Does any gun control make sense?

[stephen426]

@Tom Servo,

No offense, but you are not offering any practical solutions. I understand that politicians will try to appear that they are doing something by passing more useless laws. Why not offer guidance by developing USEFUL laws? Maybe the question should be IS THERE SUCH THING AS A USEFUL GUN CONTROL LAW?

I fully understand your second point as well. Ignorance of the law however, does not exempt you from the law. Your agreement with the law also has no impact on whether or not the law will be passed or enforced. Offering practical and realistic solutions may help to crate useful laws.

I love shooting and have been doing so for the past 20 years. While I could probably afford class 3 weapons, I do not want to complicate my life like that. I do not want the scrutiny of the ATF and being under their microscope. If I want to shoot a fully automatic weapon, I can rent them at the range. I am very careful to ensure I don't violate laws that could lead to the loss of my rights to own guns.

 

[stephen426]

@ramius,

I would click the "like" button for your post if there was one! Thanks for clarifying the NFA of 1934 as the automatic weapons "ban".

As a side note, I do NOT believe everything on CNN and the typically liberal media. I do not believe that they make up stories about the recent shootings though. I also believe that I am fairly savvy when it comes to guns and I can smell their bs/ignorance from a mile away.

The focus should be on finding a way to prevent the tragic loss of life rather than chest thumping and crying about our rights. I really believe that Bloomberg is a SERIOUS threat to the NRA and that we need to get involved politically.

 

[stephen426]

@Chuck Dye,

Your wife can injure herself and claim domestic violence as well, immediately making it illegal for you to own a gun. I understand that there is a possible abuse of the system, but we can't let the exceptions rule the norms. As I stated all along, there has to be an appeals process for all of this. Even with our current NICS system, there is an appeal process. As for you placing the burden of proof on the defendant, that responsibility should lie with the state. THAT is a practical solution.

 

[stephen426]

@jaeger106,

I would hit the "like" button on that post as well! Sounds like you have gone through some crazy stuff man. You certainly have a hell of a lot more experience than I do when it comes to mass shootings (and I don't envy you one bit!).

We aren't going to impact murder by reason of passion, for profit, while committing robberies, or suicides, but I think we can attack mass, public, murder, by looking hard at the seriously mentally ill.

I agree 100% with this comment and I appreciate your willingness to admit there is a problem. You seem to forget something very important about government. OUR government is OF the people, FOR the people, and BY the people. We are NOT on opposing sides. We as gun owners have to do our parts to protect our rights, but we also have to do our part and self-regulate. That is why I mentioned sensible legislation that WE as (mostly) law-abiding gun owners help to craft.

I consider myself a good driver and my car is pretty fast. I feel that I can drive at over 100 mph and still be safe. Does that exempt me from the speed limit? Are speed limits a restriction on my individual liberties? Should I be bound to lower speeds because of the ineptitude of others? What about drugs? Why should the government have a say what I do to MY body? Is that a limitation of my liberties? I believe that sensible laws need to be in place to protect the greater good, even though they may be at the expense of some personal liberties.

 

[gyvel]

While I could probably afford class 3 weapons, I do not want to complicate my life like that. I do not want the scrutiny of the ATF and being under their microscope. If I want to shoot a fully automatic weapon, I can rent them at the range.

I own NFA weapons (NOT "class 3") and have never heard so much as a peep out of ATF. Ditto for my colleagues with whom I shoot. More than likely, unless there is a major upheaval and change in existing Federal laws, the NFA stuff will probably be the last to go since they are specially taxed items.

 

[stephen426]

@Chuck Dye,

Sorry if I was a little vague regarding my response on the burden of proof. With a civil court case, "the burden of proof" lies with the plaintiff. In a criminal trial, it is always "The State" vs. the defendant and the burden of proof lies with the state. If the claim is child abuse or domestic violence, these are criminal matters.

 

[gyvel]

I consider myself a good driver and my car is pretty fast. I feel that I can drive at over 100 mph and still be safe. Does that exempt me from the speed limit? Are speed limits a restriction on my individual liberties?

That's not the best of analogies; In fact, it's apples and oranges. Driving on public roads is a privilege granted to you by various governments and therefore you must abide by their "rules." Now, if you want to build a private roadway on your own private property, then you can drive 200 mph if your car will go that fast. Otherwise, their road, their rules.

 

[Winchster]

What part exactly of "shall not be infringed" do you not get?
Everything you mentioned in your op is a blatant infringement. So in short, no.

 

[Kirkpatrick]

Very strong feelings and just "knowing" things are two common symptoms of many type of craziness. Remember that, I'll be getting back to it in a moment.

I have been diagnosed with a mental illness. I am on medication to treat the mental illness. I have noticed that this often elicits very strong feelings and declarations of positions from many people.

I am an American and live in America. I have never been convicted of any felony or misdemeanor, excluding three speeding tickets spread out over twenty five years. I have never been taken into custody by the police and taken to a hospital for psychiatric treatment or evaluation (actually, I've never been into police custody at all). I have no history of domestic violence or abuse. I do not owe any child support. I have never had a judge adjudicate me as having problems with mental illness that would have me stripped of any of my rights. I have never even been in court over any issue that would deny me of any of my freedoms or property. And as I have informed the the ATF through FBI background checks before, I have never renounced my citizenship.

I have read time and time again, on this very web site, about how its common sense that the mentally ill shouldn't have guns. I've read that its really only a question of how crazy is too crazy, who should decide who is too crazy, which medications are indications that a person is too crazy and who would keep and and disseminate the lists of all the crazies.

I don't care to rant and scream about my rights. I don't care to talk of Government encroachment or power grabs. Nor do I desire to speak of about how, "yesterday they came for so and so and you didn't say any thing..." or "good men remaining silent," or other like homilies. And if you don't understand the basics of freedoms protected by the Constitution and only under which circumstances they can be legally taken from you, I don't care to debate high school civics.

I'm not here to speak about statistics concerning mental illness or violence. I don't want to get into that many doctors, of all stripes, do not care for firearms at. Nor that to the best of my knowledge, very few people commenting on this site are mental health practitioners. And to those who want to curb or just plain deny access to firearms to all civilians regardless, I have absolutely nothing to say.

But I would like to speak to those of you who think that, in America, the Government should only restrict the right to bear arms through very clearly spelled out steps of due process and that the populace must be on guard less 2A rights (or any rights) are infringed upon. I'd like to ask those of you who fall into that description a question.

Why? Exactly when did you arrive at the idea that, Constitutionally, I shouldn't have 2nd Amendment rights? What reasoning led you to this notion? Who did you discuss this with, who did you listen to? What sound, defensible, chain of ideas resulted in you moving on to an near axiomatic position, that "of course the crazy people shouldn't be allowed near firearms." Do you remember that discussion and conclusion?

No. I am almost certain that the vast majority of people who "know" this either just "feel" it or else its just plain "common sense". I would suggest to all of you in this category that you re-examine (or just plain examine) feel and what you know. I wont ask if you really feel these things, but do you really know them?

Please, I encourage you all, in most parts or your lives, to set aside strong feelings and emotions that can easily overwhelm reason. Also, as to what you know, try to determine where you either learned it or came to the idea from deduction or induction. This might sound like a cold, clinical, and uncaring way to go about dealing with such dramatic topics as people being gunned down and fear of the government attacking what is your's. But so far, just reacting to feelings, and believing things just because they make sense, well, I don't think any of us have benefited from actions taken based on those things, nor does hardly anyone seem to express satisfaction upon where we are because of the actions, or inaction taken solely because of these potions.

Well, if after reflecting on your feelings and knowledge base, if you still feel that I should lack rights that are inalienable to you and others, simply because of a medical diagnosis and prescriptions that I take, I have simply one other question for you. Is that really the sort of nation you want our great country to devolve into?

 

[Chuck Dye]

...always "The State" vs. the defendant and the burden of proof lies with the state.

(emphasis added)

In cases where there are accusations of abuse or mental defect the burden can effectively be shifted to the defendant, 'though that should only occur when the defendant adopt an affirmative defense (I did it but the act was justified or I am not culpable due to age or insanity,) imposing potentially devastating social and financial burdens on the defendant, win or lose. Much of what I hear and read about "sensible" gun control involving mental health smacks of a grand new tool for the enrichment of lawyers and the devastation of those accused for invalid reasons.

 

[Tom Servo]

No offense, but you are not offering any practical solutions.

Why should I? You're the one who claims that new restrictions and regulations are needed. The burden of proof is on you. Furthermore, if you think that further regulation is a solution, you really haven't done much research on the issue.

The whole notion that we are irresponsible because we won't volunteer to have our rights stripped is a cheap tactic that I've heard more than once from the gun-control lobby over the years.

Why not offer guidance by developing USEFUL laws? Maybe the question should be IS THERE SUCH THING AS A USEFUL GUN CONTROL LAW?

Useful laws? Like prohibitions on felons owning guns? We are not enforcing the laws we currently have on the books. I know. I've directly observed that several times.

If you want things to change, let's take a better look at that.

 

[Evan Thomas]

Re: mental illness, let's keep a couple of things in mind. First the vast majority of mentally ill people are not violent. Second, the mentally ill are far more likely to be the victims of violent crime than they are to commit one. Demonizing them has become a popular strategy for pro-gun people who are arguing against forms of gun control such as universal background checks, and it's both offensive and ill-advised.

It reflects badly on us to add to the stigmatization of a group of people that's already very marginalized in this society, and the idea of throwing a large group of people under the bus in order to protect "our" rights should be repugnant to us.

 

[OuTcAsT]

stephen426 wrote;

IS THERE SUCH THING AS A USEFUL GUN CONTROL LAW?

Gun control laws are the same as any other laws. To those individuals with the will to break them, they mean nothing. It is the same as a lock on a door, it only keeps honest people out.

You cannot legislate away stupidity , criminal intent, or mental or emotional illness.

If a person is unstable enough to want to kill himself, and/or others, he will find a way to do so, be it a firearm, vehicle, explosive, etc.

 

[CowTowner]

The Second Amendment

"......shall not be infringed."

There's where my vote comes from.

 

[wogpotter]

Until you define "sensible" its impossible to answer. Some think "Ban everything" is "reasonable".

 

[Evan Thomas]

Until you define "sensible" its impossible to answer. Some think "Ban everything" is "reasonable".

Excellent point, and why I haven't checked any option in the poll. "Sensible" has become a popular word with anti-gun folks to describe whatever new law they want to propose; after all, who wants to be "anti-sensible?"

 

[raimius]

If you listen to political rhetoric, "sensible" and "common-sense" usually mean closer to "whatever I think" than "ideas with ample evidence and logical basis." They have become sound bytes to try to turn the conversation in a favorable manner, and are regularly used by both major parties to try to sway people without evidence or logic.

 

[44 AMP]

Kirkpatrick, that was a well written and thoughtful post. And in response to some of your points, I say this,

What I "know" and "feel" as common sense I consider both right, and just. But the terms used for description of situations and individuals are often grossly overbroad, and often sloppily applied.

Mental Illness.
What is that, exactly? The definition has changed, over time, and might still yet again. It covers so much, its nearly useless other than to mean "something outside the accepted norm".

Soviet dissenters were classified as mentally ill. They were not sent to prison, they were sent to camps, for treatment.

Within living memory, in the US and many other nations, homosexuality was classified as a mental illness. And listed as such in the professional medical references.

I don't believe that is still the case, today.

People who do not have the capacity to be safe with objects, simply should not be allowed around those objects. Common sense. Where so many of us come at odds is in what it is that places one in that category.

We don't allow small children to play with matches. Why? Because they do not understand fire. Not what it is, nor what it does. We don't consider them mentally ill. An adult that doesn't understand fire should not be allowed matches, either. Many would consider the adult in that situation to be mentally ill, in some aspect, at least.

Another of the factors adding confusion to the issue is that in common usage the term "mentally ill" also covers those individuals who do understand fire, and what it does, and choose to burn things, because they want to.

There is a degree of logic to this, as many regard the choice to do evil as a mental illness. It is such a broad term today, and so widely used today, there is a very real risk to all our rights by using that term alone in discussing what should be done, or not done, allowed or disallowed, and to whom.

To narrow the focus a bit, looking at the current discussions about the "mentally ill" and rampage shootings, mentally ill, alone is not enough of a descriptor. These people are also seriously disturbed on some basic level. I leave it to the professionals to describe the details and catalog them.

To me, the reasons someone commits an act are of academic interest, only. Yes, I'm curious why, but the precise why doesn't matter, what matters is the act, and what we do about it.

Some are beating a drum, singing Mentally ill (defined who knows how?) + gun =psycho killer. We're all in horrible danger! A handful of divas have been chanting for years, anyone (not in uniform or licensed private security) + gun = psycho killer! We're all in horrible danger!

I happen to think the truth is something else.

 

[born2climb]

Since this can of worms has been opened, I'd like to take this opportunity to pose a question that I have often asked, and never received a plausible answer to.....When was the last time you heard of a LEGAL CRIME being committed with a gun, regardless of whether the gun was obtained legally or not? They always want to start their rhetoric about how the gun was obtained....and fail miserably to address the fact that the CRIME was ILLEGAL to start with. If I'm to be shot down in the street, I couldn't care less whether the guy stole the firearm, bought it at Walmart, or inherited it from his grandfather.

 

[stephen426]

@Winchster,

Read the graph you posted. It says victims aged 12 and over. Also, your graph is at lest 4 years old.

Regarding the argument "Shall not be infringed", do you truly believe that means everything goes? When the constitution was ratified in 1791, flint-lock guns were still being used. The Colt revolver wasn't even invented for another 44 years. Fast forward to modern day weapons with high capacity magazines and fully automatic weapons. The destructive force is exponentially greater than what the founding fathers probably could have ever imagined. Do you honestly believe that fully automatic weapons should be readily available to anyone? What about explosive devices? Why not make nukes available to anyone if you don't want your rights infringed upon? Oh, and what about children's rights? Should they not have the right to keep and bear arms since they are less capable of defending themselves against a full grown adult?

While I know some will argue that very few crimes are committed with automatic weapons, I would argue that is because of their relative scarcity. If Holmes or Lanza had fully automatic weapons, I can guaranty that the casualties would have been much higher.