Gun Laws

[AustinHoya03]

Which of these laws would be acceptable/unacceptable to you?

smartgunlaws.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Point-Assignment-Methodology.pdf

Full disclosure: I own multiple semi-automatic firearms. I do not consider myself and/or my guns, safely locked away in my home, to be a threat to society. I like going to the firing range, though I don't do it very often these days.

However, none of the laws on this list would prevent me from owning or enjoying the firearms I currently possess.

I am posting here because I believe that gun owners should be part of the conversation about firearm regulation. I believe that responsible adults should be able to own guns, but I favor increased regulation of gun purchase and possession. These are not new thoughts for me, but they are thoughts I have been sharing with others over the past few days. I would be interested to hear what others think regarding this issue.

[hoyainspirit]

I'm with you on the increased regulation. The proposed gov't regulation appears at this time to center on assault weapon regulation. It needs to go further than that. Mass killings frequently are committed with those types of weapons. As tragic as they are, mass killings are not the only major problem. Most people get killed with handguns. There is where I wish the majority of the effort were concentrated. I wasn't robbed by a guy with a rifle.

[SSHoya]

This article was tragically timely and provocative.

www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/12/the-case-for-more-guns-and-more-gun-control/309161/

[AustinHoya03]

Dec 17, 2012 18:03:37 GMT -5 hoyainspirit said:

I'm with you on the increased regulation. The proposed gov't regulation appears at this time to center on assault weapon regulation. It needs to go further than that. Mass killings frequently are committed with those types of weapons. As tragic as they are, mass killings are not the only major problem. Most people get killed with handguns. There is where I wish the majority of the effort were concentrated. I wasn't robbed by a guy with a rifle.

Honestly, I would rather see regulations on clip capacity than on specific types of guns. An AR-15 with a 30 round clip is much more easily used for evil purposes than an AR-15 with a 5 round clip (yes, they exist). A 5 round clip doesn't prevent a person from hunting with an AR or shooting one at a firing range. And I can't think of any legitimate reason to need a 30 round clip for a Glock. IIRC, the previous federal assault weapons ban did address this issue, but I can't remember the exact limit on magazine size.

Those regulations probably wouldn't prevent robberies using handguns, though I think some of the other legislation on the scorecard linked above would have an impact. (Sorry to hear you were the victim of a violent crime, by the way.) Regulating ammo capacity would, however, make it more difficult to use any firearm in a mass killing.

Meanwhile, Governor Rick Perry has the answer for Texas: Texans with CHLs should be able to carry in "any public place." ON EDIT: To clarify, I'm not anti-CHL, but I don't think concealed carry should be extended to (for example) bars, so I find the Governor's statement to be a bit reckless.

www.statesman.com/news/news/state-regional/perry-texans-with-license-should-be-able-to-carry-/nTYtZ/

[hoyainspirit]

I think that framework to which you linked is a good starting point.

[EasyEd]

There were about 32,000 deaths from motor vehicle accidents in 2011. I propose we introduce restrictions on auto purchases. Timothy McVeigh used fertilizer. I propose we ban fertilizers.

Of course I'm joking but I do follow the same logic as some gun control advocates. Plus there is that matter of the Constitution.

We will not prevent mass murder by restricting the types of weapons or ammo that can legally be purchased but we might make a small dent in them. However, whatever is done must conform to the Constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court.

What is the current impact of violent lyrics, movies and videos on the minds of would-be killers? No one knows but there is a suspicion there sometimes is a connection.

Also, though some may not want to talk about it, 26 people were killed in that Connecticut slaughter while, on the same day, about 3,000 were slaughtered in the womb.

[AustinHoya03]

Dec 18, 2012 12:08:48 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

There were about 32,000 deaths from motor vehicle accidents in 2011. I propose we introduce restrictions on auto purchases. Timothy McVeigh used fertilizer. I propose we ban fertilizers.

Of course I'm joking but I do follow the same logic as some gun control advocates. Plus there is that matter of the Constitution.

Well, you have to have a license (which may be revoked) to drive a car on public roadways. Are you suggesting licensing for firearms? If not, how would licensing conflict with the Constitution?

WRT fertilizer, the FBI can track purchases in order to prevent Oklahoma City style bombings, but is prohibited from tracking those who stockpile firearms (see link below). Do you think that governments should have greater power to track firearm purchases? If not, how would this power conflict with the Constitution?

www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/07/aurora/

Why can't we discuss what will/won't work to reduce (you're right Ed, they can't be entirely prevented) mass killings without infringing upon Second Amendment rights without attacking the assumed "logic" of "the other side?"

[CTHoya08]

You can't drive without a license. You can't own a car without registering and insuring it. And cars serve many non-violent purposes. Guns only serve violent purposes. Not all of those purposes are criminal (hunting, self-defense, etc.) but the automobile comparison seems to scream for more regulation on firearms, not less.

I agree with those who say that it is probably impossible to prevent these kinds of mass killings; someone bent on a killing spree will always find a way. But preventing mass killings should not be the only goal of firearm regulation. We shouldn't dismiss the whole idea of regulation because it is unlikely to prevent a certain type of violence. Plenty of people are killed or wounded in accidental and heat-of-the-moment shootings.

No, I don't know what the solution is. But to pretend that guns are not even part of the problem is not helpful.

[SFHoya99]

Dec 18, 2012 12:55:09 GMT -5 CTHoya08 said:

I agree with those who say that it is probably impossible to prevent these kinds of mass killings; someone bent on a killing spree will always find a way.

This isn't true. Most of these are committed by people with mental issues or even kids. These are criminal masterminds with access to black market weapons.

Guns make it incredibly easy to kill. If someone had to run around trying to commit mass murders with even a shotgun instead of a large capacity assault rifle. There are no drive-by knifings. People do beat people to death, but it's easier to stop than pulling a trigger.

We put speed limits out there, governors on cars, require training and testing and all sorts of safety requirements (like brake testing) and restrictions on cars, as you say.

And cars are an ESSENTIAL part of our lifestyle. Guns are not. Heck, we have no issue banning cigarettes and I can both see a) Their users love them more and b) They are much less harmful to others.

[Boz]

I have never nor do I ever plan to own a gun. I have fired them on several occasions, and it's just not for me.

I do support the right of every American to own guns, however. Yes, all kinds.

But, if nothing else, I find it pretty ridiculous that you don't require a license or permit to own one.

(To be completely honest, I never knew that. I thought you did need one in most cases, but that there were just too many loopholes. Turns out, not so much).

Having said that, I do find some of the remarks directed at the NRA in recent days both repugnant and -- more importantly -- utterly counter-productive. Demonizing the NRA (and a lot worse than demonizing, frankly) is not going to help anyone.

[AustinHoya03]

On the constitutionality of some proposed regulations:

www.nytimes.com/2012/12/19/us/gun-plans-dont-conflict-with-justices-08-ruling.html?_r=1&

Boz is correct that only a handful of states currently require gun registration.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_(by_state)

[CTHoya08]

Dec 18, 2012 14:25:07 GMT -5 SFHoya99 said:

Dec 18, 2012 12:55:09 GMT -5 CTHoya08 said:

I agree with those who say that it is probably impossible to prevent these kinds of mass killings; someone bent on a killing spree will always find a way.

This isn't true. Most of these are committed by people with mental issues or even kids. These are criminal masterminds with access to black market weapons.

Did you mean to say "these are not criminal masterminds"? If so, I see your point; Adam Lanza was a disturbed person who had access to guns because his mother had them in the house, not a well-connected crime figure.

Look, I agree that the easy accessibility of firearms in this country results in lots of unnecessary deaths and injuries. Of course guns make it easier to kill people; otherwise armies and police forces would be content to arm their personnel with clubs or knives. But massacres have happened even in countries with very strict gun control laws, of the kind that the Second Amendment would never allow to be enacted here.

What I'm trying to say is that increased regulation of guns would not necessarily eliminate these kinds of tragedies; there are some "criminal masterminds with access to black market weapons" out there. But it would probably go a long way toward reducing the innumerable tragedies of a smaller scale that occur daily in this country. For that reason, it is worth pursuing. I'm concerned that, in light of the Newtown shooting, too much of the focus will be on "We must prevent another Newtown!" to which pro-gun people will respond "We can't prevent that, because the bad guys will always get guns. So let's have no gun control."

[strummer8526]

Dec 18, 2012 12:08:48 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

There were about 32,000 deaths from motor vehicle accidents in 2011. I propose we introduce restrictions on auto purchases. Timothy McVeigh used fertilizer. I propose we ban fertilizers.

Of course I'm joking but I do follow the same logic as some gun control advocates. Plus there is that matter of the Constitution.

We will not prevent mass murder by restricting the types of weapons or ammo that can legally be purchased but we might make a small dent in them. However, whatever is done must conform to the Constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court.

What is the current impact of violent lyrics, movies and videos on the minds of would-be killers? No one knows but there is a suspicion there sometimes is a connection.

Also, though some may not want to talk about it, 26 people were killed in that Connecticut slaughter while, on the same day, about 3,000 were slaughtered in the womb.

Good time for a joke. And a great topic for one, too.

Why doesn't your concern for the Constitution extend to violent video games, which the Court recently affirmed are constitutionally protected speech? Because you just don't like how that case was decided? And does your devotion to the text of the Constitution extend to that "prefatory" opening of the Second Amendment?

Sure, some may suspect that there is a link between these sorts of mass killings and violent lyrics/movies/video games, but we all know that there is a near 100% correlation between these sorts of mass killings and guns.

Finally, can someone please tell me the purpose of owning military-grade weapons with high capacity clips?

[Elvado]

Finally, can someone please tell me the purpose of owning military-grade weapons with high capacity clips?

Amen. There are many on this board who would happily label me a right wing Neandethal (on my better days), however there is no reasonable justification for private ownership of these weapons, which are designed only to kill many people as quickly as possible.

If you feel a burning desire to have access to this type of weapon, enlist.

[Boz]

Dec 18, 2012 16:57:08 GMT -5 Elvado said:

Finally, can someone please tell me the purpose of owning military-grade weapons with high capacity clips?

Amen. There are many on this board who would happily label me a right wing Neandethal (on my better days), however there is no reasonable justification for private ownership of these weapons, which are designed only to kill many people as quickly as possible.

If you feel a burning desire to have access to this type of weapon, enlist.

I think I am more Neanderthal than you on this one, elvado.

I think asking about the purpose of the gun is completely the wrong question to ask. Because there is always a purpose for a firearm. And though it may not make sense to everyone, that purpose can be legitimate. Maybe I'm a collector. Or maybe I like the thrill of taking a semi-auto rifle to a range and getting that adrenaline rush (if you have not fired such a weapon at a range, I can assure you that rush is quite real even if you, like me, generally don't like guns).

And we should make a distinction. Semi-automatics are not "military grade." There is and always has been a ban in this country on fully automatic weapons, which is what our military uses, and most modern militaries will use. They do not use Uzis or AR15s (I think most soldiers will tell you that those weapons suck for their purposes...which is not the same as saying they can't wreak havoc, granted).

This has gone on in political discussions and been debated back and forth. What weapons are included in the "assault weapon" category and what are not? Moreover, I think there is plenty of research that concluded that the 1994 law did little to remove semi-automatic assault weapons from circulation or reduce gun violence. Possibly because no one could come up with that clear definition. And gun violence has not increased since the ban expired.

But back to the point. In my opinion, the type of weapon is mostly irrelevant. (Though I will concede that the case about clip sizes is much more compelling and I think that is a discussion that should take place).

I think much more effective regulation would focus on the buyer/owner than on the hardware. I go back to my earlier point about licensing.

It seems insane (probably because it is) that someone can buy an AR15 without a license. As several have mentioned, you need a license to drive a car. How do you get that license? You have to pass a written and practical test.

Why don't we have the same thing for weapons, whether they are handguns, semi-automatic pistols, shotguns, hunting rifles or, yes, even semi-automatic rifles?

You have to demonstrate a knowledge of weapon safety and function, be able to show you can secure it safely, etc. etc. etc. and of course, the accompanying background checks (which it seems probably need to be revisited as well).

If you can't do that, you shouldn't be permitted to own a gun. If you can, and you clear background checks and waiting periods, then I think you should be able to own whatever firearm you want (again, not TRUE military grade weaponry).

Would this prevent someone from stealing your gun and using it for bad purposes? Not one bit. But I have a hard time coming up with any legislation that could do that.


Oh, and PS: Such tests and licensing would most likely be a cash cow for the NRA and for state governments.

[TBird41]

Two thoughts:

One friend of mine mentioned on facebook that we have the technology to put in the Judge Dredd/Skyfall handprint lock on guns. If so, (especially if they could be temporarily turned off, or multiple users could have a hand print that unlocks the gun), that seems like the kind of reform that would make a difference, since it would make guns useless to thieves, and a significant chunk of gun violence, whether mass killings or otherwise, is accomplished with guns that were stolen. It would also prevent kids from accidentally firing the gun. And it wouldn't lessen the effectiveness of the gun for the rightful owner. He didn't provide a link, so hopefully he's not wrong / making this up. (I found this article with a quick google search: www.biometric-security-devices.com/biometric-trigger-lock.html. Apparently we are close to this technology, but it's not there yet).

Secondly, the reason you get such push back on licensing is the same reason you get a lot of push back on abortion regulations--the people trying to defend the right see increased regulations as an attempt by the other side to take the first step down a slippery slope (and they aren't necessarily wrong)

[Problem of Dog]

The Second Amendment is stupid. I'm done with trying to embrace its nuance in the 21st century. Its purpose is entirely anachronistic and if you're a true originalist, then it really only means what it says.

[Elvado]

Nuancing old provisions of the Constitution can lead to profound silliness. See the Establishment Clause as a basis for banning a nativity scene.

That said, the assault weapons simply need to go.

[hoyatables]

The Founders did get it wrong from time to time. See, for example, the 3/5ths clause. And the need for an amendment to give over 50% of the country the right to vote.

I'm not saying that the 2nd Amendment needs to go. I am simply saying that even the Constitution is not perfect.

[TBird41]

So, in this current world where the 2nd Amendment still exists, what new gun controls would you all implement? What different policies from the Assault Weapon Ban do you feel would make the difference?