Is gun control even possible in America?

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

No, that hasn't been proven. What's been strongly argued is that SOME KINDS of gun control are counter-productive. "Gun control" is WAY too broad a term, which was the entire point of my argument.

Agreed. I'm a right winger but I do believe in some sort of controls. Not controls that screw over law abiding citizens, but just look at our airports today. Now I think there are retarded things like a no fly list, but things like metal detectors and bomb detection scanners are a good thing. Of course some people get out of control with the term "control" and do stupid things like ban liquids on flights, etc etc which is not what I'm for.

Certain things like background checks, documentation should be necessary when you're purchasing a firearm. After all the primary purpose of a firearm was to shoot something/someone. This isn't the same as buying a car which typically takes paperwork from the DMV too, and while cars kill people, they were never designed to do that. So why do we regulate some things more heavily than others? In the medical device industry we're all about traceability. Every product that ends up in a doctor's hands can be traced to a certain lot and a certain minute in manufacturing and the damn operator who screwed up. When it's a matter of life and death I think traceability is good. I don't see how this steps on the 2nd amendment.

 

[Rainsford]

Agreed. I'm a right winger but I do believe in some sort of controls. Not controls that screw over law abiding citizens, but just look at our airports today. Now I think there are retarded things like a no fly list, but things like metal detectors and bomb detection scanners are a good thing. Of course some people get out of control with the term "control" and do stupid things like ban liquids on flights, etc etc which is not what I'm for.

Certain things like background checks, documentation should be necessary when you're purchasing a firearm. After all the primary purpose of a firearm was to shoot something/someone. This isn't the same as buying a car which typically takes paperwork from the DMV too, and while cars kill people, they were never designed to do that. So why do we regulate some things more heavily than others? In the medical device industry we're all about traceability. Every product that ends up in a doctor's hands can be traced to a certain lot and a certain minute in manufacturing and the damn operator who screwed up. When it's a matter of life and death I think traceability is good. I don't see how this steps on the 2nd amendment.

On the topic of traceability, I'm a big fan of ballistic fingerprinting being done when you purchase a gun. I can't really see how it would impact the rights of law abiding citizens, but it would make crimes committed with firearms hopefully much more traceable.

 

[nonlnear]

The instant the second amendment is interpreted to apply specifically to guns, the entire debate over whether civilian arms should be controlled becomes moot. By agreeing to a discussion about "gun control", the high ground of the verbatim second amendment has already been surrendered to the grabbers. After that it is only a matter of degrees.

So to answer the OP's question: Given that the public discussion of the second amendment as it pertains to daily life as an American civilian is construed as pertaining to guns, gun control is not only possible, it is inevitable.

 

[xj0hnx]

On the topic of traceability, I'm a big fan of ballistic fingerprinting being done when you purchase a gun. I can't really see how it would impact the rights of law abiding citizens, but it would make crimes committed with firearms hopefully much more traceable.

It's completely ineffective because it literally takes only a few seconds to change a barrel, and only a few more seconds to change a firing pin. On a revolver it would work, but there's a LOT of automatics out there.

 

[Rainsford]

It's completely ineffective because it literally takes only a few seconds to change a barrel, and only a few more seconds to change a firing pin. On a revolver it would work, but there's a LOT of automatics out there.

Well if every barrel was fingerprinted, that wouldn't help.

That said, your logic is flawed. Just because there are ways around things doesn't mean they are "completely ineffective". Is it a perfect solution? Maybe not...but it could help, and since I can't see how it tramples on the rights of law abiding gun owners, I don't see a good reason NOT to do it.

 

[bruceb]

I don't think it's possible to have "gun control" as pro-2nd amendment people mean the term (taking away everyone's guns), but I DO think we can significantly improve our record in keeping guns away from people who shouldn't have them.

Background checks, waiting periods, ballistic fingerprinting, etc, are all things that can dramatically reduce gun crime without impacting the right of law abiding citizens to own guns to protect themselves, hunt, or target shoot. There is a good balance point, "gun control" doesn't have to mean taking away all the guns OR "hitting what you aim at".

Good idea, except these type of rules already exist in most states. Now granted there are some areas where you can literally walk right in, buy a gun of any kind and have it to use in less than 1 hour. Criminals, who are not supposed to buy, own or use guns, can always get them. And what they get are usually more powerful than what the law abiding citizen can buy.

 

[piasabird]

Close all the gunshops tomorrow. Dont you believe this can happen? Isnt this what happened to the jews.

Step one Disarm.
Step two Identify.
Step three time to go to the gas chamber.

 

[Brainonska511]

Close all the gunshops tomorrow. Dont you believe this can happen? Isnt this what happened to the jews.

Step one Disarm.
Step two Identify.
Step three time to go to the gas chamber.

........

 

[Zebo]

You can control anything you want with draconian enough powers.

i.e. Get caught with a gun death for you and immediate family for not notifiing feds when turn in was required. Barring that no. Too many guns too many PVC tubes buried

 

[Zebo]

On the topic of traceability, I'm a big fan of ballistic fingerprinting being done when you purchase a gun. I can't really see how it would impact the rights of law abiding citizens, but it would make crimes committed with firearms hopefully much more traceable.

a) guns cost more due to testing and cataloging of ballistic fingerprinting infringing on poor folks rights to bear
b) give me 1 minute and a wire brush and steel file and I'll un-fingerprint any firearm so it's ineffective anyway.

 

[Zebo]

Well if every barrel was fingerprinted, that wouldn't help.

That said, your logic is flawed. Just because there are ways around things doesn't mean they are "completely ineffective". Is it a perfect solution? Maybe not...but it could help, and since I can't see how it tramples on the rights of law abiding gun owners, I don't see a good reason NOT to do it.

That's what people say about abstinence only education.

 

[Rainsford]

a) guns cost more due to testing and cataloging of ballistic fingerprinting infringing on poor folks rights to bear
b) give me 1 minute and a wire brush and steel file and I'll un-fingerprint any firearm so it's ineffective anyway.

A) By that logic, shouldn't the government subsidize gun purchases completely? After all, quality firearms are expensive...that infringes on the "rights" of poor people too, no? But if it REALLY bothers you, don't add it to the gun cost, fund it with tax money...that will spread it out more evenly.

B) Does anyone actually do this? There might not be a database of ballistic fingerprints in every state, but it IS a method for matching bullets to guns in criminal cases. If it's SO easy to defeat, shouldn't this technique never be useful to law enforcement?

C) What ideas do you have for suggesting reducing gun crime? The problem with the gun control debate is that NOBODY wants to compromise. Gun nuts want free guns with every fillup at the gas station, with no way to trace who owns what, and they want to be able to buy an anti-tank rocket launcher if the mood strikes them. And gun "control" people want to make sure you can't own anything more dangerous than string, because guns, knives, sharp rocks, KILL PEOPLE.

Never mind law abiding citizens who defend themselves with guns. The 120 lb woman will do FINE against a 200 lb attacker without one. And for the gun nuts...could they BE less concerned about the thousands of gun related deaths we see in this country each year? OK, maybe banning guns isn't the solution. But there sure is a fucking problem, how about some ideas from the NRA instead of juvenile tough guy posturing.

 

[Zebo]

A) By that logic, shouldn't the government subsidize gun purchases completely? After all, quality firearms are expensive...that infringes on the "rights" of poor people too, no? But if it REALLY bothers you, don't add it to the gun cost, fund it with tax money...that will spread it out more evenly.

B) Does anyone actually do this? There might not be a database of ballistic fingerprints in every state, but it IS a method for matching bullets to guns in criminal cases. If it's SO easy to defeat, shouldn't this technique never be useful to law enforcement?

C) What ideas do you have for suggesting reducing gun crime? The problem with the gun control debate is that NOBODY wants to compromise. Gun nuts want free guns with every fillup at the gas station, with no way to trace who owns what, and they want to be able to buy an anti-tank rocket launcher if the mood strikes them. And gun "control" people want to make sure you can't own anything more dangerous than string, because guns, knives, sharp rocks, KILL PEOPLE.

Never mind law abiding citizens who defend themselves with guns. The 120 lb woman will do FINE against a 200 lb attacker without one. And for the gun nuts...could they BE less concerned about the thousands of gun related deaths we see in this country each year? OK, maybe banning guns isn't the solution. But there sure is a fucking problem, how about some ideas from the NRA instead of juvenile tough guy posturing.

I don't really care for the term "gun nuts" ...I mean the SC ruled it a constitutional right. You would not say "free speech nuts" or "anti-torture nuts".. Also, the whole reason the 2nd Amendment was to be able to overthrow a police state oppressive govt which we are woefully unprepared for currently with pee shooters. So yeah anti-tank rockets should be allowed.

Anyway problem is we don't take care for people in this country... it's a win big lose big country... and when people lose everything with no hope they lose it. Also we need more discipline and harsher punishment for those acting outside law once we start caring about people.

 

[NoWhereM]

Give everyone a gun. Problem solved. Gun control is hitting what you aim at.

Everyone knows this. Some people just don't want to admit it.

 

[nick1985]

Gun nuts want free guns with every fillup at the gas station, with no way to trace who owns what, and they want to be able to buy an anti-tank rocket launcher if the mood strikes them.

Did you know the 2nd amendment gives us the right to bear arms but not ordnance, rendering your argument null and void?

Have a great day!

 

[xj0hnx]

Well if every barrel was fingerprinted, that wouldn't help.

That said, your logic is flawed. Just because there are ways around things doesn't mean they are "completely ineffective". Is it a perfect solution? Maybe not...but it could help, and since I can't see how it tramples on the rights of law abiding gun owners, I don't see a good reason NOT to do it.

No, you logic is flawed because there's already millions of guns, and barrels out there. There would be a market for non-fingerprinted barrels filled with in hours. Not only that but they can already match a used bullet to the gun it was fired from, fingerprinted or not they have to HAVE the gun.

 

[zsdersw]

To answer the OPs question I have to ask two more: how much "gun control" and what kinds of control? If the answer is anything resembling an absolute, the answer is a definite "NO".

We can argue for pages and pages on this forum about why we think "gun control" should be less or more, but it's entirely academic.

I'm a libertarian (small "l", not big "L")... I rarely believe government-enforced control and government-imposed restrictions on freedom are good ideas. It's not a good idea with guns. I'm also very much against government-imposed protection from the stupidity of our choices.. so I'm against gun control in general on that basis as well.
______________________________________

Side commentary:

Too often (though not necessarily on this forum) gun nuts wrap themselves in the cloak of personal freedom and the Constitution, while ignoring personal freedom and the Constitution on other issues.. some of which are closer to me as a member of the GLBT community.

If you have a double standard on personal freedom and think you should be able to own as many guns as you want but don't think two dudes or two women getting married should be allowed or recognized by government in tax, legal, and medical concerns, you're an idiot.

 

[daishi5]

Well if every barrel was fingerprinted, that wouldn't help.

That said, your logic is flawed. Just because there are ways around things doesn't mean they are "completely ineffective". Is it a perfect solution? Maybe not...but it could help, and since I can't see how it tramples on the rights of law abiding gun owners, I don't see a good reason NOT to do it.

It was my understanding that firing a lot of rounds through a weapon will change its fingerprint, so that a "fingerprint" is only good until the weapon has seen more use. The type of round fired would make a big difference two, pure lead rounds like in my father-in-law's black powder rifle won't do much to his barrel (but the ramrod will). Steel jacketed rounds would be much faster. On top of that, during the cleaning of the barrel, the "fingerprint" can change a bit. It really depends on how accurate a fingerprint match needs to be.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

A) By that logic, shouldn't the government subsidize gun purchases completely? After all, quality firearms are expensive...that infringes on the "rights" of poor people too, no? But if it REALLY bothers you, don't add it to the gun cost, fund it with tax money...that will spread it out more evenly.

B) Does anyone actually do this? There might not be a database of ballistic fingerprints in every state, but it IS a method for matching bullets to guns in criminal cases. If it's SO easy to defeat, shouldn't this technique never be useful to law enforcement?

C) What ideas do you have for suggesting reducing gun crime? The problem with the gun control debate is that NOBODY wants to compromise. Gun nuts want free guns with every fillup at the gas station, with no way to trace who owns what, and they want to be able to buy an anti-tank rocket launcher if the mood strikes them. And gun "control" people want to make sure you can't own anything more dangerous than string, because guns, knives, sharp rocks, KILL PEOPLE.

Never mind law abiding citizens who defend themselves with guns. The 120 lb woman will do FINE against a 200 lb attacker without one. And for the gun nuts...could they BE less concerned about the thousands of gun related deaths we see in this country each year? OK, maybe banning guns isn't the solution. But there sure is a fucking problem, how about some ideas from the NRA instead of juvenile tough guy posturing.

Bolded for truth. It seems those who want guns don't want one ounce of control. It sometimes feels like it's more difficult for me to walk through the airport for my next flight than to purchase a gun. Every ounce of control seems to be anti-2nd amendment. Yet things like cars, plane travel, etc. you gotta jump through hoops. It's not like they were implemented to prevent you from driving or to purchase a car or to get on a plane. They were implemented for security or other reasons. The fact that it's harder doesn't mean you can't do it still. And in America we understand it is a NECESSITY to drive such that idiotic DUIers often thing it is their "right" to drive.

Fact is with items such as guns, there needs to be some control. Some sort of traceability. That's a minimum. Everyone loves to talk about how ballistic fingerprinting can be circumvented, blah blah blah. People can do under the table stuff, etc. This doesn't change the fact that there should be some sort of documentation.

Just like buying a goddamn hard drive comes with a serial number that you could look up on WD or Hitachi's website and see how much of a warranty you still have left.

I think there just needs to be balance. We don't need idiotic legislation banning "assault weapons" or whatever or banning handgun sales to law abiding citizens, but at the same time we should have some basic documentation/traceability that accompanies firearms that can be used when things get out of control.

 

[spidey07]

DleRium,

You're trying to address the crime aspect, right? Law abiding citizens, whose purchase is tracked and recorded, don't use weapons to commit the huge majority of gun crimes. Those are commited with "illegal" weapons, meaning there is no way to tie the current "owner" of the weapon to the gun.

But i've got a great idea. We should make murder illegal. Or even better, we should make any crime penalty MUCH harsher if a firearm was involved.

The right to keep and bear arms is a Fundamental Civil Right. That means it's exactly the same as free speech so any and all regulation or laws involving it MUST stand up to strict scrutiny. Any attempt to control guns is by law exactly the same as trying to control free speech. That is the main reason we are not going to see more gun control, we are going to see much, much less.

 

[piasabird]

Gun ownership is a right that is guaranteed under the constitution of the United States. It is not a privlige. States have no right to do anything which makes it harder to obtain guns or ammo. Sure maybe we should not sell guns to minors, and maybe everyone should not carry guns into any establishment which sells Alcohol, but after that it should be up to a business if they allow guns into their place of business. Everyone should be able to own a gun unless they are a convicted felon or mentally unstable. People should be allowed to own a gun so they can protect their property or to hunt for food, or engage in Shooting Sports at safe locations.

Common senes should be applied here. We dont live in a police state. The reason we should be allowed to own firearms is to prohibit the government from becoming too powerful. Next thing you know no one will be able to own weapons and the police will start treating everyone as a criminal. There has to be a deterrent against the police and the government from abusing their power.

You can not really trace guns because a private citizen has the right to sell his/her firearms to others. People can also make their own firearms or buy parts and assemble their own. It is stupid to even try. You could try to do this but it will just cause a lot of paperwork. All you will do is create a secondary black market. There already is a secondary black market for guns and the cops can not control it. Criminals just get law abiding citizens to pruchase their guns for them now. Either that or they purchase stolen weapons on the street. Police also can not keep up with the number of licensed gun dealers we have today. You can sell guns out of your garage or out of your trunk as long as you keep records of who you sold the guns to.

 

[daishi5]

Fact is with items such as guns, there needs to be some control. Some sort of traceability. That's a minimum. Everyone loves to talk about how ballistic fingerprinting can be circumvented, blah blah blah. People can do under the table stuff, etc. This doesn't change the fact that there should be some sort of documentation.

Just like buying a goddamn hard drive comes with a serial number that you could look up on WD or Hitachi's website and see how much of a warranty you still have left.

I think there just needs to be balance. We don't need idiotic legislation banning "assault weapons" or whatever or banning handgun sales to law abiding citizens, but at the same time we should have some basic documentation/traceability that accompanies firearms that can be used when things get out of control.

The history of gun control makes any form of tracking or registration program very unlikely. Both Chicago and D.C. implemented gun registration systems to allow them to track the weapons and required guns be in the registry. Later, the cities closed the registries, creating a gun-ban through a requirement to register the weapon while not allowing anyone to register. The same tactic was used for automatic weapons. They must be registered with the federal government, but the federal government won't accept registrations.

We also don't trust gun control laws because all too often the laws are targeted based on emotions and not any form of public benefit. The assault weapons ban focused on cosmetic features, not any capabilities. For example, I believe the single feature that was shared amongst most banned weapons was a bayonet mount. How many bayonet rampages have there been in the last century? The closing of the automatic weapons registry was also based upon fear of the scary "automatic" gun mowing everyone down. The closing of the registry prevented more guns from being registered, but registered guns are only known to have been used in 2 crimes resulting in 3 deaths since 1932 (or somewhere around there). One of those crimes was committed by a police officer with his registered service weapon.

 

[olds]

Q. Is it possible to have gun control in the United States of America?

A. Yes. As soon as we get rid of that silly little piece of paper called "The Constitution".

 

[xj0hnx]

The same tactic was used for automatic weapons. They must be registered with the federal government, but the federal government won't accept registrations.

The closing of the automatic weapons registry was also based upon fear of the scary "automatic" gun mowing everyone down. The closing of the registry prevented more guns from being registered, but registered guns are only known to have been used in 2 crimes resulting in 3 deaths since 1932 (or somewhere around there). One of those crimes was committed by a police officer with his registered service weapon.

Huh? Class III firearms, select fire, short barreled rifles, suppressors, Any Other Weapons, sawed off shotguns, etc ...are controlled under the 1934 National Firearms Act by the Treasury, and enforced through the BAFTE. Anyone that can legally own a handgun, or rifle can purchase a Class III weapon, they only need the $200 for the tax stamp, and a background check. What was stopped was in 1986 they passed the Firearms Owners' Protection Act saying no new automatic firearms could be sold to civilians, and you can only buy post '86 automatic firearms if you are a SOT, military, or LE (for LE and military, that's not individuals, but their units). This is why the price of full autos is so high, ridiculous actually.

 

[daishi5]

Huh? Class III firearms, select fire, short barreled rifles, suppressors, Any Other Weapons, sawed off shotguns, etc ...are controlled under the 1934 National Firearms Act by the Treasury, and enforced through the BAFTE. Anyone that can legally own a handgun, or rifle can purchase a Class III weapon, they only need the $200 for the tax stamp, and a background check. What was stopped was in 1986 they passed the Firearms Owners' Protection Act saying no new automatic firearms could be sold to civilians, and you can only buy post '86 automatic firearms if you are a SOT, military, or LE (for LE and military, that's not individuals, but their units). This is why the price of full autos is so high, ridiculous actually.

Oops, sorry I may not have been very clear, all of those bans I listed Chicago, D.C. and Automatic weapons banned new weapons, but let people keep the old weapons.