Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Melissia wrote: Neither side agrees that the current set of regulations is perfect. It's disingenuous to claim that you think it is considering your past arguments.
I've yet to encounter a perfect regulation.
My arguments have pretty consistently been, "The administration's proposed laws are 'do something so we can feel good and claim we did it' gak."
easysauce wrote: so when talking about guns, someone with decades of experience
Please, everyone and their dead grandmother can claim to be an expert on anything over the internet.
well if you are just going to insult, and call everyone a liar, then whats the point? If you are going accuse everyone who says anything about their RL experience as simply being liars, and say their opinion doesn't, and shouldn't matter, then why are we all supposed to believe you?
Seaward wrote: I've yet to encounter a perfect regulation.
Meritocracy doesn't exist either, but they're still both admirable (if unattainable) goals.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/04/28 18:01:22
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
easysauce wrote: so when talking about guns, someone with decades of experience
Please, everyone and their dead grandmother can claim to be an expert on anything over the internet.
well if you are just going to insult, and call everyone a liar, then whats the point? If you are going accuse everyone who says anything about their RL experience as simply being liars, and say their opinion doesn't, and shouldn't matter, then why are we all supposed to believe you?
You're never wrong if everyone else is a liar.
Your getting no where with this. Some people just aren't worth the effort.
You could do the same thing with a BB gun or some other similar, non-lethal device that could just as easily put a hole in a paper target though without the added "boom".
I've handled a lot of airguns, some of them capable of putting down multi thousand pound animals. Calling them non lethal is ignorant in the extreme.
Airguns were also used to "Shock and Awe" indigenous peoples.
Mannahnin wrote:A lot of folks online (and in emails in other parts of life) use pretty mangled English. The idea is that it takes extra effort and time to write properly, and they’d rather save the time. If you can still be understood, what’s the harm? While most of the time a sloppy post CAN be understood, the use of proper grammar, punctuation, and spelling is generally seen as respectable and desirable on most forums. It demonstrates an effort made to be understood, and to make your post an easy and pleasant read. By making this effort, you can often elicit more positive responses from the community, and instantly mark yourself as someone worth talking to.
insaniak wrote: Every time someone threatens violence over the internet as a result of someone's hypothetical actions at the gaming table, the earth shakes infinitisemally in its orbit as millions of eyeballs behind millions of monitors all roll simultaneously.
Personally adding ANY new federal firearms laws is a waste of time. From the background check law that just restates current federal law (yes, you DO have to get a background check at a gunshow the only place the gunshow loophole exists is in Obama's dream diary after he had a scary nightmare and the liberal equivalent of Alex Jones), but it's a waste of time because NO ONE ENFORCES ANY GUN LAWS. If you fail a background check, or make a straw buy you are more likely to be struck by lightning then be prosecuted for it.
So here's a novel fething idea, PROSECUTE THE BAD GUYS. ENFORCE THE LAW ASIT IS WRITTEN NOW AND SEE IF MAGICALLY SOMETHING CHANGES. It's almost like, when you have laws and don't enforce them, people take advantage of it. For example the rule of thumb on American roads if you can go 5 mph above the speed limit. The cops don't care enough to stop you because some fethhead in a sports car will be along presently doing 20+ to make the actual effort of pulling someone over worth the officer's time.
As to giving the ATF more responsibility I'd rather replace the U.S. Congress with Ms. Davies's third grade class from Thilsdown Puckett Elementary school of "Fething No Where" Pennsylvania. They have long admitted that their registration data base for FFLs, NFA firearms, etc is a complete clustefeth.
More inspections? Hell these idiots can't handle the single inspections of the books they do, and they're not doing anything useful. Not that inspections really help if you have a competent agent performing the inspection right? EVERY firearm that comes in and out of an FFL dealer is logged in their bound book.
The JPFO's full video on the "The Gang"
I beg of you sarge let me lead the charge when the battle lines are drawn
Lemme at least leave a good hoof beat they'll remember loud and long
d-usa wrote: Yes, things can be more dangerous. And we are okay with passing laws to try to make things less dangerous.
And has been argued, we are ok with laws that will get the job done, and work, while not infringing on our rights.
Gunshow background checks. Fine.
I would almost be ok with requiring a safety course to be taken before purchasing. There would have to be a lot done though before I could get behind it though. Make it a tax exemption so people aren't shouldered with the extra burden of the cost. Don't make it overly burdensome. Illinois requires a Hunter Safety Course to be attended to buy a hunting license. There is only a few locations in the state that offer one, and it's near impossible to get into them. They'd have to be easily accessable for everyone to attend, or having a system kind of like Michigans apprentice hunter stuff. You don't need to take the course if you can document that you've been trained by an experienced friend or family member.
Arbitrarily banning scary looking guns though, are not making anything less dangerous. Magazine restrictions do not make them less dangerous. Quite frankly, very few laws out there will, because just like cars, it comes down to the person's own sense of responsibility to determine how dangerous the things are.
It seems we agree on more elements of this debate than either of us previously thought.
KalashnikovMarine wrote:More inspections? Hell these idiots can't handle the single inspections of the books they do, and they're not doing anything useful. Not that inspections really help if you have a competent agent performing the inspection right? EVERY firearm that comes in and out of an FFL dealer is logged in their bound book.
I could be mistaken here, but I think those dealers are only required to keep those books for a very short period of time, and are not required to turn those records over for inspection. My understanding is that the current ability of BATFE to actually enforce the current laws was hamstrung by the NRA lobby quite some time ago.
KalashnikovMarine wrote:More inspections? Hell these idiots can't handle the single inspections of the books they do, and they're not doing anything useful. Not that inspections really help if you have a competent agent performing the inspection right? EVERY firearm that comes in and out of an FFL dealer is logged in their bound book.
I could be mistaken here, but I think those dealers are only required to keep those books for a very short period of time, and are not required to turn those records over for inspection. My understanding is that the current ability of BATFE to actually enforce the current laws was hamstrung by the NRA lobby quite some time ago.
The books are different then the sale forms. Those also have to be kept for... I want to saya year to two years off the top of my head. Your bound book is permanent, it does not record who is sold what, merely what comes in and when it comes in, then when it leaves again. Bound books must be maintained for at least a decade after the last entry in the book, and must be presented annually to inspecting authorities. Discrepancies in one's bound book do NOT go well for you. There's an added level of information and detail for Class III dealer's bound books, because Class III sales are tracked with full registration. Also is it just me or is the NRA like Bush up till about two years ago? "Sink's broken!" "Damn you George Bush!"
The ATF and DOJ's failure to prosecute no gak felons is squarely on their shoulders, as is the over all incompetence and corruption displayed by the former agency.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/04/28 19:23:34
I beg of you sarge let me lead the charge when the battle lines are drawn
Lemme at least leave a good hoof beat they'll remember loud and long
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Also is it just me or is the NRA like Bush up till about two years ago? "Sink's broken!" "Damn you George Bush!"
The ATF and DOJ's failure to prosecute no gak felons is squarely on their shoulders, as is the over all incompetence and corruption displayed by the former agency.
Now this one I do understand reasonably well: the NRA's lobby pushed for restrictions on the BATFE's ability to enforce current laws, even going so far as to have actually had a hand in writing some of those restrictions. So when someone notices that the BATFE is broken, yes, they actually can shake their fist and say "damn you, NRA".
At the GunRunners Gun Show outside Atlanta, the line stretches out the door and around the corner. Dozens of people are waiting, ready to fork over big bucks for everything from pistols to high capacity magazines.
Here, the hottest seller isn't a shotgun, handgun, or even a pair of Angie Whitaker's .22-caliber bullet casing earrings. It's the AR-15 semiautomatic rifle.
"We probably brought maybe 100 AR-15s with us," said vendor George Mazzant, from On the Square Gun & Pawn. "I'd like to sell half of them, and, I'm sure we will. We've been doing that well every weekend."
Mazzant is running a special, selling Stag Arms AR-15 rifles for $999. It's an offer that's too good for show attendee Ken Farrell to pass up.
"I always wanted one," said Farrell. "I'm getting it now just in case I can't later. Since the rumors of the bans, the prices have skyrocketed."
"When you tell the American public that they're not going to have something, they want it," said Mazzant.
The AR-15 is at the heart of the gun control debate. The civilian version of the M16, it's the most popular rifle in the country, with some 4 million in the hands of gun owners and a wildly passionate fan base. Its use in the mass shootings in Newtown, Conn., and Aurora, Colo., thrust the AR-15 into the national spotlight.
"The AR-15 is, essentially, a gun that was designed to inflict maximum casualties, death, and injury, in close to medium range. That's what it does," said gun control advocate and former NRA member Tom Diaz. "The real problem is that we allow that kind of firepower to come into a theater or into a first-grade class."
"It's a question of cosmetics. It's not a question of functioning," said Steve Sanetti, president of the National Sports Shooting Foundation. "The rifles are sane, safe, reliable types of firearms used by millions of citizens for lawful purposes. They are not just killing machines."
But if the gun control debate has some people up in arms, it's had others buying them up — an unintended side effect of the push for stricter gun laws. The most recent measures — President Barack Obama's attempt to strengthen gun laws by expanding background checks, limiting large ammunition magazines and banning certain military-style firearms — were defeated on the Senate floor earlier this month.
Just the threat of a ban has been a boon to the gun business.
"[It's] been a very, very busy year for us," said Mark Malkowski, president of Stag Arms in New Britain, Conn. "Right now we're at about a year's back order, 70,000 rifles at this point."
Connecticut recently passed some of the toughest gun laws in the country, banning the sales of AR-15s. Malkowski has since announced he might be forced to move his company out of the state — taking some 200 jobs with it. Stag Arms is one of more than 30 companies that make the AR-15; together they sell some 800,000 rifles a year, nearly all for the U.S. market.
"The AR-15 now is probably the Number 1 economic engine in the gun industry," said Larry Hyatt, owner of Hyatt Gun Shop in Charlotte, N.C. "We sell every one we get, almost as quick as they come in. We've never seen the demand that's here today."
Gun store owners and analysts alike say it's one of the bestselling guns in the country; roughly $1 billion of the estimated $4 billion firearms industry is made up of sales of AR-15 rifles and their accessories.
"These are expensive guns that people think about a lot before they buy them," said Hyatt. "They're not protesting on the street against the government, they're buying AR-15s and ammunition. It's not advertising, it's not marketing, it's political."
Politics coupled with shifting consumer preference are big drivers of the market, said Wedbush Securities analyst Rommel Dionisio.
"In the last two years, the market has exploded," he said. "It's a fad; it's the cool, new rifle. People used to hunt with bolt action rifles. Now they're using the modern sporting rifle."
According to the sports shooting foundation, an average AR-15 runs about $1,000. They also say the average owner has more than one rifle and spends an additional $483 for accessories. It's a pricey purchase that Diaz says is benefiting from years of industry marketing.
"The names you see now are 'modern sporting rifle,' 'tactical rifle,' " he said. "Those are all just euphemisms for 'assault weapon.' They're being very rational as marketers and as businesses — and as industries. They're only doing what cellphone companies do to make cellphones look different and be more attractive. The difference is what they're selling is lethality."
"They're selling today's rifle," said the foundation's Sanetti. "We call it the modern sporting rifle. And that's exactly what it is."
Whether it's called a modern sporting rifle or an assault rifle, for Atlanta gun show vendor Mazzant, AR-15s are just good business.
"Today was one of the better sales days with ARs," he said. "Everybody in the whole place was lining up to buy them."
Mazzant started off with 100 AR-15 rifles. By the end of the day, he didn't have a single one left.
Wow, you're only about six months too late on that story.
AR prices have already hit their high water mark and are declining.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: Except the only people talking about taking away guns are a stupid minority on the left and the NRA whispering sweet terrors into the ears of gun owners.
Regulating =/= taking guns away. But this is a useless discussion that has been covered many of times. Sorry for even getting sucked into another pointless thread.
You mean other than the bills submitted to Congress, a supportive President, and confiscatory laws just put into place in NY?
Seems to be one of the hot-button issues right now. Maybe someone should start another Justin Bieber thread, or post something from the Daily Mail.
Hey I didn't start it.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/04/28 21:10:11
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
I would love to see real life examples of guns legally purchased without back ground checks used in violent crimes.
Seriously, there must be an absolute TON of examples out there, why are each and every one not used as specific examples of why some of you advocate for universal back ground checks?
Again:
1. What is the goal of your proposal (in this specific case, what do you think mandating 'universal back ground checks' is supposed to fix?
2. How do you think this proposal if enacted would accomplish your goal?
3. What are the costs of enacting your proposal (monetary and lost freedoms.)
I'll help with number 3. It would make it more expensive for me to give a rifle as a Christmas gift (something I have done before). It will force an already inefficient bureaucracy to grow to handle the increased checks. It forces me to pay for a check and submit to a check if I want to buy a rifle from a buddy of mine who restores WW2 era rifles as a hobby. It opens the door for a national registry (see the ACLU argument posted previously).
With out a real cost benefit analysis you cannot convince me it is a 'reasonable' proposal.
So, what do I gain for submitting to all this? It increases the burden of gun ownership, what REAL problem do you think it solves? Again, where all the multitude of examples of legally purchased guns, purchased without a back ground check, used by the purchaser to commit a violent crime?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/04/28 23:26:31
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
1. What is the goal of your proposal (in this specific case, what do you think mandating 'universal back ground checks' is supposed to fix?
2. How do you think this proposal if enacted would accomplish your goal?
3. What are the costs of enacting your proposal (monetary and lost freedoms.)
1.) to make it harder for people who should not have guns to obtain them (not impossible, just harder)
2.) the filter would tighten, increasing the difficulty for criminals and the mentally incompetent to obtain firearms.
3.a) monetary cost: zero. The applicant pays for background check costs, and can receive a tax deduction in return.
3.b) freedom cost: zero. Anyone who believes that a background check before buying a gun to be an assault on their freedom is likely experiencing the sort of paranoid delusion that ought to discount them from owning firearms to begin with.
1.) to make it harder for people who should not have guns to obtain them (not impossible, just harder)
What do you really mean by this? Because invariably... it may infringe in our 2nd Amendment rights.
2.) the filter would tighten, increasing the difficulty for criminals and the mentally incompetent to obtain firearms.
Criminals are going to get their hands on any weapon... that's why they're criminals.
Curiously... what are the criteria to deem someone as "mentally incompetent"? Seems like this is a case of "monday morning quarterbacking here".
3.a) monetary cost: zero. The applicant pays for background check costs, and can receive a tax deduction in return.
Background checks ARE being done... what do folks forget about this?
3.b) freedom cost: zero. Anyone who believes that a background check before buying a gun to be an assault on their freedom is likely experiencing the sort of paranoid delusion that ought to discount them from owning firearms to begin with.
Again.. background check do exists RIGHT NOW! Or... are you advocating for national registry? Is that what you were thinking of?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/04/29 04:38:33
whembly wrote: Criminals are going to get their hands on any weapon... that's why they're criminals.
That isn't a reason to make it easy on them.
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
whembly wrote: Criminals are going to get their hands on any weapon... that's why they're criminals.
That isn't a reason to make it easy on them.
Well.. what do you mean by "easy"?
At the moment, I'm more disagreeing with your argument philosophically rather than providing solid counter-examples.
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
whembly wrote: The point I was trying to make was that ANY new laws would have zero impact whether or not criminals would be using illegal weapons.
A bold assertion to make.
Defend it. I don't agree.
edit: Mind you, if you want to argue that "no politically viable new laws [..]", I'd probably agree with you.
But I could come up with ways to ensure that it is harder for criminals to get guns. I'd not necessarily want to put most of them in to action, of course.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/04/29 04:45:51
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
1.) to make it harder for people who should not have guns to obtain them (not impossible, just harder)
What do you really mean by this? Because invariably... it may infringe in our 2nd Amendment rights.
Can a felony conviction already take away that right?
Can a restraining order against you take away that right?
Can being placed on a terrorist watch list take away that right?
Sounds to me like this right of yours isn't all that uninfringed as it is.
Whembly wrote:
azazel the cat wrote:2.) the filter would tighten, increasing the difficulty for criminals and the mentally incompetent to obtain firearms.
Criminals are going to get their hands on any weapon... that's why they're criminals.
Then why bother even selling the guns? Criminals will just steal them anyway, so why bother attaching a price tag?
You see, this particular line of questioning is without value, because it assumes a fatalistic inevitability. Let's think of it another way: do you lock your doors at night, or when you leave your house? If so, why? Criminals will just pick the lock or break a window, so why even bother having a door, amiright?
Whembly wrote:Curiously... what are the criteria to deem someone as "mentally incompetent"? Seems like this is a case of "monday morning quarterbacking here".
This is a standard that I don't think I should get to decide, as I would include far too many people for that term to work. However, I think anyone considered legally slowed or mentally unstable by any respected psychiatric institution is a decent compromise. However, this element is likely wishlisting, as it requires addressing several other social issues.
Whembly wrote:
azazel the cat wrote:3.a) monetary cost: zero. The applicant pays for background check costs, and can receive a tax deduction in return.
Background checks ARE being done... what do folks forget about this?
3.b) freedom cost: zero. Anyone who believes that a background check before buying a gun to be an assault on their freedom is likely experiencing the sort of paranoid delusion that ought to discount them from owning firearms to begin with.
Again.. background check do exists RIGHT NOW! Or... are you advocating for national registry? Is that what you were thinking of?
I mean universal background checks, without exception. And I'm in favour of a national registry, but I'd settle for universal background checks that includes private sales and inter-family transfers.
Wait. Holder threw it into the Civil Rights arena. Because its the right thing to do to process the...what...12-13 million illegals.
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
I mean, just look at Chicago and DC... some of the most restrictive gun laws on the books, and yet has the highest gun crimes.
They will respond that this is because it's easy to get guns from neighboring states with far more lenient gun laws. Which is, of course, absolutely true. It is also, of course, absolutely true that this problem would go away if we could get DC-style restrictions on a federal level, because we do not have any states bordering this country that have massive criminal elements that have become ridiculously adept at smuggling contraband material across our border to meet a lucrative demand.
And yet Canada has even more restrictive laws than those, and has almost no gun crime (by comparison).
Yes, but Canada has a tiny population in a massive land mass with "criminal elements" that would make an eight year-old from Queens howl with laughter.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/04/29 04:59:24
1.) to make it harder for people who should not have guns to obtain them (not impossible, just harder)
What do you really mean by this? Because invariably... it may infringe in our 2nd Amendment rights.
Can a felony conviction already take away that right?
Of course... a felon broke a social convention and thus can have rights taken away. Duh... you do understand what a "Rights" really mean... right?
Can a restraining order against you take away that right?
I actually don't know... did a quick search and it doesn't NOT look like you can lose your weapons via restraining order. A CCW license could be revoked theoretically...
What's your point?
Can being placed on a terrorist watch list take away that right?
Now this is interesting... probably.
Sounds to me like this right of yours isn't all that uninfringed as it is.
Right's aren't absolute... I think this is why we get into these debates because the masses don't understand how these "Rights" are granted/excercised.
Whembly wrote:
azazel the cat wrote:2.) the filter would tighten, increasing the difficulty for criminals and the mentally incompetent to obtain firearms.
Criminals are going to get their hands on any weapon... that's why they're criminals.
Then why bother even selling the guns? Criminals will just steal them anyway, so why bother attaching a price tag?
What.The.feth? Dude... that line of thought is asinine.
You see, this particular line of questioning is without value, because it assumes a fatalistic inevitability. Let's think of it another way: do you lock your doors at night, or when you leave your house? If so, why? Criminals will just pick the lock or break a window, so why even bother having a door, amiright?
Epic strawman dude.
So we should just roll over and take it in the ass everytime? Should I tell the criminal not to hurt me and ask if I should spread my ass cheek for them?
Seriously, dude...
Whembly wrote:Curiously... what are the criteria to deem someone as "mentally incompetent"? Seems like this is a case of "monday morning quarterbacking here".
This is a standard that I don't think I should get to decide, as I would include far too many people for that term to work. However, I think anyone considered legally slowed or mentally unstable by any respected psychiatric institution is a decent compromise. However, this element is likely wishlisting, as it requires addressing several other social issues.
Now we're getting somewhere... I don't think there's a whole lot that can be done to prevent wackos from going on a rampage...
However, our laws do need to be changed to make it easier to incarcerate someone in psyche wards. Today, you almost have to go to court to get admit someone to psyche ward...
Whembly wrote:
azazel the cat wrote:3.a) monetary cost: zero. The applicant pays for background check costs, and can receive a tax deduction in return.
Background checks ARE being done... what do folks forget about this?
3.b) freedom cost: zero. Anyone who believes that a background check before buying a gun to be an assault on their freedom is likely experiencing the sort of paranoid delusion that ought to discount them from owning firearms to begin with.
Again.. background check do exists RIGHT NOW! Or... are you advocating for national registry? Is that what you were thinking of?
I mean universal background checks, without exception. And I'm in favour of a national registry, but I'd settle for universal background checks that includes private sales and inter-family transfers.
National Registry...
We have background checks... (except for private sales).
Seaward: You clearly have no understanding of Canada's criminal element. Just to make this easier for you, we have a fairly significant Hell's Angels presence, to name one.
Whembly wrote:
azazel the cat wrote:
Whembly wrote:
azazel the cat wrote:2.) the filter would tighten, increasing the difficulty for criminals and the mentally incompetent to obtain firearms.
Criminals are going to get their hands on any weapon... that's why they're criminals.
Then why bother even selling the guns? Criminals will just steal them anyway, so why bother attaching a price tag?
What.The.feth? Dude... that line of thought is asinine.
Dude... that line if thought is EXACTLY YOUR LINE OF THOUGHT.
Whembly wrote:
azazel the cat wrote:You see, this particular line of questioning is without value, because it assumes a fatalistic inevitability. Let's think of it another way: do you lock your doors at night, or when you leave your house? If so, why? Criminals will just pick the lock or break a window, so why even bother having a door, amiright?
Epic strawman dude.
That's not a strawman at all. I'm simply applying your Calvinistic fatalism to non-firearm issues. If you think your reasoning is assinine in one context, why is it not assinine in another?
Whembly wrote:We have background checks... (except for private sales).
And I wanna see background checks that include private sales. That way, an otherwise law-abiding citizen cannot simply buy firearms for their two-strike loser cousin.
DR:70+S+G-MB-I+Pwmhd05#+D++A+++/aWD100R++T(S)DM+++ Get your own Dakka Code!
"...he could never understand the sense of a contest in which the two adversaries agreed upon the rules." Gabriel Garcia Marquez, One Hundred Years of Solitude
And properly enforced. And properly funded. And have the stupid bureaucratic nonsense that the NRA puts in them removed. Also did I mention actually fething enforced? That's an important part.
whembly wrote: ... but I don't think it's a leap of logic to ascertain that any more restrictive laws would have any impact.
I assume that was a typo, and you meant wouldn't, rather than would.
But that's a bad logical conclusion. More restrictive laws, strictly and consistently enforced over the course of a generation or two, could easily have a stronger impact than the laws we currently have. We could even just enforce the laws we currently have better and have a stronger impact. At the moment, a large number of weapons used by mass murders and spree killings (as much has three quarters; link provides the full data set for your perusal) are purchased legally, and streamlining and enforcing current laws could very well help lower this percentage, forcing them to go through extra hoops to get their weapons-- and thus discouraging some (which is the reasoning behind some suicide preventatives on bridges, and it is very much shown to work there)-- and do so without really that much of an effect on the average gun owner.
The argument isn't about whether the laws would have any effect at all, but rather, is it WORTH doing-- is the end result worth the effort and restrictions on civil liberties. The answer is to that question never easy to anyone who actually puts any real thought in to it, because lives really ARE at stake here. Both the lives and liberties of law-abiding citizens are very important, and one should never trivialize such a discussion as often is done (including in this forum, where it is done to such a shameful extent recently that it made me feel physical disgust and revulsion). Hell, even just ensuring that people who buy a gun have to go through a training course on how to safely store, maintain, and use their gun would cut down on non-crime related gun accidents and deaths.
Sadly, no such reasonable revisions are likely it seems-- and this is NOT a good thing. When you have people devaluing human lives to the point where they even mock and insult people who die from gun-related crimes and treat dangerous tools of death as nothing more than toys ("barbie dolls for men" to use the hobby's own phrase) on one side, and people who show open disdain and hatred anyone who might ever possibly consider owning a gun for any reason and only use gun-related deaths as statistical weapons in their petty wars without any empathy for the victims, it's no real surprise that no one who has come up with a reasonable compromise is given any attention.
But to assume that means that a compromise-type solution doesn't exist and that we should stop looking for it does both the civil liberties AND the lost lives a disservice. The lack of honest, intelligent input from either side is why we have stupid laws in the first place-- it's not something that should make one think "this is how it is, therefor this is how it should be", because that's just perpetuating bad, inconsistent laws, and shows a complete and utter disregard for both life and liberty of those involved. An "assault weapons" ban is pointless (we already ban automatic weapons in most cases due to their extreme danger to society), and a "high-capacity magazine" ban is oftentimes needlessly restrictive and overly broad (some guns don't even come WITH magazines as small as they want). Both of them, however, are a direct result of a relative lack of intelligent, rational input from gun rights advocates, allowing instead the more nutty side of the gun control debate to get far more input on what laws get put in place. Do you really want this?
Hell, not everyone who is arguing for gun control is necessarily even anti-guns. Personally I'd like to see something like a national concealed carry law that would allow properly licensed gun owners to carry a weapon regardless of which state they go in (within reasonable limitations, such as not allowing them in government offices and allowing businesses to restrict who can carry where, since that's private property)-- much like your drivers license is generally useful in every state. It'd be a pretty massive expansion of civil liberties compared to what we currently have. To me, greater ability to carry my gun for self defense would a perfectly acceptable compromise to a gun registration database and increased enforcement and funding for current gun control efforts.
But things like that are impossible to accomplish while the gun control debate is so stupid as it currently is.
That is probably the worst example in the US of a functioning government that you could probably use. And that's giving it the benefit of the doubt. Some people would chuckle at the idea of Chicago's government being called "functioning".
As for DC, gun control in THERE is a long and complex history that I am not getting in to right now.
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
