The Atlantic Article

G

Glenn E. Meyer

New member
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine...se-for-more-guns-and-more-gun-control/309161/

This is an excellent pro-gun article in the Atlantic. It is a major political and high end magazine. The author clearly lays out the self-defense case and the futility of the most gun control advocates. He points out how their positions make little sense in the face of a madman.

The author is not ideologically pure for some. He favors training requirements for CCW and NICS for private sales at gun shows. Tighten up the mental health reports for NICs.

He's not big on the defense against tryanny but I could argue that it is a sensible fear. Government tyranny is not to be dismissed as a threat given history. It does seem unlikely here (spare me grand conspiracies) but it could happen.

But coming out before Sandy Hook, it is prescient how you can best defend with a firearm as compared to the suicide charge of Miss Goodteacher.

I recommend it for folks who want to present the case to nonbelievers. Yep, you may not like a few aspects but that's OK for the greater good.

GEM
 
That was an excellent article thanks for sharing. I know quite a few people on the other side of the fence who are already readers of The Atlantic. Hopefully they might see that article and actually listen to the reasoning and facts presented and give them due consideration, given that the source is already trusted by them.

It's good to see an intellectually honest person cross the fence

But then he added: “In a fundamental way, isn’t this a question about the kind of society we want to live in?” Do we want to live in one “in which the answer to violence is more violence, where the answer to guns is more guns?”

What Gross won’t acknowledge is that in a nation of nearly 300 million guns, his question is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

America’s level of gun ownership means that even if the Supreme Court—which ruled in 2008 that the Second Amendment gives citizens the individual right to own firearms, as gun advocates have long insisted—suddenly reversed itself and ruled that the individual ownership of handguns was illegal, there would be no practical way for a democratic country to locate and seize those guns.
Click to expand...

Even though the two quoted sections are reversed in order and far separated in the article, but I think they combine to make a very salient point. To truly ask for a disarmament of the American people, would be to ask for something other than what we have now. I, for one, do not believe it would be a better state of things that which would enable the disarming of America.
 
He favors training requirements for CCW and NICS for private sales at gun shows.
Click to expand...

I actually favor training for CCW and NICS everywhere too. We should be able to issue a temporary CCW on the spot with an agreement to get training withing 90 days or something like that, or simply gives a basic skills and safety test up front to avoid having to do the training. It won't save people from foolishness but it will remove excuses.

There is no excuse for non-NICS transactions these days. The dealer should be allowed to charge a set nominal fee; say $20 and the seller can then work it into his price. This may have some unintended positive effects.
 
This thread leads me to an area of analysis which might better be in the Law and Civil Rights section.

He favors training requirements for CCW and NICS for private sales at gun shows.
Click to expand...

I have not thought about the ramifications of what would happen if the federal government passed 1) a law requiring training for CCW and 2) a law requiring that private sales must do a NCIS check before completing the transaction.

As to #1, for there to be a federal law requiring training for CCW issues as A) to states rights and B) to federal recognition of state issued CCW permits.

As to #2, privacy issues would arise. If everyone had access to NCIS, how would people who are not seeking to buy a firearm be safe from someone running a NCIS check on them?
Are we assuming that all transfers must go through a FFL holder so that everyone would not have access to NCIS? If so, this would increase cost and time for private sale for the law abiding. Would this scheme reduce the number of prohibited persons from acquiring firearms? I think not.
What am I overlooking?
 
I am in agreement with Alabama Shooter. The cost of an FFL transfer is generally about the cost of a box of ammo. In many sells of a gun without an FFL transfer, the seller generally has no idea of the background of the buyer. The seller could, without knowing, be selling to a person who would not qualify for a weapon in an FFL transfer such as a felon. This might even be true in the case of a sell to a family member or a close friend.

The States are doing a miserable job of reporting to the FBI the mental condition of known patiences suffering severe mental illiness. Some of the toughest States on gun control, i.e.; New Jersey, have not submitted any reports. It is completely pathetic when reports show the last three mass shooting were carried out by obvious mentally ill people.

We, as upstanding citizens and gun owners, are very safety oriented. We should also be just as responsible in doing our part by ensuring guns are only sold to those who would pass a background check. How doe we manange this, the seller and buyer complete the gun transfer through an FFL.
 
Many gun-rights advocates see a link between an increasingly armed public and a decreasing crime rate.

* * *

Others contend that proving causality between crime rates and the number of concealed-carry permits is impossible.
Click to expand...
But what is irrefutable is that the "increasingly armed public" has not led to an increase in crime rates.
 
about 40 percent of all legal gun sales take place at gun shows, on the Internet, or through more-informal sales between private sellers and buyers, where buyers are not subject to federal background checks.
Click to expand...

I see this all the time when people talk about buying on the internet. Its not like it was many many years ago when you could order a gun from the Sears & Roebuck catalog and have it mailed to your house. (no im not that old, born in the 80s :D )

now if there wasn't a comma after "private sellers and buyers" then he could just be referring to that transaction type alone.
 
Referring to the time before, when we could buy guns mailorder: I don't see that background checks have solved any problem. We are a much more violent society today with far tougher laws than in the pre '68 days. And I did live then and Dad bought a couple of handguns via Ruger's mailorder catalog.

Criminals break the law. Burdening the law abiding does nothing to make us safer. Evil people such as the CT shooter will just steal guns as they always have done. If they plan to murder people does anyone really believe the perps give a rip about theft laws or gun purchase laws?
 
We are a much more violent society today with far tougher laws than in the pre '68 days.
Click to expand...

The laws are certainly tougher. But most research indicates that we are less violent than we were in the recent past. The U.S. homicide rate for 2011, for example, was just 4.8 per 100,000 population, the lowest since 1963 when it was 4.6. By contrast, 1980 saw a homicide rate of 10.2 per 100,000. We do not have adequate figures for pre-20th century crime, but historians seem to agree that earlier centuries were more rather than less violent than today. While there is no consensus as to the reason for today's 50-year low in homicide rates, one possible factor that is often cited is the proliferation of states with CCW licenses.
 
NWPILGRIP: I see where they just arrested the woman who purchased the Bushmaster and a shotgun for the deranged killer in NY who shot the firemen.

Without the background check, they might not of known who performed the straw purchase for the convicted felon who used the guns to kill two and wound two others.

I am surprised they did not also file charges against her as an assessory to murder.
 
lamarw, where would you like the slope to end? Should we allow LE to do warrantless searches of your computer, cell phone, GPS, or car's computer data?

Oh, wait, in many places they have started doing just that...

But as long as it makes you feel safer, why worry about little things such as the initial trappings of a digital police state?
 
It is obvious you and I disagree on background checks for individuals buying guns.

In the perfect world it would be nice if this were not necessary. It would also be nice if I did not have to register the three cars and three boats I own.

I personally think it is not too much to ask to do background checks on all gun buyers. I know some disagree with me. If they are going to do background checks, then lets have them tighten it up and have the States report to the FBI those who are mentally ill and the ones who are charged with a crime, guilty of a felony and etc. We certainly pull the license of those who are charged with and found guilty of driving under the influence and/or boating under the influence.

As a person who respects guns, believes in safety, believes in obeying the law and believes in honorable service to our military - don't you think we all have a responsibility to ensure when we give and/or sell a gun to another person we take responsiility for our actions and ensure it goes to a person who would pass a background check?

I have 35 years of Government service in the active military and in the Department of Defense. I don't hold a strong belief that all governance is bad.

All of the above is stated since you ask. So MLeake, where do you draw the line?
 
Last edited:
lamarw, I am a retired naval aviator and current defense contractor. Obviously, I am not anti-government.

I am opposed to expansions of government powers that do not provide benefits commensurate with the cost and hassle they create.

If GCA 1968 worked so well, why did crime rates not reflect that? If GCA 1968 made no real difference, and if pre-1968 I could have ordered a handgun from Sears, then what justifies the hassles and expenses required to support and follow NICS and all the rules that GCA 1968 engendered?

Since it made no statistical difference, GCA 1968 is a prime example of an expensive, inefficient, ineffectual imposition on individual rights and intrusion into individual privacy - yet you want more of it?

Please justify, not with anecdotes, but with data showing what gains if any were gained for the expenses in treasure and liberty.
 
Glenn E. Meyer said:
compared to the suicide charge of Miss Goodteacher
Click to expand...

Her name was Dawn Hochsprung, and I believe that she was a hero. I don't know what she thought about guns on Thursday, December 13th, but I bet that on Friday, December 14th, she wished that she had a shotgun in her office.

I'm not sure that you were talking about Dawn specifically, but I believe that we should remember her name. From all accounts, she was a good person who gave her life for her kids.
 
To MLeake, I suspect you and I have a lot in common, and things we agree upon. Therefore, we agree we do not see eye to eye on this facet.

I will respect your request and not provide anecdotes. I will also not charge off and spend hours researching data to support background checks through the FFL process. I, like you, do not belive the process is currently working.

I have read far too much lately on why and how the process is not working the way it should. There was a recent article in the New York Times detailing how the States are not providing the all important data to make background checks effective. I posted it on the forum, and it received few comments. This article, Atlantic, also highlights the same weakness in the FFL/background check process. In this regards, you are correct in we are paying for an expensive system not providing us with the results we deserve. I am saying I would like to see it work better and provide the tool we need to assist (notice I said assist)in keeping guns out of the hands of bad guys.

I would hope you and I both agree the type people mentioned in the GCA should not be allowed to have guns. Some have lost their right through their actions and some due to the limited mental capacity to be trusted with the right. If there is a better way of doing it, then I am all in favor. I am also not so naive to believe one tool will totally solve the problem. This is why I am also a strong believer in legal concealed carry, open carry, the Castle Doctrine, Stand Your Ground, and many other rights we are all entitled.
 
While there is no consensus as to the reason for today's 50-year low in homicide rates, one possible factor that is often cited is the proliferation of states with CCW licenses.
Click to expand...

I can't see how that hasn't had a significant impact.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top