Gun Control in America

[weemadando]

Why is it that Americans are so afraid of anything to do with "restricting" access to firearms?

Can I put up a theoretical here:

Would you have a problem with a law that enacted Australian type gun licensing, without the restrictions on what firearms are available?

It would involve this:

ALL firearms of ALL types must be registered. Possession of an unregistered firearm is a MAJOR offense.

To possess a gun a license is required for that specific type of weapon (rifle/shotgun, handgun, automatic weapon etc - there'd have to be many more categories or broader ones than in Aus). These licenses involve mandatory psych testing, background checks, safety training and a 3-6 month "cooling off" period. And most importantly a "why do you need this type of gun" question - which again, being in America saying: "sporting shooter" or "collector" would probably be a good enough answer.

ALL firearms must be kept in a secure gunsafe at all times unless IN USE. Having a firearm outside of a secure gunsafe when it is not in use is a slightly more minor offense.


What would the response to this be? As it doesn't restrict what guns are available. It just makes those that are available legally a bit harder to obtain and ensures that legally owned guns will generally be in the hands of responsible citizens.

Illegal guns will still be a problem (they are in Australia, though not NEARLY as much as they were in the first few years after the ban), but the legislation for dealing with illegal firearms (especially handguns and automatic weapons) is VERY harsh.

So please - tell me WHY this is a bad idea!

[Xenophobe3691]

Second Amendment.

The Constitution is held as the closest thing to Holy Writ that exists in our country, and screwing with it is extremely verboten.

[Superman]

A lot of stupid hicks I have known seem to think that they need to protect themselves from the government or from a foreign invasion. I guess they don't realize that hand guns don't do much against tanks, bombers, morters, etc.

[Coyote]

There are a lot of gun-control forces in America that have stated their intent to round up, confiscate and destroy all weapons in private hands in the US. Some of the more radical ones would even disarm Police.

Any control or liscencing or registration scheme would make it very easy to accomplish that. Squads of cops going door to door looking at a printout... "Hmm, yes, next is John Smith at 123 Deepshit street, he's listed as having a pistol and a shotgun..."

Even if the laws are passed with the intent of promoting "safety", they could be used to remove this right at later dates.

I have no problem with the idea that guns should be locked up when not in use... it is a good safety precaution especially if you have kids. If you have a gun out of the safe, then it is because you would be carrying it and have positive control over it.

But keeping lists of guns and owners is, to an American mindset, too "Big Brother-ish".

[Rogue 9]

A lot of stupid hicks I have known seem to think that they need to protect themselves from the government or from a foreign invasion. I guess they don't realize that hand guns don't do much against tanks, bombers, morters, etc.

Which would be why I was recently involved in a thread concerning private ownership of fully armed tanks on another board, the idea being that since the idea of the 2nd was to allow citizens to defend themselves from the government, the right includes all weapons necessary to do so. Got kind of wild.

[Kamakazie Sith]

A lot of stupid hicks I have known seem to think that they need to protect themselves from the government or from a foreign invasion. I guess they don't realize that hand guns don't do much against tanks, bombers, morters, etc.

Which would be why I was recently involved in a thread concerning private ownership of fully armed tanks on another board, the idea being that since the idea of the 2nd was to allow citizens to defend themselves from the government, the right includes all weapons necessary to do so. Got kind of wild.

What do you think of this though?

The 2nd Amendment has not been incorporated by the Supreme Court to apply to the states. This means that within its own constitution, a state may be as restrictive or unrestrictive as it wishes to be in the regulation of firearms; likewise, private rules and regulations may prohibit or encourage firearms. For example, if a housing association wishes to bar any firearm from being held within its borders, it is free to do so.

[Petrosjko]

I have no problem with the idea that guns should be locked up when not in use... it is a good safety precaution especially if you have kids. If you have a gun out of the safe, then it is because you would be carrying it and have positive control over it.

So when the bad guy invades your home in the night, your gun is securely locked away from your use? Rather uncool.

Kids can be gun-proofed. I grew up around firearms, and got my first rifle at the age of six. Likewise, my friends also had easy access to parental firearms or got their own weapons at young ages. I kept mine in the closet.

What is at issue, and something I bear in mind when entertaining guests, is that while one's own children may have an understanding of the dire consequences of improper firearms handling, the visiting kids might not, and that's a good reason to keep the weapons secured during visits and so on.

[weemadando]

I have no problem with the idea that guns should be locked up when not in use... it is a good safety precaution especially if you have kids. If you have a gun out of the safe, then it is because you would be carrying it and have positive control over it.

So when the bad guy invades your home in the night, your gun is securely locked away from your use? Rather uncool.

Whats the problem with having a handgun or something in a combination locked gunsafe in your drawer in the bedside table or under the bed? The fact that it takes 15secs rather than 5secs to get it shouldn't make that much of a difference in the average home robbery.

[Alyeska]

You shouldn't have any added time to defend yourself. Thats an unfair advantage to the criminal.

[Beowulf]

I have no problem with the idea that guns should be locked up when not in use... it is a good safety precaution especially if you have kids. If you have a gun out of the safe, then it is because you would be carrying it and have positive control over it.

So when the bad guy invades your home in the night, your gun is securely locked away from your use? Rather uncool.

You can buy keypad operated safes. My dad has one for his Glock. Takes all of 5 seconds to open. Not much longer than drawing it from a drawer would be.

[Alyeska]

BTW, the gun registration and threat of removal of guns IS a real threat in the US. The anti-gun lobby has considerable power and has succesfuly done some crazy shit. If you force people to register their weapons, there lies an uncomfortable risk that the anti-gun lobby might put something through that has these guns confiscated.

[Petrosjko]

And if you live in a home where no children pass through, such as my current home? Why should a citizen be forced to go through the additional expense for a safety measure they do not need? (And if by some odd chance I do end up with a sprout in here, I can dump my pistols in a locking file cabinet. The rifles are already in a safe as a theft-prevention measure.)

Furthermore, easy-to-operate mechanisms can become devilishly hard to operate under stressful conditions such as having a lunatic bashing on your bedroom door.

I contend that education is the answer, not artificial obstacles.

[StimNeuro]

Question: Who pays for the mandatory psych testing and training classes?

[Big Phil]

"A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
— Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution


The amendement says two things as I read it:
1. People can have guns and the government cannot prevent them from keeping and owning guns.
2. The government is well within its rights to require registration of guns as long as it does not infringe upon ownership of guns.

[Beowulf]

Widespread psych testing is not going to be very effective at eliminating all but the drooling loonies.

Registration has been shown to be a common thing to do before rounding up guns.

Sometimes people have a need for a gun much sooner than 3-6 months.

Many ranges already require safety training, even if it is of the most basic sort. And you can't hit the broadside of a barn without range time.

It's nearly impossible to stop the importation of guns. They're just lumps of steel, after all. Given that, for example, gunsmiths in Afghanistan can build perfect copies of an AK-47, with just simple tools, it's not impossible for a illegal firearms to be made. It's not that hard to make a reciever, given a basic machine shop.

Not all criminals care that the penalties are severe. They think they won't get caught anyways.

You'll need to start an entire beaucracy, not just to manage the licensing, but also to handle firearm registrations, and to certify safes. You don't want silliness like having to have a 1 in thick door, while still having the sides completely open, or requiring a strong lock on the door of a room, but having a completely open window.

Zealous beaucrats can fairly arbitrarily say whether a reason is good enough.

Definition of in use can be problematic. "That depends on what the definition of 'is' is."

[Knife]

Why is it that Americans are so afraid of anything to do with "restricting" access to firearms?

Can I put up a theoretical here:

Would you have a problem with a law that enacted Australian type gun licensing, without the restrictions on what firearms are available?

It would involve this:

ALL firearms of ALL types must be registered. Possession of an unregistered firearm is a MAJOR offense.

To possess a gun a license is required for that specific type of weapon (rifle/shotgun, handgun, automatic weapon etc - there'd have to be many more categories or broader ones than in Aus). These licenses involve mandatory psych testing, background checks, safety training and a 3-6 month "cooling off" period. And most importantly a "why do you need this type of gun" question - which again, being in America saying: "sporting shooter" or "collector" would probably be a good enough answer.

ALL firearms must be kept in a secure gunsafe at all times unless IN USE. Having a firearm outside of a secure gunsafe when it is not in use is a slightly more minor offense.


What would the response to this be? As it doesn't restrict what guns are available. It just makes those that are available legally a bit harder to obtain and ensures that legally owned guns will generally be in the hands of responsible citizens.

Illegal guns will still be a problem (they are in Australia, though not NEARLY as much as they were in the first few years after the ban), but the legislation for dealing with illegal firearms (especially handguns and automatic weapons) is VERY harsh.

So please - tell me WHY this is a bad idea!

I actually prefer the opposite. Instead of the goverment having a list of people owning guns, the goverment should have a list of people who aren't allowed to own guns and it should be highly illegal to sell one to them.

The obstacles, hoops, and restrictive laws should prohibit and be a pain in the ass to those who would break the law, not those of us who obey the law and still want a gun.

[Coyote]

I'd say that having the gun in a bed-holster attatched to the bedframe would constitute having "positive control" on the weapon. If your kid comes up in the middle of the night, I assume most parental instincts would kick in and you'd know it-- especially if they are, indeed, educated.

[Slartibartfast]

Many ranges already require safety training, even if it is of the most basic sort. And you can't hit the broadside of a barn without range time.

BULLSHIT! The first time I grabbed a gun, I managed to hit something nearly as big, if not bigger, than a barn.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

The only reason guns are plausibly unsafe is because people are not familar with them and not educated in how to use them. The solution to this is training, and to satisfy constitutional law will simultaneously making sure that even people who don't own a gun know what to do around one, the obvious solution is to have gun safety and target shooting classes be mandatory in the public schools as a requirement for graduation.

[Master of Ossus]

Why is it that Americans are so afraid of anything to do with "restricting" access to firearms?

Can I put up a theoretical here:

Would you have a problem with a law that enacted Australian type gun licensing, without the restrictions on what firearms are available?

It would involve this:

ALL firearms of ALL types must be registered. Possession of an unregistered firearm is a MAJOR offense.

Possession of any kind of firearm is a major offense? This is ridiculous, since it makes no provision as to what sorts of things are actually banned. Does Mr. Gun Collector's 16th century wheel-lock get him some jail time?

To possess a gun a license is required for that specific type of weapon (rifle/shotgun, handgun, automatic weapon etc - there'd have to be many more categories or broader ones than in Aus). These licenses involve mandatory psych testing, background checks, safety training and a 3-6 month "cooling off" period.

1. This is ridiculously expensive. Psych testing is god-awfully expensive, and serious psychological problems should be detected by the background checks that gun-buyers in America already go through.

2. The 3-6 month "cooling off" period is highly excessive, and severely restricts the abilities of people in certain professions from doing their jobs properly. Woe unto the woman who has decided to purchase a gun in the middle of a crime spree to protect herself for its duration.

And most importantly a "why do you need this type of gun" question - which again, being in America saying: "sporting shooter" or "collector" would probably be a good enough answer.

What possible good does this do you? It strikes me as being expensive without any benefit.

ALL firearms must be kept in a secure gunsafe at all times unless IN USE. Having a firearm outside of a secure gunsafe when it is not in use is a slightly more minor offense.

Ah, yes, granddads suvenir flint-lock over the mantle piece just earned him a fine.

What would the response to this be?

It's retarded, expensive, and doesn't make people appreciably safer.

As it doesn't restrict what guns are available. It just makes those that are available legally a bit harder to obtain and ensures that legally owned guns will generally be in the hands of responsible citizens.

It makes things massively more expensive (do you how much government-approved psychological evaluations cost?) and it doesn't make people much safer. I'm okay with making things expensive if it's going to proportionally increase the public safety, but you'd be better off making safety improvements to cars, or making airliners LESS safe and then using the money society saves on a whole bunch of other improvements.

Illegal guns will still be a problem (they are in Australia, though not NEARLY as much as they were in the first few years after the ban), but the legislation for dealing with illegal firearms (especially handguns and automatic weapons) is VERY harsh.

They're pretty harsh in the US, too, but hardened criminals use them anyway. Most gun control legislation does several things that annoy me:

1. It makes things unnecessarily expensive.
2. It provides little assistance for the public good.
3. It disproportionately harms responsible owners who try to comply with laws, while doing little to stop irresponsible owners and nothing to stop criminals.

So please - tell me WHY this is a bad idea!

It's massively expensive and does little to help people. It also creates some other serious problems in the hiring and firing of people like security guards who may own firearms as part of their profession. It also creates paperwork that does nothing to help anybody--who gives a fuck why someone wants to own a gun? Is a murderer going to say "I need a gun to cap the mofo who lives across the street" or "Use in gang war" on their little form? Of course not. Since it provides NO benefit to people, even keeping the answers to such questions on record is unfairly invasive on the privacy of gun owners.

[Big Phil]

The problem that has to be overcome before the USA will be regulating firearms are twofold:
1. That nitpicky little thing called the 2nd Amendment.
2. The NRA.

The 2nd Amendment has been consistently interpreted to mean that people can have weapons, while the NRA has been consistently working to prevent the regulation of said weapons.

I don't have much of a problem with regulation of the weapons, but frankly if I want to buy a shotgun, or am dumb enough to keep a loaded AR-15 on my mantle, that's my right and the US government has no right to tell me otherwise.

Until you have a string of court decisions with a different interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, there's no way we'll be regulating or prohibiting all or many firearms in this country.

[Sir Sirius]

So please - tell me WHY this is a bad idea!

Those suggesting new legislation or restrictions are the ones who bear the burden of proof. So please - tell me WHY this would this be a good idea!

[dragon]

As to all them people that say its for the protection of kids thats a cop out. I know plenty of kids that grow up with fire arms especially in states like montana. Hell I grew up with assault rifles in my house and they were unsercured but I was instructed not to touch at an early age. As for the people that say handguns wont help against tanks and such. Ask some of the troops in Iraq how they feel about hand guns.

[Seggybop]

The 2nd Amendment itself never actually says everyone has the right to own guns. The right to bear arms? Everyone could be allowed only to carry swords, and the amendment would still be complied with.

Not that I support anything remotely like that, but I think it's moronic how people constantly fall back on the 2nd Amendment as their justification.

[Rogue 9]

It'd be more fun if it was the right to keep and arm bears.

In all seriousness, though, that wouldn't work. Guns are arms, and as such the right to keep and bear them shall not be infringed. Restricting the people to swords wouldn't cut it there.