Guns, Guns, Guns...

[Beowulf]

*Yes, it doesn't have to be. I know. Now go use that gun to chop garlic. I use my knives for that...

*Blam*

*sound of Deer hitting forest floor*

Yum, we're having Venison tonight!

That's why nobody is advocating the banning of hunting guns, and alike. Together with licenses to own one which are not a joke. Many people here,living in the country, own a gun, and I'm fine with that.

However, the necessity of handguns and automatic rifles, for instance, is highly debatable. Here, it's not forbidden (I could own one) but strictly ruled, including extensive courses. In the end, it's a matter of culture. The society just doesn't find them useful, and people usually don't feel the need for them, so they're are not sold, so they can't become popular. It's a self feeding cycle.

*bam bam* Mmmmmmmmmm... Rabbit for dinner. You do realize that the .223 round that the M16 uses is basically a cartridge designed for varmit hunting, right? And you'd be surprised how many semi-automatic rifles are used for hunting and target shooting...

[Coyote]

Education should be sufficient for protecting children; and if we can get the smart-gun technology then that will be nice as well. It will happen, not just because of the pundits for gun control or safety but also because of the practical reasons.

Guns that are stolen are used in crime, cops are frequently shot with their own weapons that have been wrestled away from them. Smart gun tech would make thise problems go away. Also, soldiers on the battlefield can use their weapons interchangeably (depending on the Smart Gun tech being employed) but the enemy cannot employ captured smallarms. Prison guards could be armed without fearing the results of having the weapons stolen.

But again, the caveat: the technology is years away. We still need to work on perfecting it.

In the meantime, education and a focus on serious social shortcomings are needed.

[Cap'n Hector]

http://www.collegiatetimes.com/index.php?ID=859

Interesting study that relates to Wong's point.

[Darth Wong]

Guns are lethal weapons and it's difficult to use them when your job is to keep the peace.

I don't know Mike, so far I think I've managed it pretty well. I've had to handle suspects at gunpoint on more than one occasion.

I suspect you are more highly trained and skilled than the bar bouncers I was talking about.

Besides, I've watched "True Stories of the Highway Patrol". The aggression of a drunken moron does not seem to be tempered by the fact that the cop in front of him has a gun. The gun doesn't seem to deter the idiot unless it's actually drawn and pointed at him, and sometimes not even then.

Then this is the kind of guy who's likely to get himself shot. Frankly, no great loss to society as far as I'm concerned. If he's trying to confront an armed officer with a weapon of his own, he gets shot. If he tries to confront an armed officer with just his fists, he gets a beat down.

Fair enough, but I was basically making the point that the "deterrence factor" cited by widespread concealed-carry advocates does not work on the morons who are responsible for these kinds of random acts of violence, since they don't think before they act.

But the point is, it's very, very rare for the kind of person who possesses and/or carries a gun legally to be the sort of person who would engage in this kind of idiotic and hyper-aggressive behavior. I remember posting a statistic in an earlier thread similar to this one which showed that only .008 percent of the concealed carry permits issued in Florida between 1987 and 1993 had to be revoked because the gun was present at the scene of a crime (I believe the number of revoked permits was 17).

Thus proving that properly enforced licensing should work, because licensed gun owners are not dangerous. The problem then becomes policing the black market, which is facilitated by nudge-nudge wink-wink practices on the part of gun manufacturers and a poorly regulated gun market in general. In essence, the laws could theoretically work as-is except that the gun market is so wide-open that they're impossible to enforce. Is that what you're saying, or am I misreading you here?

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

Just BTW, do yo know how useless an M-16 would be for a criminal?

[weemadando]

Just BTW, do yo know how useless an M-16 would be for a criminal?

What kind of criminal. For your average smash and grab convenience store thief, its fucking useless, but if you were talking about a well organised armoured car hijack gang...

[Darth Wong]

Just BTW, do yo know how useless an M-16 would be for a criminal?

What kind of criminal. For your average smash and grab convenience store thief, its fucking useless, but if you were talking about a well organised armoured car hijack gang...

Or the Maryland snipers ...

[Illuminatus Primus]

Just BTW, do yo know how useless an M-16 would be for a criminal?

What kind of criminal. For your average smash and grab convenience store thief, its fucking useless, but if you were talking about a well organised armoured car hijack gang...

Or the Maryland snipers ...

As if that couldn't have been done with a 5.56 mm hunting rifle?

[weemadando]

What kind of criminal. For your average smash and grab convenience store thief, its fucking useless, but if you were talking about a well organised armoured car hijack gang...

Or the Maryland snipers ...

As if that couldn't have been done with a 5.56 mm hunting rifle?

It could have. But the question has to be asked - WHAT FUCKING USE DID HE HAVE FOR A RIFLE IN THE FIRST PLACE?

I mean, do they even ASK you what you're using it for in the US? Geez, I hope that they go and use that Mac-11 for hunting deer, maybe I should've asked, but that would have gone against NRA policy.

[Perinquus]

Thus proving that properly enforced licensing should work, because licensed gun owners are not dangerous. The problem then becomes policing the black market, which is facilitated by nudge-nudge wink-wink practices on the part of gun manufacturers and a poorly regulated gun market in general. In essence, the laws could theoretically work as-is except that the gun market is so wide-open that they're impossible to enforce. Is that what you're saying, or am I misreading you here?

I don't see the need for licensing to own a gun, since you already have to undergo a criminal background check to determine your eligibility to buy one in the first place; it kind of serves the same purpose. I approve of a kind of license to carry one - the concealed weapon permit - and the mandatory safety training (which costs), another criminal background check (more cost), a permit fee (more cost), and the need to renew the permit every few years (more cost). Anyone willing to jump through all these hoops is not going to be the criminal type.

I'm also unsure about which "nudge-nudge wink-wink" practices on the part of the gun manufacturers you are referring to. Most of them behave pretty responsibly as far as I can tell. They're not shipping a percentage of their products off to be sold at underground bazaares; everything they make goes to military/law enforcement organizations or federally licensed gun dealers, who themselves are subject to severe penalties if they sell firearms under the table or anything like that.

The guns criminals use are usually stolen. Or they're older guns which were sold privately long before the market was as regulated as it is now. For example, on the street I recently recovered a British Webley revolver, which had been converted to fire .45 ACP ammo. It was a WWI British army revolver. If you look at old gun magazines you can see mail order ads for those things. They sold for about $15 in the 50s. You could buy them through the mail until Lee Harvey Oswald purchased a certain surplus Italian bolt action rifle by this means.

A ban won't help because even if there weren't millions of guns already in circulation in this country, and even if they were somehow able to round all those guns up, the criminals would still be able to get them. It's amazing how resourceful they can be. A lively gun smuggling trade is currently importing handguns into Britain, to arm those of its criminals who want them. In Russia, they are actually digging them up out of the ground. Millions upon millions of small arms were lost by German and Soviet troops during WWII, and there are people who make their sole living at digging them up and restoring them. Some are in surprisingly good condition. Even badly corroded ones can often be restored, or at least salvaged for parts. These weapons are not only used in Russia, but are being sold all over Europe. Then there are the millions of small arms the Soviets gave away during the cold war, which many third world countries find it profitable to smuggle into countries where guns are banned, but the criminal element will pay.

An outright ban really will only serve to disarm the law-abiding segment of the populace.

What has worked best in reducing crime is sensible regulation of privately owned weapons (background checks, CCW permits, etc.) plus mandatory harsh penalties for those who use guns in the commission of crimes. So there is already enough restriction on law abiding gun owners. And laws penalizing firearms use in crimes need to be made tougher.

[Darth Wong]

I'm also unsure about which "nudge-nudge wink-wink" practices on the part of the gun manufacturers you are referring to. Most of them behave pretty responsibly as far as I can tell. They're not shipping a percentage of their products off to be sold at underground bazaares; everything they make goes to military/law enforcement organizations or federally licensed gun dealers, who themselves are subject to severe penalties if they sell firearms under the table or anything like that.

The city of Chicago sued several gun manufacturers for selling guns to black marketeers.

[Durandal]

Gun laws and registrations are things that should probably apply on a state-by-state basis. While I might have my issues with rural America, most of them are responsible gun owners. Kids are raised learning how to shoot and how to safely handle a rifle.

In a city, however, where crime is generally greater, guns should be more tightly regulated. I don't think some family living in a tenement in New York City will be very pleased if people can just walk around owning guns without a license. You have to have a license to own and operate a car, and that's something that's primary purpose isn't destruction. I see no reason why it's unreasonable to demand the same of gun owners.

[Perinquus]

The city of Chicago sued several gun manufacturers for selling guns to black marketeers.

And as I recall, that suit was unsuccessful, as were similar suits brought by New Orleans, Atlanta, Bridgeport, Miami-Dade County, Detroit/Wayne County, St. Louis, Boston, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Compton, West Hollywood, San Francisco, Berkeley, Oakland, San Mateo County, and Alameda County, and Newark NJ.

Not one of these suits has succeeded, in fact. The gun manufacturers were found to be innocent of any such irresponsible behavior.

These are politically motivated lawsuits. They are being brought by pro-gun control politicians in order to make firearms companies bankrupt themselves trying to defend themselves against one lawsuit after another. That's why there are so many of the damn things. If these were not politically motivated, they would have stopped pressing ahead after the first one or two failed - a single precedent, upheld by the appelate courts is usually enough to establish the law in any case such as this. Notice also that all these cities tend to have mostly liberal politicians predominating in their city councils.

This is a strategy to try and put gunmakers out of business by making them spend all their money in legal fees and court costs, thus making it unprofitable for them to keep operating.

[Beowulf]

I'm also unsure about which "nudge-nudge wink-wink" practices on the part of the gun manufacturers you are referring to. Most of them behave pretty responsibly as far as I can tell. They're not shipping a percentage of their products off to be sold at underground bazaares; everything they make goes to military/law enforcement organizations or federally licensed gun dealers, who themselves are subject to severe penalties if they sell firearms under the table or anything like that.

The city of Chicago sued several gun manufacturers for selling guns to black marketeers.

Chicago sued because the liberals running it thought they could get the gun makers to cough up cash. The argument was that some guns managed to get into criminal hands. Of course, the gun makers would HAVE TO BE COMPLETE FUCKING MORONS to sell guns to anyone but licensed dealers and government agencies.

[Darth Wong]

And as I recall, that suit was unsuccessful, as were similar suits brought by New Orleans, Atlanta, Bridgeport, Miami-Dade County, Detroit/Wayne County, St. Louis, Boston, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Compton, West Hollywood, San Francisco, Berkeley, Oakland, San Mateo County, and Alameda County, and Newark NJ.

You're concluding that they launched lawsuits without a shred of evidence, rather than concluding that they just didn't have enough of a case to break the gun manufacturers? That's a lot of money to waste on lawsuits which don't even have a SHRED of evidence. How many times did the tobacco industry get sued unsuccessfully before something finally stuck?

[Alyeska]

And as I recall, that suit was unsuccessful, as were similar suits brought by New Orleans, Atlanta, Bridgeport, Miami-Dade County, Detroit/Wayne County, St. Louis, Boston, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Compton, West Hollywood, San Francisco, Berkeley, Oakland, San Mateo County, and Alameda County, and Newark NJ.

You're concluding that they launched lawsuits without a shred of evidence, rather than concluding that they just didn't have enough of a case to break the gun manufacturers? That's a lot of money to waste on lawsuits which don't even have a SHRED of evidence. How many times did the tobacco industry get sued unsuccessfully before something finally stuck?

There is just a slight difference between guns and cigarettes. Gun owners aren't killing themselves with guns every day because of an addiction the company itself refuses to admit. Considering the laws there are in place for gun manufactures as to who they can sell to, I find it extremely unlikely that they are selling to black market dealers intentionally. With the fact that these are the most liberal local governments doing the lawsuits rather then concerned governments, that just proves that they aren't doing it for anything other then political agenda.

[Darth Wong]

You can't go to a judge and say "We want to sue these gun manufacturers with no evidence because we think they're bad people."

A case won't even go to trial if there's no evidence, and the fact that they're liberal is hardly an automatic proof that everything they say is a lie (please purchase a textbook covering basic logic). Is anyone familiar with the details of these cases?

[Alyeska]

You can't go to a judge and say "We want to sue these gun manufacturers with no evidence because we think they're bad people."

A case won't even go to trial if there's no evidence, and the fact that they're liberal is hardly an automatic proof that everything they say is a lie (please purchase a textbook covering basic logic). Is anyone familiar with the details of these cases?

Actually the fact that the Twinkie defense worked and that people were able to sue (at least for a limited time) fast food joints about getting fat, yes you can sue without evidence. It just means the case won't get very far.

[Beowulf]

You can't go to a judge and say "We want to sue these gun manufacturers with no evidence because we think they're bad people."

A case won't even go to trial if there's no evidence, and the fact that they're liberal is hardly an automatic proof that everything they say is a lie (please purchase a textbook covering basic logic). Is anyone familiar with the details of these cases?

What? You can't bring a civil lawsuit to trial? (Yes Mike, it was a civil lawsuit.) The basic idea was that they would basically say guns are bad, and that the gunmakers should be punished for making them. They would do this in multiple cities so that they'd end up bankrupting the gunmakers even if they did win the suit. The judges threw out the lawsuits, because they ruled there was no case. If they hadn't, there'd probably be multi-billion dollar awards from juries...

[Perinquus]

And as I recall, that suit was unsuccessful, as were similar suits brought by New Orleans, Atlanta, Bridgeport, Miami-Dade County, Detroit/Wayne County, St. Louis, Boston, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Compton, West Hollywood, San Francisco, Berkeley, Oakland, San Mateo County, and Alameda County, and Newark NJ.

You're concluding that they launched lawsuits without a shred of evidence, rather than concluding that they just didn't have enough of a case to break the gun manufacturers? That's a lot of money to waste on lawsuits which don't even have a SHRED of evidence. How many times did the tobacco industry get sued unsuccessfully before something finally stuck?

I'm concluding that there was not enough evidence for not one of what, twenty separate lawsuits to succeed. In the most recent of them a California Superior Court judge, Vincent P. DiFiglia, summarily dismissed the charges, meaning there is no basis for a case. And as for liberals being predominant in these city councils. I think that's hardly coincidental, especially given that these are cities with stricter than usual gun control laws, and politicians in those cities, like Chicago's Mayor Richard Daly and San Francisco's Willie Brown are outspoken advocates of gun control. The fact that Sarah Brady's Handgun Control Inc. has been an active participant in bringing these lawsuits is another bit of evidence that there is an anti-gun agenda behind them.

And in America, lawsuits are frequently brought with far shakier evidence than in otheir countries, because most other countries have loser pays rules. One who brings a frivilous lawsuit will end up paying both his court costs and his opponents.

You want an example of how little evidence you need to bring a case to civil court in this country? Fat people suing the fast food chains for making them fat. Come on, what kind of case could they have had, really?

[His Divine Shadow]

Yep, I've got this little thing called a life that means I don't have time to post gigantic replies 24/7

*dons cloak of necromancy*
Holy crap, when did you get that? I remember the multipage, week-long debates consisting of replies just as big if not bigger than this over at SB.

You've gone soft!

[Death from the Sea]

Gun laws and registrations are things that should probably apply on a state-by-state basis. While I might have my issues with rural America, most of them are responsible gun owners. Kids are raised learning how to shoot and how to safely handle a rifle.

In a city, however, where crime is generally greater, guns should be more tightly regulated. I don't think some family living in a tenement in New York City will be very pleased if people can just walk around owning guns without a license. You have to have a license to own and operate a car, and that's something that's primary purpose isn't destruction. I see no reason why it's unreasonable to demand the same of gun owners.

But you don't need a license to OWN a car just to operate it on public roads. You can operate a vehicle with out a license on private property. It is illegal to carry a gun with out a license in public, but not to own one and carry or use it on private property. Licensing to OWN guns does not make sense, but to carry concealed in public does.