The Big Gun Control Rant

Remove all ads!

If gun control laws involved any kind of testing to see who was responsable and capable enough to own a gun, that would be a workable comparison. Unfortunately, they aren't. As for why gun owners so often see gun control laws as targetting them, it's because it's a step in the direction toward banning guns altogether. A gun registry leads to restrictions on how guns can be purchased leads to restrictions on who can purchase guns (outside of felon restrictions) leads to restrictions on what guns can be purchased leads to total bans of some guns leads to total bans of all guns. If you don't believe this kind of thing is possible, just look at the gun regulation history of the modern US. The war over gun control has raged back and forth over just these lines. It's a slippery slope, unfortunately, but one that we need to be on at some point. The problem is getting people to agree to one point and not trying to push it either way from there.

I agree with this 100%. If someone leaves their gun on the back porch, in open sight and not behind any locks, and someone steals it and kills with it, the gun owner should face prosecution, too. If the gun owner lends it to a friend, things get a little more dicey. How exactly should the courts determine if someone is a trustworthy individual, using only facts known before the crime (i.e. deciding if the gun owner's decision was a legitimate one). Furthermore, how much security to keep guns behind is another sticky point. Will you require guns stay out of reach of children, not laying around in open view (regardless of elevation), behind lock and key, unloaded with ammo stored elsewhere? Again, some regulations are perfectly reasonable while others are ridiculous, and lawmakers should spell out the restrictions clearly.

 

Not really. You simply don't borrow your gun to a friend unless you are 100% sure that they will be able to handle it, this should be perfectly obvious for everyone as it is, but would be even more so if there were actual consequences. To put it plainly, I think lending a gun should be against the law if the owner is nowhere near to supervise its use.

In my opinion the owner should use all reasonable steps of precaution in order to prevent the misuse of the firearm. Simply put, if it's not on the owner or within grabbing distance, it's behind locks. This was the rule in the military, I don't see why it would not work for civillians too.

 

Currently, the only people gun control stops from buying a gun are people who aren't legally allowed to buy a gun. Given that gun control advocates, by and large, aren't arguing for anything more than background checks and a firearms registry, this argument falls flat.

 

Seriously, these questions shouldn't even be asked, and I never stop being amazed that they get brought up as "tricky". How can requiring a loaded firearm to not be within reach of children be questioned for a second? Come on!

 

Why should anyone need a gun?

 

1. When seconds count, the police are minutes away
2. History shows the only surefire way to protect liberty from tyranny is an armed citizenry.
3. Shooting is fun (if you haven't tried it you really should)
4. Hunting

These were my instant answers, I'm sure if I thought about it I could come up with more.

However, let me reverse your question. Why shouldn't a law abiding responsible adult be allowed to have a gun? I think that is a tougher question to answer.

 

Is that so? I feel tempted to remind you that we have long ago left the age of the musket.

Why did the US not disarm the Iraqi citizenry? The US did not disarm the Iraqis because there were too many firearms in the hands of ordinary Iraqis to make that a practicable task. Saddam, unlike the German and Japanese governments during WW-II, had systematically armed everyone who would take a gun. He was afraid of Iranian invasion.

And despite his armed citizenry, his tranny persisted. It suggests that Saddam the despised tyrant was at least much less concerned about his well armed own people than about the Iranians.

That should give all those who think that civilian firearms possession (i.e. the NRA mantra on the necessity of 'a well armed militia') is an effective safeguard against (a modern, technologically superior and well organised) tyranny some pause. It also invites to think about the extent to which Saddam was in fact popular in Iraq - and/or the extent to which he felt he could handle the opposition (which he couldn't do on his own either). It speaks of the objective capability and success of Saddam's armed forces and his secret police against Iraq's domestic enemies. In Iraq Saddam was an insider with home advantage.

Apparently the two, tyranny and civilian arms ownership, can go with each other.

Be armed all you want - if you challenge the state (potentially) violently it will gradually bring into play the entire spectrum of what it has - police, SWAT teams, surveillance, intelligence and eventually the military with its troops, body armour, snipers, commandos, armoured vehicles, artillery, aircraft, surveillance and other technologies. To me that brings up the question to which extent civilian gun ownership really yields a 'leverage for freedom' any more, if it ever has. It is no accident that in Iraq the resistance didn't so much shoot US troops but, obviously for practical reasons, preferred to blow them up with bombs and RPGs. Now you don't argue to, in order to maintain the alleged deterrent effect of an armed citizenry, level the playing field by allowing America's armed citizenry RPGs and IEDs?

And there can be no denying of the general effectiveness of state repression of an armed and rebelling citizenry. The Iraqi campaign against the Shia uprising of 1991 in Iraq comes to mind. The Shiites lost. Or think about the Kurds before. Then there is the example of the Sunni resistance to the new Shiite government of Iraq. They, too, lost, and wouldn't it have been for US help, they'd have lost worse. Assad's Syrian military made short work of the Muslim Brotherhood's uprising at Hama.

It appears to me that an armed citizenry is of much greater use as a deterrent against foreign occupation than against domestic tyranny.

 

Yeah I think that's pretty much BS too. If that statement were actually true then the European countries with gun control should have slided towards tyranny allready. I wonder why that has not happened? It would also stand to reason that Yemen would in that case be one of the shiniest beacons of democracy on this planet, somehow I find that doubtful.

 

OK, so you don't like the tyranny argument. I don't agree with you but I can live with that. How about answering my question though?

 

See, I am not against firearms possession by civilians, and to the extent that the citizens are law abiding and know what they're doing and as long as it is reasonable what they are doing - let them have fire arms. If I lived in the countryside I would probably also like to have a shotgun lying around. Anyway, practical applications for long arms in densely populated Germany suggest hunting rifles and sporting rifles only. No high capacity semi automatic assault rifles. If you're hunting deer and need fifteen, twenty or even thirty plus rounds you shouldn't go hunting in the first place. I'm very practical on that matter and anti-fun. I have fired assault rifles, machine guns, sub machine guns, handguns. It's fun. So what? I presume using opium is fun as well.

Of course, if someone wants to break the law and kill you, and all they've got is a hunting rifle, they'll use a hunting rifle. Or their shotgun. Or their revolver. Or their machine pistol. Or their assault rifle. You're just as dead in any case. But if the assailant has less fire power at his disposal, it will be easier and less dangerous for the authorities and other citizens to stop him before he can cause more harm.

I simply wanted to point out that the mantra of the armed citizenry is probably an exercise in self delusion, or rather an article of faith that is not being critically examined. I limit myself to this in this thread.

 

The supervision idea could work well, and I agree with it as a general rule.

Ah, but then you get into issues of civil defense. If it has to be locked away, that kind of limits it's use in home defense (which is the reason a lot of people in the US get guns).

I wasn't questioning that, just showing the progression. Everyone can agree that keeping guns out of the hands of children is good. Most everyone can probably agree that requiring the gun to be unloaded in a padlocked container, with ammo in a seperate padlocked container, is ridiculous and far too restrictive (though, unfortunately, not everyone can agree even on that). It's the stuff in between that's tricky.


Ok, on the tyranny arguement, no one ever said it was a natural progression. No one claimed unarmed citizenry=tyrrany. I would change "surefire" to "most likely" as even armed citizenry can be put down by a military force, but it is still an effective deterant. Especially for any nation that values it's international reputation and stance on human rights. Imagine what would happen, internationally, if something like 40% of the US population literally went up in arms, with various (and potentially scattered) areas of highly organized and even trained resistance, and the US military went in full force. The US would be the new Devil in Western Democracy. Unless the cause was massively ridiculous (i.e. that 40% wanted the right to murder the other 60% at will), the US would suffer badly.

As to Ragusa's point, I agree that assault rifles don't really have much point in citizenry hands, but they don't really seem to serve much purpose in criminal hands, either. Even when they were legal, these guns were among the least likely to be used in any kind of crime, primarily because they're large, loud, and distinctive. In other words, it doesn't really help you get away. This was my problem with the Assault Rifle ban, it banned weapons hardly anyone used in crimes. Now machine pistols and other small, fully-automatic weapons are another issue.

 

Did you see that just yesterday, the Senate voted against a measure that would allow people to carry concealed weapons across state lines.

The argument: Since laws concerning the right to carry concealed weapons vary so much from one state to the other - and states have the right to implement concealed-carry laws independent of the federal government - that all conceal-carry permits are state-specific. This law would have allowed someone who lives in a state with relatively lax conceal-carry laws to take their gun with them anywhere, including into locations where the regulations are much stricter.

Evidently, truck drivers were among those most opposed to the measure, as their job requires them to frequently cross state lines. I'm not so sure how I feel about this. Thoughts?

 

Since states are no longer obligated recognize all of another state's marriages or civil unions, I see no precedent for requiring one state to recognize another's concealed carry laws.

 

I'm not so sure as to how correct the article is. To me the writer is comparing gun crime amongst areas that all have liberal gun ownership laws (with different nuances). Surely he should be making comparisons between liberal and conservative areas? In Ireland pretty much the only place you'd find legally held guns would be farmers with shotguns. They need to be vetted by the police and there are regulations concerning the need to store them in approved high quality safes when not in use. It would be incredibly rare for a weapon sold legally to be used in a crime subsequently and I don't mean just by the original purchaser. Unless I get myself in a situation whereby I get messed up with a major drugs gang or IRA type organisation my chances of witnessing gun crime would be pretty minimal. Not that I think my chances of encountering either of the other two are great either.

That is not of course to say that we don't have crime. And of course it's driven by the factors outlined above. But it's silly to suggest that gun crime isn't infleunced by gun laws. Given the ease which they can be used to kill and injure I think it's right to single them out.

1. I was under the impression that the number of crimes prevented was less than the number of accidents involving guns? Even the article earlier stated that. And that's before you consider the crimes committed/aggravated by guns...

2. Again, I'd agree with my fellow Europeans that this is very questionable in modern democracries. Democracy is so ingrained that it's almost impossible to imagine somebody gathering enough support for a coup. The type of people in our armies aren't politicians so wouldn't have much desire to do this and the politicians don't have the backing. I can't possibly see the hypothetical example of the US army taking on 40% of the US population making sense. If things reach that extreme I don't think the army will be worried about public opinion in other countries anymore.

Of course, guns would be useful in a Mad Max type end of civilisation scenario. I'm not sure whether we need to plan for this as a probability though.

3. I haven't but I'd liked to. I don't see this as an argument for home ownership though. Having ultra secure firing ranges holding the guns makes a lot more sense. And I'd let them have pretty much any type of weapon in that instance.

4. Certainly and I don't hunt myself (I've no objection either). Shotguns and rifles are the only types that make sense for this. But if this is the use I don't see why the gun in safe, ammo in different safe is a big deal or any other restrictions that are brought in.

 

I feel the same. A CCL is a *state* issued license, and super-anti-gun states like California have much stricter laws and regulations. It doesn't make sense that you could get a CCL in a lax state (like Utah) and still have it be valid in California.

 

To me, though, the basic premise remains that instead of persecuting, hassling, fining, vilifying and criminalizing long gun owners or those who have never commited a misdeameanor let alone a felony, the legal system should focus on people who commit criminal acts.

In addition, Canada has had what is IMHO a pretty draconian gun registry for the past several years, and crime rates have not been significantly affected. I have also not heard of conviction rates being affected either. In other words, the billion dollar registry didn't do an effing thing to stop or deter crime. What a collossal waste of resources that could have gone into 8 x 12 cells for criminals (sorry, Drew, I read your blog posts and couldn't resist a jab in your direction -- I only do it 'cause I know you're manly enough to take it!)

 

Statistics on that point are notoriously shaky. I've heard extremes on both ends, supported by "independant" studies, too. I guess it depends on where you look. That being said, I would advocate that one of the requirements for owning a fire-arm is regular (annual at least) attendance of an approved fire-arm safety class, such as are regularly provided by many organizations.

To some degree, I agree with you, but the memory of the Nazi party is still a very modern and relevant one. I don't think for a second it'd work in the US, as we aren't nearly as societally law-bound as Germany was at that time, but it's a stark reminder.

Hey, that's a good point! If guns don't cause the end of the world, we'll need them to survive afterward!

In cities, that may make sense, but outside cities, it really doesn't. Also, the point is that restrictions need to balance advocation, that you shouldn't just ban everything that may someday be dangerous on a whim, but should rationally consider the costs of such bans as well.

Actually, pistols can be very useful when hunting, depending on the type of hunting you're doing. When a deer comes up 5 feet away from your blind, a rifle is a little bulky.

Agreed. I understand something like driver's licenses being required to be recognized, but something like CCL really is a seperate issue.


In the end, gun-control laws limit gun crime in as much as:
1.) there is already gun crime to limit (not usually limiting factor, though)
2.) the gun laws can be and are effectively implemented.
#2 there is the kicker, as many proposed gun laws are either ridiculously impossible to impliment, or don't have the support of the common populace, sometimes even the police meant to enforce them.

 

I do believe I mentioned within grabbing distance? If you are paranoid enough you can sleep with your gun or hold it under your pillow or whatever, just making sure it's within grabbing distance and in a place where no one can sneak away with the weapon without you knowing (like when you sleep). Also there's no one to actually supervise this law, it only becomes relevant when an accident takes place, and when such accidents take place the owner is in my opinion to blame for a part in the majority of cases. If you hold your weapons behind locked doors and someone steals the key or picks the locks then you have done everything reasonable to keep it away.

If however you have some of your son's friends from school for a visit and your son has told him of the gun, and the curious one then wakes at night to take it from your unlocked drawer without you waking up to take a look at the weapon and then accidentally fires the firearm killing your son, I think you are more to blame from the accident than the poor curious kid, and you should recieve atleast a suspendet sentence for your carlessness and lose your right to carry weapons, possibly permanently.

If you know how that party came to power you'd also realize that it would not have mattered one bit if the population had been armed. At that point the party more or less had the support of the people and control of the armed forces. Nazis did not gain control because of gun control.

 

Why not butcher the holy cow and standardise gun laws nationwide, and while at it, state laws on administrative and criminal in general, under a common proposal? It would reduce friction and make the country more predictable and transparent for out-of-staters and foreigners.

We do have that here, where we have state legislation and standardisation by making a 'Leitentwurf', basically a non binding but agreed upon draft law, that is being negotiated by state representatives and legal experts, and that are then being implemented by the states into state law with some leeway in implementation.

Considering that some state codes still have severe crimes like 'oral sex' on the books it's maybe time for a clean up. Of course it won't be easy, but find comfort in that it took Germany about three decades to formulate the BGB, our civil code.

 

Sure, but I wonder how maintaining a gun registry persecutes, fines, hassles, vilifies, or criminalizes long gun owners. The registry doesn't cost billions of dollars, either. While it ended up costing more to start up than was expected, the annual operating costs of the registry are reported to be between $15 – $80 million -- that 1-2 billion lost during start-up will remain lost whether the registry is continued or repealed.

As far as government programs go, 15-80 million a year isn't a lot of money , and law enforcement appears pretty happy with the registry, too. For example, a Canada Firearms Centre survey found that 74% of general duty police officers felt that the registry "query results have proven beneficial during major operations.". Sure, there's no way to prove it's deterred any crime*, but if it helps the police solve more crimes, it's still probably worth it.

* It almost assuredly hasn't yet, but an increased likelihood of getting caught has been shown to deter crime. Since the police feel that the registry has helped them solve more crimes, it stands to reason that this measure may well deter crime down the road through an increase in the percentage of cases solved.