Arizona legalizes carrying concealed gun without a permit

[Ritterin Sophia]

I guess if Americans really cannot be parted from their guns, then Americans really cannot be parted from their guns. In other countries' experiences, gun bans were not futile. But they are not America.

They work in other countries typically because those countries don't have a large population of gun owners.

Exactly. They did not steal from law-enforcement or military, they obtained weapons that were circulating in the civilian sector. Because of the easy availability of guns in the civilian sector, this translate to easy availability of guns for criminals.

Okay this gun ban will help anymore than tighter gun control laws (mandatory gun safes [I'm looking at you Aly] the installation of which will be overseen by a Federal employee, X number of misdemeanor disqualifying you for gun ownership, microchipping handguns, mandatory reporting of stolen weapons), how?

Then we need to figure out how will you compensate the gun owners for their lost items? It's hard to find a good rifle or handgun that isn't nearly a thousand dollars and then you can throw in the cost of a good sight with a rifle. There's a number like me who own a number (15) of NFA legal weapons, each one would cost over 15k dollars (good thing they're inherited). Then there's the question of how do you compensate someone for their sentimental value, I don't think any price could separate me from my grandpa's Browning .50 cal.

As for smuggled into the country guns, I bet they were stolen from the civilian sectors of other countries too and not stolen from foreign law-enforcement or military sectors. If those countries had gun bans and restricted civilian sector firearms, then this proliferation of weapons in the criminal sector may be decreased. Maybe.

And how do you propose doing this if the country they're being smuggled from are in the pockets of drug cartels?

[Ryan Thunder]

Then we need to figure out how will you compensate the gun owners for their lost items? It's hard to find a good rifle or handgun that isn't nearly a thousand dollars and then you can throw in the cost of a good sight with a rifle. There's a number like me who own a number (15) of NFA legal weapons, each one would cost over 15k dollars (good thing they're inherited). Then there's the question of how do you compensate someone for their sentimental value, I don't think any price could separate me from my grandpa's Browning .50 cal.

What if they were to confiscate all your ammunition instead?

[eion]

Without wading back into the middle of a policy debate, I do have an idea...

As has been explained, a national firearm's registry would help law enforcement immensely in the solving of gun crimes. The problem with such a registry is that it could be easily used to enforce a national firearms ban. This makes it unlikely that any gun rights group would support such a measure, even in the face of a clear reduction of gun crimes because they both value the intrinsic right to bear arms and believe that an armed citizenry can also reduce violent crimes.

So, have the gun rights groups run the database. Require every gun owner to register the following information with a non-profit organization (The National Registry Foundation) founded by the 5 largest gun rights group:

1. Name of Owner
2. SSN or other unique identity number
3. Location and method of acquisition(private citizen transfer, gun show, licensed gun store, etc.)
4. Firearm information including serial number
5. Ballistic fingerprinting

Only items 1-2 and 4-5 are verified. Item 3 is used for statistical analysis by the Foundation in its stated goal of reducing gun crime and gun accidents nationwide. Registration can be done at any licensed gun store, the Foundation sets up courtesy booths at most gun shows to ease registration, or the owner can do it themselves at a variety of facilities. Failure to register a firearm within 60 days of acquisition is a crime punishable by a fine no less than the value of the firearm (the fine goes directly to the foundation). Proof of registration is not required to be carried by the gun owner, but may ease any interactions with law enforcement.

A registration fee would be collected to offset the cost of operating the registry, though a hardship waiver would be available. Administrative expenses not covered by the registration fee, and any hardship waivers, are paid for by the Federal Government.

The database cannot be browsed by law enforcement, but only searched using the last two pieces of data. Therefore it is impossible to find out if John Doe owns any guns, but it is possible to find out if the gun used to kill Stephen Brown was owned by John Doe, and a side benefit allows the returning of lost guns to their owners.

The law would have to protect the registers’ right to privacy and prevent the Foundation from releasing any portion of the larger database. Registration of the first 5,000,000 firearms is free, and should a person own more than one firearm, the registration fee for those additional firearms is half the initial registration fee.

Stupid, crazy, impossible to implement? It was just a thought experiment to see if a national firearms registry can be crafted to be acceptable to gun rights groups and gun owners.

[gizmojumpjet]

What if they were to confiscate all your ammunition instead?

There aren't enough suicidal cops.

[Wing Commander MAD]

I wander if people outside the U.S. don't really understand the degree to which people actually hunt in America, especially the poor. An example would be my fathers family when he was growing up (late 1950s -1970s). Apparently a vast majority of the meat they ate came from hunting. The family's policy (including uncles,cousins, etc.) it seems was basically if it was a game animal, and you weren't at risk of shooting someone, you shot it. Really, a good portion of what they ate they raised, grew, or hunted. Shopping like today at grocery store really wasn't common until more recent times, at least in rural and suburban areas where my family on both sides is from. Mind you this is western Pennsylvania, a very well developed part of the country since its founding. Specifically, this was around New Castle, which while declining at the time still had some industry. Heck, I've been told by my father a lifetime hunter, that PA Game Commission apparently will still look the other way to some degree when the poor poach animals out of season or past limits. Remember this country is generally devoid of social safety nets, and those that do exist tend to be far more available in urban areas (generally viewed as high crime) rather than suburban and rural areas.

There are also economic and some environmental (albeit not necessary ones) incentives for not banning guns. I can tell you right now that states like Pennsylvania receive a fairly decent chunk of income by licensing hunters (anything you can use to hunt can have the same arguments made against it as guns). This is without even considering the ecological benefits of hunting on controllying out of balance game populations. We in PA for example have an overpopulation of whitetail deer, as a result of most of their natural predators being killed off long ago, to such a degree that the populations actually will and have gotten so larged as to have grazed themselves to the point of malnourishment, which also tends to take a big shit on the rest of the local ecosystem.

Does anyone actually have any numbers of gun ownership breakdown by type? I have a feeling a good number, if not majority will fall into the long-arms category (at least outside of cities) which have little use in most violent crime, but have very real value for hunting (recreational or survival). This is of course not even considering the equally valid and utilitarian use of handguns for self defense, or valid uses such as target shooting which lack direct utility.

[Illuminatus Primus]

None of that defends handguns and their ownership culture is really the centerpiece of U.S. gun policy debate.

[eion]

Nor is the phrase "subsistence hunting" to be found anywhere in the second amendment.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Hey now, strict constructionism is for every part of the Constitution except the Second Amendment.

[eion]

You know, I keep forgetting that...

[Wing Commander MAD]

IP, are you sure its the ownership culture of handguns thats the issue, and not the ownership culture of guns in geneneral thats the issue? Even then, handguns still have value for hunters for finishing off a messy kill and for people in the woods in general for defense from hostile wildlife. Rifles aren't exactly the best thing to defend yourself with when an animal is attacking at close range. Even normally skitish herbivores can prove deadly, to say nothing of predators or highly territorial animals like boar.

As an aside, any of our local historians know of how the proposal of laws forbidding ownership of machineguns and the like were viewed back at the time (IIRC 1930s)? It might be interesting to see if there are any parrallels to how people (at least some) feel today, or if it by and large was ignored by the public as most didn't see any practical use for it unlike what can be said for longarms and handguns.

[Illuminatus Primus]

IP, are you sure its the ownership culture of handguns thats the issue, and not the ownership culture of guns in geneneral thats the issue? Even then, handguns still have value for hunters for finishing off a messy kill and for people in the woods in general for defense from hostile wildlife. Rifles aren't exactly the best thing to defend yourself with when an animal is attacking at close range. Even normally skitish herbivores can prove deadly, to say nothing of predators or highly territorial animals like boar.

You were defending hunger-need based hunting and wildlife population control hunting. Neither necessarily requires handguns, especially in light of their other uses which lend quite easily to crime.

[Wing Commander MAD]

Granted. I wasn't really thinking of hand guns when I made that post. That said, upon further thought handguns do have practical uses outside of committing crimes, primarily in self defense. Whether that is a enough to justify them being legal to own or not I suppose would depend on the numbers of legitimate uses (including simple entertainment) versus the numbers of criminal uses, and what society as a whole deems an acceptable ratio of criminal uses of a tool to lawful uses of said tool. I also suppose intangibles like "peace of mind" might need to be considered as well, as I'm sure there are many who have no need for a handgun for self defense, but are reassured that if a need arises they can legally own one. Regardless, my post more to merely shed some light on a cultural and economic facet of the issue that most save Broomstick seem to have ignored, and might not be as readily apparent to non North American members.

[Ryan Thunder]

What if they were to confiscate all your ammunition instead?

There aren't enough suicidal cops.

Oh, I see, you're one of those hatfuckers.

Well, frankly, if you're stupid enough to fight the police for your means to kill people, you got what was coming to you.

But that's not really what I was asking about. If you have a firearm that you are attached to out of sentiment, would you find it acceptable to simply not be able to purchase ammo/have your ammo confiscated with compensation?

[Ritterin Sophia]

Well, frankly, if you're stupid enough to fight the police for your means to kill people, you got what was coming to you.

You're both equally stupid. Him for thinking he can successfully fight the police and you for insinuating the only reason he may want to keep them is to kill people. I got the M2 from my grandpa, all the other grandkids except myself got a 100-round belt for it. Peripherals have value too, even ammunition.

[Crossroads Inc.]

I would like to jump in here on the whole "Gun Control" issue with the following... While I LOATHE guns, and really REALLY do not like them, not for a second do I think they should be either "banned" nor do I think that taking all guns away would reduce crime.

What I DO think, is that guns should have the same restrictions, rules forced safety measures as something like a car...

You do not have a right to own or operate a car. You do have a right to own and operate a firearm in the US. Saying that because we require training to drive a car, a privilege, we should therefore have mandatory firearms training misses the point that gun ownership is a right.

Oh yes, thats right, the famous "Guns are a RIGHT" argument. Its so cute, really it is. Funny how saying something is "A Right" somehow evidently excludes ANY restrictions, ANY regulations, ANY consequences to the gun makers when things go wrong.

All cars today have 101 safety features and designed up the wazoo to keep them from killing people. You have car companies actively competing for various prizes of "Im safer then you" Compare that with the gun industry right now, were it is basically all about trying to make it as easy as possible for your average hick to get a gun, ANY gun, and nothing else.

Those stupid community groups, all about trying to make it as easy as possible for your average urban black to vote. HOW DARE THEY!!!

Are you SERIOUSLY equating getting people to vote with getting people a dangerous tool that kills people? And nice way of totally side stepping the issue that Car sales and the Car industry Revolves around SAFTEY about making them safe, about Teaching safety, about mandating standards.

But hey, I guess that doesn't really matter much to you

Real 'gun control' for the purposes of reducing both crime and accidental deaths.
*"Mandatory safety training classes before buying a gun." Virtually 3/4th of all aspects of getting a Drivers license is how NOT to run into someone else on the roads. Taking a driving corse focuses immensely on NOT doing stupid stuff. Implementing mandatory safety corses before getting a gun might not stop people form doing stupid things, but you could at least say you warned them...

In an ideal world, sure, it would be lovely if everyone who owns a gun had some safety training, but there are a number of problems with this:

1) Who will provide the training?
2) What standards will be used to determine their suitability for the role?
3) What will the curriculum be, exactly? Because gun safety is actually really simple. There are four rules. They're very simple. Learning them and abide by them will keep you safe. I question how beneficial any sort of mandatory training would actually be on gun crime statistics. As you've pointed out, driver's education classes are required in order to get one's license, but the most dangerous people on the road are new drivers in whose minds the lessons learned in these classes must necessarily be the freshest.
4) Will enough instructors be available to serve the demand? If not, does that mean people don't get to buy guns until sufficient instructors become available?
5) What will the training cost and how long will it take?
6) What will the availability be? If I live in a low population area, might I wind up being required to travel all the way to the County Seat, so to speak, in order to avail myself of this mandatory training?

All of these are problematic in and of themselves from a logistical standpoint, but mandatory gun safety training is even more onerous because no sort of mandatory training is required to exercise any of my other rights.

I'm not required to take a communications class in order to exercise my right to free speech, and I'm not required to take a civics class in order to exercise my right to vote.

I'm not entirely sure any sort of mandatory training would stand up to a SCOTUS challenge because it is in very many ways similar to the poll taxes of the past: obstacles set in the way to discourage people from exercising their Constitutional rights.

You know, there is this great institution called the "DMV" and, despite what you might think, they have been able to form a coherent, well used, standardized and Nation Wide system of testing people to see if they should be given then "right" to drive a Car. Funny that it has worked well for so long. You know, the government seems to do quite well at, you know, Providing Training, creating testing criteria, evaluating standards to be used.
Also worth noting that, well I can't think of a 'shortage' of instructors EVER leading to people not being able to get a Drivers license.

And you know what? If you live in some small town, You might JUST have to go out to the big city for the test, you MIGHT even have to pay for the license. How horrible Truly such things like, driving to a county seat, or paying a small fee, truly these will infringe upon your "Right" to bare arms.

*"All guns should come with a gun lock, standard." No one would buy a car without a seatbelt these days, why do we sell guns without a mandatory way to keep someone from using it?

Are you talking about trigger locks, or internal locks that can be deactivated with, say, a key or a magnetic ring? The latter sorts of measures are problematic; they increase the complexity and decrease the reliabity of the firearm. As for the former, the last gun I bought that didn't come with a trigger lock of some sort was a Mosin Nagant manufactured in 1941. Most police departments will give you a trigger lock for free, or so I've heard. The lack of trigger locks isn't responsible for gun crime.

Trigger locks will do, But you know if the Police are giving them away for free, why aren't the gun companies? How hard is it to add something that might keep a kid form picking up a loaded gun and blowing his brains out?
Funny how because something is offered by a group like the Police, I guess we shouldn't demand that it be offered everywhere? Specifically from the companies that Make guns? That would go great with cars you know?

""Hey! You know seatbelts? We don't "HAVE" to add them to cars, you can just get them and put them in yourself at your local auto shop! No responsibility on us Auto makers at all!""

Gun owners love to go on and on about being 'law abiding citizens' yet when it comes to gun laws, they turn into shrieking monsters at ANYthing that keeps them from guns.

People tend to get upset about what they perceive as an infringement on their rights. People even get upset about infringements on rights they claim to have but do not seem to appear in the Constitution. The right to keep and bear arms is explicitly enumerated in the Constitution. Opposing infringements upon that right doesn't turn one into a "shrieking monster" any more than opposing infringements on speech, religion, or the protection against self-incrimination turns one into a "shrieking monster."

Thank you for confirming everything I believe about most Right Wing gun nuts.

When you can tell me how:
Mandatory Safety classes,
Mandatory Trigger locks
Gun registration,

Are "infringing" on your rights, please get back to me. As others have said your oh so sacred "Right" is something of an anachronism, something put into place during a time when having a gun was "needed" in society. You know, perhaps if the constitution was made today, "The right to own a car" might be put into it as well. Does that mean we should do away with all the restrictions on owning a car? Because its a 'right' and God help anyone who tires to infringe on that right with, you know RULES and stuff...

[Mr. Coffee]

What if they were to confiscate all your ammunition instead?

If you think confiscating several tens of millions of firearms is difficult and boardering on damned near impossible, imagine trying to confiscate several hundred million rounds in calibers ranging from .17HMR all the way out to .50BMG, not including all the wildcats and handloads, just the factory loaded ammo. But really, never mind that shit. Just try getting enough popular support behind a measure that will result in several tens of thousands of Americans getting laid off because you just removed the market for the manufacturing jobs they have making firearms, ammo, and other related items. Not going to happen, at least not if any of the politicians that back it seriously want to continue their careers.

Other have touched on this earlier in the thread, and if you want I can give you a more detailed reasoning for it, but it's not the firearms that are the problem in regards to the US and gun violence. It's our fucking culture.

[Simon_Jester]

Guns aren't a necessity and are weapons. Why should weapons be easily available to the civilian population, where less savory (criminal) elements will obtain them and will generally find more uses for them than law-abiding citizens (who generally don't need guns at all anyway)?

See, my point is that "why should they be easily available to the civilian population" and "why shouldn't they" are both perfectly reasonable questions. As you say, they're not a necessity of life, so I don't see why people must be able to have them. On the other hand, the vast majority of the population handles them responsibly, and I'm not at all sure that overall crime would go down that far without the guns, so I don't see why people mustn't be able to have them.

It's just not an issue I feel strongly about, one way or the other.

Well, in the US, making people pay slightly more monies in taxes so the government can improve living standards by giving more people medicines and hospital care, would be a huge pain in the ass to enforce, even if we got enough support for it in the first place, which is unlikely. It's just not worth it, if you ask me.

I'm pretty sure we'd get more good out of $100 billion worth of health care than we would out of $100 billion worth of rounding up guns. The number of people who get shot to death in America is way smaller than the number of people who die for lack of a proper health care system.

I mean, I can't prove that rounding up guns wouldn't be cost-effective in the US, but I strongly suspect it would be, just because of the scale of enforcement and the scale of political opposition the enforcers would face. It would be harder to pass than health care, even if it wouldn't cost more money... and at the end, it would have a smaller effect on American health than lots of other things we could do. More of us suffer from, say, obesity than from bullet wounds.

PS - I think people overvalue their guns (and bibles) too much. Look at what I have in my house though:

Shroomy, if you can be trusted to live in the same building with that much of firepower, I'm honestly not worried to much about what the average American might be packing.

You do not have a right to own or operate a car. You do have a right to own and operate a firearm in the US. Saying that because we require training to drive a car, a privilege, we should therefore have mandatory firearms training misses the point that gun ownership is a right.

You do not have a right to exercise your rights in ways that endanger the safety of others. Incompetent gun handlers endanger the safety of others. You may have a right to own a gun in the US; this does not mean you have a right to handle a gun while having no freaking clue what to do with it.

Moreover, you're confusing two different kinds of arguments. Americans have a legal right to own firearms. That doesn't mean that America would not be a better place if gun safety classes were mandatory. Which is Crossroads' point. Even if the current state of American law makes it impossible to require this, that does not make it bad policy. You cannot argue "this policy change is bad because it contradicts this law," because policy changes are made by changing laws.

All cars today have 101 safety features and designed up the wazoo to keep them from killing people. You have car companies actively competing for various prizes of "Im safer then you" Compare that with the gun industry right now, were it is basically all about trying to make it as easy as possible for your average hick to get a gun, ANY gun, and nothing else.

Those stupid community groups, all about trying to make it as easy as possible for your average urban black to vote. HOW DARE THEY!!!

Why is widespread firearm ownership equivalent to widespread voting?

I'm not required to take a communications class in order to exercise my right to free speech, and I'm not required to take a civics class in order to exercise my right to vote.

You are, however, required to restrain your freedom of speech in situations where it endangers the lives of others. Free speech doesn't let you incite people to riot, for instance.

[Ryan Thunder]

Well, frankly, if you're stupid enough to fight the police for your means to kill people, you got what was coming to you.

You're both equally stupid. Him for thinking he can successfully fight the police and you for insinuating the only reason he may want to keep them is to kill people.

Oh, no. I just go to lengths to hammer home the point that they are for killing things, and little else. But that's not for convincing you (or him, for that matter) of anything since I know you don't care either way.

I got the M2 from my grandpa, all the other grandkids except myself got a 100-round belt for it. Peripherals have value too, even ammunition.

Are you for real? You attach sentimental value to your bullets?

[Alyeska]

Ryan, I suggest you take things a little more seriously and use a little more brain power. I would hate to have to HOS your work. Not that I mind, but I am lazy. Do not irritate me to the point where I overcome this attitude.

[Mr. Coffee]

Are you for real? You attach sentimental value to your bullets?

You seen the prices for .50BMG lately? Shit's expensive enough that forming a sentimental attachment to it isn't all that strange these days.

[Ritterin Sophia]

Oh, no. I just go to lengths to hammer home the point that they are for killing things, and little else. But that's not for convincing you (or him, for that matter) of anything since I know you don't care either way.

Because I've totally killed someone despite what most would consider an impressive arsenal and it's totally not for fun. Again, go fuck yourself.

Are you for real? You attach sentimental value to your bullets?

I don't, because I don't have any that were given to me by anyone of significance, but my cousins do at $4 a round for a single 696-gr AP round that's worth $400 total from their grandfather.

[Ryan Thunder]

Oh, no. I just go to lengths to hammer home the point that they are for killing things, and little else. But that's not for convincing you (or him, for that matter) of anything since I know you don't care either way.

Because I've totally killed someone despite what most would consider an impressive arsenal and it's totally not for fun. Again, go fuck yourself.

Where did I imply that you had to use them to kill people? As has been said, you can hunt with them, or go target shooting, or just fire them off at a range for shits and giggles. None of those activities are harmful.

I'm merely of the opinion that these other activities are neither important enough nor of sufficient utility to justify enabling everybody to easily kill everybody else, except in very specific cases.

Are you for real? You attach sentimental value to your bullets?

I don't, because I don't have any that were given to me by anyone of significance, but my cousins do at $4 a round for a single 696-gr AP round that's worth $400 total from their grandfather.

Well then, perhaps a blanket ban isn't in order. But there does have to be something in place to neuter whatever firearms and/or ammunition you're left with. Can you unload cartridges?

If that's not feasible, is there some other way to make the weapon useless as a weapon without destroying its sentimental value?

EDIT: I suppose that Simon_Jester had a point regarding the utility of enforcing a gun ban versus the utility of spending that money on something like healthcare. I can't really argue with that, unfortunately, so I suppose that when it comes down to it you may as well keep your hideously large arsenals of firearms. -_-

[Alyeska]

Where did I imply that you had to use them to kill people? As has been said, you can hunt with them, or go target shooting, or just fire them off at a range for shits and giggles. None of those activities are harmful.

I'm merely of the opinion that these other activities are neither important enough nor of sufficient utility to justify enabling everybody to easily kill everybody else, except in very specific cases.

You have demonstrated repeatedly that you are incapable of even considering other options other than bans. You want to punish the majority for the crimes of a few. Rather than try and target the problem itself, you just heap bans on people. FYI, there are methods of curbing violence and gun violence that do not ban weapons.

Well then, perhaps a blanket ban isn't in order. But there does have to be something in place to neuter whatever firearms and/or ammunition you're left with. Can you unload cartridges?

Yes, but you might as well confiscate them at this point.

If that's not feasible, is there some other way to make the weapon useless as a weapon without destroying its sentimental value?

No. There is nothing you can do to disable a weapon without damaging it. And damaging it will affect its sentimental value. It will affect its actual value. And it will affect its historic value.

EDIT: I suppose that Simon_Jester had a point regarding the utility of enforcing a gun ban versus the utility of spending that money on something like healthcare. I can't really argue with that, unfortunately, so I suppose that when it comes down to it you may as well keep your hideously large arsenals of firearms. -_-

You work within the frame of what is reasonable. Whether or not a gun ban will actually work, it is not reasonable nor practical in the political climate of this country. Gun legislation is more likely, but it has to be done with caution given the massive negative history the Brady Campaign has managed to cause. The Brady Campaign has done more harm to itself than anything else. They over reached, they lied, and they deceived. And when the public saw the results, they got angry.

[His Divine Shadow]

I guess if Americans really cannot be parted from their guns, then Americans really cannot be parted from their guns. In other countries' experiences, gun bans were not futile. But they are not America.

Care to bring up those countries?

I can't really think of any first world countries with gun bans aside from the UK, which only has a partial ban on certain types of guns (manual repeating rifles, shotguns, semi-auto .22lr rifles are legal, no mag limits on those semis either, and suppressors allowed, gun permit is not hard to get based on what a british shooter tells me), not that the UK's situation was remotely comparable with any european country, seeing as other euro countries have magnitudes more guns in circulation than the UK ever did. Not that any major euro countries I can think of have actually, you know, banned guns. Though certainly it is a popular myth oft repeated like Fox news repeats republican propaganda.

Australia was given a once over earlier in this thread and I think that was p.much the definition of futile, i.e. people swapping out their old guns for lots of money and buying new shiny guns with the money instead, heck the total gun ownership has increased by 25% in New South Wales and gun sales have broken records. So much for "degunning" australia.

I suppose it's also worth noting that partial gun bans where brought up in Finland recently but where dismissed by politicians and law enforcement as utterly useless and too costly/diffuclt to implement for little or no gain.

But maybe you where referring to places like the former Soviet Union or China?

[Shroom Man 777]

Maybe.

Meh, this isn't an issue I feel too strongly about either (like Simon) and unlike the other more clearcut Americanski issues, it seems like the gun debate is far more nuanced in all sorts of American cultures and issues I have no idea about, and is something I really have no idea about at all.

It is also a discussion that has a conflict of interest since I have a shitload of firearms on hand, and so if I say "go gun ban!" people will just go "bullshit shut up shroom you have fucking automatic weapons you stupid fuck".

So you Americans can keep your guns. Good luck.