with "No one needs more than one gun a year! Someone please PROVE you need a gun a month to defend yourself."
I fear the slippery-slope effect in the other direction. Where do we draw the line in what weapons people have the right to own? Handguns? Rifles? Automatic rifles? Rocket launchers, etc? The debate can get absurd. If we can agree that some things shouldn't be in the public's hands (NBC weapons, etc.) and some should (pocket knives, etc.), the whole debate becomes where in the middle the line should be drawn. I'm certainly willing to be reasonable about it. All I'm asking is that the other side be reasonable as well, without using the second amendment as a catch-all for everything and a justification against any limitations whatsoever.
I am ambivalent about this one as well. If you could produce statistics that, say, 10% of gun crime occurred less than a day after purchase of a handgun, you might have a good case for a _short_ waiting period, but again I'd have to see those stats.
I see the reason for a waiting period as two-fold. First, it may prevent some of the "heat of the moment" crime. The second, and more important reason is to allow time for a meaningful background check. This check should make sure the person isn't a criminal. Given the inefficiency in government and law enforcement, it may take a little while. I'm not defending the ineptitude of the bureaucracy, but I think that the checks should be thorough. If they could be done quicker with equal or better accuracy, I'd happily see the waiting periods reduced.
jdhill 0
I see the reason for a waiting period as two-fold. First, it may prevent some of the "heat of the moment" crime. The second, and more important reason is to allow time for a meaningful background check. This check should make sure the person isn't a criminal. Given the inefficiency in government and law enforcement, it may take a little while. I'm not defending the ineptitude of the bureaucracy, but I think that the checks should be thorough. If they could be done quicker with equal or better accuracy, I'd happily see the waiting periods reduced.
When I lived in Maryland they had a 7 day waiting period, one of the longest in the country... their meaningful background check took 2 days to mail the paperwork to the state, 15 minutes to do the check, and 2 days to mail it back to the dealer, then a few days of BS time...
When I lived in Arizona, the check was instant (well, the same 15 minutes, but it was while you waited in the store), then you could leave with the gun (if you passed the check).
Who do you think has a higher murder rate (per capita)? Maryland.
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke
Kennedy 0
But you cannot legitimately dispute that some people buy guns legally and then use them to wound or kill innocent people.
No I can't dispute that. We call these things assault and homicide, and there are already laws against that.
Tell it to the innocent dead folks, killed by people who walked into a gun store and bought it within the limits of the law. Tell it to the innocent dead folks who were killed by enraged people with valid concealed carry permits. Look at the mother whose child gets killed by a careless gun owner's child in the eye and tell her all about your "rights".
Aren't you the one who said "innocent until proven guilty?" You're saying a person is guilty until he proves to you he is innocent. I don't buy it. Less than 1% of all guns will be used in a crime. Why give issues to people holding the other 99%? Safety? B.S. Target the people holding that 1% of guns.
Each incident where somebody takes advantage of their "god given right" to buy a gun legally in this country and then murder somebody with it does more harm to the pro-gun faction than you can possibly imagine. And it happens all the time.
More than I can possibly imagine? Are you kidding me? Do you know what Project Exhile is? I supported it. Directly. Through my contributions to the NRA-ILA.
Under Project Exhile, anyone convicted of commiting a crime with a gun gets the normal sentnce for the crime, plus five years determinate sentence, plus goes to Federal pen rather than state. You know what happened in Richmond when they instituted PE? The murder rate [one of the five worst at the time of insitution] fell in half. Yes, half. They punished the CRIMINALS, not the entire citizenry. Another "mantra" I happen to like? Crime Control, not Gun Control.
I'm not going to reply to each time, but you put words into my mouth that I never have or would.
I am appalled at the callous lack of value placed on innocent human life. It is more important to you to protect your right to own a gun than to protect human life itself.
I place a great deal of value on human life. But you miss one thing. When it comes down to it, I happen to value mine just a bit more than most other people's.
If you don't believe that, then explain why you are unwilling to accept compromises that would lessen the frequency of innocent people dying while still allowing you to own weapons.
We don't need compromises. The best way to reduce crime is to remove criminals. Enforce laws ALREADY ON THE BOOKS, and let me own, buy, use, etc. firearms as I please.
But the dishonesty, disrespect and selfishness of many of the pro-gun people infuriates even moderates like myself.
But the dishonesty, disrespect and selfishness of many of the anti-gun people infuriates even moderates like myself.
witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*
I know you are a big fan of statistics, so I found a little more that might interest you. During the past 10 years, of the killers who shoot and kill police officers, 73% had prior criminal arrests, and 23% were actually on parole or probation. This suggests to me that our society needs to get tough with criminals and quit harassing honest gun owners with laws that don't work. Steve1
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites