The Official Second Amendment / Gun Ban Thread

[§haÅ--Ñ€ §hÅŽo 370]

Guns shouldn't be banned. They're used to protect ourselves. Even if they are banned people will buy them off the black-market. It only gives the bad guy an advantage.

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

Originally posted by: A Nonny Moose

I am curious about something:  When did America become armed to the teeth?  I don't recall a lot of gun discussion before 1945?

quote>

Originally posted by: Duke87

What changed in the postwar era is that guns became a controversial issue where previously they were just a part of life.

quote>

According to my mom, her grandfather's guns were kept in an unlocked cabinet, and caused no ruckus or controversy by their presence or accessibility. In those days, many people in rural areas still hunted to feed the family. Random horrendous crimes were not as common, but still happened. Defending one's home and property was much more of a personal responsibility throughout much of this nation's history. 

My father talked of many characters he served with in the Navy, one that stood out was a young man from Appalachia (insert favorite term for poor mountain folk here). He grew up in the local tradition of playing 'tag' with .22 cal rifles, and had the scars to back it up. One would assume that when things when in a predictably tragic direction, it was treated as an accident. Imagine the headlines such a story would make nowadays!

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

Originally posted by: Barbarossa I would fight to the death for my right to be armed, but that does not mean I am stupid enough to think that every weapon made should be available to everyone legally able to own one.  When we move into that realm, we move into the world of false paranoia.

Barbarossa

quote>

Your presence on the rights front is enough, very few would argue with you that there are limits. Where the limits are, is the sticking point. If you agree that individuals still have a 2nd amendment right to keep and bear arms (the 2 are distinct for a reason, bear could be considered open-carry) then you will find a warm welcome on the other side of the political fence, old friend 

[§haÅ--Ñ€ §hÅŽo 370]

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

Originally posted by: Sirron Kcuhc

Guns shouldn't be banned. They're used to protect ourselves. Even if they are banned people will buy them off the black-market. It only gives the bad guy an advantage.quote>

My POV is that guns should be legal, but strongly regulated.  This isn't 1775, nor is it 1875.  The last 120 yrs has seen a remarkable change in the advancement of humanity, civilization and technology.  We are still human and we still love our guns, but the concerns of the times no longer apply.  I would fight to the death for my right to be armed, but that does not mean I am stupid enough to think that every weapon made should be available to everyone legally able to own one.  When we move into that realm, we move into the world of false paranoia.

Barbarossa

quote>

Yes definitly. That is exactly what needs to be done. We need the rights for guns but we need to regulate guns so they don't get into the wrong hands. And make sure that no Ak47's get into citizen hands... In Pittsburgh back in 2009, a nut ball shot and killed 3 police men. We need to prevent that from happening ever again.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Originally posted by: Sirron Kcuhc

Yes definitly. That is exactly what needs to be done. We need the rights for guns but we need to regulate guns so they don't get into the wrong hands. And make sure that no Ak47's get into citizen hands... In Pittsburgh back in 2009, a nut ball shot and killed 3 police men. We need to prevent that from happening ever again.

quote>

The nutbars we will always have with us.  You can't keep an Uzzi or an AK-47 away from these guys even if they are illegal.  The black market will always supply, and there is no possibility of closing the black market.

On the other hand, you can make life very difficult for people who chose to skulk about with such things by;

1. Outlawing them as weapons of multiple killing;
2. Making the penalty of getting caught with one rather severe.  A federal offence that would get you into some really nice hotel like the one at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.  Nothing trivial, say five years for the first offence, 15 for the second and life for the third.

To save any libertarians the trouble of protesting this, I know it is draconian.  I mean it to be!

[nerdly_dood 26]

It's true that criminals will get guns whether they're banned or not, and regardless of penalties. So I figure, loosen up some regulations and let me have one, and make gun safety classes mandatory in high school.

[L'orignaux inconnu 0]

Well, if you are in the United States of America, your constitution says you can have arms.  These days, I suppose, that means fire arms.  I don't think that it says you can use arms, only bear (carry) them.  It also doesn't say "openly".  Of course, in those days it was a little hard to conceal a fire arm.

Now, since it is a right, and since firearms are dangerous in untrained hands, I'll go along with a new subject in high-school:

• Arms 101:  The history of weapons, the constitutional provisions and safety issues
• Arms 201:  Prerquisite: Arms 101.  The long rifle.  How to care for, dissasemble, clean, reassemble, and use a rifle.  The school needs access to a rifle range for this.  Perhaps the local chapter of the NRA can assist here
• Arms 202:  Prerequisite: Arms 101. The automatic pistol:  As in Arms 201, but with the automatic pistol of the current choice.
• Arms 301:  Sharpshooting.  Prerequisites Arms 201.  A sharpshooting instructor (sniper grade) is needed, with considerable classroom and rifle range time.  A bush scheme should be the final test.
• Arms 401:  Automatic weapons.  Prerequisites Arms 202, Arms 301.  Military instructors on the latest field weapons.  Summer course in field operations to follow.  Must pass the field school in order to achieve standing in this course.

These one semester courses should be offered beginning in Grade 9 to anyone who can qualify.  A clean juvenile record is required along with parental permission.  Students completing Arms 401 will have priority in the Armed Services of the United States at the competion of their high-school diploma.

Cramming this in with the current curriculum may be difficult, but this must be a day course and not offered at night.  It will have the advantage of keeping kids in school, and making, perhaps, soldiers out of them.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Duke87 1,070]

Having a firing range in a high school or anything like that is a bad idea, no question.

On the other hand... we've decided to teach kids in high school how sex works and how to do it safely. It is controversial, but the information is useful. Perhaps a bit of "gun ed" might be worth giving a shot.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Larks2242 251]

I don't think it is a totaltily a bad idea however i think you should not include Automatics because thats Ilegal and its like bringing drugs to a drug ed class.

[JayStimson 211]

We let teenagers (16-19) handle 2 tons of steel in congestion at 60+ miles/hour. How can teaching them how to handle firearms be anymore dangerous ?

Compare how many teenagers die in traffic accidents each year to how many die from firearms. Anyone care to look up the statistics ?

[Duke87 1,070]

From here

Each Year over 5,000 teens ages 16 to 20 Die due to Fatal injuries caused Car accidents. {sic} About 400,000 drivers age 16 to 20 will be seriously injured.quote>

From here

In 1999, 3,385 children and youth ages 0-19 years were killed with a gun. This includes homicides, suicides, and unintentional injuries. {...}

• The 3,385 firearms-related deaths for age group 0-19 years breaks down to:
  • 214 unintentional
  • 1,078 suicides
  • 1,990 homicides
  • 83 for which the intent could not be determined
  • 20 due to legal intervention
• Of the total firearms-related deaths:
  • 73 were of children under five years old
  • 416 were children 5-14 years old
  • 2,896 were 15-19 years old

quote>

So, yup, the car is more dangerous.

[Meg 368]

To drive a car legally, people must take classes and demonstrate they can drive safely before they get a license.

Why should having a gun be different?   Take the classes and demonstrate that you know how to use it.

It won't catch every nut job out there but teaching gun safety sounds like a good thing.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Perhaps, with the prerequisite of clean record, parental permission, and the courses themselves, such a program will help identify the nutbars before they get too far along, as well.

Note that the rifle range does not have to be in the school.  I am sure there are enough shooting ranges in the U.S. to accommodate a few high-school students during the day.  And remember, nothing in the curriculum said that it was a set of mandatory courses.  In fact, if I were principal of a high-school offering such a scheme, I would look very, very hard at the applicants.  Here you may find your nutbars.  The attraction will be too much for most of them.

[hym 358]

Originally posted by: Larks2242

I don't think it is a totaltily a bad idea however i think you should not include Automatics because thats Ilegal and its like bringing drugs to a drug ed class.quote>

Automatic weapons are not illegal in the US.  I have a close friend who owns an AR-15.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Quite so.  And this program will have a side-bar of promoting gun safety.  If you learn to respect your weapons, you will think twice about just going out and using them.

[hym 358]

Quoting from a post in the World Affairs thread, which can be found here.  (My post was originally in that thread, but I realized it wasn't an international issue.)

Originally posted by: A Nonny Moose

In any case, automatic weapons have only one use:  Killing people.quote>

No, they don't.  They can also be enjoyable to shoot on the range from time to time.  I have a friend who owns an AR-15 for just this reason.

Every effort should be made everywhere to get stuff like this out of the hands of both the public at large, and criminals in general.quote>

Why?  There are approximately 150,000 legally owned automatic weapons in the United States and criminal statistics suggest that none of them have ever been used for criminal purposes.  There is no evidence that legally owned automatic firearms are hurting society.

Penalties for unauthorized possession of one of these should be the equivalent of a life sentence, even on a first offense.  Sentencing like this is draconian, but the weapons are miniature WMD's, and should be kept from the wrong hands. quote>

Yes, they should be kept out of the wrong hands, but those who go through the process to legally acquire an automatic firearm are not the "wrong hands."

{fantasy} Judge:  You had an AK-47?  Well, then, 47 years, no parole.  (/fantasy}

I know it is impossible, but life should be made as difficult as possible for people who possess these things.quote>

There is no rational reason to do so.  At best, the arguments against private ownership of automatic weapons ultimately reduce to an appeal to emotion (which is a classic flaw of reasoned thought).  At worst, it's advocation of tyranny of the stupid.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Well, there is a different point of view.  You want almost anarchistic freedom based on the musings of some 18th century statesmen who happen to be your founding fathers.  You want the rule of law, but you don't want to limit the dangers of ordinary people possessing things capable to doing great harm in the hope the they will not do so.  Never say never.  All it takes is a lost job or a cheating partner, to turn a gun enthusiast into an emotionally disturbed person with a dangerous toy.

The latest example is the Manilla massacre, which was mishandled, but there you are.  Neatness is not part of the human condition.

[hym 358]

Originally posted by: A Nonny Moose

Well, there is a different point of view.  You want almost anarchistic freedom based on the musings of some 18th century statesmen who happen to be your founding fathers.quote>

Whether it is bordering on anarchy is highly subjective.

You want the rule of law, but you don't want to limit the dangers of ordinary people possessing things capable to doing great harm in the hope the they will not do so.quote>

Do you have any idea how many hoops you have to jump through to legally own an automatic weapon?  Not just at the state level but also at the federal level.  My friend's AR-15 is at his residence in Maine and has remained there for several years now because he has no idea how to legally transport it to his residence in Texas.  (He could get it transported on an aircraft, but he doesn't want to do that for fear that the TSA will put him on a lifelong watchlist.)

Never say never.  All it takes is a lost job or a cheating partner, to turn a gun enthusiast into an emotionally disturbed person with a dangerous toy.quote>

Such a case would raise your chance of being involved in a shooting with a legally owned automatic weapon by 0.00067% (actually much less than that when you figure in factors such as weapons distribution).  Mental health professionals classify this kind of fear as paranoia.

The latest example is the Manilla massacre, which was mishandled, but there you are.  Neatness is not part of the human condition.quote>

You're right, neatness isn't part of humanity, and attempts to control humanity's unneatness are doomed to failure.  Gun control advocates are as blind to the reality concerning firearms as "War on Drugs" advocates are to the situation surrounding drug trafficking.  When you sacrifice freedom to gain security, you ultimately lose both.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Well, it was a current example of a nut with an automatic, that's all.

As for losing freedoms, hym is right.  Some freedom is traded off when you regulate something.  At the same time, you have the problem of having no monitors, as can be seen in the recent Wall Street tragedy (crash, or whatever you want to call it.)  People had the bit in their teeth, and the culture could not say them nay.  Now, you have a hindsight reaction that will probably be too severe, like requiring Canadians to carry passports to enter the U.S. for the first time in something like sixty years.

Some rumour that the 9/11 terrorists were from Canada, and look what happened!  It was false, it was always false, and the authorities knew it, yet here we are.  I will never visit your beautiful country again because I won't pay $85 for a passport just to cross the "longest undefended border in the world".  What a tragedy!

Falsehood flies on wings of light, but the truth plods along with the turtle.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

U.S. Supreme Court unanimously whacks criminals with guns.

Own all the guns you want, but don't get caught in a crime with one on you.

[Duke87 1,070]

In general, I despise minimum sentence laws. And I don't see how being in posession of a gun makes a crime any worse. I mean, really, if I rob someone at gunpoint, the difference between that and, say, putting a knife to their neck and robbing them is...?

That said, the law is perfectly constitutional and thus the court made the right decision.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Duke87 1,070]

Well, yes, it is definitely easier to commit a violent crime if you have a gun... but it isn't any less of a violation of the victim's rights if you use a knife instead. So why should anyone get off easier for that?

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Originally posted by: Duke87

Well, yes, it is definitely easier to commit a violent crime if you have a gun... but it isn't any less of a violation of the victim's rights if you use a knife instead. So why should anyone get off easier for that?quote>

I think the idea of a distance weapon is the point.  The penalty should be invoked if the perp has a crossbow or other similar missle firing weapon. 

Perhaps limiting the statute to fire arms was a little short sighted.  I have seen perfectly deadly crossbows that can be used in one hand.  Maybe even a boomarang should have been included as well as throwing stars and such similar items.  On the other hand, I suppose the legislators have to stick to what they know is going on.  I expect the criminal element will find other distance weapons now.

And I agree that the tort is just as bad or  worse if it is up close and personal.  You don't need a knife, just a piece of metal pipe or a baseball bat.  Risk for the perp is incidental.  It is the act that merits the penalty and if I was a judge, I would tend to throw the book at anyone who committed a violent or potentially violent crime against a person or persons (excluding corporations as persons).

[Ocram's Razr 963]

At least Tazers and sprays (pepper, mace, etc) can be used for defense. A Tazer cannot protect one from a sniper but a tazer is good for medium-close situations. Sprays (like bear repellent LOL) should handle ANYONE within range.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Recent events in Tucson, AZ showYET AGAIN that the party with guns should, by consensus of the people, brought to an end.  The NRA can have all the hunting equipment it wants, but automatic or assault weapons need to be restricted to military uses only.  A sensible amendment to the second amendment is needed very badly.  Simple possession of an assault weapon should be liable, on conviction, to a long term of incarceration.  Anyone who uses one illegally should, on conviction, be imprisoned without chance of parole for life.

There are too many people in the U.S. for you to tolerate all those loose nuts armed withh AK-47s.  Wake up!  You are not free if you have to go armed to the corner store.