A lifelong gun owner explains why he is destroying his gun.

[fskimospy]

LOL, it's your side who always argues for welfare on the basis that the proles will revolt if we don't "fix income inequality." I don't fear the big bad ghetto dwellers, why do you?

I don't, but maybe that's because I've actually lived in areas with a lot of really poor people in recent years. My strong suspicion is that you haven't. Your psychological projection is hilarious.

So really though, tell us more about your imagined race war. You seemed so excited in the other thread, so don't hold back now.

 

[glenn1]

I don't, but maybe that's because I've actually lived in areas with a lot of really poor people in recent years. My strong suspicion is that you haven't. Your psychological projection is hilarious.

So really though, tell us more about your imagined race war. You seemed so excited in the other thread, so don't hold back now.

You're more familiar with it and can probably quote the demonstrators against police brutality in your own city. "I can't breathe" sound familiar? Or Amadou Diallo? Abner Louima? Justin Volpe, Sean Bell, many more?

Also I'm not into the online ePe3n contest of who's lived in the shittier part of town. Feel free to claim that title as much as you want, as if that matters for anything.

 

[BoberFett]

Eski seems to assume that people living in ghettos are not white... that's kinda racist.

 

[fskimospy]

Eski seems to assume that people living in ghettos are not white... that's kinda racist.

That's why I said racist or classist.

Need to read better.

 

[BoberFett]

That's why I said racist or classist.

Need to read better.

You aren't accusing Glenn of longing for a class war. You specifically use the term race war. You claimed he accused YOU of being classist.

Christ, most people wait longer than 30 minutes to attempt to revise history.

 

[stormkroe]

Yeah, the same government whose computer databases just got compromised millions of times and released the most personal information imaginable about millions of people. Surely if you think millions more should register their personal data to enjoy their right to firearms, you'd similarly be OK with sharing all your personal data with the government to exercise your 1st Amendment and other rights. I'm sure they'll keep it perfectly safe so why don't you start by handing over your complete medical file and every single financial record your have along with all your passwords.

The long gun registration failure in Canada could be a source of info, cost went through the roof, right off the planet vs. projected, and it didn't aid in solving a single crime in 8 years.
Even the NDP sided with the conservatives to destroy the useless money pit. http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/bl...e-long-gun-registry-doesnt-work-and-never-did

 

[MagickMan]

Restrict all hard liquor to airline-sized bottles, and beer to four-packs. Anyone wanting to purchase alcohol must have their ID explicitly approved for it, and background checks for DUI and any crimes under the influence of alcohol performed. People with mental health issues are prohibited from ever buying or consuming alcohol, and every person will have a record of their annual alcohol purchases logged in a government database. Alcohol must be kept locked up when not in use, and any crimes committed using another person's alcohol should result in the original purchaser of said alcohol being charged as well.

Sounds fair to me, but I'm a non-drinker.

 

[MagickMan]

Can you go back to dreaming of ways to restrict other's rights to soothe your primordial fear organ and leave the rest of us alone? No one is looking to shoot you, not even those scary ghetto people in your town. I know it's your nature to be a puritanical do-gooder restricting the freedoms of others for their own good, but maybe just for once you can use your own "don't like an abortion, then don't have one" advice.

Collectivism isn't exactly keen on individual rights, and when it's combined with Neo-progressivism it's downright hostile towards reason, as well.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Sure!

1. We need universal background checks regardless of the person transferring it. No exceptions like we have now.
2. We should restrict high capacity clips/magazines and institute buybacks in an attempt to gradually decrease the number in circulation.
3. Increase the requirements necessary to own a gun, including much more robust mental health prohibitions.
4. Mandate education on safe handling and storage of firearms and the consequences of failing to do it.
5. Institute a (currently prohibited) registry of licensed guns, which would allow us to actually enforce the gun laws we already have. It's insane that we don't do this.

Things of that nature. I'd also like to just implement a generalized buyback program to decrease the total number of guns in circulation, etc.

1. I don't think most people would mind universal background checks. The only thing I'd want to see is that NICS is opened up to the public. Right now only FFL dealers can run the background checks, and some of them gouge the shit out of you. It would be nice to have a website where you can just run driver's license info and an SSN, and pay a small fee (say, $10, which is less than most FFL's charge), to run the check and support the maintenance of the database.

2. I think this would be an ineffective policy. If you're the only person in the room with a gun, it doesn't really matter how many rounds are in your mag. You're the only person with a gun. And if you're going on a rampage, are you really going to care about having unlawful magazines?

From a practical perspective as a gun owner, it's annoying as crap to have to reload magazines more often when I'm at the range. And I'd like to point out that police are allowed to have "high-capacity" (aka standard capacity) magazines. If they are allowed to, why isn't the general populace which uses the same firearms? Are we not allowed to protect ourselves the same way? Are cops better than your average citizen in any way? Honestly I don't think so. In fact, CCW holders tend to be charged less for firearms violations than police officers (http://crimeresearch.org/2015/02/co...en-police-and-concealed-carry-permit-holders/
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...op-as-concealed-carry-permits-soar-/?page=all
- yes the data is limited, and i doubt the site is unbiased, but it's all i got after a quick google and discarded sites that had obvious potential for bias one way or the other).

3. While I don't have anything against "more robust mental health prohibitions", the devil is going to be in the details. When constitutes a mental health prohibition? If you've been diagnosed with something? To what degree? Taking certain medications? (8-10% of the population on antidepressants http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-rise-of-all-purpose-antidepressants/). In theory this is good, but in practice it will be tough.

4. No argument here. Many states do have mandatory safety training, but it's really minimal. In MD, for example, you take an online course that's maybe 10 minutes long. That's it. The caveat to that is that it shouldn't cost cost anything - that amounts to a poll tax on exercising the right to bear arms.

5. Many states have gun registries, but they haven't been particularly useful. What purpose would the registry serve? Why does a state need to know when a right is exercised? (in the case of voting, obviously it's because you only get 1 vote and you need to vote in your state....).
In MD, for example, the state maintains a database of ballistic prints on shell casings from all handguns sold in the state through FFLs, in case a ballistic analysis needs to be done. The problem with this is that the database has been used only 6 times (2000-2005), and in those cases it was inaccurate. So MD is paying a lot of money for...nothing in return basically.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16475-2005Jan17.html

I've sinced moved from Maryland and California - both states where I had to register my firearms or otherwise become a criminal. So what good does having that information get them now that I'm gone?
Perhaps the greatest irony is that criminals are not required to register their firearms, as that would be a violation of their 5th amendment rights. This was upheld in Haynes vs US

So while I don't agree with you 100%, I would say that there's definitely common ground to be had. It's the extremes on both ends that shout the loudest and mess stuff up (Diane Feinstein vs. NRA). Sigh.

 

[fskimospy]

You aren't accusing Glenn of longing for a class war. You specifically use the term race war. You claimed he accused YOU of being classist.

Christ, most people wait longer than 30 minutes to attempt to revise history.

Do you even know what you're talking about? Did you miss Glenn's post in another thread about the impending race war? When HE brought up 'the ghetto'. I related his attempt to slur people to an accusation of either race or class.

Seriously, you're clueless. So again, go back and read better before saying something else stupid.

 

[glenn1]

5. Institute a (currently prohibited) registry of licensed guns, which would allow us to actually enforce the gun laws we already have. It's insane that we don't do this.

Can you elaborate what gun laws this registry would exactly help with? Many mass shooters purchased their guns legally so it would only be useful after the fact when people are already dead. Plus as Fenixgoon just pointed out in the last post it's unconstitutional to require people who can't legally own a gun to register them for 5th Amendment reasons. Feel free to provide more use cases where you feel it would help but right now I'm honestly having trouble coming up with many.

 

[glenn1]

Do you even know what you're talking about? Did you miss Glenn's post in another thread about the impending race war? When HE brought up 'the ghetto'. I related his attempt to slur people to an accusation of either race or class.

Seriously, you're clueless. So again, go back and read better before saying something else stupid.

Yes, with the sterling history of police brutality that many cities enjoy, I'm sure you could certainly expect all residents of the ghetto to promptly and eagerly turn in their weapons. That will make it so much easier for them to choose to submit willingly and fully to those beatings the police can dish out with their newfound monopoly of force. Bet you're really looking forward to witnessing more televised ass whippings from your city's finest.

 

[fskimospy]

1. I don't think most people would mind universal background checks. The only thing I'd want to see is that NICS is opened up to the public. Right now only FFL dealers can run the background checks, and some of them gouge the shit out of you. It would be nice to have a website where you can just run driver's license info and an SSN, and pay a small fee (say, $10, which is less than most FFL's charge), to run the check and support the maintenance of the database.

They enjoy near universal support, but the gun lobby prevents them from being enacted. It's ridiculous.

2. I think this would be an ineffective policy. If you're the only person in the room with a gun, it doesn't really matter how many rounds are in your mag. You're the only person with a gun. And if you're going on a rampage, are you really going to care about having unlawful magazines?

It matters a lot. The guy who shot Gabby Giffords, for example, was apprehended while attempting to reload. He was using high capacity magazines too. If he was similarly incompetent with a standard size magazine he could have hurt many fewer people. Laws prohibiting these sort of things aren't just about what people are willing to do, but what is available. It would definitely be an improvement.

From a practical perspective as a gun owner, it's annoying as crap to have to reload magazines more often when I'm at the range. And I'd like to point out that police are allowed to have "high-capacity" (aka standard capacity) magazines. If they are allowed to, why isn't the general populace which uses the same firearms? Are we not allowed to protect ourselves the same way? Are cops better than your average citizen in any way? Honestly I don't think so. In fact, CCW holders tend to be charged less for firearms violations than police officers (http://crimeresearch.org/2015/02/co...en-police-and-concealed-carry-permit-holders/
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...op-as-concealed-carry-permits-soar-/?page=all
- yes the data is limited, and i doubt the site is unbiased, but it's all i got after a quick google and discarded sites that had obvious potential for bias one way or the other).

No offense, but inconveniencing people at the firing range isn't a primary concern for me. As for what the police can have vs. what civilians can have, yes, law enforcement should have access to weapons not otherwise available. I am not surprised that CCW holders have lower rates of crime, although I'd be interested to see how their stats stack up after controlling for demographics?

3. While I don't have anything against "more robust mental health prohibitions", the devil is going to be in the details. When constitutes a mental health prohibition? If you've been diagnosed with something? To what degree? Taking certain medications? (8-10% of the population on antidepressants http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-rise-of-all-purpose-antidepressants/). In theory this is good, but in practice it will be tough.

I agree that coming up with a practical way of enforcing that would be tough, but I would be in favor of a more affirmative screening process. I think there's definitely a case to be made that if you are clinically diagnosed as a depressive your access to weapons could be reasonably limited.

4. No argument here. Many states do have mandatory safety training, but it's really minimal. In MD, for example, you take an online course that's maybe 10 minutes long. That's it. The caveat to that is that it shouldn't cost cost anything - that amounts to a poll tax on exercising the right to bear arms.

I'm down for state sponsored free training as a public health measure, but to be clear poll taxes only apply to polls. There's no constitutional prohibition whatsoever against fees for owning a gun.

5. Many states have gun registries, but they haven't been particularly useful. What purpose would the registry serve? Why does a state need to know when a right is exercised? (in the case of voting, obviously it's because you only get 1 vote and you need to vote in your state....).
In MD, for example, the state maintains a database of ballistic prints on shell casings from all handguns sold in the state through FFLs, in case a ballistic analysis needs to be done. The problem with this is that the database has been used only 6 times (2000-2005), and in those cases it was inaccurate. So MD is paying a lot of money for...nothing in return basically.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16475-2005Jan17.html

I've sinced moved from Maryland and California - both states where I had to register my firearms or otherwise become a criminal. So what good does having that information get them now that I'm gone?

One of the biggest problems law enforcement runs into when looking at illegal gun trafficking is that they have no ability to trace gun transactions, etc. A nationwide registry would be WAY more useful than an in-state one.

Perhaps the greatest irony is that criminals are not required to register their firearms, as that would be a violation of their 5th amendment rights. This was upheld in Haynes vs US

It's not really a problem I think. Criminals can't be prosecuted for not registering their weapons, but they can be prosecuted for illegally possessing a weapon, which amounts to the same thing. People not prohibited from registering their weapon could be prosecuted for not registering. It wouldn't be perfect, but it would be a big improvement.

So while I don't agree with you 100%, I would say that there's definitely common ground to be had. It's the extremes on both ends that shout the loudest and mess stuff up (Diane Feinstein vs. NRA). Sigh.

Thanks for reasoned and thoughtful response! No joke, so while I don't agree with you on a lot of this your post is very much appreciated.

 

[glenn1]

They enjoy near universal support, but the gun lobby prevents them from being enacted. It's ridiculous.

I'm sure you would likewise find near universal support for screening sales of automobiles to chronic drunk drivers; that doesn't mean that once implemented that people would still support it once the PITA factor kicked in. The benefit of preventing a sale to the occasional habitual drunk isn't worth the extra hassles it creates for the other 99.99999% of sales.

It matters a lot. The guy who shot Gabby Giffords, for example, was apprehended while attempting to reload. He was using high capacity magazines too. If he was similarly incompetent with a standard size magazine he could have hurt many fewer people. Laws prohibiting these sort of things aren't just about what people are willing to do, but what is available. It would definitely be an improvement.

There's already 100s of millions if not billions of high-cap magazines out in the wild already so it's kinda pointless, but I'd trade this trivial point for other concessions if you'd just allow gun clubs/shooting ranges to provide high cap mags to patrons. You're not going to shoot up Gabby Gifford while in a lane shooting holes in paper targets.

No offense, but inconveniencing people at the firing range isn't a primary concern for me. As for what the police can have vs. what civilians can have, yes, law enforcement should have access to weapons not otherwise available. I am not surprised that CCW holders have lower rates of crime, although I'd be interested to see how their stats stack up after controlling for demographics?

No offense, but inconveniencing abortion seekers with rules mandating admitting privileges, etc. isn't a primary concern for pro-lifers either. It just means you're both self-centered pricks whose concerns don't extend beyond yourself when it's a right you don't exercise. Being an asshole isn't an argument for something.

I agree that coming up with a practical way of enforcing that would be tough, but I would be in favor of a more affirmative screening process. I think there's definitely a case to be made that if you are clinically diagnosed as a depressive your access to weapons could be reasonably limited.

Yeah, do something first regardless of how little you've thought about how to actually implement just to say you did something. Typical.

I'm down for state sponsored free training as a public health measure, but to be clear poll taxes only apply to polls. There's no constitutional prohibition whatsoever against fees for owning a gun.

There's no constitutional prohibition against exercising most rights, but we don't do it because again *we're not assholes* who want to fuck with other people just because we don't like what they do. Then there's you.

One of the biggest problems law enforcement runs into when looking at illegal gun trafficking is that they have no ability to trace gun transactions, etc. A nationwide registry would be WAY more useful than an in-state one.

We don't track problems like money laundering at the individual transaction level either. A person selling a single firearm isn't conducting "illegal gun trafficking" basically by definition, any more than someone bringing a single round of ammunition to Iran isn't engaged in arms dealing.

It's not really a problem I think. Criminals can't be prosecuted for not registering their weapons, but they can be prosecuted for illegally possessing a weapon, which amounts to the same thing. People not prohibited from registering their weapon could be prosecuted for not registering. It wouldn't be perfect, but it would be a big improvement.

Why the hard-on for prosecuting someone for not registering? Again, what problem do you think you're trying to solve?

 

[Fenixgoon]

They enjoy near universal support, but the gun lobby prevents them from being enacted. It's ridiculous.

Agreed

It matters a lot. The guy who shot Gabby Giffords, for example, was apprehended while attempting to reload. He was using high capacity magazines too. If he was similarly incompetent with a standard size magazine he could have hurt many fewer people. Laws prohibiting these sort of things aren't just about what people are willing to do, but what is available. It would definitely be an improvement.

On this one I'll disagree, simply because it will affect so few instances that it is almost irrelevant. A limited study by the FBI after the expiration of the 1994 AWB found that in most cases, fewer than 10 rounds were ever fired at the scene of the crime (along with the fact that the 94 AWB had no meaningful impact on violent crime - https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/204431.pdf. I imagine the effectivity would be in fractions of a percent, if at all. And like you said, the guy was incompetent at reloading. If he had been competent, he could have hurt people with 10rd mags just the same.

No offense, but inconveniencing people at the firing range isn't a primary concern for me. As for what the police can have vs. what civilians can have, yes, law enforcement should have access to weapons not otherwise available. I am not surprised that CCW holders have lower rates of crime, although I'd be interested to see how their stats stack up after controlling for demographics?

With limited exceptions, why shouldn't I be able to protect myself the same as a police officer (aka 'peace officer'). Remember, the police aren't the military. They're not fighting a war. (Or are they with the 'war' on drugs :hmm
Why would demographics play a role in either police or CCW holder crime rates? Geographics (is that what you meant?) otherwise I wouldn't have any expectations one way or the other.

I agree that coming up with a practical way of enforcing that would be tough, but I would be in favor of a more affirmative screening process. I think there's definitely a case to be made that if you are clinically diagnosed as a depressive your access to weapons could be reasonably limited.

I don't know what current laws are, but the only thing I can think of is that if a mental health professional thinks you are a threat to yourself or others, then you get flagged in the system for purchasing firearms. As far as removing the firearms someone currently owns, that becomes a much more difficult thing to argue - once the government takes something, it doesn't like giving it back (see civil forfeiture with "drug related" cases). And that's where I see the problem - restoring someone's rights.

I'm down for state sponsored free training as a public health measure, but to be clear poll taxes only apply to polls. There's no constitutional prohibition whatsoever against fees for owning a gun.

:thumbsup: while technically not a poll tax, it is also a general term for any tax or monetary levy placed on exercising a right. i was using the latter

One of the biggest problems law enforcement runs into when looking at illegal gun trafficking is that they have no ability to trace gun transactions, etc. A nationwide registry would be WAY more useful than an in-state one.

Serialized firearms can be traced to an FFL, and there are very strict record keeping requirements. If criminals are at all smart, they've ground off the serialization to make the firearm untraceable. While this would make it illegal to possess (the exception being home-made firearms which are not required to be serialized), you can't trace it back any further than the person in possession (unless they talk, obviously).

It's not really a problem I think. Criminals can't be prosecuted for not registering their weapons, but they can be prosecuted for illegally possessing a weapon, which amounts to the same thing. People not prohibited from registering their weapon could be prosecuted for not registering. It wouldn't be perfect, but it would be a big improvement.

I see it as a problem because criminals have it better than law abiding citizens. This notorious measure in Washington DC would have had firearms owners treated just as bad or worse than sex offenders, and I'm not kidding.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-gun-registration-law-ruled-unconstitutional/
-registered guns be re-registered every three years.
-a gun must be physically brought to the D.C. police headquarters in order to registered.
-persons seeking to register a gun must pass a test about firearms laws.
-prohibition on registering more than one handgun per month.
-fingerprinting and photographing requirements (upheld as constitutional)

That's insane and a ridiculous burden lawfully exercising their rights.

Thanks for reasoned and thoughtful response! No joke, so while I don't agree with you on a lot of this your post is very much appreciated.

:thumbsup: sometimes P&N can be a decent place. Sometimes!