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

[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.

[invisionary]

The issue of a database to be used or misused is less a matter of guns in and of themselves and a matter of our ability as citizens to put faith in our government. As it stands, though, I don't see where such a database would create a form of surveillance that doesn't already exist. Really, if the government wants you, or wants to find out who owns what (legitimately), they pull some records from FFL holders and get it that way, or from state records for those states that require carry permits already. I support the idea of universal licensing because it would actually make a system that's broken and not helping us actually help us.

[cheyinka]

That's true - but, as it is, if John Doe buys a gun and then I buy it from him, the government only knows about John Doe's purchase, unless I live in a state where citizens can't do that without a FFL as intermediary. (Of course, if I commit a crime with the gun, they come knocking on his door, at which point he says "oh no, I sold it to cheyinka!"... so I see your point.)

The carry permits thing is certainly true, though, and I guess it's just my distrust of the federal government that makes me not want that centralized, even though people licensed to sell firearms (for a living) or own machine guns or what-have-you are licensed through the federal government, and that works.

[invisionary]

By letter of the law all gun sales have to go through a FFL, and as part of the conditions of having an FFL the ATF can come and inspect your premises and firearms. Intrastate transfers are federally regulated as well.

[cheyinka]

Not in all states. If I'm not selling guns for a living, I (living in Texas) can sell a gun (handgun or rifle) to another resident of Texas for whatever price we agree upon, and that's the end of it.

[invisionary]

My understanding was different, and a notable exception to the general sovereignty of states. Anyone else wanna jump in here with a more educated opinion than ours? :)

Edit: Egg is on my face, you're right. :)

[pauamma]

"your" being the seller's? (If I buy a weapon above board in the US, I would hope that I'm not at the same time waiving my rights under the 4th.)

[invisionary]

Purchasing a firearm does not waive Fourth Amendment protections, however possessing a FFL does. If you are a registered arms dealers the BATF has the right to inspect your facilities and weapons without notice. The difference is in owning guns and trading in them, which for the sake of national security regulations on arms dealers of all stripes are necessary.

[cheyinka]

Well, there's always the scene from Red Dawn where the Communists get the sporting-goods store's file cabinet full of Form 4473s... :D

...but yes, I tend towards your view of things, that if we don't have a national database, it can't be misused. I tend towards that view of things in general - that the federal government, while not intrinsically malicious, shouldn't have any more information than it absolutely needs to do its job, because if it doesn't have it, it can't abuse it.

I mean, yeah, the folks in power when the database is set up might be the least-corrupt politicians ever to grace a government building, but that says nothing about who'll have access to the database in two or four or ten years, not to mention anybody who might get access to it illegally.

[invisionary]

And this is to suggest that the government doesn't already have too much power by virtue of there being things like social security numbers? Or that malicious people can't already destroy our lives through accessing our credit and committing fraud with it? Or that hell, the government can't already destroy a person and have it go completely under the radar? Part of the issue is that the present administration is marginalizing legitimate gun owners, and the practice of any protected right should not be marginalized. I don't want glorification, hell, I don't even want personal attention. I want the basic acknowledgement that the government accepts that I wish to exercise my rights and that they'll do their job in protecting it.

How can the government protect legitimate rights of a group of people if they don't know who they are, especially if they are easily confused with threats to public safety and welfare?

My liberal blue is starting to show... ;)

[cheyinka]

Yeah, you're right, which is why I brought up Form 4473s and added a nice big grinning face. I just worry about more information becoming available, and the inevitable creep of how that information will be used - e.g. SSNs were only supposed to be for Social Security, never be used for anything else, really really, and now they're a de facto national ID number, right?