Gun Control

[DrPizza]

Personally, I'm against gun control. Though, I am in favor of better background checks, including mental health issues. On that note, a person living near me who I had known for a few years had been in and out of the psych unit at the hospital. In the fall, during hunting season, he took his own life just a hundred yards or so from where I usually sit (I wasn't out that day.) He should never have had a gun, and I believe that with a history of mental illness, having threatened to kill himself in the past, etc. - stuff like that should have disqualified him from owning a gun.

As far as "assault weapons," it's foolish. First of all, "assault weapons" are less deadly than semi-automatic rifles. Very few people would ever take an AR15 out deer hunting. Why? Because it's not deadly enough to deer. They're good for coyote hunting though. If I shoot a deer in the shoulder with a hollow point, I'm going to lose all of the meat in both shoulders - there won't be anything left. Further, the effective range of many hunting rifles that would be used for, say, deer, is much greater than the effective range of most "assault" weapons. In fact, my range with the 30.06 is limited only by the glass in my scope. At 300 yards, I'm certain of my shot. I'd be comfortable shooting at 400 yards.

Secondly, banning weapons based on cosmetic features is probably the most illogical reason to ban something. I cannot figure out how someone can argue in favor of banning pistol grips. (Please argue this point if you disagree.) They don't improve the weapon's effectiveness.

Thirdly, on the limit on magazines. If I'm protecting my farm from a pack of coyotes, limiting the number of shots I can take at a group of running animals reduces my effectiveness. Likewise, limiting the speed at which I can shoot my rifle (semi-automatic) severely impacts the ability to defend my farm against predators. Not that I should need a reason for more than (in NY) 7 shots. I find it incredibly annoying to think that my magazine for my .22 cannot be loaded with more than 7. It's annoying enough as it is to keep swapping it out with 10.

Fourth: limits on ammunition. I've taken both sons out target shooting for fun when they were little. Both were excellent shots. I'm not ashamed to admit that even at the ages of 10 and 12, they could consistently group their shots tighter than I could. But, we could easily burn through a box of 500 rounds in an afternoon. With the three of us, it's 33 shots per round.

Fifth, our founding fathers made it quite clear what the purpose of the 2nd amendment was. It's not so that the government has superior firepower over the people; but rather, so that the people would be able to stand up to the government if it ever came down to that.

(I just thought I'd have a thread here, waiting for the new members to join in on.)

 

[Crono]

I'm all for gun control as far as assault weapons, but if you ask me concerning all the intricacies of what qualifies, I wouldn't be able to give you hard answers.

The bigger problem is when trained and disturbed individuals (like Dorner) with grudges get a hold of guns legally or illegally, and it's not necessarily assault rifles that pose the largest threat. A lot of times individuals on killing sprees carry multiple weapons, and I doubt an AR is going to make such a person that much more deadly.

Thorough background checks and identification of mentally disturbed individuals seems the way to go, without causing undue limitation for those wishing to bear arms for legitimate reasons. I don't think the second amendment should be a blank check to own any and all types of weapons without restriction, though.

And one thing will remain true regardless of where you stand on gun control: you can't legislate away crazy (not terribly politically correct to say, but it's pithy). I want to blame our culture, but much blame falls on individuals, families, and communities failing to help people with mental issues, and on top of that warning signs often are ignored when someone who feels wronged start taking steps and plans attacks. When someone feels for weeks, months, and years enough bitterness and hatred to fuel a rampage, it's almost always the case that they vent either to friends and/or via websites, forums, and social networking.

We used to think of these shootings as being perpetrated by complete loners with no contact with the outside world, but that's not the case. Most of the time these people have circles of friends, and though they may alienate them and become more withdrawn later (itself a strong warning sign) they usually talk about or otherwise express their frustrations long before they start "shopping" for weapons.

And just to cover all bases, there should be a self-imposed ban on media coverage of hostage situations as well as the sordid details of the individuals who commit random shooting sprees. We need to stop treating news as entertainment and stop feeding the sick egos of those looking to go out in a blaze of glory. I don't want to see or hear about some murderers manifesto. Especially if it means some other equally twisted person is inspired by it. There's a reason these shootings (since Columbine, it seems to me) have become almost commonplace. If we the people and they the media had any dignity and compassion as a whole we'd stop it now. Yes, the media has a responsibility to cover newsworthy items, but they are also selective by necessity. It shouldn't be a shield when they have a greater responsibility to not promote violence. And in these kinds of situations, I think that's exactly what's going on, even if it isn't their intention.

 

[jpeyton]

I support no additional laws concerning firearms themselves. No firearms or magazine bans of any kind.

We can strengthen the existing laws by making background check data more current, and cross-referencing that data with mental health records. I don't believe in universal background checks or registries.

 

[CrackRabbit]

I'm about where Dr. Pizza is, the real fact of the matter is no matter how good of a background check system that might be implemented there will always be those that can slip through the cracks and still be able to purchase a weapon while mentally unstable.

However, I do think that a background check program could help stop the 'low hanging fruit' so to speak.
To be effective though it would have to be two pronged, the first part would be the checks themselves that would be cross referenced with a database of people with mental health issues that should not be allowed to purchase.
The second would be massive support system to the mental health profession to help identify those with mental issues early and get them the help they need before they get to a point where they want to purchase a firearm.

 

[randomrogue]

I have mixed feelings. Banning guns is clearly not going to work. Prohibition of Alcohol, Drugs, Prostitution, etc has not worked. It's never going to work. It's part of our culture and there's no real need to ban all guns. That will make matters worse.

However I don't feel like we need to have anti-personnel arsenals at the disposal of the general population. Hunting is part of our culture and any weapon that's good for hunting is ok in my book. A high caliber semi automatic weapon though is not needed for anything we have in North America. I have friends who hunt bear and boar with a composite bow and a revolver.

Self defense? The man who taught me how to use a gun and a bow was a green beret, a sheriff, and a black belt in a few disciplines. I have 2 family members that are in law enforcement. I never took a liking to weapons but I've learned a few simple things. Your chances of defending yourself with a gun really aren't that good in most cases. You're better off learning how to avoid confrontation or running. After a certain distance your chances of hitting a moving target with a pistol are very low. I used to have a book on weapons since I was traveling into a very bad part of the world. It listed all the most common weapons that you would run across and what your best defense was against them and what your best offense was with them. The thing I took from it was that regardless of which weapon you used they had downsides. Unless you're a professional your chances of being able to defend your family with a weapon is going to be rather low compared to just getting out of the house, having an alarm system, and letting law enforcement deal with it. Home invasions with someone home are practically nil so it's not something I'd really worry about. If you're going to worry about it become a marksman or whatever the equivalent is with a handgun/shotgun. Are you prepared to use a carbine in your home? Is that feasible? Learn how to shoot a moving target in the dark with your weapon of choice and be damn good at it. You'll also want to learn how to defend yourself without a weapon so that you don't get overpowered. Real life conflicts aren't like in the movies. They are super quick. Can you effectively get your gun, get your ammo, run out and hit a moving target in the dark before they overpower you? It's not so easy. Worse if they're armed too. Can you hit a target in the dark, possibly moving, that's shooting at you? If you have kids you're going to instinctively want to run to them and not have a fixed position. It's going to be difficult. Get out of the house!

I could comment on ammo restrictions, better background checks, and all that but to me the big problem we have is our healthcare system. How can we possibly address gun violence without solving our healthcare problem? If everyone had access to mental health care and they were properly treated, monitored, and locked up if necessary we would surely reduce some of these massacres. After that deal with school bullying. Then you can start looking at gun violence.

 

[Murloc]

I don't think banning anything would be useful.
Just close the obvious loop holes to rules like gun shows purchases and make a background/mental health check obligatory to get a permission to own, with a shall issue method.

For private sales of gun, make the seller request a copy of the permit but don't hold them responsible for making sure it's not a fake since that's outside their power and would need to bring in the government in the sale, which would make everything too complicated and costly.

This stuff wouldn't impair gun ownership and it's something fast that doesn't cost too much to do and people would easily agree on this.

Leave open/concealed carry rules to individual states, since that doesn't change the situation for the whole country and local culture varies wildly on this subject.

Secondly, solve the root of the violence problem instead of tackling its symptoms, otherwise you end up like the UK where you can't even buy a kitchen knife but chavs and jihadists still rule the streets. That's just dystopic and proves that banning the instruments of violence doesn't stop the violence. The strong inequality is behind your violence problem in my opinion. Of course, no one is ever gonna do anything about it, US culture is individualist and for max personal freedom and nothing is going to change that, but every coin has a flip-side (in this case, violent crime) and people should acknowledge that you get the whole package, not just the good parts of it.
I'm pretty sure the anti-gun advocates tend to be socialists too so there's no hypocrisy in this regard, but they should shift the political debate away from guns and towards the real theme which is the structure of the society, otherwise they'll just look naive like now.
The healthcare problem brought up by randomrogue is a subset of this issue.

 

[Newbian]

As far as "assault weapons," it's foolish. First of all, "assault weapons" are less deadly than semi-automatic rifles. Very few people would ever take an AR15 out deer hunting. Why? Because it's not deadly enough to deer. They're good for coyote hunting though. If I shoot a deer in the shoulder with a hollow point, I'm going to lose all of the meat in both shoulders - there won't be anything left. Further, the effective range of many hunting rifles that would be used for, say, deer, is much greater than the effective range of most "assault" weapons. In fact, my range with the 30.06 is limited only by the glass in my scope. At 300 yards, I'm certain of my shot. I'd be comfortable shooting at 400 yards.

Thirdly, on the limit on magazines. If I'm protecting my farm from a pack of coyotes, limiting the number of shots I can take at a group of running animals reduces my effectiveness. Likewise, limiting the speed at which I can shoot my rifle (semi-automatic) severely impacts the ability to defend my farm against predators. Not that I should need a reason for more than (in NY) 7 shots. I find it incredibly annoying to think that my magazine for my .22 cannot be loaded with more than 7. It's annoying enough as it is to keep swapping it out with 10.

The biggest issues I have seen around here are these two combined.

Plain and simple the average person does not need a assault rifle with a 30+ magazine you can empty in a few seconds yet it's available to the point some people feel they have to have it.

Yes there are special circumstances but if you need something like this for such as the reason as you pointed out then there needs to be some kind of higher requirement then if you have the cash for it.

Personally I would love to see some kind of training requirement also for people that wish to own guns as we require a driving test yet nothing for owning a weapon like a gun.

I remember back when I was in High School the DNR would do testing like that to get a deer license or you could take a study hall for a few days over a week or two as a lot of the family's around here hunted. But these days very few people actually get any training before buying a gun and no one has taught them anything so the is a cause of many accidental issues.

 

[randomrogue]

Personally I would love to see some kind of training requirement also for people that wish to own guns as we require a driving test yet nothing for owning a weapon like a gun.

The 2nd amendment is a RIGHT and not a PRIVILEGE. So it's not going to happen.

However I would recommend that everyone get training since having a gun without being properly trained and vigilant about keeping your skills honed will give you a false sense of security.

 

[Newbian]

The 2nd amendment is a RIGHT and not a PRIVILEGE. So it's not going to happen.

However I would recommend that everyone get training since having a gun without being properly trained and vigilant about keeping your skills honed will give you a false sense of security.

The problem with that is then all the suggestions for background checks and such can be ignored because it is said to be a right in that view and then used to prevent any fixes from taking place that may deny a person to be able to purchase a gun legally.

Granted most of the recent gun control issues is with the recent violence and training will not prevent that kind but education would help to fix a lot of the accidental shootings.

 

[shortylickens]

The biggest issues I have seen around here are these two combined.

Plain and simple the average person does not need a assault rifle with a 30+ magazine you can empty in a few seconds yet it's available to the point some people feel they have to have it.

Yes there are special circumstances but if you need something like this for such as the reason as you pointed out then there needs to be some kind of higher requirement then if you have the cash for it.

Personally I would love to see some kind of training requirement also for people that wish to own guns as we require a driving test yet nothing for owning a weapon like a gun.

I remember back when I was in High School the DNR would do testing like that to get a deer license or you could take a study hall for a few days over a week or two as a lot of the family's around here hunted. But these days very few people actually get any training before buying a gun and no one has taught them anything so the is a cause of many accidental issues.

cars are more dangerous than guns.
More mass, more potential energy (powder vs. gasoline), more surface area, can keep going after its killed someone, and also the biggest problem: the average American doesnt respect how deadly a car is.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

The 2nd amendment is a RIGHT and not a PRIVILEGE. So it's not going to happen.

I find this uncompelling as an argument against a training requirement in order to own a firearm.

The text of the second reads:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The phrase "well-regulated" is often abused by gun rights opponents to suggest that this implies that the amendment allows government regulation of gun ownership. As I and others have pointed out in the past, what "well-regulated" really means in historical context is something along the lines of "properly functioning". In Heller, the majority opinion said it meant "the imposition of proper discipline and training."

With rights come responsibilities. Accordingly, I have no problem at all with reasonable training requirements as a condition of gun ownership, either from a practical or legal standpoint. As an added bonus, such a requirement would help screen out people who lack the necessary stability to own guns, and serve to discourage impulse purchases of items that are inherently dangerous if used recklessly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second..._States_Constitution#cite_note-ReferenceA-125

 

[Blackjack200]

I find this uncompelling as an argument against a training requirement in order to own a firearm.

The text of the second reads:

I find appeals to the constitution uncompelling in general when matters of public policy are being debated among laypeople. Sure, if a congressman tried to introduce a bill banning all guns, someone is sure to point out that his legislation violates constitutional law, but it seems to me that at our level, we should discuss what the best policy is, and if its decided that the best policy is inconsistent with the consitution, it is the constitution that should change.

cars are more dangerous than guns.
More mass, more potential energy (powder vs. gasoline), more surface area, can keep going after its killed someone, and also the biggest problem: the average American doesnt respect how deadly a car is.

From the perspective of aggregate harm, this may be accurate. But I am not arguing from the perspective of aggregate harm, rather the perspective of value vs. cost. If you believe the 35,000 odd highway deaths each year outweigh the benefit of the automobile, please make that argument in detail.

If I'm protecting my farm from a pack of coyotes, limiting the number of shots I can take at a group of running animals reduces my effectiveness. Likewise, limiting the speed at which I can shoot my rifle (semi-automatic) severely impacts the ability to defend my farm against predators. Not that I should need a reason for more than (in NY) 7 shots. I find it incredibly annoying to think that my magazine for my .22 cannot be loaded with more than 7. It's annoying enough as it is to keep swapping it out with 10.

FWIW, I find this to be the most compelling type of argument for gun ownership rights, there are legitimate needs for firearm ownership out there, and I respect that.

 

[randomrogue]

Well then by all means require training. Are you going to allow the sales of guns before or after the training though? How often does one have to take classes? Can the state remove guns from someone who cannot pass training?

The process to get a family member's drivers license revoked is pretty tough.

 

[jackstar7]

cars are more dangerous than guns.
More mass, more potential energy (powder vs. gasoline), more surface area, can keep going after its killed someone, and also the biggest problem: the average American doesnt respect how deadly a car is.

Do you then believe that we need stricter regulations regarding automobile ownership and operation?

Or can you explain why you brought cars up to begin with in a gun control thread?

Also, since your last point is just a feeling that you have, why even mention it?


It irritates me each time I see cars brought up as some kind of counterpoint to guns. The differences between the utility and ubiquitous nature of each is what breaks down the comparison for me, and in this case I saw no convincing argument made that the comparison is valuable to this discussion.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I find appeals to the constitution uncompelling in general when matters of public policy are being debated among laypeople. Sure, if a congressman tried to introduce a bill banning all guns, someone is sure to point out that his legislation violates constitutional law, but it seems to me that at our level, we should discuss what the best policy is, and if its decided that the best policy is inconsistent with the consitution, it is the constitution that should change.

Two things...

First, note that I responded with a constitutional argument to a constitutional argument. That is.. I wasn't using the constitution to argue for or against gun control or gun training, simply saying that if one is going to use the constitution as an argument, one must use it in a way consistent with its writing and intent.

Second, I think it may be a great idea in theory to say that "if its decided that the best policy is inconsistent with the consitution, it is the constitution that should change", but it's not terribly practical. Changing the Constitution is exceedingly difficult -- it's designed that way on purpose. The practical likelihood of any amendment in any way changing the second amendment going through is close to zero. Thus, policy discussions predicated on such an event are, themselves, inherently impractical and quickly become exercises in navel-gazing.

(OT ETA: Apparently there's an actual word for "navel-gazing". English has too many words. )

 

[shortylickens]

Do you then believe that we need stricter regulations regarding automobile ownership and operation?

Or can you explain why you brought cars up to begin with in a gun control thread?

Also, since your last point is just a feeling that you have, why even mention it?


It irritates me each time I see cars brought up as some kind of counterpoint to guns. The differences between the utility and ubiquitous nature of each is what breaks down the comparison for me, and in this case I saw no convincing argument made that the comparison is valuable to this discussion.

HE brought up cars.
Please dont make the same BS lack of logic/lack of data arguments in the debate thread. We are trying to rise above that.
Thank you.

 

[jackstar7]

HE brought up cars.
Please dont make the same BS lack of logic/lack of data arguments in the debate thread. We are trying to rise above that.
Thank you.

Good day, sir.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Let's leave aside who brought up cars.

Is it a valid comparison or not? On what basis?

I think arguments can be made in both directions... in fact, I could argue either side myself. But I talk too much already, so... let's hear 'em.

 

[DrPizza]

The idea of training has been brought up. The right to bear arms is the 2nd right in the Bill of Rights, so I'm not sure it would be Constitutional to make training a prerequisite for ownership. Though, if you think back to the time the Constitution was written, I would suspect that many adult males owned firearms AND passed down their knowledge to their children.

I think it's interesting that for many of our other rights, students are educated in school. Social Studies teachers often illustrate the process of voting to students; many schools doing mock votes so students go through that experience and know what to expect. When I was in high school, we even had one of those voting booths where you pulled the levers, etc. And, if students turn 18 while in high school, they get assistance in registering to vote.

Gun education - why NOT teach firearm safety in schools? Hunters (at least/especially in NY) have to go through a lengthy course before getting a hunting license. As I recall from my own hunter safety program, we did handle long guns, albeit very briefly. But, you left that course knowing very well the safety rules for guns: treat ALL guns as if they are loaded, even if you know you unloaded it yourself. NEVER point a gun at something you don't intend to destroy. Know your target AND BEYOND. Etc. Could this also instill a little more respect toward firearms?

Why not teach these rules in schools?? Wouldn't they help instill a little more respect for firearms?

 

[OVerLoRDI]

I think the restrictions that are typically proposed, i.e. bans on "assault weapons", magazine sizes and calibers is the wrong way to go about it. I'd even go so far as to say that gun ownership restrictions in general are the wrong way to approach the problem. The issue is that laws are followed by lawful people, which criminals or the deranged are inherently not.

This is the part where I start to struggle

Encourage responsible gun ownership to act as a deterrent, to the point of making it a civic duty to receive training. If criminals knew that more people were carrying, that confidence and power that a gun gives them would be eroded. They would have to think a bit more before they act.

However the problem is that now we have more armed people in the public. Can we confirm they are sound of mind? Can we confirm that they will always be sound of mind? How do we draw the line and say, no you can't own a gun? This is were the mental health arguments don't have me convinced.

Gun restriction won't work, but nor will increased gun ownership. I think increased gun ownership and training is a better approach than restrictions, but I still feel like that is selecting the lesser of two evils.

 

[waggy]

The idea of training has been brought up. The right to bear arms is the 2nd right in the Bill of Rights, so I'm not sure it would be Constitutional to make training a prerequisite for ownership. Though, if you think back to the time the Constitution was written, I would suspect that many adult males owned firearms AND passed down their knowledge to their children.

I think it's interesting that for many of our other rights, students are educated in school. Social Studies teachers often illustrate the process of voting to students; many schools doing mock votes so students go through that experience and know what to expect. When I was in high school, we even had one of those voting booths where you pulled the levers, etc. And, if students turn 18 while in high school, they get assistance in registering to vote.

Gun education - why NOT teach firearm safety in schools? Hunters (at least/especially in NY) have to go through a lengthy course before getting a hunting license. As I recall from my own hunter safety program, we did handle long guns, albeit very briefly. But, you left that course knowing very well the safety rules for guns: treat ALL guns as if they are loaded, even if you know you unloaded it yourself. NEVER point a gun at something you don't intend to destroy. Know your target AND BEYOND. Etc. Could this also instill a little more respect toward firearms?

Why not teach these rules in schools?? Wouldn't they help instill a little more respect for firearms?

agreed.

Shit when i was school we talked about hunting, rifles, bows (i bow hunt), etc . now though it's not a good idea.

 

[OVerLoRDI]

Why not teach these rules in schools?? Wouldn't they help instill a little more respect for firearms?

While I like your idea, and believe in a ideal world it would work wonderfully. I just can see one slip up and the idea back firing. It takes one goof and the whole idea of gun education in public schools is gone.

 

[Blackjack200]

Two things...

First, note that I responded with a constitutional argument to a constitutional argument. That is.. I wasn't using the constitution to argue for or against gun control or gun training, simply saying that if one is going to use the constitution as an argument, one must use it in a way consistent with its writing and intent.

Fair enough, my response was more to expand on your point than counter it.

Second, I think it may be a great idea in theory to say that "if its decided that the best policy is inconsistent with the consitution, it is the constitution that should change", but it's not terribly practical. Changing the Constitution is exceedingly difficult -- it's designed that way on purpose. The practical likelihood of any amendment in any way changing the second amendment going through is close to zero. Thus, policy discussions predicated on such an event are, themselves, inherently impractical and quickly become exercises in navel-gazing.

(OT ETA: Apparently there's an actual word for "navel-gazing". English has too many words. )

I agree that it is not practical or likely today, but if we look at history, a lot of things that were not practical at one point ended up happening later on.

One reason I don't tend to participate in a lot of gun debates is that I've never felt persuaded that the traditional remedies (magazine limitations, assault weapons bans, etc.) have any benefit at all. So if broad restrictions are off the table (which they currently are), I shrug my shoulders and walk away.

If someone wants to suggest regulations or public policy that would permit broad gun ownership rights while simultaneously addressing the problems we have with violence in this country, I'm certainly open to it, but I've never heard anything that I would consider even remotely compelling.

I think it makes the most sense to save pragmatism for the ballot box, and share my views on what an ideal policy would be.

 

[dank69]

Gun control all boils down to one of the most basic philisophical debates:
Do the ends justify the means?

I side with the famous quote "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

We can debate stats about the effectivness of one policy or another until the end of time, but again, it boils down to another basic philisophical question: What is the value of a human life? Even if you believe as I do that a human life is priceless, there are still problems with the idea that "even if we save only one life, the sacrifices are worth it." To start with, that one life saved will eventually die anyway, perhaps even in a more painful way. So now, just saving the life isn't enough, IMO. Now it comes down to remaining life and a debate about the value of a single second of life. Again, I believe that even a single second of life is still priceless, but what about freedom? I also believe that freedom is priceless.

I believe that one second of freedom has more value than a lifetime without it, and anyone who agrees must also be against gun control. We may extend the life of one, or even thousands, but the sacrifice is restricting the freedom of millions. Unacceptable. The only limits on freedom should be on our freedom to negatively affect someone else. That is it. Owning an assault rifle with a 30-round mag does not negatively affect anyone else. Using it against someone does. We need to stick to punishing the crime, not the perceived potential for crime.

 

[jackstar7]

Gun control all boils down to one of the most basic philisophical debates:
Do the ends justify the means?

I side with the famous quote "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

What is the core value in gun ownership? Is it security?