Guns in the USA, Take a Stand

[Serafina]

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

Note that they censor the comments by disabling the comment function.

Obviously, freedom of speech is less important than freedom of weapons.

[open_sketchbook]

I like the idea of mandatory gun safety training combined with more or less completely free ownership. If we're going to have piles of guns around, and no matter what the laws we will, especially in North America, then we might as well make sure everyone understands them. A mandatory high-school part-time self-defense class that does an overview of gun safety as well as basically just talks about living safety and protecting oneself would never fly in Canada or the United States, but seems to me to be a rational idea.

[Coyote]

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.

Technically, the Amendment in question says the right to keep and bear arms in general, and it is not stated that the arms referred to are firearms-- it is just that part of the right is interpreted as a right to self defense, and firearms are the most effective means to that.

As to whether all people have a right to self-defnse, I think that can be argued, but the means to that self-defense are going to be up to stricter interpretations based on national history and social mores, which will shift. I think just about any country on Earth will agree that a person has a right to fight for their life, but how far they can go to carry that out is open for interpretation.

The American Constitution works for Americans, and cannot be applied elsewhere any more than, say, the EU Constitution can be applied to us in the USA.

[ray245]

In my opinion, owning a gun is nothing more than a privilege given to the most responsible people in society. The people who can own a gun must be in the extreme minority. I believe that if guns are easily obtainable, it would only result in higher gun circulations.

[Coyote]

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

Note that they censor the comments by disabling the comment function.

Obviously, freedom of speech is less important than freedom of weapons.

To be fair, have you read most YouTube commentary? I think most people in their right mind would disable comments, especially if they just don't want to put up with the bum-rush of ignorati and attack blather.

Tell ya what, if there is anything that will put a person off the concept of "democracy", it's reading YouTube comments and then reminding yourself, "each one of these drooling simpletons has a vote".

[Coyote]

In my opinion, owning a gun is nothing more than a privilege given to the most responsible people in society. The people who can own a gun must be in the extreme minority.

I don't know, that doesn't reflect well on the society in question. "Only the most reponsible-- which will be the extreme minority". Seems like the education system there is turning out a majority of morons!

In truth, if a good education system teaches critical thinking properly, and rewards it, most people would be fine entrusted with weapons. They'd comprehend the consequences of irresponsible use and be able to tell fact from fantasy when watching an action movie. A basic understanding of lagal rights and responsibilites under any sort of self-protection scenario (from fists to firearms) coupled with the ability to rationally think about consequences and make good judgement calls based on likely outcomes and you'd have fewer problems.

The most critical part of any firearm (indeed, any machine at all) is not any one mechanism, but the operator.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Well, obviously under my proposed scheme all gun shows would be banned, and people could only sell guns through facilities able to confirm the legitimacy of notarized letters attesting to completion of a safety course and to conduct an instant background check. Presumably specialty shops could open which would sell your gun for you / provide those services for a fee to screen the person buying your gun from you, should you decide to sell it. An easy way to confirm that only legal transactions were taking place would be to automatically check the number of cleared background screens and entered notarized safety course confirmation numbers per day against the number of reported firearms transactions, and of course if the firearms transaction wasn't reported to the government properly then it would be an IRS and tax issue since they'd be making money off sales that were unrecorded. That means basically only black market illegal vendors would be offering background checks firearms without background checks and confirmation of completion of a safety course.

In the short-term, here and now, though, the gun show loophole could be obviously and easily closed.

[Knife]

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?

Here is where we go from necessity and luxury items. If you are poor, spending $500-$1000 on a luxury item is tough; however, if it is a necessity, buying something in that price range is possible. It is a right in the US, but just because it is a right does not mean that you HAVE to have one at all times any more than I have a right to protest my government but I don't HAVE to go down to the statehouse every time there is a protest.

As a right, it should be possible for everyone who wants a weapon to have one; however, it doesn't need to be interpreted as everyone needs one in their person and house at all times and as such, they need to be cheap and available in large quantities to satisfy the requirements thereof. As such, I stand behind my position that getting rid of dealers and companies that produce $50-$100 mass produced midnight specials that either intentionally or unintentionally market to a criminal culture.

[Sarevok]

In my opinion the self defense arguement depends on where you live. When I lived in Galway, Ireland it was the most nicest, safest place in the world I ever seen. It was really a case of a small town with friendly people and helpful police. If a lot of people had guns there it would only introduce unnecessary risk from abuse. Why fix a system that is not broken ?

Now back home in Dhaka city, Bangladesh the police is feared more than criminals. When you have such a corrupt,unhelpful and sometimed downright dangerous law enforcement you need to protect yourself because you are on your own. The fact that guns are very very difficult to license has not stopped criminals from getting guns illegally. So it's only fair that in absense of fair law enforcement protection people be allowed to defend themselves instead of at mercy of luck only.

[The Spartan]

True, but I know people who take handguns for a finishing or killing shot to put the animal out of it's misery. But for the most part, yeah, hunting is a long gun game.

As a quick addendum to the above a handgun may also be carried as a back up weapon should we run across a group of dangerous animals (in my case, hogs). Reason being that it's not always possible to bring the long arm to bear and even if it is, the rounds it holds are not necessarily enough to scare off/kill all the hogs and reloading a long arm takes longer than to draw a handgun.

[Sarevok]

Are those dangerous monster hogs really common enough that you could run into one without warning ?

[Mr Bean]

Are those dangerous monster hogs really common enough that you could run into one without warning ?

Depends on the state. From "rarely" to "You'll see at least one" all depending where and how far into the back country you go. The real question is will you see one and will it want to take you down.

[LadyTevar]

In the short-term, here and now, though, the gun show loophole could be obviously and easily closed.

Other than banning them, what's your idea for easily closing the loophole? Most of the merchants are following the law, there's only a few bad apples in the bunch it seems. From what I understand, the merchants try to police themselves as well and stop inviting those gun merchants who are known to cross the line.

I know from an SCA merchant friend that anyone wishing to sell their wares in a state have to have a State Business Liscense, as well as charge appropriate local and state taxes for the product. That's why the same item from the same merchant might be more expensive at one event, as the merchant raises the price to cover those fees. A single merchant might be in a different state every weekend, so there's a lot of paperwork to keep track of what fees in what state.

[LadyTevar]

Are those dangerous monster hogs really common enough that you could run into one without warning ?

Depends on the state. From "rarely" to "You'll see at least one" all depending where and how far into the back country you go. The real question is will you see one and will it want to take you down.

My Dad would take his handgun when he was walking firelines, in case of snake. He didn't always see them, as more than once he'd come home with rips in his work-pants and poison-stains on his boots. He rarely got bit, but he'd get struck at. There's one great story of him walking through the woods and thinking he'd caught a branch on his pants, but when he looked back it was a snake with its fangs caught on the hem of his pants.

So, I'll admit that kind of personal protection is needed when in the woods.

[The Spartan]

Are those dangerous monster hogs really common enough that you could run into one without warning ?

They don't need to be monster hogs to be dangerous.

And yes, they can come upon you without warning. A single shot may be enough to scare them off in some cases, but in others you would need the sidearm.

Addendum: and as LadyTevar pointed out there are also snakes to worry about. Which in my case means copperheads, rattle snakes (who don't always rattle in time for you to avoid them) and water moccasins (aka cottonmouths).

[Serafina]

In the short-term, here and now, though, the gun show loophole could be obviously and easily closed.

Other than banning them, what's your idea for easily closing the loophole? Most of the merchants are following the law, there's only a few bad apples in the bunch it seems. From what I understand, the merchants try to police themselves as well and stop inviting those gun merchants who are known to cross the line.

I know from an SCA merchant friend that anyone wishing to sell their wares in a state have to have a State Business Liscense, as well as charge appropriate local and state taxes for the product. That's why the same item from the same merchant might be more expensive at one event, as the merchant raises the price to cover those fees. A single merchant might be in a different state every weekend, so there's a lot of paperwork to keep track of what fees in what state.

Cut the idiotic three-day wait.
Instead, require a police-issued paper that states that you are fit to buy a gun, and require that this specific paper is linked to the gun registry number.

So, you go into the gunshop, show them your paper from the police (who did the background-check on you), and you get your gun.
The merchant then mails the number of the paper to the police, along with the registry number of the gun.
Now, if you doublecheck the inventory of the merchant along with his registered sales, you can easily determine what he did with his guns.

Of course, that does nothing to prevent trade of second-hand trade (expect the inventory checks, if done right) - merchant buying a gun from Uncle Bob and Selling it to Jimmy.
But then again, neither does your current system.

[Coyote]

In my opinion the self defense arguement depends on where you live. When I lived in Galway, Ireland it was the most nicest, safest place in the world I ever seen. It was really a case of a small town with friendly people and helpful police. If a lot of people had guns there it would only introduce unnecessary risk from abuse.

That doesn't make sense to me. If the town is quiet and full of friendly, helpful people, why do you believe that having guns in the neighborhood would turn them into a pack of killers? If they're nice people, they'd be just the types of folks you'd prefer to see allowed to buy guns if they wished, whereas the stereotypical "yob" type that we hear about in the news already comes across as a total waste of flesh, even without the "benefit" of having a gun to "turn him bad".

[Serafina]

In my opinion the self defense arguement depends on where you live. When I lived in Galway, Ireland it was the most nicest, safest place in the world I ever seen. It was really a case of a small town with friendly people and helpful police. If a lot of people had guns there it would only introduce unnecessary risk from abuse.

That doesn't make sense to me. If the town is quiet and full of friendly, helpful people, why do you believe that having guns in the neighborhood would turn them into a pack of killers? If they're nice people, they'd be just the types of folks you'd prefer to see allowed to buy guns if they wished, whereas the stereotypical "yob" type that we hear about in the news already comes across as a total waste of flesh, even without the "benefit" of having a gun to "turn him bad".

I think that is not what Sarevok was saying.

Instead, as he said, more guns add additional risks.
You know, the occassional raging father or husband - if he has a gun, he might shoot someone. If he has not, the worst he will do is beating someone. The triggers do not change, but the same event leads to different outcomes.

That's what i meant earlier. If you want to kill someone, you do not need a gun.
But if you have a gun, it is way easier to do so, so easy that it is quite likely to happen by accident and/or without previous planning.
That can happen without guns, but guns increase the risk.

[Coyote]

For gun shows, I notice that they tend to be held in the same places each year/month. In that case, have a local coalition of participating dealers (who stand to profit, after all) set up a system to conduct NICS checks on site. Before the doors open for the show, have the computer(s) set up, have local law enforcement check to make sure the system isproperly integrated, and conduct on the spot checks.

Or, restrict sales only to people who can provide a valid concealed-carry permit.

[MKSheppard]

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.

Actually, you're wrong. The NRA strongly supports Virginia's Project Exile, which uses existing on the books laws to prosecute criminals, and IIRC has resulted in a crime rate drop in VA inner cities -- to the point where criminals are avoiding using handguns in crimes -- since Exile enforces the five year automatic sentence for use of a handgun in a crime -- in the words of gangers "I'd be an old man when I got out"

[Serafina]

Actually, you're wrong. The NRA strongly supports Virginia's Project Exile, which uses existing on the books laws to prosecute criminals, and IIRC has resulted in a crime rate drop in VA inner cities -- to the point where criminals are avoiding using handguns in crimes -- since Exile enforces the five year automatic sentence for use of a handgun in a crime -- in the words of gangers "I'd be an old man when I got out"

That's hardly gun controll tough. And even the NRT does not go so far as to argue in favor of people who use guns for crimes. Rather, they have a lot of reason to despise these people -after all, they are the prime argument for gun controll.

[MKSheppard]

For gun shows, I notice that they tend to be held in the same places each year/month. In that case, have a local coalition of participating dealers (who stand to profit, after all) set up a system to conduct NICS checks on site..

Why go to all this trouble?

It's called "using a cell phone or land line to call the FBI NCIS office, with the information on the 4473 that the customer filled out". Same process is used in gun stores -- or at least was in 1999; they call the NCIS office via phone. The big problems come when the NCIS database on the FBI's end is down, then that means no sales from a FFL until NCIS comes back up

[MKSheppard]

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.

ACtually, no, it's not sufficient.

Civilians can only buy automatic weapons made BEFORE 1986. So there is a huge premium on transferrable Class III weapons -- cheapest weapon is something like a cheap Uzi for $1,000 or so; a M-16 will cost several grand, a belt fed weapon even more so.

Repeal the ban on buying new machine guns, and slightly loosen up the Class III requirements and we're good to go -- and because people can now buy new made automatic weapons, the government gets MORE tax money -- each time you transfer/create an automatic weapon, you have to pay a one time tax of like $300.

[MKSheppard]

In the short-term, here and now, though, the gun show loophole could be obviously and easily closed.

You mean by banning private sales of weapons? That's the so-called gun show loophole. Right now, you can buy weapons between private individuals without having to go through all the check systems -- this allows Uncle Bob to give Cousin Les his old 30.06 hunting rifle he doesn't use anymore without having to fill out a 4473 and call the FBI.

[Serafina]

ACtually, no, it's not sufficient.

Civilians can only buy automatic weapons made BEFORE 1986. So there is a huge premium on transferrable Class III weapons -- cheapest weapon is something like a cheap Uzi for $1,000 or so; a M-16 will cost several grand, a belt fed weapon even more so.

Repeal the ban on buying new machine guns, and slightly loosen up the Class III requirements and we're good to go -- and because people can now buy new made automatic weapons, the government gets MORE tax money -- each time you transfer/create an automatic weapon, you have to pay a one time tax of like $300.

Who the fuck does need an automatic weapon?

I mean, i can understand that you would want some kind of weapon for defense, and sports and hunting are legit reasons to have a weapon, too.
But how does any of this justify having an automatic weapon?
You don't need it for self-defense - unless we are talking about taking on half a dozen guys at once
And it has no use in sports or hunting.

So, tell me, what good reason is there to have automativ weapons?