Gun Control? Why yes, I have excellent gun control.

[invisionary]

Guns. I'd like to talk about guns. It's part of the namesake of this community, isn't it?

I'm pretty decently to the left on a lot of things, but private ownership of firearms is one where I take a fairly conservative stance.

So, who among you thinks the legally insane should have guns? What about violent felons? Maybe some of the more hardcore libertarians, but I'm not among them. When some batshit psychopath blows someone's head off with a sawed-off 12 ga. people get this stupid idea that it's deer hunters in upstate NY who do this, and it's not. There are people that rightfully shouldn't have guns - kids too young to safely operate them, people fresh out of the loony bin, violent felons, idiots who have previously demonstrated wanton and careless disrespect with guns (someone actually using their shotgun at a wedding), and people who have no issue with beating their wives, children, animals, etc. None of these people would ever form a well-regulated militia.


If you're not in one of those categories, congratulations, I support your right to legally obtain and operate the firearm of your choice, from a .22 bolt-action rifle to any gun that a single person can carry and operate (even if it might be done by two people in the field). I have to draw the line at bombers and nukes though. I support your right to own as many of them as you wish, with as much ammo as you want, contingent on your ability to keep it secure. I support your right to carry weapons on your person, concealed or openly carried, and in your vehicle (but unloaded, just in case you hit a bump and the gun malfunctions). And I support your right to safely enjoy them. These are rights you and I have as legal residents of the United States.

Now anytime anyone says those dreaded words "gun control", do you think of the UK? Or of BATF agents kicking down your door searching your home with dogs looking for your weapons? I don't. I think of people in the middle of large cities being grateful that someone's willing to do something about getting the Saturday Night Specials off the streets.

I'd like to mention a problem here in Albany, NY. Because of the current gun laws, illegal possession of a firearm will get your ass sent up the river. So, in order to get around this, the locals have taken to the concept of a "community gun". Basically, it's a handgun, usually some cheap POS that's as likely to jam as fire, with some rounds, where a good number of people know about where it is (usually an abandoned house or some other out of the way hiding spot), that anyone who feels the need to keep the peace in the neighborhood can go and get it and return it. Screw getting assault weapons off the street, people don't kill each other with AKs in the city, nobody can afford them. They do it with guns like this. This is a side effect I think of institutional racism in police forces, but that's another rant entirely. Long story short, people are going to do this when they don't feel like they can trust the police. Wait a second here - full circle? How many gun owners don't trust the government? I'm sure that's more than a few of us.

So, the issue here is the government is responsible for protecting both a fundamental American right, as well as providing for the general safety and welfare of the public. It seems like they fail at both. What we need is the promotion of responsible gun ownership, with government recognition of the people who responsibly keep and bear arms. This is where gun control comes in - I would like to see a universal system where gun owners are licensed and registered.

Now, I'm sure I've got y'alls blood boiling already. Simmer down, have a homebrew or other tasty beverage. How many of you live in states where the police make final determination as to who can get a carry permit, and don't generally hand them out at all? That system needs to end. Part of universal licensing is to eliminate that system. If you aren't one of those categories of people I talked about earlier, you have a protected right to get a gun and the cops can shut up about it.

Second, how many of you have seen some idiot at the range or somewhere else being STUPID with their guns, things that five minutes of time with a qualified instructor who would be just about ready to beat the crap out of them for? We make drivers go through written and practical exams to demonstrate they know the rules of the road and can operate a vehicle on a basic level before we let the drive unsupervised on public roads. I don't think it's unreasonable to require a prospective gun owner demonstrate that they have enough knowledge of the various types of guns and know how to be safe with them before they're allowed to own one. I also want the kind of idiot that rounds off the hammer on a TEC-9 so it will cook off its mag to have to wear a sign saying I'm Stupid, and that license revoked. No, ya can't stop him from ever using a gun again, no more than a suspended drivers license actually stops a person from driving, but you can drag his ass in court for it and take the guns from him you can find.

(Oh, and to Joe Six-pack who gets trashed and then plinks the cans in the backyard, F you. You give the haters reason to hate us.)

To address the problem of community guns, I would like to see a full amnesty given to anyone who turns in a gun to law enforcement (for having the gun, not for anything they might have done with it). In fact, post a bounty on the things - $100 for no more than showing ID at the local cop shop would go a long way to getting these guns gone. If the gun is safe to operate, sell it back to a registered dealer who can find it a nice home, or destroy it if you must. If the gun is registered to someone, give them a call first to find out what happened. This is a good reason to actually register your guns - if someone finds it, or steals it, you can get the thing back. It's also a good reason for new owners to register the sales, so that they get the same protection.

We all know criminals prefer unarmed targets. An armed society is not necessarily a polite society, but the knowledge that someone down the street is trained and capable of keeping the peace will keep the peace on the street. I want legislation that promotes our right - not restricts it in ways that only make it more difficult for us to legitimately police our communities.

So, let's hear your thoughts.

Edit: To be more rules compliant, I have cleaned up my language a bit.

Comments

[ilyena_sylph]

I like your thoughts very much.

They make very good sense to me.

I'm not sure I'd ever thought about universal licensing, but it makes good sense to me. And I agree with your thought that having individual police departments making decisions about who gets carry licenses is a bad long-term plan and bad enforcement of the 2nd.

But your thoughts would be much nicer on my Reading page if there was a cut...

Probably coming down to the left of where you intended...

[nacbrie]

See, I'm at the far, far end of the firearms tolerance spectrum in my country - I've fired a gun which, given that I'm not a farmer, police officer or soldier, puts me in a *tiny* minority. I'm in fact a member of my college rifle club (mostly shooting 10m air rifle, although I've had a go at .22 prone), and get "so, you're a gun nut?" comments because of this. I spent two months over the summer carrying a .308 because if a polar bear showed up you'd need it. And yet, the idea of freely available handguns (for a given value of 'free', as outlined above), and even rifles, makes me more uncomfortable than you'd believe. Like, shivers running down my spine.

What do you think are the benefits of carrying a handgun? And are they sufficient to negate the associated costs (the easier it is to obtain firearms, the easier it is for them to be acquired for committing crime, and more firearms in circulation = greater opportunity for them to enter the black market)? I'm asking, not to be antagonistic, but to find out your views on the topic, if that's okay?

[zorkian]

I added some tags, if you can think of any others I'd be happy to add them.

As to the topic at hand: I agree with your ideas on who may possess a firearm, what they are allowed to own, and most of your comments on people who are stupid -- especially the part about 'giving the haters reasons to hate' -- gah!

I'm not sure about a universal licensing and registration system. The problem with something like that is that the very act of creating a database of guns and owners (as with any information database) means that someone can now use that for evil. Yes, it can be used for good, but it can also be used for evil.

If we don't have a database to begin with, then it can't be misused. I don't have to worry about the people who are going to be in office in ten years and what they might believe about the right of people to bear arms. If they know that I possess a weapon, they very well might show up and take it. Sure, maybe I can fight them in court, but... that's a lot of time and money that I may not have at that point.

FWIW, I haven't made up my mind about which way I'd like to see things go on that front. I can certainly appreciate your arguments about why a universal system would beat a local system, and some of the benefits of that system. I'll watch for other comments and see what people say.

On the issue in general, though, I'd love if anybody have any articles, books, or other reference materials. Especially as it relates to the case I posted about originally.

[cheyinka]

My thoughts:
If somebody only drives around on eir own property, e does not need a driver's license, at least in most states. If somebody's only keeping a gun at home to defend eir home, e should not need a license, either. (I feel much more strongly about that than about driving a car, too, because there's no right to drive a car, but I do think there's a right to protect one's home.)

On the other hand, if someone wants to carry a gun around in public, e should have a license - but it should be shall-issue rather than may-issue. (On the other hand, Vermont doesn't require licenses, and to the best of my knowledge their crime rate is comparable to neighboring states, so I could be convinced that no one should need a license for this either.)

My issue with needing to have competency checked in order simply to own a gun is that I shouldn't need to be comfortable with rifles to own a handgun, or revolvers to own a semi-automatic, but having to get a license for every type of firearm would rapidly become very onerous, especially in states that do their best to make firearm ownership difficult. If I am an adult, am not a felon, have never had a judge declare me a threat to myself or others (i.e. if I voluntarily seek psychiatric treatment that should never be an issue, even if that means a voluntary stay in the loony bin), and I see a firearm of a type I don't own for sale, I should be able to buy it if I can afford it. On the other hand, if I should decide that I want to carry a gun for my protection (either openly or concealed), the government has an interest in making sure I am competent with that gun, which is why I'm okay with needing a carry license.

I also tend to think that the machine gun registry should be reopened, such that the process of purchasing one is generally the same, but new ones can be manufactured, so that it doesn't become an issue of "there are only n machine guns in existence, so any time one is destroyed or damaged the others become accordingly more valuable, such that no one who has one will sell it for anything less than an exorbitant amount". I also think that the restrictions on suppressors are counterproductive, but I think it'd be easier (politically speaking) to reopen the registry than to stop restricting suppressors.

(Bombs are easy to regulate - bombs are "destructive devices", and already restricted in different ways than rifles and handguns. On the other hand I see nothing wrong with somebody owning a tank. Tanks fire destructive devices, so naturally you can't pick up the ammunition for your tank's gun at Wal-Mart, but I don't have any problem with anybody owning the vehicle itself. Ditto somebody owning a fighter or bomber airplane, actually.)

[ashcomp]

As fond as I am of the image of a room full of armed college students blowing away the nut who chains the building door shut and comes in to kill the helpless. . .I'm scared to death of those same armed students sucking down brew at a frat party. You can test for skills and training, those are easy. But nobody that I know of has come up with a foolproof test for idiocy.

[ex_peasant441]

I reckon a lot of this comes down to trust. Obviously *I* am entirely trustworthy with a gun, but do I trust everyone else to be? And the answer has to be no, I do not. I acknowledge this is a very anti-libertarian stance but the fact is I still don't trust them.

On the other hand, I am willing to trust them with cars, shotguns, knives and numerous other devices which can kill and maim, so its not exactly a consistent stance. So what may in fact be being observed in the UK is just a widespread fear of guns arising from a culture that has very little experience of them. I know the first time I saw an armed policeman I freaked out.

But then there is pretty much no desire for handgun ownership in this country. The only people who cared when it was made illegal were the tiny number of people who shot competitively. It's been a long time now so I presume most of them have gone over to rifle shooting or taken up knitting or something.

Shotguns and rifles are another matter. If those were made illegal there would be an outcry. You can have a shotgun or a rifle if you can show you have a legitimate use for it - that means showing that you either shoot competitively in a club or shoot game. Just wanting one at home to scare off burglars isn't considered a legitimate reason (and anyway if you used it you would be done for assault or worse). You also have to keep it in a secure cabinet (hah hah - that is definitely more observed in the breach) and the police have to interview you to try to judge if you are a steady reliable sort of person. That means upper middle or upper class, or if working class an obvious countryman. I'm not sure how much discretion the police have to refuse a licence, probably more these days than they used to, they certainly seem to visit people who are renewing their licences quite often.

If someone on an inner city housing estate wanted a gun they would almost certainly be refused. Kids can have them if they are older than 12 (I think - it might be a year or two older or younger) but again they have to show they have a legitimate reason which comes down to class and/or where you live.

I also think it's worth remembering that the concept of someone being sane or responsible enough to handle a gun is a dodgy one. Obviously some people will have shown by their past actions that they are not responsible but that is no guarantee that the remainder are responsible. Mental health problems can strike anyone at any time. So can being drunk or stoned, or just having been pushed too far past your limit of tolerance for the actions of others. The police just have to do their best. And crime with licensed guns is minuscule in this country so by and large they probably get it right.

Incidentally I know or know of lots of people with tanks - they are quite often used for recreational purposes.

[jassanja]

I'm from a country that is famous for making soldiers (and pretty much every guy has to go to the military when he is around 20, even if they are starting to relax that now) keep their assault rifles at home (yet that is also slowly chancing) ....
Yet we have pretty low crime, and if there is, it's more likely to involve knives.... I guess because you can't really carry an assault rifle around without being in uniform and not have people suspicious about it, while handguns are heavily regulated and hard to get without a permit. (And permits are not that hard to get if you are a member of a shooting or hunter club - just that hardly anyone I know wants to join such a club, or handle guns at all... and those who do preach about how it is a good thing that you have to join a club to get a permit and learn how to safely handle a gun)

So yeah, I can't really see how the society in which I live would profit from guns being freely available to everyone

This may be worth a post of its own, but I'm lazy

[pauamma]

Most of the discussion has been about firearms, but I'm curious. What is the general attitude about carrying (or owning) other weapons, both melee (sword, pike, mace, quaterstaff, axe, ...) and range (sling, javelin, bow, crossbow, sarbacan, ...)? One interesting feature is that it takes months (at least) of intensive training before being able to use those effectively, which limits ownership (other than as collectibles) to people prepared to work hard to master them and negates or lowers the opportunity for militant weapon-ownership opponents to trot out the "idiots who will hurt themselves or innocent bystanders" argument.