Fair and effective gun control

[Lisa]

With the possibility of the gun laws changing in Canada and the registration fiasco hopefully behind us I am wondering, since our countries are diversely different in their laws, what you would consider fair and effective gun control.

Should waiting periods be put on those that wish to purchase firearms, should there be mandetory back ground checks and mandetory registrations and training. Should you, as a private citizen be allowed to own any type of firearm you wish?

I am curious to know what your thoughts are.

 

[bydand]

I feel that according to the US Constitution we are entitled to own firearms, but, that is not the question really and I don't want to throw the thread off topic. The answer to fair and effective gun control is a very tricky two edged sword. The ONLY people that gun controls affect is the law abiding citizen, to think that any controls will reduce the number in criminals hands is false. They are going to break the law anyway, and gun controls are just a great way for the criminals to be assured that whomever they target will be either unarmed, or under-armed (you know what I mean). Waiting periods (cool-down)sound good, but, if somebody is really pissed off enough to try and kill someone, if it involves going out and taking the time to buy a gun, they just crossed over from "crime of passion" to premeditated murder. Those types are going to do it anyway and why buy a gun that IS going to be traced back, when there are plenty of other methods around (people have found ways to commit bodily harm to others way before guns came into being.) Waiting periods for handguns? same thing really - "What, I can't buy the .357 for 7 days? OK give me that 12 gauge."

On the other hand, what use REALLY does anybody have for a full-automatic weapon? Other than being a riot to fire, there is no real reason for the general population to have access to them. OK, back to original thought, but what if a criminal has one? If you have somebody coming after you with a machine gun, you have pissed off the wrong people anyway.

Fair and effective gun control? buy the best you can, and then practice, practice, practice. Fair, if you cannot afford one, there is a government program for everything else why not subsidize. Effective, ENFORCE the ones already in place. Crank up the punishment to be a real deterant, then follow through!

Sorry for the long rant.

 

[Grenadier]

No waiting periods. Period. They simply don't work, since criminals tend to get their guns illegally. Also, the cooling off theory is flawed. If someone is going to try to kill another person, then he's going to use whatever's at hand.

I do support the instant check system, provided that the data contained within is valid, and that law abiding folks are not stymied by flaws in the system. If someone has a concealed carry permit, and is in good standing, then I don't mind their bypassing the background check entirely, since they've already had their check.

As for full auto weapons, I have no problems with law-abiding folks owning them. If you look at the current law-abiding civilians who own Class III weapons, there has only been one incident of a Class III automatic weapon being used in a crime, and that character was a rogue police officer.

Full auto shoots are fun, and also teach you the proper handling of such weapons. Also, the folks who partake in such shoots are wonderful people, in general, and are always more than happy to educate others on this matter.

The best gun control is performed by severly punishing those who commit crimes. People who commit crimes are often times repeat offenders, and if they were behind bars, they wouldn't be able to commit their crimes against others, plain, and simple. Punishing the law-abiding does nothing to alleviate crime.

Sure, some people might say "Well, look at Japan, where firearms ownership is forbidden, and they don't have nearly the violent crime rate of the US. That's a matter of culture, though.

I can easily flip the coin, and point out the country of Jamaica, where firearms ownership is all but forbidden, yet they have one of the highest rates of violent crime in the world. It all boils down to the culture.

 

[mrhnau]

As for full auto weapons, I have no problems with law-abiding folks owning them. If you look at the current law-abiding civilians who own Class III weapons, there has only been one incident of a Class III automatic weapon being used in a crime, and that character was a rogue police officer.

Full auto shoots are fun, and also teach you the proper handling of such weapons. Also, the folks who partake in such shoots are wonderful people, in general, and are always more than happy to educate others on this matter.

I'll agree with most of your points, except for this one. I think one of the reasons we don't have alot of crimes committed with full auto is that not alot of criminals have easy access to them at this point.

I try hard to think of a practical reason to own one of these guns. You can't really say hunting, since you don't want to totally destroy the animal. For self protection, what can you do with this gun that you can't do with a semi? Or a revolver? you are typically not going to want to shoot the assailant 50 times. normally a small handful would do the job sufficiently. Make access to hollow points easier. That should be sufficient for most decent caliber handguns.

I guess there is the "its fun" factor... however, alot of things could be construed as "fun" but are not legal... illegal drugs, drag racing your car on public streets, sky diving off the empire state building... so I don't see "its fun" as a legitimate reason to make full auto legal.

I think the way its done now is legit... from my understanding, you can have one, but you have some special permit and its pretty much restricted to collectors. I'm not sure if they are disabled or not, but I'd be in favor of letting them be fully enabled...

Criminals have access to enough firearms as it is... I don't want that access to become easier by opening up the supply of full auto. Columbine was rough enough w/out full auto. there are enough crazies for now

just my .02

 

[Cruentus]

With the possibility of the gun laws changing in Canada and the registration fiasco hopefully behind us I am wondering, since our countries are diversely different in their laws, what you would consider fair and effective gun control.

Should waiting periods be put on those that wish to purchase firearms, should there be mandetory back ground checks and mandetory registrations and training. Should you, as a private citizen be allowed to own any type of firearm you wish?

I am curious to know what your thoughts are.

Although the US and Canada are similar, there are some major differences in Canadian culture and society compared to the US. Some of these differences good differences, imo.

One thing that I philisophically disagree with that seems to be prevelent in Canadian policy is the notion that laws should be made for the collective good rather then for the rights of the individual. Now, I am not so anarchist as to believe that society could function without government, nor am I so libritarian to believe that laws shouldn't be made for the betterment of society as a whole.

But, I think that the focus of government needs to be for the protection of individual rights and safety. Canadian policy (and some american policy as well that I disagree with) seems to be focused on what is best for most people (which can be good), but is willing to sacrifice individual rights to achieve that goal (which is very bad). Hence, firearms restriction.

Fact: an inherent human right is the right to self-defense, family, and community.

The above is a human right that exceeds the boundries of government, constitutional rights, and laws. The fact is that weapons, guns in particular, in the hands of criminals are a threat to us today. In order to effectively exercise our rights to self-defense, we need to at least have the ability to own and carry firearms wherever we go, because that is the viable solution against criminal threat. To pass laws that make it more difficult or impossible to carry firearms is to pass laws that hinder our inherent rights as human beings to self-defense.

Fact: laws that take away inherent individual rights are human rights violations.

It should be no mystery that evil dictators who violate human rights have classically placed weapons bans on its citizens

So, the many in the Canadian gov. (and some folks in the US as well) would rather pass laws that they believe will be for the collective good of society, even if it means impeding the individual right of self-defense.

So, what is the action plan or solution?

The answer is in education and lobbying.

Education is the most important. You and others need to be a vioce in your communities, educating people on these points. These are in order from easiest to convince to most difficult (I am guessing):

#1. The belief that gun regulation is better for the collective good is a myth. Most gun regulation does nothing to stop criminals. The focus of legislation needs to be on crime and criminals, not on guns.

#2. Self-defense is an inherent right; the ability to carry guns to effectively exercise that right are a necessity in the modern world. Therefore, gun regulation often can be a human rights violation.

#3. Individual rights need to be protected, despite what one may think is good for society as a whole. The ends often don't justify the means.

Once you and your friends and family are educated on the subject, it is important to lobby to get the facts out there to people in government and voters. You can do this through letters, public events, and by being a part of advocacy groups like the NRA, or GLSDA (the regional group I am a part of).

As far as details; like mag capacity and what should be allowed and what shouldn't be allowed, etc. Those issues are often addressed when analizing the 3 points I have provided, and how they relate to the issue.

Anyways, good luck. It takes a lot of education and work to lead others to change their own minds.

Paul

 

[Lisa]

Great post, btw, thanks Paul.

#1. The belief that gun regulation is better for the collective good is a myth. Most gun regulation does nothing to stop criminals. The focus of legislation needs to be on crime and criminals, not on guns.

Agreed, Agreed, Agreed. You won't get any arguement on that from me, nor many of the people I have spoken to. Punish the criminal, not the law abiding citizen.

#2. Self-defense is an inherent right; the ability to carry guns to effectively exercise that right are a necessity in the modern world. Therefore, gun regulation often can be a human rights violation.

I understand you point and I do believe I agree with you. My original question was, what do you think is fair in regards to gun control. What would you, as a law abiding citizen, like to see take effect to help protect those human rights. Where does fair and just begin and end?

#3. Individual rights need to be protected, despite what one may think is good for society as a whole. The ends often don't justify the means.

Again, I agree. What I have seen of my government is, IMO, are over zealous gun controls. The belief that taking them out of my hands will somehow protect others is, simply put, flawed.

What I would like to see is gun control laws that can be agreed upon by not only the government whose job it is to protect society as a whole but by those citizens who are law abiding.

So what are these things we can agree upon? Mandetory registration and training? Waiting periods? What?

I am curious as to what people think are fair.

 

[Grenadier]

I'll agree with most of your points, except for this one. I think one of the reasons we don't have alot of crimes committed with full auto is that not alot of criminals have easy access to them at this point.

Getting illegal fully automatic weapons isn't too difficult, and anyone with a decent working knowledge of operating a milling machine could easily construct STEN receivers in their basements. I will not discuss any more on this matter, though.

I try hard to think of a practical reason to own one of these guns. You can't really say hunting, since you don't want to totally destroy the animal.

Hunting is irrelevant. You won't totally destroy the animal with submachine gun fire, since those are pistol-caliber bullets. Very feeble compared to even the entry-level centerfire rifle bullets.

For some reason, people seem to think that full auto fire from a submachine gun, such as the infamous UZI, would be more deadly than a blast from a 12 gauge shotgun. The bottom line is, that such full auto fire isn't any more deadly. I can unload a greater volume of lead from my Remington 1100 semiautomatic shotgun in three seconds, than I could with a submachine gun.

For self protection, what can you do with this gun that you can't do with a semi? Or a revolver? you are typically not going to want to shoot the assailant 50 times. normally a small handful would do the job sufficiently. Make access to hollow points easier. That should be sufficient for most decent caliber handguns.

Again, it's not about a need. After all, you don't need to have a car that has more than a certain amount of horsepower, or braking power, or cornering ability. You have the right to buy a car that has more horsepower than you "need." You have the right to buy a performance car, when all you would "need" is a 3 cylinder Geo Metro (or did they finally switch to 4 cylinders?). You have the right to buy a SUV.

As for an actual need, one need only look at what happened in 1992, when the LA Riots occurred. It wasn't uncommon to see a dozen+ attackers trying to barge into your business, in search of looting and arson mayhem enjoyment. For those who say that it's a fluke, guess again...

I guess there is the "its fun" factor... however, alot of things could be construed as "fun" but are not legal... illegal drugs, drag racing your car on public streets, sky diving off the empire state building... so I don't see "its fun" as a legitimate reason to make full auto legal.

If I may, I would like to clear something up here; full auto is already legal, as long as you get a pre-GCA86 full auto weapon, and pay the fees for the Class III permit. If you find a friendly chief law enforcement officer in your area, it's not too difficult to get. Assuming that you can find a friendly CLEO, people who get rejected for Class III permits are going to be rejected from purchasing a firearm anyways.

There is nothing at all illegal about a machine gun shoot, as long as all of the above are in compliance.

I think the way its done now is legit... from my understanding, you can have one, but you have some special permit and its pretty much restricted to collectors. I'm not sure if they are disabled or not, but I'd be in favor of letting them be fully enabled...

Nope. Just the above criteria. They can be fully functional, although some states do impose a few more restrictions. Some restrictions are sillier than others (i.e. Connecticut only allows full auto, no select-fire mode!).

Criminals have access to enough firearms as it is... I don't want that access to become easier by opening up the supply of full auto. Columbine was rough enough w/out full auto. there are enough crazies for now

Again, if criminals really wanted to get fully automatic weapons, it's really not that difficult for them to do so. The best way to stop criminals is to keep them behind bars, so that they can't offend again.

 

[Cruentus]

Great post, btw, thanks Paul.

Thanks!

My original question was, what do you think is fair in regards to gun control. What would you, as a law abiding citizen, like to see take effect to help protect those human rights. Where does fair and just begin and end?

This question is much easier to answer when people are philisophically on the same page. So it is always important to start with the broader issues I mentioned before, otherwise discussion on the details tend to fall apart.

These issues always revert back to the broader issues, but I will explain in more detail.

As to what is fair? Well, any laws passed regarding gun regulation, in my opinion, should fullfill 3 rules. #1. It doesn't impede someones right to self-defense, or defense of their family and community, even in some of the most improbably possible scenarios. #2. It must do something significant to ensure the safety of the public, whether it be to prevent accidents or to fight crime. #3. When rules #1 and #2 conflict,

So, I'll provide some examples of how to apply the above rules.

#1. I would say that a law that requires one to attend a minimum standard safety course to carry in public is reasonable. This is provided that this can be done within a reasonable time frame for anyone who wants to carry (like within a month, give or take a week or so). Why? Well, it fullfills rule #1 first off in that doesn't impede ones rights to self-defense so long as they can take the course in a timely fashion. If anything it actually helps them because by taking a minimum course they will know the safety and legal concerns that they will need, which is always a part of the self-defense picture. And, it fullfills #2 because by knowing the safety and legal issues, they can be held accountable for handling a gun safely. This will prevent accidents or illegal shootings, thus being an effective law for public safety.

#2. I would say that a waiting period or other hurdles to buy a gun or get a permit is not reasonable. It doesn't fullfill the #2 criteria, in that it does nothing for safety or to prevent crime.

#3. Regulating magazine capacity isn't reasonable. Criminals will always have access to larger mags through black market, so it doesn't do a whole lot to for safety or crime prevention first off. But the main reason is rule #1 is violated; the fact is, there are reasonable circumstances (although not probable) where one may need a higher capacity mag for their own defense.

#4. Banning automatic weapons is unreasonable, although this is kind of on the line. Why? Criminals can manually shoot a rifle, pistol, or AK-47, or whatever with enough speed to do plenty of damage. Not to mention, it is easy to rig many guns to shoot auto. Auto's are actually overated; most of what they really do is help you run out of ammo faster. You would have seen the same damage at columbine if they had autos; no more or less. So, banning auto's doesn't actually do anything for safety, thus violating rule #2. Requiring special permits or a safety course for them, provided that one can get the permit reasonably, might be OK, though.

#5. Banning plastic explosives sounds reasonable. Plastic explosives does nothing to really help us in self-defense, because it doesn't equalize anything, and there could be obvious public safety issues.

So, I think you get the idea. If you go with the above principles, you can answer most of your own questions...

Paul

 

[Bigshadow]

I try hard to think of a practical reason to own one of these guns. You can't really say hunting, since you don't want to totally destroy the animal. For self protection, what can you do with this gun that you can't do with a semi? Or a revolver? you are typically not going to want to shoot the assailant 50 times. normally a small handful would do the job sufficiently. Make access to hollow points easier. That should be sufficient for most decent caliber handguns.

I guess there is the "its fun" factor... however, alot of things could be construed as "fun" but are not legal... illegal drugs, drag racing your car on public streets, sky diving off the empire state building... so I don't see "its fun" as a legitimate reason to make full auto legal.

It is so funny how people dance around the whole purpose of having guns and trying so hard not to touch the true meaning behind the right to bear arms and the REAL reason why law abiding citizens SHOULD be allowed ownership of fully auto weapons as well as many other weapons of war.

The fact is, fully automatic weapons in this day and age are a threat to a despotic government. So if the law-abiding citizens of a country can truely fight back then despotism cannot grow and the law-abiding citizens wield real power.

When gun control is legislated it isn't for alltrustic purposes, it is out of FEAR! But it tastes better and is easier for the law-abiding citizens to swallow if it can be wrapped in the blanket of safety.

 

[bydand]

It is so funny how people dance around the whole purpose of having guns and trying so hard not to touch the true meaning behind the right to bear arms and the REAL reason why law abiding citizens SHOULD be allowed ownership of fully auto weapons as well as many other weapons of war.

The fact is, fully automatic weapons in this day and age are a threat to a despotic government. So if the law-abiding citizens of a country can truely fight back then despotism cannot grow and the law-abiding citizens wield real power.

When gun control is legislated it isn't for alltrustic purposes, it is out of FEAR! But it tastes better and is easier for the law-abiding citizens to swallow if it can be wrapped in the blanket of safety.

AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Not that you were preaching, but, you know I agree.

 

[mrhnau]

It is so funny how people dance around the whole purpose of having guns and trying so hard not to touch the true meaning behind the right to bear arms and the REAL reason why law abiding citizens SHOULD be allowed ownership of fully auto weapons as well as many other weapons of war.

The fact is, fully automatic weapons in this day and age are a threat to a despotic government. So if the law-abiding citizens of a country can truely fight back then despotism cannot grow and the law-abiding citizens wield real power.

When gun control is legislated it isn't for alltrustic purposes, it is out of FEAR! But it tastes better and is easier for the law-abiding citizens to swallow if it can be wrapped in the blanket of safety.

Lets take this to the extreme then...

[Sarcasm] why shouldn't I have access to other armaments? I'd enjoy have a rocket launcher, maybe a grenade launcher. I think grenades are fine, since they put power back into the hands of law-abiding citizens. Plastic explosives and other type of munitions should be legalized. same reason. I'd enjoy having a tank or two, perhaps a F-18... if I have the money, why not? It puts power back into the hands of those who deserve it... Walmart would make a killing selling TNT to everyone. Grenades on Isle 2! Price Rollback!
[/Sarcasm]

So, seriously speaking, what limit do you impose? Where do you strike the balance? I'm not a huge fan of gun control myself, but I do understand the logic of limiting things at some point. BTW, this comes from someone having 3 guns, and between father/brother inlaw we have enough to start a small army LOL I'm not a hunter, but I do enjoy going out shooting from time to time. I'd also would enjoy shooting an M1 Cannon, but I also understand that is not safe, practical or legal.

so, that being said... where would you draw the line on legality?

Regarding a "despotic government"... civil wars do happen. However, what I -don't- want is some looney that does not like Bush rolling up to the capital in his tank and wrecking havoc. Regardless of the person in office, there is always going to be someone mentally unstable enough to try stupid things. We still live in a democracy and there is a process for dealing with problems in the government. Go vote! Make your voice heard! Get involved! you can do this WITHOUT a tank or a bomb. I'm not interested in the US turning into something like Iraq right now...

 

[mrhnau]

When gun control is legislated it isn't for alltrustic purposes, it is out of FEAR! But it tastes better and is easier for the law-abiding citizens to swallow if it can be wrapped in the blanket of safety.

Can we apply the same logic to Uranium enrichment in Iran? Or North Korea?

out of pure curiousity, i'd be curious to see what the founding fathers would say. were cannons legal to own personally back then? war was often waged with guns, but when the gattling gun came around, was that legal for people to own? I'm not sure, I'm just asking...

 

[mrhnau]

Just found this...
Gun Control Time Line

its a bit rough, but interesting...

 

[Cruentus]

Rule #3 was when #1 and #2 are in conflict, #1 always trumps #2.

 

[Bigshadow]

Lets take this to the extreme then...

[Sarcasm] why shouldn't I have access to other armaments? I'd enjoy have a rocket launcher, maybe a grenade launcher. I think grenades are fine, since they put power back into the hands of law-abiding citizens. Plastic explosives and other type of munitions should be legalized. same reason. I'd enjoy having a tank or two, perhaps a F-18... if I have the money, why not? It puts power back into the hands of those who deserve it... Walmart would make a killing selling TNT to everyone. Grenades on Isle 2! Price Rollback!
[/Sarcasm]

Why not, we ARE talking about law abiding citizens, aren't we?

So, seriously speaking, what limit do you impose? Where do you strike the balance?
so, that being said... where would you draw the line on legality?

What balance are we talking about? What line of legality? We are talking about law abiding citizens, so what do we have to fear?

Criminals on the other hand should be dealt with severely and quickly. An idea might be... Take for instance, someone who is caught stealing one of those weapons from a law abiding citizen, give'em a horrible death, something that would severely punish those who steal those sorts of things. [sarcasm]This would be a law built on the same priniciples of hate crime laws, instead it is a "special" crime due to it being a theft of an object of "special" importance.[/sarcasm]

We still live in a democracy and there is a process for dealing with problems in the government. Go vote! Make your voice heard! Get involved! you can do this WITHOUT a tank or a bomb.

BTW, I do participate in the federal charades program. But I don't expect much from it. That is a subject for a different thread.

 

[Bigshadow]

Can we apply the same logic to Uranium enrichment in Iran? Or North Korea?

Actually, I personally don't believe that is any business of ours (the USA).

out of pure curiousity, i'd be curious to see what the founding fathers would say. were cannons legal to own personally back then? war was often waged with guns, but when the gattling gun came around, was that legal for people to own? I'm not sure, I'm just asking...

I believe that is yes and yes. It was more controlled by who could afford such things as at that time, it would be like buying an F-18 now.

 

[Cruentus]

lol whew.

One last point, then I have to walk away from MT until next week sometime because I am getting nothing done that I need to get done!

As owning large amounts of firepower, like tanks and such...

Although the point in part of the right to bear arms was so that we would have the ability to overthrow a tyranical Government, you can still draw the line following the rules I illustrated above.

The reason is that if there were a need to overthrow a tyrannical government, we could do so without superior firepower. The objective of the second amendment was not to offer citizens the opportunity to take down the government army, as small groups could never achieve the firepower of a larger army. But it does allow citizen in mass to decide to not follow the tyrannical rule. This is because you could fight back the tyrannical government if they were to try to enforce it without superior firepower. This is because that even in tyrany there is a balance between those and power and the people that has to be maintained; so the tyrannical government can't just send in tanks and bombs and kill everyone, they have to actually round people up and force compliance, not death.

Firearms prevent forced compliance enforced by a tyrannical government.

This issue goes a lot deeper, where we can also talk about how back then each state was supposed to have their own army, and all sorts of historical and philosophical details. But the main point is that a certian amount of firepower allows for both self-defence and for non-compliance to a tyranical force. That is enough to preassure an overthrow. Therefore there is no need or logic behind "we should be able to own tanks or missles if we could afford it."

But I think that gun rights advocates aren't even lobbying for the right to carry that kind of firepower, so it is really kind of a strawman anyways...

Paul

 

[Bigshadow]

Paul, you make great points! Thanks! I still would like to own one of those F-18s... though.

 

[Carol]

Personally, I am a big supporter of states rights.

If Massachusetts wants to have restrictive gun laws and New Hampshire doesn't, I'm all for that.

I don't like gun law decisions being made by Congress

 

[Lisa]

It is so funny how people dance around the whole purpose of having guns and trying so hard not to touch the true meaning behind the right to bear arms and the REAL reason why law abiding citizens SHOULD be allowed ownership of fully auto weapons as well as many other weapons of war.

The fact is, fully automatic weapons in this day and age are a threat to a despotic government. So if the law-abiding citizens of a country can truely fight back then despotism cannot grow and the law-abiding citizens wield real power.

When gun control is legislated it isn't for alltrustic purposes, it is out of FEAR! But it tastes better and is easier for the law-abiding citizens to swallow if it can be wrapped in the blanket of safety.

I agree that all law abiding citizens should be allowed ownership of firearms, I however, don't have your constitution to back me up on that.

So I posed the question as to what laws/guidelines are needed to allow that to happen? I am curious as to what people think are good guidelines to ensure that your right and the rights of others are not violated. What is fair?