To answer your original question, Frigid, I'll quote the two poll questions:
People do not have access to guns unless they can prove to the government that they have a compelling reason to be allowed an exemption.
People have access to guns and it is the burden of government to prove that some individuals should not have them...
I can agree with both sentiments, in that I think having access to guns (or any weapon, really) is something that should be available to people so long as they're responsible and non-violent (IE they're not likely to go out and commit crimes).
I do think that people though have to demonstrate good faith in order to earn that privilege. I do not think it's necessarily a right to own weapons, even though I think everyone has a right to self-defence. (The two terms are not entirely equivalent)
I can see where both beliefs can be taken to ridiculous extremes. The first option can lead to extremes where it becomes a bureaucratic hassle to own a licence. The second option can lead to extremes where guns are oversaturated in the market. Of the two, I think the first option is more acceptable.
Ideally, there should be a comfortable middle-ground where both parties can meet and greet, such that the citizen in question has successfully shown that he can own and wield a firearm responsibly. I do not favour nanny-state hand-holding bureaucratic nightmares. But I find the analogy that owning a firearm is equivalent to being allowed to drive a vehicle by having a motor licence a valid one.
BTW, the formatting of the poll questions was annoying me, so I experimented with fixing it but I found to do so would require rewording each question, so I decided to live with it and leave the poll questions unchanged. It's no big deal, but I was in an anal retentive mood just now.
That's why your OP has the 'edited by Stofsk etc' line at the bottom, even though it's identical to what it was before.
See.. this is why I don't discuss Gun Ownership or Gun Control. *sigh*
Why is it that I seem to be one of the few RATIONAL people when it comes to gun control? As Nitram said, there is a limit to what the government can do, and yes the cliche does have a ring of truth when the NRA chants "Outlaw Guns, only Outlaws will have them".
The whole problem with Gun Control is walking that fine line so that responsible people can get them, and 'outlaws' cannot. No matter what rules are brought up, someone will be unhappy, because there IS no way to truly prevent outlaws from getting a gun without making it damn near impossible for everyone else as well.
Right now, the rules are about the best they can be; the problem is compliance. I mentioned earlier the local gun & pawn shop that sold a pistol later used in a murder, and the fact that the owner should have realized that something was wrong with how the buyer was acting. Hell, she supposedly had no idea what kind of weapons she was purchasing, she was just getting whatever her watcher was pointing out: a total of about 4 pistols.
At that point, the shop owner should have asked himself (or her) what she needed that many pistols for, or simply should have refused the sale. He didn't. Why? Maybe because they were paying in cash? That should have been another tip-off, dammit!
Until gun shop owners start actually exercising the rights that Gun Control law gives them, this scenario will repeat in another town, another shop, another pistol used in a crime. Trade shows are particularly bad about this: some don't even keep records of who bought a weapon! Some try to make that last-minute sale before the show shuts down, and who has time for a three-day wait then? There goes one of the biggest rules of gun control, simply for the profit. Investigations into trade shows have found countless violations: falsified paperwork, illegible or fake name and addresses, guns with ID numbers filed away or modified. The list goes on.
So where does Gun Control start, folks? The Governement? The Merchants? or the Owners?
Dogs are Man's Best Friend
Cats are Man's Adorable Little Serial Killers
So be it. If saying "NO" means being alone, then to hell with love, with romance, with marriage, and all the shit life keeps pumping at me. I'll walk alone, but with freedom and a healed pride.
I do think that people though have to demonstrate good faith in order to earn that privilege. I do not think it's necessarily a right to own weapons, even though I think everyone has a right to self-defence. (The two terms are not entirely equivalent)
I'm a US constitutionalist, so I'm going to have to say I disagree with your belief that it is a privilege to be earned. This is however an honest disagreement that I don't think we'll be able to iron out frankly.
Also Stofsk, don't attempt to change poll questions because you don't like them. The wording is excaltly how I want it. Next time I expect you to speak to me about it first.
"it takes two sides to end a war but only one to start one. And those who do not have swords may still die upon them." Tolken
I do think that people though have to demonstrate good faith in order to earn that privilege. I do not think it's necessarily a right to own weapons, even though I think everyone has a right to self-defence. (The two terms are not entirely equivalent)
I'm a US constitutionalist, so I'm going to have to say I disagree with your belief that it is a privilege to be earned. This is however an honest disagreement that I don't think we'll be able to iron out frankly.
I understand that. Your constitution is also much different from Australia's, and there is a heavy emphasis on 'rights and duties' in mine.
Also Stofsk, don't attempt to change poll questions because you don't like them. The wording is excaltly how I want it. Next time I expect you to speak to me about it first.
Duly noted. Just for the record, and for transparency's sake, I didn't even change the wording at all. I was only editing the punctuation, but that was out of line without consulting you, so I apologise.
I offer no excuse, other than I was trying to help.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the arguments can be summarized like this so far:
Cynical Cat:
(1) there is already licensing scheme to drive cars, so there is no reason why there shouldn't be license for guns as well.
(2) there is no reason why people who can afford guns suddenly cannot afford a license.
(3) gun is not as important as, let say, cars.
Petro:
(1) guns-related accidents are fewer that that of cars, so a license is simply not worth it from cost-benefit ratio.
(2) the cost of obtaining gun-ownership license put an extra burden on the poor.
(3) gun is important.
And yeah, there's still arguments about the effectiveness of putting gun education in public school, but I guess that's already straying too far. My stance on this are simple: such education is actually better than nothing, but whether it's actually sufficient is another thing.
But back to three points I described above, I have some questions for both sides:
(a) Okay, so gun's fatality rate is lower than that of car, but there is also a fact that it is always easier to shoot someone than running him over with a car. Remember that gun is a weapon --a tool whose purpose is to harm the target (yes, you can also use a forklift as weapon, but it is not its intended purpose). So while the actual fatality rate is lower, gun is still potentially more harmful than cars. Now how would you consider this in regards to the issue being discussed?
(b) Let's say that gun-ownership license is really that expensive that it put a noticeable burden to gun owners; does it mean that we should have no license at all, or the licensing fees should be lowered so that the poor can also afford it? (See, it it is mandatory, then it should also be affordable.)
(c) When someone is caught driving while drunk, then his driver's license may be suspended or revoked. Now how should we handle someone who's caught carrying gun while drunk?
(d) How important gun is, compared to, say, car? How often we have a life and death requirement for a gun? How often we have situations that cannot be handled with a baseball bat or a pepper spray? And ultimately, is the importance of gun sufficient to deny a licensing scheme?
Make no mistake; I love guns, and if Indonesia allows gun ownership, I'll definitely have one. But I also want a peace of mind of knowing that the gun owners around me are proven competent to handle it --and knowing myself is also competent so I won't hurt others by accident.
Look, I know this is a personal anecdote, so it won't really matter too much to the whole discussion, but I'm merely putting this as perspective; Indonesia has a very loose licensing scheme on motorcycles (in contrary to cars). Thus, a major portion of motorcyclists on public road are speeding around without driver's license at all. I don't know the exact number is, but I know that fatalities causes by motorcycles is higher than that of cars (in fact, there were two occassions where I almost became a roadkill myself). And I believe it's reasonable enough to assume that the high rate of fatalities is related to the fact that those motorcylists don't have driver's license.
Now that's just motorcycle; I don't want to imagine if the same thing happens with guns here. Although I have to admit that, when crossing a road, sometimes I can't help but thinking that gunning down such motorcyclists is a good idea.
So be it. If saying "NO" means being alone, then to hell with love, with romance, with marriage, and all the shit life keeps pumping at me. I'll walk alone, but with freedom and a healed pride.
Cynical Cat wrote:Yes, because adding something as controversial as gun handling to the mix when it has so many problems (Like No Child Left Behind and the inner city nonfunctionality) that are far more urgent.
So let's divert funding and attention to a new program costing billions.
Let's add in that this will also require a full gun registry. Paranoid nuttery aside, this will also cost billions and worked really swimmingly for you guys, didn't it?
Oh, and while we're at it let's add in all the other stuff you apparently feel should be licensed such as tractors, forklifts, lawn mowers, and so on.
Then explain to me how we're going to balance the budget while in the process of holding everyone's hands.
Yes, I have. Where is this three hundred magic dollars coming from? Talk about pulling bullshit out of thin air.
A rough aggregate of the current cost of training+licensing fees for a CCW in Texas. Without any other numbers, we can only look at similar systems already in practice.
I'm not the one who is saying its magically incompetent to do this. And however fucked US public education is, its still better than no public education at all and far less fucked than US private health care.
I've offered a solution. We disagree as to the effectiveness, but what I see when I see a new Federal agency is more opportunities for graft, abuse, and incompetence, so you'd better do a damned good job in explaining to me why there is a vital and pressing need instead of just stepping back and saying 'Something needs to be done here.' We can do something, we have an infrastructure in place, the NRA has plenty of certified instructors who'd be willing to step up and do it, many of whom would be happy to do so on a pro bono basis given that they make similar contributions of time and energy to the Eddie Eagle program.
The "government can't be trusted to liscence guns"(but it can for cars and defence apparentely) and "three hundred dollars liscencing fee" out of the blue and you're accusing me of poisoning the discourse? Please.
Given that there is a strong (in terms of exposure and political pull if not numbers) faction out there dedicated to the removal of firearms from the public with an acknowledged tendency for mendacity and incrementalist tactics, I have every right to be dubious.
Furthermore, I find it entirely laughable that a staunch leftist can't see how governmental systems can be perverted and distorted by the usual agents of greed, power lust, and stupidity. I mean, it's not like we have a perfect vortex of all three residing in the White House right now. Oh, wait.
So if you're going to put another potential means of fucking with the lives of the citizenry into their hands, you damn well better have an urgent, pressing need. Given that people die all the time from all sorts of reasons, you're going to have to convince me that firearms mishaps are more worthy of such attention than other accidental causes of death and maiming. I'd take the same tack on any issue involving massive expansions of governmental power.
Best part was that it wasn't part of the reasoning I presented, either. I told you when I mentioned it that I was arguing on other merits, but you just couldn't wait to take cheap shots over my libertarianist streak.
That's not what I'm pissed about, though. Have I once waved away any of your arguments by going 'Whatever, Nanny-state commie boy'? No. At every point where we've disagreed, I've supplied my reasoning, whereas you've ignored my points and accused me of being mentally disturbed and idiotic, fuck you very much.
I know you've been on a zen kick lately, but frankly you need to just fucking use the douche and stop being the douche.
Okay, OKAY. Both of ya to your corners and take a deep breath. No more fucking name calling. If y'all cannot be civil and impersonal over this, take it to AIM or PMs. But I am not having an Admin and a Mod turn a thread into a flamethrower contest. Don't fight me on this I'll win.
"it takes two sides to end a war but only one to start one. And those who do not have swords may still die upon them." Tolken
Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman wrote:(a) Okay, so gun's fatality rate is lower than that of car, but there is also a fact that it is always easier to shoot someone than running him over with a car. Remember that gun is a weapon --a tool whose purpose is to harm the target (yes, you can also use a forklift as weapon, but it is not its intended purpose). So while the actual fatality rate is lower, gun is still potentially more harmful than cars. Now how would you consider this in regards to the issue being discussed?
My point is that licensing would have utterly no effect on criminal usage, so therefore the entire debate amounts to 'What is the level of accidental usage, and what steps should be taken, if any, to mitigate this?'
I don't see the accident rate rising to the level of requiring a multi-billion dollar process, the likely creation of a new Federal agency (or worse yet putting into the hands of the fuckwits in the ATF), etc.
(b) Let's say that gun-ownership license is really that expensive that it put a noticeable burden to gun owners; does it mean that we should have no license at all, or the licensing fees should be lowered so that the poor can also afford it? (See, it it is mandatory, then it should also be affordable.)
That would eliminate one of my points. That said, we'd pay the price on the back end in the form of taxation, but at least it would be allowing the people who tend to need them most to be able to get firearms.
(c) When someone is caught driving while drunk, then his driver's license may be suspended or revoked. Now how should we handle someone who's caught carrying gun while drunk?
Yank their concealed carry permit if they're carrying while impaired. Outside of Vermont and Alaska, you already have to have a license in order to carry a weapon concealed on your person. Furthermore, in most states you're -only- allowed to carry a weapon if you conceal it.
(d) How important gun is, compared to, say, car? How often we have a life and death requirement for a gun? How often we have situations that cannot be handled with a baseball bat or a pepper spray? And ultimately, is the importance of gun sufficient to deny a licensing scheme?
I rank guns right with cars, myself. Obviously you have far more day to day necessity for cars, but when you need a gun you tend to need it really bad and right the fuck now.
On the matter of guns vs. pepper spray or baseball bats, sure, when cops only carry baseball bats or spray. Seriously, the reason cops carry firearms is because they are the most effective tool. Tasers are one shot and can be blocked by clothing, baseball bats require a modicum of strength to use and if the other guy's packing a gun, you're screwed. Pepper spray? I've been sprayed. It hurt like hell and I was very uncomfortable, but if I'd been of a mind to carry on and commit serious bodily harm upon the person using it, I would've been able to do so.
Make no mistake; I love guns, and if Indonesia allows gun ownership, I'll definitely have one. But I also want a peace of mind of knowing that the gun owners around me are proven competent to handle it --and knowing myself is also competent so I won't hurt others by accident.
As I pointed out to Cat, I've grown up surrounded by people who owned weapons. I live in a town where I assume that somewhere around a third or more of the people I meet on the street are probably armed. I've only known one person who has managed to be accidentally shot.
I won't base this purely on my anecdotal experience, though. Statistically, gun accidents happen, but they're not a plague on society. This attitude arises because 'Guns are DANGEROUS.' Sure, person to person they are, they're damn well fucking designed to be. But if we go around slapping licensing and regulation on every fucking dangerous item in our lives, we'll end up paralyzed in red tape. There is dangerous shit in this world. We can't protect every sparrow that falls. Tragedies happen.
Look, I know this is a personal anecdote, so it won't really matter too much to the whole discussion, but I'm merely putting this as perspective; Indonesia has a very loose licensing scheme on motorcycles (in contrary to cars). Thus, a major portion of motorcyclists on public road are speeding around without driver's license at all. I don't know the exact number is, but I know that fatalities causes by motorcycles is higher than that of cars (in fact, there were two occassions where I almost became a roadkill myself). And I believe it's reasonable enough to assume that the high rate of fatalities is related to the fact that those motorcylists don't have driver's license.
Now that's just motorcycle; I don't want to imagine if the same thing happens with guns here. Although I have to admit that, when crossing a road, sometimes I can't help but thinking that gunning down such motorcyclists is a good idea.
But we are in that situation here, no licensing and so on, so we can speak to what happens. And it's not 'People shooting themselves and each other on accident 24/7.' It happens, it's regrettable, it's tragic, but no matter how hard we try, life is going to throw regrettable and tragic events at us. We cannot make ourselves completely safe, and we damned well shouldn't bury ourselves in stupidity in the effort to do so.
frigidmagi wrote:Okay, OKAY. Both of ya to your corners and take a deep breath. No more fucking name calling. If y'all cannot be civil and impersonal over this, take it to AIM or PMs. But I am not having an Admin and a Mod turn a thread into a flamethrower contest. Don't fight me on this I'll win.
There.
It's much better when you're yelling at both of us. I finally feel at home.
1) So the $300 includes not only the hypothetical liscencing fee but lumping together a bunch of other existing costs as well? Not honest.
2) Yes, I know you distrust the government. Your emotions aren't actually an arguement, as much as you would like to think so. You bring them in, I will call you on it.
3) As for criminal use, recklessness is criminal and it occurs all the time. How much will it cut back? I don't know. Responsibility should be encouraged, not discouraged as a general principle.
4) Not every little thing needs to be liscened in response to your forklifts question, but neither of us considers guns or cars a little thing.
5) a) You haven't been talking to me. So how would you know if I was practicing zen
b) I don't practice zen. If you had actually been talking to me for more than five minutes over the past year, you might have known that.
c) You can call me a commie douche if you want, you paranoid, libertarian nutjob, but I demand an apology on the zen.
It's not that I'm unforgiving, it's that most of the people who wrong me are unrepentant assholes.
Cynical Cat wrote:1) So the $300 includes not only the hypothetical liscencing fee but lumping together a bunch of other existing costs as well? Not honest.
I've repeatedly referenced the training fees for CCWs. Are you proposing that the training be made free? It certainly isn't for drivers licenses.
2) Yes, I know you distrust the government. Your emotions aren't actually an arguement, as much as you would like to think so. You bring them in, I will call you on it.
Because... there's no validity to distrusting the government? There's no demonstrable history of governments abusing their citizens? The Bonus Marchers would like a word with you. So would the Kent State protestors. Of course, those filthy undesireables in Gitmo aren't citizens, so fuck them, hey?
My point of view is entirely rational based on historical precedent. It's not feelings that drive this, it's logic. You have yet to dispute the logic of it, but rather simply ignore the points I raise as to why I distrust the government, instead treating it as some sort of possibly deranged absurdity.
I trust men and women I know, not institutions.
3) As for criminal use, recklessness is criminal and it occurs all the time. How much will it cut back? I don't know. Responsibility should be encouraged, not discouraged as a general principle.
First, explain to me where my position on this in any way encourages recklessness. Have you ever been shooting with me? I once made the mistake of not ascertaining the level of firearms safety of a shooting companion and had him fire multiple rounds from behind me, and have since then never even handed a weapon to a person without determining their knowledge of safe handling procedures. So not only have I -not- encouraged irresponsibility, I've gone to great lengths to enlighten people on the subject. Hell, I'd happily do the volunteer teacher gig for the shooting education program. I'd be perfectly cool with putting my money where my mouth is.
Now, when negligent usage results in injuries or fatalities, it should be prosecuted as such. I made my distinction quite clear earlier, however, that what I'm referring to in distinguishing between accidents and crime is more properly the difference between negligent handling and malicious intent.
4) Not every little thing needs to be liscened in response to your forklifts question, but neither of us considers guns or cars a little thing.
Responsible use of any deadly machinery whether it is a car, a forklift, or a gun.
I certainly don't consider guns a little thing, but I'm not going to get hysterical over one cause of accidental death among a plethora. Certainly not to the extent of sinking untold billions and creating god knows what sort of unintended consequences and hassle over it.
5) a) You haven't been talking to me. So how would you know if I was practicing zen
b) I don't practice zen. If you had actually been talking to me for more than five minutes over the past year, you might have known that.
Hey J? I was deliberately rubbing your fur backwards because you were pissing me the fuck off. I'm well aware that you don't sit around chanting or worshipping tree spirits and so on. You just eat granola, walk everywhere, and think the Almighty Government is the Bestest Solution for Everything What Ails Us.
(As I told Caz last night, I still love ya. Nobody can piss you off like family, neh?)
c) You can call me a commie douche if you want, you paranoid, libertarian nutjob, but I demand an apology on the zen.
Fine.
Sorry, you fucking commie douche.
And it's not paranoia when they are out to get you, bitch.
Once again, I repeat myself. This is why I hate GunControl threads. My reasonable arguments are IGNORED as two (or more) people engage in a flamewar. *sigh*
Dogs are Man's Best Friend
Cats are Man's Adorable Little Serial Killers
LadyTevar wrote:Once again, I repeat myself. This is why I hate GunControl threads. My reasonable arguments are IGNORED as two (or more) people engage in a flamewar. *sigh*
Sorry. Cat and I don't argue much, but when we do it tends to get bloody. I'll get a reply for ya in a sec.
(a) Okay, so gun's fatality rate is lower than that of car, but there is also a fact that it is always easier to shoot someone than running him over with a car. Remember that gun is a weapon --a tool whose purpose is to harm the target (yes, you can also use a forklift as weapon, but it is not its intended purpose). So while the actual fatality rate is lower, gun is still potentially more harmful than cars. Now how would you consider this in regards to the issue being discussed?
Simple. Potential does not matter. Only what is actually the case matters. The per capita death and injury rate for a gun is much much lower than that for a car. EX. almost everyone will get into an accident and either be injured, or injure someone else with a car. This is not the case with a gun. If you fuck up with a gun, the most you can do is kill one person or yourself. With a car, you can drive through a window, killing a family of 4, or instigate a multi-vehicle pile-up that leaves a dozen people dead.
A gun is a purpose built weapon. It is very simple in terms of use and the chance to fuck up with one if you are even marginally competent (common sense basically) is much lower than that of a car, which is large, extremely complex, and it's use necessitates being around countless other people in these large and extremely complex devices.
The two are not equivalent.
(d) How important gun is, compared to, say, car? How often we have a life and death requirement for a gun? How often we have situations that cannot be handled with a baseball bat or a pepper spray? And ultimately, is the importance of gun sufficient to deny a licensing scheme?
The gun is very important. The right of self defense is tantamount to at least my legal system. Perhaps for the individual it may not be important, but the aggregate effects of widespread gun-ownership on crime rates, especially concealed carry, more than justifies the lack of a licensing scheme, which would reduce the number of people who have guns and thus reduce their effectiveness in stopping crime. Additionally, when an individual does need a gun, it is damned important right then. The individuals chance of needing one though statistically, are small
Additionally, and here I will directly contradict Stofsk. The right of self defense is directly related to posessing the means of self defense. If rights can be defined as something that you need not necessarily ask another's permission to do, then you have a negative right to self defense. A negative right being a right to non-interference (as opposed to a positive right which is a right of obligation) no one is compelled to provide you with a means of self defense, but they have no moral authority to deny you those means should you seek them.
That said, if a government institutes a licensing scheme for firearms, they are restricting your means of self defense. If they restrict your means of self defense they are, by extension, restricting your right to self defense. This is because while you would still have the right to use a baseball bat against someone wielding an unlicensed pistol, the chances of you coming out on top are about the same as if you had no weapon at all.
A gun equalizes the playing field. It makes it so that someone regardless of their size and stature can successfully defend themselves against a lesser or equally armed opponent.
Now for the legal ramifications of this in the US.
If the government can license a constitutional right, then they can put similar restrictions on all constitutional rights. This is because the rights listed in the constitution are not lists of things the government gives us. The constitution was written in such a way that the rights contained therein are negative rights that the government was never given the power to touch or violate in any way. That is why if someone's rights in court were violated and a new trial ordered, the old trial is stricken from the record and no longer exists. There was no old trial, because the court never had the power to do what they did in the first place.
In any case, in the event that a government can restrict by license something enumerated in the constitution as something they have no power to so much as touch. (The second amendment has two clauses, the first dealing with militias, the second dealing with the unrestricted right of the people to keep and bear arms) It sets a legal precident that any such right can be restricted by license. If I need to spell out why this is a bad thing...
Additionally, governments have a history of finding ways to abuse their citizenry. Right now, the US has a president that has gotten congress to suspend Habeus Corpus, and otherwise disregard the constitution. I will not trust such a government with any additional power, such as the power to control the licensed practice of one of my constitutional rights. The only constitutional right I might add, that gives me any means to defend myself from the imposition of said government upon said constitutional rights.
"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution."
- Theodosius Dobzhansky
There is no word harsh enough for this. No verbal edge sharp and cold enough to set forth the flaying needed. English is to young and the elder languages of the earth beyond me. ~Frigid
The Holocaust was an Amazing Logistical Achievement~Havoc
Why is it that I seem to be one of the few RATIONAL people when it comes to gun control?
I consider my position rational and well-supported. Please feel free to point out where you differ.
I only bite women when invited to do so. Honest.
The whole problem with Gun Control is walking that fine line so that responsible people can get them, and 'outlaws' cannot. No matter what rules are brought up, someone will be unhappy, because there IS no way to truly prevent outlaws from getting a gun without making it damn near impossible for everyone else as well.
Agreed.
Right now, the rules are about the best they can be; the problem is compliance. I mentioned earlier the local gun & pawn shop that sold a pistol later used in a murder, and the fact that the owner should have realized that something was wrong with how the buyer was acting. Hell, she supposedly had no idea what kind of weapons she was purchasing, she was just getting whatever her watcher was pointing out: a total of about 4 pistols.
At that point, the shop owner should have asked himself (or her) what she needed that many pistols for, or simply should have refused the sale. He didn't. Why? Maybe because they were paying in cash? That should have been another tip-off, dammit!
Until gun shop owners start actually exercising the rights that Gun Control law gives them, this scenario will repeat in another town, another shop, another pistol used in a crime. Trade shows are particularly bad about this: some don't even keep records of who bought a weapon! Some try to make that last-minute sale before the show shuts down, and who has time for a three-day wait then? There goes one of the biggest rules of gun control, simply for the profit. Investigations into trade shows have found countless violations: falsified paperwork, illegible or fake name and addresses, guns with ID numbers filed away or modified. The list goes on.
On the first part, I agree. From the story, it should've been evident that proxy purchase was taking place. I'm not sure of the FFL regulations on this matter, but we certainly act to prevent obvious proxy sales to minors for alcohol and tobacco.
On the second part, all FFL dealers are required to run a background check for every firearm they sell. This consists of getting the data and making a phone call to the check system, and is applied regardless of whether it's an in-store sale or at a gun show. Nonchecked sales take place at gun shows, but those are private transactions, not FFL dealers.
So where does Gun Control start, folks? The Governement? The Merchants? or the Owners?
There are elements at every level. The NRA was backing instant checks for years before they were finally implemented, and working on the state level to get them passed long before Brady was rammed down our throats. Likewise, they've been out for stringent penalties for criminal misuse of guns for a long time. Merchants have the responsibility to not engage in illegal sales and proxy sales, as well as following check procedures. Owners have the responsibility to use them in a safe fashion.
I want to take an aside about the overall discussion, because we've hit on some of the points here.
Gun control arguments tend to be very, very contentious. Gun advocates are often regarded as overly zealous and fanatical. I'll cop to being very zealous about the issue, but for what I regard as good and valid reasons.
First, to be a gun advocate is to be continually impugned and dismissed. Gun advocates are routinely depicted as paranoid, sociopathic, cowardly, insecure in their manhood, callous to death, idiotic, rustic, so on and so forth. Personally, I could give a shit if people think I'm a babykilling limpdick, but I do get pissed off when character assassination is used to dismiss my arguments.
Secondly, for the entire span of my involvement with the issue, over twenty years now from first just watching it and learning about it as a child to actively participating in it starting in my teenage years, the opposition has been flat-out mendacious on every major issue they presented. This isn't a case of 'choosing the statistics that best favor us', no, it's flat-out motherfucking lying, time and again. They've used every cheap emotional appeal available, they've jumped on tragedies to invent new issues, and they've played to all the stereotypes they can grab hold of.
To give everyone a rundown on the issues I've been around and how they've been distorted.
When I was a wee lad and first reading pop's gun mags, the issue was 'snubbies', the derisive term that Ted Kennedy and the antigunners were using for short-barreled revolvers. According to Ted, there was no legitimate civilian use for these firearms, and hence they should be banned accordingly. Of course, this is in blatant disregard of the fact that they're excellent concealed carry weapons, but then of course Teddy Kennedy believes that only his bodyguards should be armed.
(With friggin' full-auto Uzis, no less.)
Then we went on to Saturday Night Specials. This was the popularized term for cheap, crappy pistols, typically autos...
(Crucial point here- when referring to pistols, an 'auto' is actually a semiautomatic pistol, that is it fires one shot each time you pull the trigger. For rifles and so on, autos refers to full automatic, which fires so long as you're holding the trigger down, or fires a pre-set number of rounds such as a three-shot burst. The use of 'auto' for pistols is somewhat archaic and goes back to when they were first introduced.)
but also sometimes the crappier revolver models. The publicized notion was that criminals purchased these cheap guns and used them for nefarious ends. This ignored the fact that criminals typically didn't purchase their guns at gun shops, they typically acquired them via fences at half to two-thirds list price or simply stole them. Furthermore, as was typical of the Brady Campaign (Handgun Control, Inc. at the time) and their congressional ilk, the actual design was to create legislation so vague and nebulous that 'Saturday Night Specials' could be defined as pretty much whatever they chose for it to be. The same intent is shown in the current proposed AWB, and it's one of their favorite gags. Speaking of, remember that whole 'criminals use cheap weapons' bit, because it becomes pertinent when we get to the almighty assault weapons.
Now, I'm not sure which of the next two came first, but I believe it was Armor Piercing Ammo. Criminals were going to get hold of teflon-coated ammo and lay waste to our hard-working police, and therefore more ambiguous legislation was introduced that would ban the fuck out of ammo that could pierce bulletproof vests. This ignores a few salient facts- one is that just about any rifle caliber will go through most armor, and all armor that was available back. Furthermore, one can make AP ammo that'll go through kevlar with a wooden dowel and a pencil sharpener.
Then there were the 'plastic guns'. Glock introduces a handgun with a thirty-percent plastic polymer frame, and the Brady Bunch declares that these are designed to go through airport metal detecters. Mind you, just looking at a Glock or picking one up with allow even the more dense to discern that the firearm is primarily metallic and has no more chance of getting through a metal detector thank a lump of iron. Nevertheless, the attempt was made to ban Glocks and all future polymer-using weapons because otherwise we'd have carnage in the skies. Of course, these days practically every new model of handgun on the market incorporates some polymer in the frame, but again logic and the Brady Bunch don't intersect.
In the meantime, Jim and Sarah Brady were out pushing for the waiting period in conjunction with the background check. This despite the fact that there has not ever been any demonstrable effectiveness to a waiting period. It certainly wouldn't have stopped Hinckley from putting a round into Brady, given that Hinckley got his weapon a month before taking his shot at Reagan. The fact is that when people are murderously inspired, they reach for a weapon close to hand. They generally don't go down to the gun store, pick out a weapon, produce license and fill out the 4473, then go back and shoot somebody. But that didn't matter because the Brady Campaign has been blatantly following a campaign of incrementalism and opportunism for decades now, with the intent of getting any form of legislation they can through the door. I won't speak to their motivation on this, but I'm guessing a cozy living from keeping the donations flowing pays into it.
Then we get to the ZOMG ASSAULT WEAPONS. First off, assault weapons are not available to the general public in this country. The definition of an assault weapon is an intermediate cartridge, select fire weapon (meaning semi-auto fire or full auto fire), and as such they are heavily restricted. What the Brady Campaign et al were raising hysteria about was semi-auto only clones of military weaponry, which they claimed were sweeping the nation in tides of blood. There were news specials, there was proposed legislation left and right, the issue was a gold mine for them.
It was also a lie. The FBI Uniform Crime Report for 1990 revealed that long arms of any kind were only used in about four percent of gun crimes, and so-called assault weapons were a distinct minority in that group behind shotguns, which are generally preferable for the sort of things one is doing in knife-fighting range in urban environments.
This of course didn't matter, because first of all, these guns LOOKED MEAN. It didn't matter if the Tec-9 was a complete piece of shit that wasn't even much of a good toy for a real collector and totally crappy in usage, it looked high-tech and mean. Combine this with the copycat killings in the wake of Patrick Purdy's shootup in California, the perception was created that we had a serious problem with these weapons and something NEEDED TO BE DONE.
I fucking HATE that mindset, by the way.
The grand irony of this is that these weapons also started at at least four hundred bucks for the cheapest AK clones... when criminals before were only supposed to be acquiring cheap firearms because they're, y'know, poverty-stricken.
(Whereas the authentic full-auto model was going for about a hundred on the open market then, and declined even more as all the Soviet surplus hit the market.)
So they rammed and rammed and rammed, and finally they got the AWB pushed through. Of course, like other Brady Campaign bits, the idea was to cast as broad a net as possible. Under some of the proposed standards my old Lee Enfield bolt action rifle was an assault weapon on account of having the bayonet lug as well as the detachable box magazine. And hey, it was a military weapon! (WWII issue, I love my old heater.)
The AWB came, had no discernable effect other than driving up prices for pre-ban weapons and magazines, and it went, having no other discernable effect other than letting the cost drop for the mags. The weapons banned were remanufactured a bit to remove such offending components as bayonet lugs and put right back out on the market, where as before the vast vast vast majority of use was entirely lawful and noncombative, but to me the AWB was the perfect illustration of the sins of the antigun movement and a prime example of why any politician who dances with the Brady Campaign is utterly and inherently untrustworthy. It was a campaign of lies and hysteria that created an issue out of thin air. It was a hoax, it was fraud, it was a bald-faced lie.
Since then, we've actually gotten on the right side of things. A lot of people who were sitting back thinking that the NRA could do all the heavy lifting solo got a wakeup call when the Brady Law and the AWB were passed, and in the Revolution of '94 23 of the 24 congressmen the NRA targeted went down to defeat. CCW began taking the country by a storm and the issue has largely died down. The internet has been a huge help, as now we can debunk the bullshit statistics that the Brady Campaign and their ilk put out in fairly short order, instead of waiting for months for the breakdowns on how the statistics are generated or if they can even be sourced. The Brady Bunch has tried various abortive campaigns, the whole 'Common Sense Gun Legislation' being the late nineties bit, during which they briefly took a run at hollowpoint ammo without considering that it's in use by the majority of police departments and hence somewhat problematic to ban. Of course, the current controversy is another AWB-style hysteria over substance campaign, the SNIPER RIFLES OF DOOM, but outside of California that just doesn't have much traction thankfully.
So yeah, us gun nuts are touchy. We've had to pull in together in the face of ridicule, condemnation, lies and propaganda. We've had to face an atmosphere where the fear has been pushed so hard that people feel that there is a greater social problem here, regardless of whether or not there is, and that something must be done about it. We don't have easy answers because unlike the other side, we cannot deny that our stance is going to get people killed. In many ways it's the same as arguing with fundamentalists, with ever-shifting arguments and justifications on their side as well as the simple appeal of emotion, as compared to rather less-sexy facts, figures and logic on the other.
Furthermore, despite common depictions the pro gun side is far more moderate than typically depicted. The NRA pushed for instant checks for years. The NRA pushed for CCWs over Vermont-style carry, which I largely agree with. The NRA has pushed for education at all levels of society and has sponsored numerous programs. The NRA has pushed for classifying firearms crimes very stringently and hammering those who commit criminal misuse of firearms with heavy sentences. The NRA isn't working to get machine guns into the hands of toddlers.
(And I say this as someone who's not an NRA member for various reasons, including the fact that they spent a long time with Junior's cock in their mouth.)
Anyway, vent over. I'd just like to clarify some things, and explain why I got so pissed off earlier and why I'm so damned fervent on the issue.
Since I kinda helped form the basis of the original wording of the questions...
...in regards to the moron gun store owner who sold the guns to the obvious mule, he should lose his liscence, period. If not be considered an accomplice in the murder that resulted.
As for gun safety being taught in schools, I think that in every mandatory civics course in school part of the instruction should include basic safety information on guns, such as:
-The difference between pistols, revolvers, rifles, shotguns, etc.; the types of guns they are likey to see in society (hunters, cops, the occassional 'assault' rifle, etc.
-What these weapons can and can't do (ie, full auto fire, shoot through walls, etc). They can even do the slide show with grody pictures like they do with drunk driving and tobacco education so people know not to "cowboy around" like a damnfool with a gun. Explode myths while also reinforcing facts.
-Safety tips-- how to make sure it is loaded, safe, etc. Even the most anti-gun person should know how to safely "de-fang" a gun so it is safe for others to be around.
-Legal issues: what local laws say about use, carry, ownership, ranges, etc. What happenes if you display or fire the weapon at an intruder, if it is legal to use deadly force for property as well as life, etc, in your area. Not an extensive legal education, just a quick summary of relevant laws.
-What local agencies to go to if they are interested in getting further education or a liscence, etc.
Everything I described above can actually be taught relatively quickly, maybe a two-to-three day part of the overall semester-long civics course. There would be no range qualifications or actual handling of guns, unless maybe dummy "demonstration" models for learning how to check, unload & safe a weapon. Mostly they'd get taught not to panic on sight of a weapon but still be careful and treat it with respect.
If they want to own a weapon, they go get a course that expands on the basic stuff taught in school. A review of the school stuff and a range day for $20.00 and the cost of the ammo. Then they get a liscence that says they are qualified on firearms and they can buy guns, with the NICS check. If they are/were members of the police or military, there is no need for this course.
If a gun they own is stolen and they don't report it, and it is used to kill/injure someone, or it is involved in an accidental death in the home, they are held responsible and may face fines, probabtion, etc for improper storage and handling. Three such strikes and their liscence is revoked until they go through a more extensive safety and rsponsibility course.
You can't trust freedom when it's not in your hand...
Coyote, Petro... I wish all gun advocates could write down their beliefs as plainly and clearly as you did.
Unfortunately, for every Brady-follower with their twisted facts and conclusions, there's at least one NRA-nut who's got just as many, as well as a flamethrower in his pocket for those who don't agree.
Dogs are Man's Best Friend
Cats are Man's Adorable Little Serial Killers
LadyTevar wrote:Coyote, Petro... I wish all gun advocates could write down their beliefs as plainly and clearly as you did.
Unfortunately, for every Brady-follower with their twisted facts and conclusions, there's at least one NRA-nut who's got just as many, as well as a flamethrower in his pocket for those who don't agree.
DON'T I FUCKING KNOW IT. ;)
I fucking HATE gun store commandos and their trogolodyte ilk. And I've vied with the type on many an occasion.
So be it. If saying "NO" means being alone, then to hell with love, with romance, with marriage, and all the shit life keeps pumping at me. I'll walk alone, but with freedom and a healed pride.
:thumbsup
