Guns in the USA, Take a Stand

[loomer]

I am ardent supporter of private firearms ownership. I would also like to own a tank, but that ain't gonna happen if anyone anywhere has even the smallest lick of sense.

Civilians are perfectly capable of buying tanks if they have the money. But generally when they're sold to civilians they get "sanitized" of their sensitive military hardware, so you get a lot of the electronics and weaponry stripped out or otherwise disabled.

Yes, but I'd like one without the 'sanitization', which is why no sane individual or group will ever sell me a tank. Or, as an Australian, an automatic weapon or a self-loading centrefire rifle.

A mild tangent, actually, but what of my fellow Aussies? Do you lot also wish for some less restrictive gun legislation, or is that just me?

[Vendetta]

And someone with a gun is far more likely to kill someone than someone with a knife.

I'd like to see your proof of that.

The 2007/2008 statistics for knife crime in the UK seem to indicate that around 1% of knife crimes resulted in a homicide, with the rest being wounding or GBH, whereas between 1987-1990 in the US around 1.7% of all gun crimes resulted in a homicide. (Both sets of statistics include crimes where a knife or gun is present but not used as for instance armed robberies)

So saying that a person with a gun is "far more likely to kill" is technically accurate, but the rates for actual homicides with both are low.

[Lusankya]

A mild tangent, actually, but what of my fellow Aussies? Do you lot also wish for some less restrictive gun legislation, or is that just me?

Well, not in Australia any more, but I largely agree with Darth Wong, and don't have any issues with Australia's gun legislation. Of course, if I ever wanted to go out shooting, I could just ring up someone I know who has a farm, and then go and shoot some rabbits or something (not that I want to). And I don't see any reason why there should be private possession of something as easy to abuse as a handgun. Of course for larger guns, I don't have a problem. I mean, so what if someone has a gatling gun? It's not as though it will be convenient for them to take it to CBD and start shooting people. Somebody would see what they were carrying and say, "Hey, that's a gatling gun!" and then everybody would be forewarned.

Personally, I don't see "home defence" as a reasonable motive for buying a gun. In a US context, what I see as major problems are a) the view of a gun as a right, rather than a privilege and b) the number of people wanting guns for home defence. The first, I think, creates a very blaze attitude towards guns, which is detrimental to the cause of reasonable gun control, while the second is indicative of a bunker mentality that I would rather not see being held by someone who could shoot me.

[Coyote]

About two weeks ago I got my first firearm [...]. My family, most of whom are very left-leaning, are largely horrified. I'm sufficiently weirded out by this, hence the following question.

This forum sees a lot of bashing of 'Republitards' and what might be collectively labelled 'right-wing' issues. Gun rights are of course a huge example of such an issue...

This is part of the problem, I think: gun rights being pigeonholed as a "right-wing = pro-gun/left-wing = anti-gun" argument. It is not necessarily valid. While it is true that many right-wingers tend to be reflexively pro-gun (at least in US politics), it is not concurrently true for left-wingers to be anti-gun. In fact, a lot of left-wingers I know from across the spectrum (moderate to flaming pinkos) are also in favor of gun rights.

To be honest, it seems to me that most people who hate/loathe/fear guns on general principle (as opposed to a very negative personal experience) are in fact merely ignorant of what a gun can and cannot do. A lot of people get their impressions from the movies or misleading/ignorant media reports, where all kinds of weapons are referred to as "machine guns" even though they are not, and of course in action movies a hero randomly waves a "machine gun" in the general direction of an attacking enemy force and hundreds of people just topple over dead-- like it is some sort of magic death ray. You'll need patience to remind them that movies are fantasy and that the media makes money by writing up dramatic interpretations of events.

Do you support the right of a private citizen in the United States to own a firearm?
If yes then to what extent?

Certainly, so long as they pass the background checks and are not nutcases, felons, and so on. I like the universal instant-check system, but I feel that the database should include mental health restrictions, which are currently not included due to "privacy" concerns. However, if the NICS check had included a mental-health cross-reference, there is a good chance that the Virginia Tech shooter would have been turned down for his (otherwise legal) purchases.

I do not believe in "waiting periods" since a good insta-check system negates the need for it, and a "waiting period" for any gun purchase after the first gun purchase is silly (I mean, really-- "grr, I wanna kill someone, but want a new gun to do it with, not the old one!" Heh, yeah.)

Personally, if I were in charge, I'd like to see some sort of certificate of training required before purchase, because I've seen too many yahoos at gun ranges that make me nervous, and I've even left ranges because people just seemed to be acting stupid & irresponsible. But then I'd also include the basics of gun safety in general school civics classes, where they teach you all the tricks of getting by (writing checks, paying bills, turning off the gas in case of an earthquake, how to avoid trouble with credit cards, etc). Believe me, I'm not holding my breath on seeing that accepted into any curriculum soon.

Are handguns okay?

I think so, again, provided the requirements are passed for ownership. While it is true that crimes are more easily committed with a handgun, it is also true that handguns are the most convenient and useful weapon for personal defense (hence their use by police). With proper training and awareness of legalities, there is no reason why a reasonable person cannot be trusted with a self-defense weapon such as a handgun.

Automatic weapons?

I think the current system for automatic weapons is sufficient. You can own one if you want, but you have to get a special license, undergo a thorough background check, and so on.

Concealed weapons?

Again, I think the current system of laws is sufficient, at least in my state (Idaho). Here, I have to provide some sort of proof of training, which means I can show that I am a current or former member of the police or miluitary forces that is serving or discharged under honorable circumstances, or, take a course from a certified instructor that shows I have competency in not just use and handling and storage, but of the legalities involved. I think this is a good standard to apply to general firearms purchasing.

And for anybody who actually does own a gun, any general tips? My brother is ex-mil so he'll be covering safety very extensively.

The usual. Don't point it at anything you want to keep, always act like it is loaded even if it isn't, etc. Keep it clean, don't shoot if you're intoxicated, know your target and have a good backstop, that sort of thing.

[Serafine666]

I do vigorously support more basic skills in obtaining a liscense. CLeaning a gun. Proper, safe, secure storage. ANd I agree with Mike on levying alot more regulations, if not an outright ban, on handguns.

The issue of handguns, to me, seems to be something of a double-edged sword. On one hand, because of their small size and low weight, they are the ideal weapon for a criminal, especially in a situation where police presence is heavy and the weapon can be hidden but still easily accessible. On the other hand, because of their small size, low weight, and ease of mass production, they are a superior self-defense weapon that can be made available to everyone regardless of social or economic class. As a pro-ownership site I read put it, a handgun is the best way in which a 5'8" 140lb woman can effectively deter or defend herself from a 6'1" 200lb potential rapist. Requiring that a person be familiar with the gun, able to safely use it and maintain it, and not have any stains on their record to indicate a proclivity for criminality is wholly reasonable and will generally limit gun ownership to those who can be responsible in its use. But there is a point at which a great multitude of laws limiting who can posses a gun effectively amounts to banning gun ownership and because there are a multitude of laws, no one of which actually goes over the line, it is very difficult to effectively combat them through a court ruling.

Personally, I do not yet own a handgun although being 25, at least nominally educated, familiar with the safe care and use of a firearm (Boy Scout, earned both Rifle and Shotgun shooting merit badges as well as Archery), in certifiably good mental health, and not having so much as a traffic ticket on my criminal record, I expect that I could legally purchase one if I so desire. I may regard being able to purchase an FG42 or StG44 (early assault rifles) to augment my collection of WW2 firearms as highly desirable but I think it wholly reasonable that the purchase would be expensive and insanely difficult; after all, they're automatic weapons and although it's legal to purchase a Class 3 weapon (which amazingly doesn't include incendiary ammunition), it is justifiably difficult. People seem all cool about rifles, though... 1891 rifle with bayonet included was as easy as handing a local sporting goods store the money.

[Serafine666]

Well, I'm in full support of the ban on automatic weapons. Well, you can still get one but the rules and what not to get one is insane (and rightfully so). I'm more worried about the cheap and easy weapons that flood the streets. Those are the ones I'd like to see taxed to oblivion, closed down, or regulated some how to slow the flood down. I'm more concerned about them than assault weapons on the street.

The stance is perfectly reasonable and understandable but there is another element to it. Banning or limiting cheap handguns effectively says to someone who may want a handgun for self-defense and is legally able to own one "you may only buy a handgun that's priced out of your reach." If it is legal to own and carry a gun, why limit the right to those who are wealthy enough to exercise the right instead of making that right available to anyone who can meet the legal requirements?

[Darth Wong]

Well, I'm in full support of the ban on automatic weapons. Well, you can still get one but the rules and what not to get one is insane (and rightfully so). I'm more worried about the cheap and easy weapons that flood the streets. Those are the ones I'd like to see taxed to oblivion, closed down, or regulated some how to slow the flood down. I'm more concerned about them than assault weapons on the street.

The stance is perfectly reasonable and understandable but there is another element to it. Banning or limiting cheap handguns effectively says to someone who may want a handgun for self-defense and is legally able to own one "you may only buy a handgun that's priced out of your reach." If it is legal to own and carry a gun, why limit the right to those who are wealthy enough to exercise the right instead of making that right available to anyone who can meet the legal requirements?

Because wealthy people are not very likely to hold someone up at gunpoint for his wallet. If you want to limit the ability of wealthy people to steal and hurt others, you should limit their political lobbying and financial options.

[TheFeniX]

Yes, provided he can meet licensing requirements. The idea that firearms should not require licensing seems incredibly stupid to me. We require people to get licenses to drive cars; why not guns?

You do not need a license or even need to have a car registered to drive it. You do have to have to be licensed and have your car registered to drive it on public roads. Just like many states require a license to carry a concealed firearm.

I would prefer that easily concealed weapons are outlawed for private use, and that gun companies be vigorously prosecuted for failure to take measures to limit sales of such weapons to the general public. Handguns and machine pistols are far too amenable to criminal activity. The long guns are OK; they're harder to conceal and they're more accurate.

Unless a criminal is too stupid to saw the barrel off on a shotgun.

The guns criminals use to commit crimes are selected because of concealability and how cheap they are.

I'm for allowing the common citizen to own pretty much any firearm. Mainly because all the guns people consider "Scary" are too fucking expensive to buy anyways. The laws on the books (with a few exceptions) work quite well.

Somewhere this notion that just passing laws will do anything without enforcement. The Viginia Tech shooter would never have had legal access to a firearm with proper enforcement of the existing laws, but in the wake of the shootings, people were clamoring for stricter laws which would have done..... what?

[Coyote]

Handguns are, indeed, one of the firearms I'd consider worth mandatory registration, which in my opinion protects the owner from liability if it is stolen and reported as such as soon as the theft is discovered. But generally, I think that instead of registering individual guns, you just license the owner as someone who has passed all the requirements.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

That is one thing I favour, simply a standardized gun law for the entire country, which would be--retain the current Class III system for guns filed under Class III currently.

--All other guns would then fall into three categories:

1. Single-shot per barrel, rifled or smoothbore and regardless of loading mechanism or length of barrel, but no magazine capability: Available to anyone over the age of 21 with a basic instant background check at time of purchase, and anyone age 15 - 21 after completing a government sanctioned safety course (15 - 18 parental permission also required). Presentation of a letter saying the safety course is completed is the only thing required for purchase beyond clearing the instant background check. No government agency is involved except that regulatory the safety courses.
2. Magazine rifles/carbines and shotguns with barrels over ten inches: Available to anyone of the age of 18 or older with a basic instant background check and a government sanctioned safety course. Presentation of a letter saying the safety course is completed is the only thing required for purchase beyond clearing the instant background check. No government agency is involved except that regulating the safety courses.
3. Magazine weapons with barrels under ten inches: Require a 30-day rigorous background check and extensive safety and tactical course (lasting at least 48 hours of training time and conducted by a nationally certified facility). Completion of the safety and tactical course must be followed by an oral and written examination conducted at a police department/sheriff's department subsequent to the presentation of a letter saying the tac course has been completed. At this point you will receive a license which both allows you to carry concealed and purchase any weapon (not covered under Class III) with a barrel of under 10 inches in length. At this point you may carry a concealed weapon anywhere you wish without restriction.

In all cases the legislation shall provide for "Shall Issue" -- you cannot deny purchase to someone who passes both the background check and, where applicable, provides a notarized letter of completion of the safety course in the first and second cases, and in the third case, shall also be "Shall Issue", if the rigorous background check provides nothing blocking possession (any violent crime as an adult, say, or two violent crimes as a juvenile, or mental hospitalization within the past ten years and even after ten years then a letter saying that the mental issue has been successfully controlled must be provided from two separate psychiatrists with concurring opinions, would serve to disqualify) and the tac course has been completed as well as the oral/written examination passed by at least 80%, then the law enforcement agency the test is taken at is legally obligated to provide the license immediately.

Now standardize these procedures across the United States, and for Class III weapons, add the provision that anyone applying for a Class III must also already have a concealed carry/small arms license, and we're good to go.

Handling/use of a firearm by someone under the age of 15 would be absolutely prohibited in any circumstance; 15 year olds to 18 year olds would have the opportunity to learn to shoot with single-shot weapons under the provision, which I think is reasonable enough.

[Darth Wong]

Unless a criminal is too stupid to saw the barrel off on a shotgun.

Even a sawed-off shotgun is still more difficult to conceal than a pistol.

Somewhere this notion that just passing laws will do anything without enforcement. The Viginia Tech shooter would never have had legal access to a firearm with proper enforcement of the existing laws, but in the wake of the shootings, people were clamoring for stricter laws which would have done..... what?

They clamour for stricter laws because they don't realize that the government is pulling the "benign neglect" trick of not bothering to enforce laws on the books. They're naive enough to think that the government takes its own laws seriously: ordinarily not an unreasonable assumption.

And don't tell me that the pro-gun lobby has nothing to do with lax enforcement; that's about as believable as saying that Wall Street lobbying had nothing to do with the SEC not bothering to enforce its rules either. The pro-gun lobby tries to have it both ways: they use lax enforcement as a way of discrediting gun control activists by saying "hey, the laws are in place, they just need to be enforced", while you know perfectly well that they would punish any politician who tried to actually do that.

[Serafine666]

Because wealthy people are not very likely to hold someone up at gunpoint for his wallet. If you want to limit the ability of wealthy people to steal and hurt others, you should limit their political lobbying and financial options.

So... if a particular economic class of people is more liable to commit a certain crime (although criminals do not constitute the majority or even a significant minority of that economic group), the entire class ought to be deprived of a right by essentially making it accessible only to the wealthy? I'm not sure... it just doesn't seem quite kosher to restrict a right based on impoverishment.

[Darth Wong]

Because wealthy people are not very likely to hold someone up at gunpoint for his wallet. If you want to limit the ability of wealthy people to steal and hurt others, you should limit their political lobbying and financial options.

So... if a particular economic class of people is more liable to commit a certain crime (although criminals do not constitute the majority or even a significant minority of that economic group), the entire class ought to be deprived of a right by essentially making it accessible only to the wealthy?

Yes, because it's not a right. Only the Americans think it's a right. It's not in the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights and it is not considered an inalienable right in most countries.

I'm not sure... it just doesn't seem quite kosher to restrict a right based on impoverishment.

See above. You can't justify the idea that it's a universal human right by simply assuming it to be so, and I'm not an American, so don't bother appealing to your Mighty Holy Founding Fathers. I couldn't care less what those fuckers thought. We're arguing about the way things should be, not the way they are right now.

[Serafine666]

And don't tell me that the pro-gun lobby has nothing to do with lax enforcement; that's about as believable as saying that Wall Street lobbying had nothing to do with the SEC not bothering to enforce its rules either. The pro-gun lobby tries to have it both ways: they use lax enforcement as a way of discrediting gun control activists by saying "hey, the laws are in place, they just need to be enforced", while you know perfectly well that they would punish any politician who tried to actually do that.

Have you ever heard of "Project Exile" in Virginia? Basic summary is here. It is true that the pro-gun lobby generally hated the idea but to their credit, the NRA (one of the most reliably pro-gun lobbying organizations out there) partnered with their dedicated foes (the Brady Campaign) to get Congress to apply already-existing federal laws to state gun crimes in an effort to increase deterrence. Not all pro-gun folks are cut of the same cloth.

[Darth Wong]

The NRA only supports gun laws when they're applied to criminals who have been caught using those guns in the commission of another crime such as robbery. In other words, they seem to be of the opinion that they should not be enforced until someone breaks another law in addition to the gun law. This "Project Exile" doesn't seem any different: use gun laws as a way to get tougher sentences against people who break other laws, but I still see no evidence that they would support the use of gun laws to prosecute someone simply because they broke them.

[Coyote]

Not all pro-gun folks are cut of the same cloth.

I don't believe anyone here said they were, which makes this, in my eyes, an attempt to create a wedge issue.

[Serafine666]

See above. You can't justify the idea that it's a universal human right by simply assuming it to be so, and I'm not an American, so don't bother appealing to your Mighty Holy Founding Fathers. I couldn't care less what those fuckers thought. We're arguing about the way things should be, not the way they are right now.

Mike, if I was attempting to appeal to the Great and Holy Founding Fathers, I'd actually start quoting one of them. I'm American... I'm most familiar with my own country's laws and so that is the easiest and most sensible position to argue from. I also happen to think that, along with things like freedom of speech, press, and religion, the right to own a firearm is one that more people than just an American citizen ought to enjoy.

[Darth Wong]

How many people have been prosecuted in the United States for selling guns without mandated selling requirements in any given state, such as background checks?

[Darth Wong]

See above. You can't justify the idea that it's a universal human right by simply assuming it to be so, and I'm not an American, so don't bother appealing to your Mighty Holy Founding Fathers. I couldn't care less what those fuckers thought. We're arguing about the way things should be, not the way they are right now.

Mike, if I was attempting to appeal to the Great and Holy Founding Fathers, I'd actually start quoting one of them. I'm American... I'm most familiar with my own country's laws and so that is the easiest and most sensible position to argue from. I also happen to think that, along with things like freedom of speech, press, and religion, the right to own a firearm is one that more people than just an American citizen ought to enjoy.

Too bad. You haven't done jack shit to justify that "right". So if you're not appealing to the Holy Fathers, then what exactly is your justification? "Because I say so"?

[Serafine666]

I don't believe anyone here said they were, which makes this, in my eyes, an attempt to create a wedge issue.

I was honestly not attempting to. Mike's point was generally correct and I thought it was proper to acknowledge this but to also mention an instance in which the pro-gun lobby acted differently.

[Quetzalcoatl]

But Mike, Mike...George Washington!

[Serafine666]

Too bad. You haven't done jack shit to justify that "right". So if you're not appealing to the Holy Fathers, then what exactly is your justification? "Because I say so"?

Because I regard access to an effective means of self defense to confer more benefit than cost. It, unfortunately, isn't an evidence-heavy position because it is difficult if not impossible to get an accurate record of the number of crimes prevented by a handgun versus the number of crimes perpetuated by a handgun. The economist John Lott did a fairly lengthy statistical study of the effect of concealed carry laws in the United States but I am unaware of comparable studies done in other countries.

[LadyTevar]

As Nitram has said, I own a .410 shotgun that is kept safely stored in my closet, while the bullets are stored separately. I've not used it in ten years, as I've not had the wish to go hunting squirrel since Dad died.

My father was a life-long NRA members. He owned many shotguns, and both single and semi-auto rifles. My brothers and I were taught literally at his knee while he was cleaning them (once a month without fail) the rules of Gun Safety. Dad's handguns, however, we were never allowed to touch. There was a huge difference to my Dad about handguns and hunting rifles, and he would agree that a gun-owner should have training before they were ever allowed to hold a gun.

I stand by my Dad's ideals. Gun ownership is a Right .. but a Responsibility as well. If you want one, you should take a Gun Safety class. Background checks have become a necessity in the US, especially in WV where several NY and Chicago gangs have been using mules to purchase pistols and semi-auto guns to be resold on the streets. I believe people who want any gun that is not a Hunting Rifle/Shotgun should be checked, double-checked, and made to wait while they're investigated.

AK-47s and Uzis are not hunting weapons. Glocks and other pistols are often used in competition shooting, but shooting enthusiasts usually go to certain dealers to get the best equipment. Someone buying a handgun from a pawn-shop, or worse buying multiple weapons at the same time? Pull the cops in, do a background check, see who might be 'helping' that person buy those guns, because nine times out of ten that gun will be used against a human being, and often not by the one who purchased it.

So yes, I believe in the Right to Bear Arms (and arm bears), but I believe also in Gun Control as applied to Handguns, SMGs and Machine guns, and any Military Weaponry. People who own those have them for one of two reasons: Collections (aka Penis waving) and Using for Crimes.

BTW: My Dad's Korean War Era M-1 Garand is now in the hands of my big brother. It makes a damn fine deer rifle. An AK-47 or a M-16 would not.

[Quetzalcoatl]

I'm going to pass out from lack of sleep right about now, but before I do I'd like to toss another issue into the ring. Consider the confiscation of weapons post Hurricane Katrina. I think this is an excellent way to bring the "right" vs "privelege" issue to the fore.

The background. Yes it's wikipedia. I'm sleep-deprived.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_ ... ne_Katrina

Some pro gun-wank from the NRA. It does have one anecdote at the end that pisses me off though (assuming it is true, which I have no way of knowing for sure).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-taU9d26wT4

[LadyTevar]

Too bad. You haven't done jack shit to justify that "right". So if you're not appealing to the Holy Fathers, then what exactly is your justification? "Because I say so"?

Because I regard access to an effective means of self defense to confer more benefit than cost. It, unfortunately, isn't an evidence-heavy position because it is difficult if not impossible to get an accurate record of the number of crimes prevented by a handgun versus the number of crimes perpetuated by a handgun. The economist John Lott did a fairly lengthy statistical study of the effect of concealed carry laws in the United States but I am unaware of comparable studies done in other countries.

I'm willing to bet that the number of crimes committed with outweigh those prevented by a large margin.

How many people have been prosecuted in the United States for selling guns without mandated selling requirements in any given state, such as background checks?

I know of several in the state of WV, and there is reports of this being a chronic problem with traveling gun shows. In one case, a pawnshop owner sold multiple pistols to a local woman, who was escorted into the pawnshop by an unknown black man. He made the choices, she signed the paperwork, and the owner let it go through. A few months later, one of those guns was used to kill a NYPD officer during a drug raid.
Both the woman and the pawn shop owner were charged with fraud and illegal purchase/selling of a weapon.

Gunshows are the worst, from what I understand, since they are only 'in town' for a weekend. So, a buyer makes a purchase on a Sunday, and the merchant is supposed to wait 3 days but by then he'll be in another state. What to do?
That kind of situation is ripe for fraud, even if it's between reputable merchants and buyers. "Here, we know you're good, take the gun now and I'll handle the paperwork *winkwink, nudgenudge*."

So do we stop Gun Shows?