Gun Control in America

[weemadando]

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

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

Why do I think it would be a good idea?

It means that impulsive behaviour to do with firearms can be curbed - both by waiting times for licenses and the fact that you might have to spend 2 minutes going to your gunsafe, opening it and getting the gun, rather than just pulling it out of your pocket. Australia has seen a significant drop in firearms suicides over the past decade due to the introduction of firearms restrictions.

It means that guns will be less likely to legally make their way into the hands of criminal elements. As for illegally - how many firearms used in crimes were ORIGINALLY legally purchased and then lost/stolen/sold onwards? I think people believe that gun-running and smuggling is a FAR bigger factor than it really is.

Reduces the chances of "unsavoury" elements getting their hands on weapons. Again with psyche testing and waiting times, those who wish to use a gun for illicit actions may well be discovered or at the least discouraged.

Increases accountability of firearms owners. Registration also means that firearms used in crimes will be able to be ID'd a great percentage of the time.

Thats what I can come up with in about 2 minutes.

Now - why don't you stop ducking the fucking question and tell me what is wrong with the idea? 2nd Amendment retaliation is bullshit - this isn't impinging on the right to bear arms, its just making those that choose to use that right more accountable,

[Broomstick]

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

Because we're stubborn, maverick sons of bitches who don't like the government telling us what we can or can't do.

Now that the flip answer is said - your intial premise is false. There are MANY Americans who are in favor of gun control much more restrictive than what you propose. There are Americans who want to entirely repeal the 2nd Ammendment.

There's the City of Chicago, which some time ago outlawed ALL handgun possession by its citizens, no exceptions (except police). There is even a contingent in Chicago that wants the police to give up their guns (except for units with "speical firearms training", as they put it) and issue tasers and pepper spray to the average cop.

Chicago, by the way, is right next door to Indiana, which has some of the least restrictive gun laws in the nation. The... ah... friction generated by this dichotomy is... um... interesting

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

I'd be damn uneasy about it, at best.

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

Define "major offense" - what penalities are we looking at?

Also - what about all those family heirloom firearms? I know plenty of folks who have firearms dating back to the early 1900s and even into the 1880's. I once worked with a guy whose family still owned Colonial flintlocks from the 1700's - what mechanism will you have to register these weapons? When they were first made registration didn't exist.

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

Well, we already require background checks and a cool-off period to buy guns here (although a shorter time span than you propose). Safety training requirements vary, but I've yet to walk into a gun shop that didn't heavily promote training and safety - some even throw in a course for free with your first gun purchase.

The psych testing is a little problematic - how do you decide who is too crazy to own a gun? How do you know the normal guy in front of you today won't go off his rocker 10 years down the road? Now, if you HAVE a mental illness or history of same you can't legally own a gun, even in gun-friendly Indiana, but I question just how effective psych screening is before overt symptoms appear.

The "Why do you need this gun" question disturbs me because of the Nanny-State mentality. I get this with aviation - there are people who tell me I shouldn't have the privilege of flying airplanes as a private citizen because I don't "need" to do that. Nevermind that I completed a rigorous course of study, submit to regular medical exams, passed a competency test, and am required to undergo a re-check and refresher training on a regular basis. I don't "need" to do this in their eyes, so I shouldn't. I should fly Sardine Express just like they "have to". And I got this prior to 9/11, before the average person perceived airplanes as potential weapons. Lest you think these are just average nutjobs walking the street, Senator John McCain has made several statements along the lines of civilian aviation isn't needed, is dangerous, and should be restricted for the benefit of all - and Mr. McCain is unquestionably a powerful man in this country.

With guns we'd have the same issue - no matter WHAT answer I could give to the "why do I want to own a gun" question there are a large number of people in this country who will say that, as a civilian there is NO reason good enough for me to own a gun. Sport shooting? How barbaric, like boxing, not worth the safety risk, there are other sports I could take up. Hunting? How barbaric, buy my meat in the supermarket just like everyone else. Protection? That's what the police are for. There's no arguing with these people.

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

So... when I drive to the shooting range I have to put the gun safe in the back of my pickup? That's a little inconvenient.

How do you define "in use"? Those people I know who have hunting rifles or target pistols already keep their guns locked up. One couple I know actually stores their hunting weapons partially diassembled for increased safety at home. But if you have a gun for protection, keeping it locked up most of the time defeats the main purpose for having it. A protection gun needs to be at hand to do its job.

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

Why is the burden on me to prove I"m responsible? Shouldn't it be on YOU to prove that I am NOT? Your system presupposes irresponsibility, which must be disproven, which rubs against the "innocent until proven guilty" meme in the US.

Making something harder to obtain DOES restrict access. Making something more expensive DOES restrict access. It doesn't restrict the item in the same way as banning it would, but it does restrict it.

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

Not so much inherently bad as not feasible in the United States.

[Glocksman]

Now, if you HAVE a mental illness or history of same you can't legally own a gun, even in gun-friendly Indiana, but I question just how effective psych screening is before overt symptoms appear.

Heh.
Indiana trusts me to carry a concealed weapon.

Seriously though, psych screening is impractical simply because there are no tests that are valid if given and interpreted 'blind'. Even the MMPI and MMPI2 tests require that the psychiatrist interpreting the results has spent several hours interviewing the subject in order to have an understanding of how the test results apply to that particular person.

The danger with 'blind' interpretations is that the results can lead to invalid conclusions. One example given was that of a professor who had an interest in Egyptology being classifed as 'disturbed' on the basis of a blindly interpreted MMPI2 test.

Until there's a Star Trek tricorder deal that detects nutjobs, psych testing is impractical because of the time factor, expense, and lack of accuracy in a nonprofessionally administered test.

[Glocksman]

Australia has seen a significant drop in firearms suicides over the past decade due to the introduction of firearms restrictions.

What about the total suicide rate?

Did the restrictions lead to a drop in the total rate, or did the would be gunshot suicides switch to other methods?

If there is no significant drop in the total rate, then as far as saving the lives of suicides goes, the restrictions are useless.

[Prozac the Robert]

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

But it's already not an unconditional right. You probably can't own a tank, and definitely not a nuke. You probably can't own anti-tank weaponry. I don't know what the law is in america on any of these things precisely, but I'm certain there are already limits.

[Glocksman]

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

But it's already not an unconditional right. You probably can't own a tank, and definitely not a nuke. You probably can't own anti-tank weaponry. I don't know what the law is in america on any of these things precisely, but I'm certain there are already limits.

In most states, you can own a tank that's had it's guns disabled without any problems. Now driving it on public roads may be a problem, but if you own a few hundred acres, you can play Patton to your heart's content.

You can own a tank with live guns if you pay the Federal taxes and if its legal under the laws of your state.

In Arizona there's a guy named Mike Dillon who owns a Hughes Cayuse helicopter gunship complete with minigun.

Nukes?
I don't know, but they probably are prohibited.

[Beowulf]

You're prohibited from having the necessary quantity of fissile material.

[Master of Ossus]

Why do I think it would be a good idea?

It means that impulsive behaviour to do with firearms can be curbed - both by waiting times for licenses

People in the US already have to wait for licenses, and 3-6 months can seriously affect people who need a weapon sooner than that. Most jobs I know don't want to wait six months after hiring you to have you start work.

and the fact that you might have to spend 2 minutes going to your gunsafe, opening it and getting the gun, rather than just pulling it out of your pocket. Australia has seen a significant drop in firearms suicides over the past decade due to the introduction of firearms restrictions.

Too bad it has no effect on the TOTAL number of suicides, which is the one you're trying to lower. Who cares if they kill themselves with a bottle of aspirin or a gun? The same people are killing themselves, anyway.

It means that guns will be less likely to legally make their way into the hands of criminal elements.

Gun control measures have consistently been ineffective in stopping criminals. Colombine HS, the bank shoot-out in Los Angeles, Branch Dividians... in all of these incidents, criminals had illegal weapons.

As for illegally - how many firearms used in crimes were ORIGINALLY legally purchased and then lost/stolen/sold onwards? I think people believe that gun-running and smuggling is a FAR bigger factor than it really is.

Why would you take the risk of stealing a gun if you can buy a weapon on the black market that's dramatically more effective? Japan's yakuza is ridiculously heavily armed. Maybe they stole those automatic weapons from private citizens? Furthermore, in order to steal a firearm you have to know the person living in the house has a weapon. Are you going to break into someone's house knowing they have a firearm?

Reduces the chances of "unsavoury" elements getting their hands on weapons.

And a background check does this at a fraction of the cost.

Again with psyche testing and waiting times, those who wish to use a gun for illicit actions may well be discovered or at the least discouraged.

That wouldn't show up in a routine background check that costs a fraction of the money? What are you going to tell the psychologists to look for?

Increases accountability of firearms owners. Registration also means that firearms used in crimes will be able to be ID'd a great percentage of the time.

I don't so much mind registration, but what sorts of information do you think will be kept on each gun?

Thats what I can come up with in about 2 minutes.

Now - why don't you stop ducking the fucking question and tell me what is wrong with the idea?

I already did, fucktard, and you totally ignored it.

Moreover, the request was totally reasonable. The onus really is on you to show that this is a good thing.

2nd Amendment retaliation is bullshit - this isn't impinging on the right to bear arms, its just making those that choose to use that right more accountable,

Actually, it is impinging on the right to bear certain kinds of arms, since you require people to get a background check (and your condition to require them to explain why they "need" a weapon is bullshit).

However, since this is a hypothetical scenario and you're asking why something is wrong, you have every right to simply dismiss the American system of rights and suggest that the rights in and of themselves are flawed.

[Master of Ossus]

You're prohibited from having the necessary quantity of fissile material.

Not in Utah, where you can own it but you just can't detonate it. Damn.

Detonating it is the best part.

[Tribun]

You're prohibited from having the necessary quantity of fissile material.

Not in Utah, where you can own it but you just can't detonate it. Damn.

Detonating it is the best part.

Isn't that where you are fined with 500$ in a town, when you detonate an a-bomb inside the city-limits?

[Master of Ossus]

Isn't that where you are fined with 500$ in a town, when you detonate an a-bomb inside the city-limits?

Maybe. Some of those stupid, outdated laws can be hilarious.

[Coyote]

Plus, the effectiveness of gun control on crime is still up in the air-- I just saw a Sky News report last night that talked about how people in Britain are alarmed at the skyrocketing gun crimes over there and how easy it is to get a firearm (a reporter was able to buy a Uzi out of a van with a few minutes' worth of time).

And of course, Britain has had pretty much near-universal gun control for a few years now...

[Col. Crackpot]

Isn't that where you are fined with 500$ in a town, when you detonate an a-bomb inside the city-limits?

Maybe. Some of those stupid, outdated laws can be hilarious.

IIRC up until a few years ago Utah had a law on the books that stated that grops of 6 more more Native Americans constituted a raiding party and were subject to summary execution.

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

that has to be the supidest thing i've heard all day.

[weemadando]

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

that has to be the supidest thing i've heard all day.

Sadly however, it is also a correct statement.

[Beowulf]

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

that has to be the supidest thing i've heard all day.

Sadly however, it is also a correct statement.

Swords are no longer considered a military arm, as evidenced by the fact that no one issues a sharpened sword as a standard infantry weapon. (Marines have their dress sabre, but it ain't sharp).

[HemlockGrey]

Swords are no longer considered a military arm, as evidenced by the fact that no one issues a sharpened sword as a standard infantry weapon. (Marines have their dress sabre, but it ain't sharp).

Although if we wanted to play with asinine semantics, since the military does issue soldiers bayonets and combat knives we could restrict weapons ownership to those implements.

[Stuart Mackey]

Swords are no longer considered a military arm, as evidenced by the fact that no one issues a sharpened sword as a standard infantry weapon. (Marines have their dress sabre, but it ain't sharp).

Although if we wanted to play with asinine semantics, since the military does issue soldiers bayonets and combat knives we could restrict weapons ownership to those implements.

Well it only takes an inch of steel to kill someone......

[Master of Ossus]

Swords are no longer considered a military arm, as evidenced by the fact that no one issues a sharpened sword as a standard infantry weapon. (Marines have their dress sabre, but it ain't sharp).

Although if we wanted to play with asinine semantics, since the military does issue soldiers bayonets and combat knives we could restrict weapons ownership to those implements.

Ironically enough, many pieces of gun control legislation strictly regulate the bayonets of firearms, while still allowing for the firearm itself to exist and be carried around with no repercussions.

[Petrosjko]

Ironically enough, many pieces of gun control legislation strictly regulate the bayonets of firearms, while still allowing for the firearm itself to exist and be carried around with no repercussions.

This arose from the known tendency of nefarious drug dealers to fix bayonets and counterattack DEA agents as they swarm into a house in the process of carrying out a no-knock search. Often heralded by ferocious cries of 'A moi la legion!' such bayonet charges have become a grim fact of life in the never-ending War on Drugs.

/sarcasm

[Beowulf]

Swords are no longer considered a military arm, as evidenced by the fact that no one issues a sharpened sword as a standard infantry weapon. (Marines have their dress sabre, but it ain't sharp).

Although if we wanted to play with asinine semantics, since the military does issue soldiers bayonets and combat knives we could restrict weapons ownership to those implements.

Ironically enough, many pieces of gun control legislation strictly regulate the bayonets of firearms, while still allowing for the firearm itself to exist and be carried around with no repercussions.

Strictly speaking, they usually regulate the ability to attach a bayonet to the weapon. It doesn't matter if you have it attached or not, so long as it has the lug for attachment.

[Durandal]

Gun control measures have consistently been ineffective in stopping criminals. Colombine HS, the bank shoot-out in Los Angeles, Branch Dividians... in all of these incidents, criminals had illegal weapons.

Didn't the Columbine kids get their weapons because of a gun show loophole which didn't require any background checks to purchase weapons at a gun show? That doesn't seem like an indictment of gun registration to me.

[Master of Ossus]

Gun control measures have consistently been ineffective in stopping criminals. Colombine HS, the bank shoot-out in Los Angeles, Branch Dividians... in all of these incidents, criminals had illegal weapons.

Didn't the Columbine kids get their weapons because of a gun show loophole which didn't require any background checks to purchase weapons at a gun show?

Possibly. Some states have very loose regulations on buying and selling weapons at such shows, since the individuals selling them are not normally dealers but merely owners who run it as a side-business. However, the Colombine kids also violated dozens of state and federal laws while acquiring and manufacturing the weapons they used in the attack. I'm not really sure which ones they violated, though.

That doesn't seem like an indictment of gun registration to me.

No, I actually favor some forms of registration for weapons (as most states have), but I'm also quite leary of many other gun control measures that have been proposed.

[Darth Wong]

The psych testing is a little problematic - how do you decide who is too crazy to own a gun? How do you know the normal guy in front of you today won't go off his rocker 10 years down the road? Now, if you HAVE a mental illness or history of same you can't legally own a gun, even in gun-friendly Indiana, but I question just how effective psych screening is before overt symptoms appear.

I would say that anybody with a history of truancy from school or a criminal record more serious than speeding tickets should not be allowed to own a gun, for starters.

With guns we'd have the same issue - no matter WHAT answer I could give to the "why do I want to own a gun" question there are a large number of people in this country who will say that, as a civilian there is NO reason good enough for me to own a gun. Sport shooting? How barbaric, like boxing, not worth the safety risk, there are other sports I could take up. Hunting? How barbaric, buy my meat in the supermarket just like everyone else. Protection? That's what the police are for. There's no arguing with these people.

This is the "there are extremists on the other side, therefore we cannot brook any compromise whatsoever!" argument. It is nothing more than a variation upon the black/white fallacy: using extremists on the other side in order to justify an extreme position on your side.

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

So... when I drive to the shooting range I have to put the gun safe in the back of my pickup? That's a little inconvenient.

That's exactly the way it's done in Canada and the way it's been for many years (since well before the contentious gun registration bill came into effect), and no one complains about it. Frankly, your argument is looking pretty weak when you start objecting to restrictions based on "inconvenience".

But if you have a gun for protection, keeping it locked up most of the time defeats the main purpose for having it. A protection gun needs to be at hand to do its job.

And of course, it is most likely to be involved in accidents that way.

Why is the burden on me to prove I"m responsible? Shouldn't it be on YOU to prove that I am NOT? Your system presupposes irresponsibility, which must be disproven, which rubs against the "innocent until proven guilty" meme in the US.

So by your logic, people should get driver's licenses for nothing, and the police should be forced to prove that they're BAD drivers before restricting their driving privileges?

Making something harder to obtain DOES restrict access. Making something more expensive DOES restrict access. It doesn't restrict the item in the same way as banning it would, but it does restrict it.

Ooooooohhh, let me get my violin so I can play the sad music that should accompany this whining.

[Beowulf]

Gun control measures have consistently been ineffective in stopping criminals. Colombine HS, the bank shoot-out in Los Angeles, Branch Dividians... in all of these incidents, criminals had illegal weapons.

Didn't the Columbine kids get their weapons because of a gun show loophole which didn't require any background checks to purchase weapons at a gun show? That doesn't seem like an indictment of gun registration to me.

No, they got the guns by convincing someone else to buy them for them, who was 18 without a criminal record. Background checks still must be done by FFL holders, which are the only people allowed to sell guns for a profit.

A private party can sell to another private party without a background check, but trying to make such a thing happen would cause massive headaches in enforcement.

[Durandal]

So by your logic, people should get driver's licenses for nothing, and the police should be forced to prove that they're BAD drivers before restricting their driving privileges?

The counter-argument there (from a legal standpoint) would probably be that driving is a privilege, while gun ownership is a right which is outlined in the Constitution.