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

[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.

[invisionary]

...they'll build a better idiot.

I would never suggest trying to idiot-proof the law. What I'm saying must be done is when you find a genuine idiot do whatever is necessary to keep that idiocy from endangering the public. They might be too far gone to prevent from endangering themselves.

[cheyinka]

I'm... actually not, honestly. Like you said, it wouldn't matter whether those college students had passed a skills test or not, or whether or not they knew it was illegal to carry after drinking, so requiring a skills test or a test on the laws wouldn't prevent idiocy.

I mean, every US state licenses drivers, and in the two states where I've taken the exam (Montana and Texas) the exam materials emphasize that driving after drinking is Not Okay. And yet... people do it anyway, even people who should really know better, and as a result the government responds with education campaigns (there's a nice billboard I've seen of a car where the front half is a taxi and the back half is a police car and the caption is "Your Choice - Don't Drink And Drive" or something along those lines) rather than by making it harder to get a driver's license.

In general I don't like "gun-free zones", because the same restriction that might keep a drunk frat boy from shooting a friend negligently will also make every law-abiding student living on campus an easier target for someone who isn't law-abiding, and won't keep a drunk frat boy who doesn't think the rule applies to him just this once from still causing a tragedy. (For the record I am okay with government buildings not letting people who aren't the police carry, because government buildings tend to have guards; also, I'm okay with places of worship requesting that their congregations not carry weapons.)

[zorkian]

Yeah, I don't think you can test for that. Philosophically speaking, is the goal of law to create a system that prevents people from being stupid? Similarly, I'm not sure that the goal of the law should be to make people feel safe.

Of course, if you were to toss me into a room/house/whatever full of armed and drunk people, I'd probably feel pretty damn unsafe and get out ASAP. Guns and alcohol do not mix, and I could see arguments for making it like cars: if you're intoxicated and you're carrying, it's a felony.

[invisionary]

If I had my way, public carrying of sidearms would not exist for civilians. As I mentioned earlier, I think the vast majority of carry permit holders have not thought through the ramifications of carrying their sidearm. I would rather extend the right to all than to have the haphazard and abused system we have now, but realistically, a gun is a considerable liability to its owner in a physical confrontation, especially within grappling range. Simple logic is if an attacker closes with you and manages to wrest the gun from your grip, you're dead, even if you might not have shot the attacker. All academic arguments aside, if self-preservation is your goal, I would highly discourage carrying a gun in favor of simple street smarts coupled with hand to hand self defense training.

That said, I accept that bearing arms is a protected right. But I still think it's a dumb thing to do in practice.