Gun Control

[dank69]

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

I don't own a gun so I can't answer that definitively, but I would guess security is high on the list.

 

[jackstar7]

I don't own a gun so I can't answer that definitively, but I would guess security is high on the list.

As would I.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

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.

Funny.

This morning on the radio they were covering two duelling protests at the NY state capitol, one for and one against gun control. The woman leading the pro gun control group said, and I'm paraphrasing here, that even though she had concerns over the way the new bill was passed, "if it saves one life, it was worth it".

People have such amazing differences on this issue.

 

[dank69]

Funny.

This morning on the radio they were covering two duelling protests at the NY state capitol, one for and one against gun control. The woman leading the pro gun control group said, and I'm paraphrasing here, that even though she had concerns over the way the new bill was passed, "if it saves one life, it was worth it".

People have such amazing differences on this issue.

As is the case with just about any philosophical issue. Just like with abortion, you can't "win" this debate, just rehash the same old arguments over and over. You eventually reduce the issue to the point where people have to agree to disagree.

 

[Bowfinger]

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?

We actually did that when I was in high school (many years ago). It was one chapter in phys ed. We were taught gun safety and spent several sessions in an indoor range, shooting .22s. It was a different time, however, and I imagine many people would go ballistic were it suggested today.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

I've been an ardent supporter of the rights of gun owners during these debates over the last few months, both in the context of this forum and in my social/family circle. I asked my friend his thoughts on the matter, and his response surprised me. He supports a ban on weapons based off military assault weapons, ie. the AR-15 or AK-47, even if they are only capable of semi-automatic fire. For why his position came as a surprise, let me give you some background information:

This friend served 6 years in an airborn infantry unit in the Army. He did tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. Obviously, he has weapons training. When he finished his service, he bought several handguns and a shotgun. He has a friend that he met in the Army who lives in the area who purchased a fairly large arsenal upon leaving the military, all legally owned; a variety of pistols, shotguns and rifles, including an AR-15. They get together every few months to go to a local quarry or gun range and fire off a few thousand rounds. Obviously this is someone who enjoys having access to firearms.

So when he told me that he was in favor of banning semi-automatic, magazine-fed rifles, it came as a bit of a shock to me. It almost struck me as hypocritical, given that he likes shooting the AR-15 whenever he gets an opportunity. His response was that he was willing to give up access to firing an AR-15 or AK-47; it was something he could live without. He simply felt the value of owning these weapons was no longer justifiable given their limited purpose, that as much fun as it was to burn through a few hundred rounds in a couple minutes, it didn't make sense to let civilians, even ex-military, own them.

I don't necessarily share that viewpoint, but it did make me adjust my way of thinking on the issue. I'm a firm believer in individual freedoms, and, as dank69 said, "We need to stick to punishing the crime, not the perceived potential for crime." But it struck me as very interesting that someone who personally uses these on a regular basis would be fine with not having access to them anymore if it helps reduce the capacity for violence on a grand scale. Is an individual's right to own something for entertainment* worth preserving if there is a potential danger to others?

*Note that I'm not saying AR-15s and the like are only purchased for entertainment. But my friend made a compelling case that, regardless of why people claim they're purchasing an AR-15 or other rifle styled after an assault rifle (self defense, home defense, etc.), a lot of people do it because they want to go shoot off thousands of rounds with their buddies for entertainment. They enjoy it, and there's nothing wrong with that. But is it a right worth preserving in the context of the 2nd Amendment? He argued "no," I argue "yes." But I'm not as strong in my conviction as I was last month.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

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?

I think this is a good idea. I remember being conditioned in school to be terrified of guns. "If you see a gun, you run, because it will kill you." There was never any further explanation offered, just "guns are always bad, run away, tell an adult." I remember finding a case in my Godmother's closet when I was maybe 9 years old, opening it and finding a revolver, and it freaked me out so much I wouldn't talk for an hour. We condition our children (at least in the city) to be frightened of guns rather than understand how they work, and this conditioning stays with you until something changes it.

I was terrified of real guns well into early adulthood (I would still play with toy guns as a boy, mind you, but the concept of an actual firearm was scary). I remember when my friend (who I mentioned earlier) came over to my house with a large case, opened it, and produced a Mossberg 590. I was a grown man, and I still felt my heart skip a beat in my chest. I had been conditioned my whole life to think of guns as ruthless killing machines. My friend calmly showed me how it worked, how to load it, rack it, strip it and reassemble it (fortunately he didn't fire it; the shock would have killed my mother). He did the same thing a few weeks later with a Colt 1911 pistol. And I realized that my fear of guns was unfounded, a product of conditioning and not being exposed to actual firearms at any point in my upbringing.

I think the more knowledge and experience someone has with something, the more comfortable they become with it, and the less they'll let their background prejudices control them. Dick Cheney was opposed to gay marriage until his daughter came out as a lesbian, and that made him reconsider his position. It's the same thing with guns; someone who has never had any experience outside indoctrination is going to have a hard time understanding a competing point of view. Providing education about guns in school beyond simply, "They're bad, run away," should be a valuable part of a child's upbringing, even if they never use it as an opportunity to pursue gun ownership.

 

[gorcorps]

In regards to training, I found it was TOO easy to get a carry license here in Indiana. With some money and no large problems with the law you will get your license to carry, which is convenient but worries me. I prefer how some other states do it, requiring a general safety course and then a competency/accuracy test in order to get your license. The thought that people are around me with guns they may have never fired before worries me far more than anybody who knows how to use them. Based on the discussions I've had with others around here, most gun owners aren't opposed to the thought either... and the ones that are seem to be opposed more to the thought of paying again when their license was supposed to be "lifetime". I think if Indiana did change to requiring a course, anybody with a current license should get the course for free if not grandfathered in and there wouldn't be as big of a resistance.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

I'm against most gun control laws as they never seldom fix any problems they were designed to solve. I can support background checks (national/state) for all guns sales and the government/states need to make it an inexpensive process, say $5 per background check. If a person is designated as being mentality unstable or incompetent their name/info should be submitted to the national/state background check, the same should happen for anyone convicted of a felony. I'm inclined to include those who brandish or threaten someone with a gun as well.

 

[MovingTarget]

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.

I am not so sure of that due to my personal experience. While in high school around the turn of the millennium, I was a member of the JROTC program. That is where I really gained an understanding and respect for firearms whereas I had no personal experience before. We were taught proper firearm safety and marksmanship techniques by our teachers, who were former military. Granted, they had already made the switch from .22 rifles to high-end air rifles by the time I was in it, but that course can serve as a model for others. The devil is in the details...

What would need to be taught are three things:
1) Proper safety procedures
2) Local and state law regarding the ownership and use of firearms
3) Hands-on training/marksmanship, but only for those that master #1 and 2

Why I do not see this happening is due to funding. To properly run such a course, you would need to pay for the equipment and instructors. You cannot treat such a course the same way you can a PE class. Small class size is a MUST for safety. I simply do not see a state or local district paying enough properly trained people to responsibly teach such a course.

 

[MovingTarget]

I'm against most gun control laws as they never seldom fix any problems they were designed to solve. I can support background checks (national/state) for all guns sales and the government/states need to make it an inexpensive process, say $5 per background check. If a person is designated as being mentality unstable or incompetent their name/info should be submitted to the national/state background check, the same should happen for anyone convicted of a felony. I'm inclined to include those who brandish or threaten someone with a gun as well.

From what I believe the consensus is, you pretty much hit the nail on the head. However, much of what you advocate is considered "gun control" and is currently what most gun control advocates are pushing for. Unfortunately, the term "gun control" has been poisoned in any rational debate.

So, is it fair to say that you are opposed to "firearm regulation" that limits what you can own (think magazine size and other attributes) but not regulation limiting ownership to those meeting certain limited qualifications as determined by courts, as in limits for violent felons or those formally declared mentally unfit?

 

[lotus503]

I am for gun ownership however I think making a more concerted effort to keep guns out of the hands of folks who can not legally own them anyways is a good idea.

As it sits ATF is handicapped in dealing with the problem.

http://www.npr.org/2013/01/08/168889491/gun-control-advocates-say-atfs-hands-have-been-tied

 

[DrPizza]

"if it saves one life, it was worth it"

That's one of the counter-arguments that I find least logical. There are a LOT of things we could do that would "even save just one life" - some would save many, many more lives. Ban tobacco, alcohol, force cars to have governors preventing them from exceeding a certain speed. Heck, even use some sort of GPS enabled governors to keep people from speeding period. E.g., pass a school zone sign during an active time, and your car automatically slows down to the posted speed limit.

Now, I'm not sure if presenting other things that would qualify on a par with banning weapons. But, I'm sure that the majority of people who would make these arguments tend to be people not giving one of them up. "You can't take alcohol away from me. Granted, some people abuse it, drive drunk, but I'm not one of them; I drink responsibly." That exact same thing can be said for the vast vast majority of the million people who currently own "assault weapons." (My estimate based on an average ownership of 1.5 assault weapons of the roughly 1.5 million such weapons owned in the U.S.)

 

[Kelvrick]

I don't own a gun so I can't answer that definitively, but I would guess security is high on the list.

I own many guns and while in reality, security is one of my many justifications for purchasing guns, their actual uses all come down to "sporting" or "fun." In the end, for me, it comes down to freedom. Freedom to decide what I want to do as long as it doesn't infringe on another person's rights or safety. While it makes no sense that I would effectively burn (gunpowder) or destroy (targets) things for no reason other than to see them destroyed and that I could, the choice should belong to anyone who lives in freedom.

Now, freedom aside, it also give people the ability to defend themselves, fend for themselves and while unpopular, anarchist and extremely unlikely, pose as aggressors against a government that they deem to be overbearing.

On the issue of effective regulation, I'm afraid I don't have the answers, but here is what I've come up with so far that could perhaps satisfy both sides. At least for firearms, I do not believe there should be any restrictions on what you can own. I do believe in stiff penalties for anyone who is found negligent though. You obviously can't blame someone for being robbed, but I feel there are steps that can be taken to help ensure responsible ownership.

Training can be very expensive, and any additional financial requirements to owning firearms can be viewed as a class restrictive. But can't training be free? We can tax the firearms themselves to pay for everyone's required training. I know, I just said taxes after talking about financial burdens but hear me out. I said no limits on what firearms someone can own, but what about a limit of tax free firearms? It can be a progressive tax rates. Your purchase of a set number would be tax free and each additional firearm will be taxed to help pay for the training of everyone else. Now nobody has a heavier financial burden to defend themselves or express their freedoms while also being "properly" trained.

Once you get the required training for a class of firearms, you can buy all the ones in that class you want. But if you want to buy something else, you will have to receive training. The self taxing can create a self sustained "training agency."

Regarding responsible ownership, we can do the same progressive requirements. At least here in California, we already have rules requiring locks on guns. We can do the same thing as the taxes. The first few can be locked up using a trigger lock that goes through the action. Once you own more than a certain number, you are required to buy a safe to house the firearms in case of a robbery. The ratings of the safes can increase as the the power or number of firearms goes up.

Once you go over 2, anything rimfire can be housed inside steel "cabinets." Once you go over over 5 or centerfire, you need a "safe." If you want automatic weapons, the safe needs a higher security rating, etc.

My post is already too long for me to go into my thoughts on background checks, mental health, etc right now.

 

[Abraxas]

I've always had very mixed feeling about gun control. It is undeniable guns enable people to kill with much greater efficiency than they would be able to otherwise and at least very likely without ready access to guns among the populace more people would be alive than those who would be killed by being unable to defend themselves or some such.

On the other hand, I really do think the issue comes down to freedom. Every day tens of millions of gun owners demonstrate that guns can be owned responsibly and without incident. Taking away firearms from the people for the people a freedom because that freedom may be misused by another strikes me as fundamentally wrong. Further, I don't like the idea of the state having precedent for taking something away from the people for their own good.

I know this borders on a slippery slope but if guns are taken away for enabling violence and killing, what about video games that according to some are murder simulators, or speaking in such a way as to give people potential ideas on how to carry out an attack (which could affect literature and television/movies), or religious literature that could inspire one to violence? Can you draw a hard line in what the government should take away from the people for their own good and merely what it can take away in the name of their own good? I should think the task very challenging.

 

[momeNt]

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

The text of the second reads:



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

It would require a very big swing in how it currently is interpreted to be able to wiggle into a training requirement on GENERAL gun ownership. Outside of in in-home ownership like Heller, you may be able to argue for training before open or ccw licences are granted, but who is that helping?

Think literacy tests or re-taking a civics tests in order to vote.

 

[ivwshane]

I think a majority of people go about the gun debate wrong. They look for an overall cause and affect rather than breaking the various crime issues down.

For example, a mass shooting is different than a gang related shooting and treating them the same and expecting one law to affect both is foolish.

I think the best example to look at for a balanced approach is alcohol. Banning alcohol didn't make it go away but there were issues that needed to be addressed and there are many alcohol related laws that address the issues differently. Drunk driving is an issue and we have laws specifically related to that. Does that mean drunk driving doesn't happen anymore? No but the number of deaths, have for the most part, declined.
http://www.alcoholalert.com/drunk-driving-statistics.html

You have alcohol laws related to minors to address certain issues, you have laws that regulate where and when you can sell alcohol which address other issues.

None of them stop ALL alcohol related crimes but together they have reduced them.

So in my opinion any new gun laws would need to be well targeted (no pun intended) and made to address particular issues. Background checks are a good start but only a start.

And with regards to the 2nd amendment, the Supreme Court has already ruled that it can be restricted, there are already laws that don't allow for certain types of weapons to be sold/purchased and all most all gun control proposals are just an extension of that law. The problem is that people think that that's all that needs to happen when in fact the issue is more complex than that.

 

[stormkroe]

I think the core issue with gun control is simply that we, as Americans, have a constitutional right to own them and we're VERY hostile to losing our rights.
Second, the reasoning behind the proposed bans has been illogical almost across the board (vilifying AR 15s while allowing much more powerful, deadly, or both, guns to remain out in the open, expecting criminals to abide by the new laws, and so on). Some politicians in favor of bans have admitted its impotence, which in turn shows the anti-ban people that it's merely political pandering.

If there were a way to remove EVERY GUN from the US, gun deaths would disappear. This isn't something that's hard to do, it is impossible. Criminals will forever have access to guns, banned or not. Forever. Banning any gun, now that hundreds of millions have been in circulation for decades (which I'm pointing out to differentiate from assault rifles because obviously criminals have a hard time getting them due to rarety) would be like banning leaves.
To the "if only one life could be saved" tp, the same thing could be said for keeping guns in the hands of law abiding citizens.

I think a majority of people go about the gun debate wrong. They look for an overall cause and affect rather than breaking the various crime issues down.

For example, a mass shooting is different than a gang related shooting and treating them the same and expecting one law to affect both is foolish.

I think the best example to look at for a balanced approach is alcohol. Banning alcohol didn't make it go away but there were issues that needed to be addressed and there are many alcohol related laws that address the issues differently. Drunk driving is an issue and we have laws specifically related to that. Does that mean drunk driving doesn't happen anymore? No but the number of deaths, have for the most part, declined.
http://www.alcoholalert.com/drunk-driving-statistics.html

You have alcohol laws related to minors to address certain issues, you have laws that regulate where and when you can sell alcohol which address other issues.

None of them stop ALL alcohol related crimes but together they have reduced them.

So in my opinion any new gun laws would need to be well targeted (no pun intended) and made to address particular issues. Background checks are a good start but only a start.

And with regards to the 2nd amendment, the Supreme Court has already ruled that it can be restricted, there are already laws that don't allow for certain types of weapons to be sold/purchased and all most all gun control proposals are just an extension of that law. The problem is that people think that that's all that needs to happen when in fact the issue is more complex than that.

The numbers at that link can be slightly misleading simply because they don't tell the whole story. While it's true that alcohol relates fatalities have dropped, so have fatalities in general when accounting for the millions of new drivers on the road each year.
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2010/dv1c.cfm
The biggest contributor would seem to be safer vehicles (crumple zones, 8 airbags, etc) , not stricter alcohol control. More data would go a long way to clearing this up.

 

[ivwshane]

The numbers at that link can be slightly misleading simply because they don't tell the whole story. While it's true that alcohol relates fatalities have dropped, so have fatalities in general when accounting for the millions of new drivers on the road each year.
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2010/dv1c.cfm
The biggest contributor would seem to be safer vehicles (crumple zones, 8 airbags, etc) , not stricter alcohol control. More data would go a long way to clearing this up.

That's correct but crash safety has also improved via laws. Again, comprehensive action is required not the narrow view pro and anti gun supporters seem to be taking (and your post is a perfect example of taking a multi pronged approach).

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Criminals will forever have access to guns, banned or not. Forever.

But banns do increase the cost of obtaining something; and strength of penalty reduces likelihood of behavior.

gang violence would not use many guns if they cost 100x as much and simple ownership of a gun was penalized as "intent to kill".

Taking guns, though, from the populace would fail.

cars are more dangerous than guns.

If saving lives is the dependent variable of interest, then you're right.

But saving lives that are lost without good cause is what's of interest; the deal with the devil for speed and convenience is something we're willing to make. Further, it is emotionally charged to lose one life at the hands of a gun-man; whilst losing a life in a car-wreck where you FEEL like you have control is much less upsetting.

My take:

There is, honestly, two americas: In one the inner city runs red with the blood of poor people paid to live on top of each other; in this america guns are fucking evil. In the suburban/rural america, guns are recreation, a hobby, something almost no one will ever use on another human, and less likely to kill someone than your back-yard pool is.

Look at who's on what side and why: liberals have poor inner-city folks as constants, they have a vested interest in stoping their self-genocide; conservatives have poor-rural and upper-middle suburban and well-to-do city dwellers, the poor-rural is driven by fear, upper-middle lives in a world where guns aren't dangerous, and well-to-do city dwellers rely on others to own guns to protect them.

Maybe my analysis is off; but it seems to me that "common sense" in the poor-urban setting is a whole different thing than "common sense" over in middle-class suburban.

 

[JulesMaximus]

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.

The problem I have with this argument is that cars are used multiple times every single day by millions of people. They are necessary for getting us to and from work, dropping our kids off at school, shopping for necessities. Plus, cars are heavily regulated. You have to have a license to drive one, you have to register it, you get ticketed for violating traffic laws. Plus, a cars primary use is not to kill people.

This is comparing apples to oranges.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

From what I believe the consensus is, you pretty much hit the nail on the head. However, much of what you advocate is considered "gun control" and is currently what most gun control advocates are pushing for. Unfortunately, the term "gun control" has been poisoned in any rational debate.

So, is it fair to say that you are opposed to "firearm regulation" that limits what you can own (think magazine size and other attributes) but not regulation limiting ownership to those meeting certain limited qualifications as determined by courts, as in limits for violent felons or those formally declared mentally unfit?

I don't see how limiting quantities of guns or magazine sizes will do anything more than penalize law abiding citizens. The vast majority of citizens who own guns use them in a lawful manner. There are already many laws on the books that if followed ensure that certain weapons require special qualification for ownership/possession.

I think there should be strict laws concerning felons, violent criminals, and mentally unfit persons that prevent them from owning or possessing any lethal weapon.

 

[Jaskalas]

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

Security for both the individual and for society.

A madman running our government into the ground had better think twice of what an armed anarchy or resistance means to them. It is for everyone's benefit to maintain a functioning civil society. It's the miniature example of MAD between a government and its people.

 

[jackstar7]

Security for both the individual and for society.

A madman running our government into the ground had better think twice of what an armed anarchy or resistance means to them. It is for everyone's benefit to maintain a functioning civil society. It's the miniature example of MAD between a government and its people.

So at what point are we secure enough? What threshold must be crossed?

Does not owning a gun mean one is hurting the country?

 

[Jaskalas]

So at what point are we secure enough? What threshold must be crossed?

To continue with my presumption, perhaps when our leaders fear us and in return try to keep things civil. Not necessarily for their own personal safety, but for the damage it'd cause to the nation, to their reputation, for a disaster to occur on their watch.

Imagine the French Revolution... if the government had modern firearms and the people had nothing. Would there still be a King Louis today? It's not as simple as saying we intend to harm anyone, or that the military has superior firepower. Look at Afghanistan, we lose to a vastly inferior force. Not because we can't kill them - but because the cost they inflict on us.

There's an argument to be made about keeping the people armed. Gun control needs to respect that and focus on public safety. Many of the current laws try to apply this principle of securing them without banning them. We should continue to look in this direction to address public concern.

Moreover there's a far greater societal issue to address.

Does not owning a gun mean one is hurting the country?

One does not miss a tree from the forest. I know... I live in one.