Acceptable Gun Laws

[#18indycolts]

Public schools should offer archery and firearms classes to show children responsible use, all be it with the express permission from the parents of the child, but the option should be there.

Wishful thinking, sorry. Republicans are known to cut funding in schools, they are too cheap to allow that sort of extracurricular class to be funded in public schools. And the Democrats would be too scared to allow that sort of class IN the schools for the mere fact that it would promote guns. So, total loss there. Which is why as PARENTS it is OUR responsibility to teach our kids the fundamentals. Some things are to be taught by US.

 

[ZeSpectre]

There is nothing illegal that would suddenly become legal if done with a firearm.

Therefore having gun-specific laws doesn't really serve much of a purpose.

 

[USAFNoDak]

There is a case to be made for people who have been convicted of violent felonies to have their rights revoked. But should we let them out on the street and not give them back all of their rights? If they are still dangerous, why are they back on the street? We know that dangerous felons who have been let out of prison have access to weapons, including firearms. They don't go through background checks. They can buy knives, baseball bats, tire irons, and cars.

Also, there is a case to be made for people who are adjudicated to be mentally ill to have their rights revoked.

Other than that, laws should punish violent behavior, no matter the weapon used. Trying to make it harder for criminals to get guns typically doesn't work very well. It only makes it harder for the law abiding. I have resigned myself to the fact that we will continue to have background checks. If they are instantaneous and it is the responsibility of the government to prove that someone shouldn't have a firearm, rather than the individual having to prove that they are OK to have one, we will have to plug our noses and live with this, at least for now. There is no way the public will back off from this, even though it probably has no effect on violent crime. Plus, what if someone is barred from possessing a firearm. Should they also be barred from owning knives and other potentially deadly weapons? What about bows and arrows or crossbows?

 

[44 AMP]

No, background checks are not going to go away...

The general public has become firmly wedded to the idea that a background check is part of the necessary process to purchase a firearm. They are convinced that without background checks, they will be less safe, as known criminals will be able to purchase guns at legal dealers. Some even believe that a background check is the only thing stopping terrorists from buying automatic weapons at Wal Mart. (fortunately, not many, but there are some people who believe the most outlandish things)

The next increment being called for in the tightening of restrictions on lawful citizens purchasing firearms is the "closing of the gun show loophole", and calls by the anti-gunners for "registration".

As has been discussed many times, there is no gun show loophole. It is a made up term, a sound bite, used by the antis to mean private sales of firearms. Anywhere, at any time.

The main argument for ending this practice (the right of the property owner to sell their property to whom they deem suitable, without govt permission) is the fact that there are no background checks being done. They generally take one of two main approaches as "solutions" to this "problem".

1) require all sales of firearms to go through an FFL dealer. or...
2) require private citizens to conduct background checks on potential purchasers.

I have issues with both approaches, primarily that of making us bear yet another burden financially, and legally for something that we have always historically been free of. One can only wonder at how the proposed laws would wind up being worded. I have little doubt that they would be written so a to cause the greatest possible inconvenience and potential legal liability to the gun owner as possible.

I also have issues with the idea that gun owners should be penalised if they fail to report the loss of a gun (stolen) within an arbitrary time period. Not against the idea of reporting the loss to the police, but against the idea of having to do it within X days or face fines, or even prosecution! Another fine idea that sounds good and reasonable, but as proposed, makes no allowances for unusual circumstances. Beware the law of unintended consequences!

 

[USAFNoDak]

Good post 44amp. With respect to private gun sales having to go through a background check, here's some of the faults with such an idea. I know that isn't your idea.

I would be forced to conduct a background check on my own brother if he wanted to purchase one of my firearms. I know my own brother better than the feds do, so that would buy society zip, zero, nada, as far as more "safety" is concerned.

Now, let's say me and my brother are thugs who like to skirt the law. Why would we subject ourselves to a background check? If my brother isn't supposed to have a firearm, it's likely I would already know that. Either I tell him to pound sand, or I laugh with him as we break another silly gun control law. I wish we could liberals to peel the little stickers off of their brain batteries to turn their brains on. Then, they might see how foolish gun control can be. I don't see them turning on their logic circuitry anytime soon, however.

 

[Shane Tuttle]

You may not care if your neighbor has a rocket launcher and stores C-4 in his basement but I care and don't want him near my house and I don't think his perceived right to have them overrides my right to be safe.

I'd welcome my new neighbor with open arms and a big plate of my wife's best cookin'.

C4 isn't any more dangerous as me having hundreds of pounds of powder and thousands of primers stored in my basement.

Not related to guns but I remember a debate once about those who rode motorcycles and refused to wear helmets. They crashed, sustained head injuries and became wards of the state (you and me paying taxes) since they had no insurance. So, I guess their decision had an effect on me and I sure don't like it either.

So, you're paralleling an isolated incident to justify robbing the right of individuals that should practice every day?

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

So, you're paralleling an isolated incident to justify robbing the right of individuals that should practice every day?

No, I am saying that many things we do that we think have no impact on the rights of others in fact do . That was one example.

As to C-4 it would depend on how it is stored and what it is stored with. Since if it explodes it can cause damage to me and mine then yes I have an interest and may through my government keep someone from having it. We have an ordinance in my city here that you cannot discharge a firearm inside the city limits. Some argue that they should be able to do what they wish on their own property but I like the ordinance and am glad it is enforced so I don't get killed by some idiot shooting in his yard and without that law some idiot would be doing it.

I would be forced to conduct a background check on my own brother if he wanted to purchase one of my firearms. I know my own brother better than the feds do, so that would buy society zip, zero, nada, as far as more "safety" is concerned.

No but there are unscrupulous people who will sell a gun to anyone no questions asked and they are the problem. Not you selling to your brother.

Making private sales without a backgound check illegal will stop some of them and those it doesn't stop will do time when they are caught. Under current law today there is nothing but their conscience to stop them and they don't have one of those.

All of us suffer inconvienence and restriction because of the wrongdoing/idiocy of others. Remember that the next time you go thru airport security.

 

[Shane Tuttle]

All of us suffer inconvienence and restriction because of the wrongdoing/idiocy of others. Remember that the next time you go thru airport security.

That's one of my points. An possible isolated incident shouldn't cause a knee jerk reaction to affect others' rights.

As to C-4 it would depend on how it is stored and what it is stored with. Since if it explodes it can cause damage to me and mine then yes I have an interest and may through my government keep someone from having it.

I think gunpowder can hold its own against C4. I don't see houses across America being blown up along with its neighbors. You think I as a reloader need to have regulations because I stockpile powder and primers?

 

[44 AMP]

" a right to safety"....

What a wonderful phrase. Almost makes one believe it could be a real thing...

Somehow, over the last couple of generations (primarily) we have changed, from a people who generally understood how the world really works, to one that believes that we have a "right" to safety.

We don't. And anyone who tells you we do, is selling something.

Trouble is that so many have been buying it for so long that many believe that it is the natural order of things. And they get upset when reality forces them to realize that it just isn't so.

BY all means, obey the laws. Play by the rules, and enjoy life as best you can. Just realize that when something bad happens, because someone else isn't playing by the same rules as the rest of us, the answer is not to make more rules.

Nor is the answer to take away fire because someone might get burned.

 

[USAFNoDak]

Tenn. Gentle. posted

Making private sales without a backgound check illegal will stop some of them and those it doesn't stop will do time when they are caught. Under current law today there is nothing but their conscience to stop them and they don't have one of those.

It may stop some of them, yes. But it may also cause some folks, who would normally follow the law, to start igoring the law, making them criminals.

If we lowered the speed limits to 45 on the freeways, we could get more people to slow down, which would save lives. Wouldn't that be a good thing? The problem is, more people would ignore what they see as a "silly" law and would break it. The law must be grounded in logic to get intelligent people to obey it, unless you make the penalties so stiff that people weigh the risk more than they do the silliness of the law. But that starts us towards a police state where the penalties are too severe for breaking the law as referenced to the amount of benefits there are in obeying the law.

Lets assume the feds pass a law that ALL private sales must have a background check conducted on the buyer. If I sell a gun to my brother, whom I know is not a criminal, but I somehow get caught doing this without a background check, what should be the penalty for me doing so? Would it benefit society to punish me to the full extent of the law? Those issues must be weighed when we talk about having the government get more involved in our day to day lives. What benefit would it be to society to have both me and my brother sitting in jail? Who pays for our families well being? What cost is there to society to pay for our meals, health care and other expenses incurred while imprisoning us? Is that cost worth the zero benefits to society? I wouldn't think so.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

That's one of my points. An possible isolated incident shouldn't cause a knee jerk reaction to affect others' rights.

They aren't "isolated" incidents. They would happen repeatedly if not checked.

I don't see houses across America being blown up along with its neighbors. You think I as a reloader need to have regulations because I stockpile powder and primers?

Because most houses in America don't store C-4 in their homes as it is against most laws and ordinances. Most people obey laws and in doing so keep us safer. Just because some don't obey the laws doesn't invalidate the need for said laws.

Actually, the powder you keep IS regulated as are the primers you store as well. If the were within a legally determined class you would not be able to store them in your home. C-4 is not in the same class as smokeless powder.

Nor is the answer to take away fire because someone might get burned.

Nor is the answer to let people start fires whenever and wherever they please. However, we can regulate fire and we should.

If we lowered the speed limits to 45 on the freeways, we could get more people to slow down, which would save lives. Wouldn't that be a good thing?

It did save lives and gas when it was 55. However, political leaders who were urged by their voters raised the limits back as the body politic decided they would rather burn the gas and take the additional risk. So, if you can get that same body to repeal all laws and regulations concerning guns (and explosives for Tuttle8) then do it. I don't think you will be successful but that is democracy.

 

[Al Norris]

They aren't "isolated" incidents.

When considered in toto, they are/were isolated events. Simple mass reporting by the media makes them appear to be otherwise.

One could look at the spate of reported kidnapings (from media reports last year), and conclude that violent kidnapings were on the rise (and many did so conclude). Yet that supposition was not supported by the facts.

Public perception, as related by media over reporting a series of events, does not always reflect reality.

They would happen repeatedly if not checked.

Such events have happened in the past, without the restrictions of the 1968 GCA. They happened afterwords in increasing frequency. They are happening with less actual frequency, now (See the latest UCR). It would appear, on the surface, that the current regulations are in fact working.

Correlation does not necessarily equal causality.

Just because some don't obey the laws doesn't invalidate the need for said laws.

Nor does such validate any need to promote more strict laws. To continue to make something "more unlawful," is the road to tyranny.

To use the drug laws as an analog: More restrictions have done nothing more than make ever increasing classes of criminals from otherwise law abiding citizens. More restrictions have made government more powerful and less responsive to the citizens they represent. More restrictions have not decreased drug use by one iota.

Nor is the answer to take away fire because someone might get burned.

Nor is the answer to let people start fires whenever and wherever they please. However, we can regulate fire and we should.

We have many examples of the expanding power(s) of Commerce Clause legislation and the resulting expanding police powers of the Federal Government. The issue of "public safety" is at the root of expanding powers via the over-broad interpretation of the so-called "Welfare Clause."

I would argue against continuing regulation and control, at the national level, for local or regional issues.

 

[USAFNoDak]

Tenn. Gentle. posted:

It did save lives and gas when it was 55. However, political leaders who were urged by their voters raised the limits back as the body politic decided they would rather burn the gas and take the additional risk. So, if you can get that same body to repeal all laws and regulations concerning guns (and explosives for Tuttle8) then do it. I don't think you will be successful but that is democracy.

It may have saved lives and gas. If 55 can save lives and gas, imagine what 45 would do? Why don't we implement a 45 mph speed limit law on our freeways for the public safety and national security? Why did voters urge their political leaders to raise the laws back up from 55? Could it be that it took much longer to get to where we needed to go? Could it be that the hauling of freight and other goods was less efficient at 55 vs. 70 mph on the freeways? There must have been a reason that the people were objecting to the 55 mph speed limits which was outside of "safety" or national security.

I never said we should repeal ALL gun control laws. Why do you jump to such a conclusion? We didn't repeal the speed limit laws, we adjusted them. I think we have a few too many gun control laws which don't do any good. They tend to hamper the law abiding citizen more than providing any benefits regarding public safety. We need to scale some of them back. We don't need to get any more strict. That was my point. Can we get the votes to scale back some gun control laws? Maybe we can. Many people believed we could not get CCW laws implemented in more than 40 states. Many people thought Minnesota, the land of 10K liberals, would never go for a "shall issue" CCW law. But we did it. That's democracy. Sometimes it works fer ya, sometimes it works agin ya. However, we are not really a democracy. We are a constitutional republic. We democratically elect our leaders who then create laws and vote on them. But we do have a Constitution in place which tells the government that they have limited powers and they cannot pass laws which violate our civil rights, no matter how many votes they can get or how many of their constituents support such laws.

By the way, if we locked up more violent felons and for longer periods of time, would that help with crime rates? You're darn tootin' it would. Why don't we do that? The liberals complain that it costs too much, too many minorities would be in prison, and that prison doesn't rehabilate criminals, but rather makes them worse. That's their arguements. Why they think letting violent criminals out of prison early makes society safer I'll never understand. Maybe it really doesn't have anything to do with public safety, but is more centered on political power and issues.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

When considered in toto, they are/were isolated events.

Not sure what we are talking about but isolated to me means alone and solitary. As to people having head injuries from motorcycle accidents and the efficacy of helmets I think that doesn't fall under the "isolated" category unless you mean it just doesn't happen a lot. However, few dispute the lvies that have been saved by wearing them and if the taxpayer didn't have to foot the bill for the indigent who dumped his/her bike then the point would be different. As I said before, my real point was that we don't live on islands and things we want to have freedom to do might impact others and so others may have an interest in regulating what we do.

Such events have happened in the past, without the restrictions of the 1968 GCA. They happened afterwords in increasing frequency. They are happening with less actual frequency, now (See the latest UCR). It would appear, on the surface, that the current regulations are in fact working.
Correlation does not necessarily equal causality.

Agree, but as to your statement above I submit that the GCA of 1968 was the result of a social change towrds violence that was occurring in our country at that time. That caused the GCA and not the other way around. Recapping, the gun laws I think are more a reflection of reality in society than a cause or catalyst for social behavior. Sure the media plays into that but violent acts uncommon forty years ago are becoming more so today (ironically IMO fueled by said media).

Nor does such validate any need to promote more strict laws.

I think the question there is; Are those laws working in a way they were designed to? I am not advocating more laws unless the current ones are not working. However, as Dr. Kleck said when asked why America wasn't the safest country in the world since we have so many guns, "Crime has many causes and many are the deterrents as well."

To use the drug laws as an analog: More restrictions have done nothing more than make ever increasing classes of criminals from otherwise law abiding citizens.

Au Contraire (that's french!) Here in Tennessee, we have to register when we buy stuff like sudafed and although it has not gotten rid of meth use it has almost completely shutdown the homegrown labs which were creating great health hazards for children and grownups. Remember Quaalude? (of course you do) can't really find it today as it was synthetic and they were able to regulate it out of existence. We still have drug users and we will still have criminals with guns but solving that is I agree beyond only law.

I never said we should repeal all laws. Why to do you jump to such conclusions?

I didn't jump (I can't I'm too darn old) to any conclusions. All I have said is: 1) The idea that you can do something and not effect the rights or safety of another may not be as broad as one thinks. and that 2) Laws and control is not always bad. As to guns, some laws IMO are good.

By the way, if we locked up more violent felons, would that help with crime rates? You're darn tootin' it would.

Sure it would and it has. Many claim the crime reductions we see today are caused by mandatory sentencing but there are other factors too. Gun Control laws will not by themselves reduce crime, no argument.

 

[USAFNoDak]

Originally Posted by USAFNoDak
I never said we should repeal all laws. Why to do you jump to such conclusions?

I didn't jump (I can't I'm too darn old) to any conclusions. All I have said is: 1) The idea that you can do something and not effect the rights or safety of another may not be as broad as one thinks. and that 2) Laws and control is not always bad. As to guns, some laws IMO are good.

I was responding to this post of yours Tennessee Gentleman:

It did save lives and gas when it was 55. However, political leaders who were urged by their voters raised the limits back as the body politic decided they would rather burn the gas and take the additional risk. So, if you can get that same body to repeal all laws and regulations concerning guns (and explosives for Tuttle8) then do it. I don't think you will be successful but that is democracy.

It sounded as if you thought I was for repealing all gun control laws. I don't need to quibble over it, however.

I also understand that some laws do have benefits. Not in that they prevent anything, but in that they deal appropriately with how the offender is punished. Punishment is the meat of the law. It determines how much someone is willing to risk to operate or behave outside of the law. We can go too far in that regard.

For example, I don't know if it's still the case, but at one time, in California, the penalty for merely possessing an unregistered "assault weapon", even though you committed no other crime was a 5 year, mandatory, prison sentence. The penalty for a first time rapist who was caught and convicted, was only 18 months and most offenders served only a third of that. I don't see how the illogical proportionment of those penalties keeps society safe. They should have been reveresed at the very least. But public perception was manipulated, through politicians and politics, so that there was more fear regarding a person who has broken no law other than to have an unregisterd semiautomatic firearm, than there was for a rapist.

 

[Al Norris]

No but there are unscrupulous people who will sell a gun to anyone no questions asked and they are the problem. Not you selling to your brother.

Making private sales without a backgound check illegal will stop some of them and those it doesn't stop will do time when they are caught. Under current law today there is nothing but their conscience to stop them and they don't have one of those.

All of us suffer inconvienence and restriction because of the wrongdoing/idiocy of others. Remember that the next time you go thru airport security.

That's one of my points. An possible isolated incident shouldn't cause a knee jerk reaction to affect others' rights.

Just so we are both on the same page, I referenced the complete quote Tuttle8 was responding to. Since he only quoted the part I highlighted above, I can see some confusion.

My quoting only part of your response to Tuttle, was in direct reference to the full quote above and had nothing to do with the previous details of headgear regulation by the States.

Isolated in the context we are talking about, means more like being "not close together," as within the larger population.

I would have thought that my example of the multitude of reported kidnapings, provided the exact context.

The 1968 GCA was a knee-jerk reaction to the deaths of the two Kennedys and MLK. That is well documented.

Sure the media plays into that but violent acts uncommon forty years ago are becoming more so today (ironically IMO fueled by said media).

Ironically, the media plays a much larger role today than then. Then, news was reported. Now, news is almost manufactured.

Ironic also that the UCR reports (this includes the statistically insignificant blip of 2007) less crime now, than then. Accounting for the population increase over the last 40 years, one would expect it to be the same or higher. It isn't.

However, one simply can't say with a straight face, that gun control is at work in the diminishing crime stats. Several major studies have all concluded that gun laws have little if any affect upon crime. Much to the consternation of those that funded the studies.

I'll save the Pseudoephedrine/meth connection for another time. Suffice it to say, correlation is not causality, here too.

 

[Hellbilly5000]

No gun laws are good laws or are acceptable
If we have to have gun laws make then about education and not gun control Gun control is hitting my target when I shoot

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Isolated in the context we are talking about, means more like being "not close together," as within the larger population.

I would have thought that my example of the multitude of reported kidnapings, provided the exact context.

Understand. My point about airport security was more to the restrictions we face on aircraft because of hijacking/terrorist stuff that occurred before.

The 1968 GCA was a knee-jerk reaction to the deaths of the two Kennedys and MLK. That is well documented.

Yes, but don't forget the events leading up to it beyond the assasinations, anmely the race riots of the mid-60s. JFK's started it, but in between you had Charlie Whitman, Richard Speck and others who along with the media showed a trend of change towards violence we hadn't seen since the 1920/30s gangster times.

Al, I just now noticed why I had so much trouble with your screen name. I thought you were patterning it after either Herod Antipas or St. Antipas the Bishop of Pergamos. Why do you spell it that way? Inquiring minds want to know.

 

[Shane Tuttle]

As to people having head injuries from motorcycle accidents and the efficacy of helmets I think that doesn't fall under the "isolated" category unless you mean it just doesn't happen a lot.

This is what I mean...an isolated event, not an event in isolation.

Actually, the powder you keep IS regulated as are the primers you store as well. If the were within a legally determined class you would not be able to store them in your home. C-4 is not in the same class as smokeless powder.

OK, if you want to get real technical rather than understanding the point of analagies, then I'll change the method of getting my point across:

You're so worried about the highly unlikely event that fellow taxpayers will have to pay for a motorcyclist's medical bills because he/she wasn't wearing a helmet in an accident, right? You think a helmet law that infringes the right of the person to choose to wear it trumps taxpayers' money, right? Tell you what. Pick a state, ANY state. Find hard data on the amount of money the state had to spend on medical bills due to a person not wearing a helmet in an accident. Remember to include only data from insured motorists since uninsured shouldn't have been on the road to begin with. Now, take that dollar amount that the state spent and divide it by the state's population. Then get back to me on the insane dollar amount is paid to allow a person to do what the hell they want to their own body.

Also, keep in mind that although wearing a helmet is generally safer, there have been injuries that I personally know have happened when wearing one and wouldn't have had a head injury if he didn't wear a helmet.

Explosives? OK, how about my shop? I have several vehicles with gas tanks. I have several gas cans throughout the shop,also. Don't forget the lawn tractor, weed eater, push mower, leaf blower, pressure washer, edger, degreaser cans, and anything else highly flammable. When I weld, there's sparks galore. Do you think there's regulations as to how much flammable fluid I'm allowed? You think I have to have a license to has mass amounts of flammable fluid? Why not? In the end, it doesn't matter if it's an explosive or flammable fluids. They both can cause extensive damage if ignited. It becomes a MOOT POINT on what a person has.

Au Contraire (that's french!) Here in Tennessee, we have to register when we buy stuff like sudafed and although it has not gotten rid of meth use it has almost completely shutdown the homegrown labs which were creating great health hazards for children and grownups. Remember Quaalude? (of course you do) can't really find it today as it was synthetic and they were able to regulate it out of existence. We still have drug users and we will still have criminals with guns but solving that is I agree beyond only law.

And this is probably the easiest point to refute. Tell me, has the meth addicts just quit using meth since they have a hard time getting Sudafed? If you think so, I must say you are sadly mistaken.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

OK, if you want to get real technical rather than understanding the point of analagies, then I'll change the method of getting my point across:

No need to get that technical, that is not where I am going. However, comparing an explosive like C-4 to small amounts of gasoline in your garage is a stretch (set off a block of C-4 compared to a gallon of gas and see) and yes if you had enough gasoline (like an underground 10000 gallon tank) it would be regulated and probably inspected by the government.

And this is probably the easiest point to refute. Tell me, has the meth addicts just quit using meth since they have a hard time getting Sudafed? If you think so, I must say you are sadly mistaken.

Reread my quote. I acknowledged that it didn't stop use but it DID stop homemade labs which were a huge health problem to the addict's neighbors.

Then get back to me on the insane dollar amount is paid to allow a person to do what the hell they want to their own body.

Hell, look at smoking. You think that isn't costing you money? (I assume you don't smoke here as I don't) It sure does and so whenever they want to tax it I vote yes to pay for the medical costs associated with it.