Gun Control

[rraley]

Not too much attention has been paid to this issue since the Columbine tragedy several years ago, but I would like to see what the people here on somd.com feel about gun control. I have no real strong feelings on gun control (my parents do not own a gun and have no plans to ever have one), but it seems to me that gun ownership is a constitutional right that must be protected (i.e. the idea that the purpose of gun ownership is only in order to form state militias amounts to the bs that I stepped in). So I want to float a couple things by and see what your comments on it are.

First of all, I do not see the purpose of opposing automatic weapon bans. These guns are not used for hunting (I am not sure how many people want to hunt with an AK-47) and their easy and legal flow through this nation seems to create too much opportunity for violence. So, just like President Bush, and Senator Kennedy, I wholly do not believe that the assault rife ban should expire.

Secondly, I could see how some gun companies could be held responsible for gun crimes. I am not saying that all gun CEO's should be held responsible for every murder in this country, but if a company markets their weapons as having "print proof" technology, there is a problem. What I am saying is, let the juries of this nation decide if a gun manufacturer is responsible for a death or not (in the past they have yet to find that they are).

Third, why the hell do we need gun registration? That may be the biggest dumbass idea I have heard in a while. So much cost, so much prying into people's lives, so little effectiveness. Could someone explain to me why we need it?

And finally, can someone tell me what Project Exile is that Governor Ehrlich was so big on? I am not quite sure what it is. Thank you.

 

[Tonio]

I've never owned a gun (and I've only shot guns twice), so I haven't thought much about gun control. I wonder if some type of mandatory safety training for gun owners would be a good idea, since we already have that requirement for driving cars.

In the '80s I read that most of the handgun deaths resulted not from holdups but from squabbles among relatives and friends. Does that sound credible?

 

[rraley]

Oh yeah I forgot to ask: Do the gun owners here believe that any sort of gun control measure like background checks before selling guns or the assault rifle ban will jeopardize their ownership of a shotgun or pistol?

 

[Ken King]

Originally posted by rraley
First of all, I do not see the purpose of opposing automatic weapon bans. These guns are not used for hunting (I am not sure how many people want to hunt with an AK-47) and their easy and legal flow through this nation seems to create too much opportunity for violence. So, just like President Bush, and Senator Kennedy, I wholly do not believe that the assault rife ban should expire.

Why ban any weapon if the wording of the Second Amendment and why it came about mean anything? Any firearm excluded seems like an infringement.

Secondly, I could see how some gun companies could be held responsible for gun crimes. I am not saying that all gun CEO's should be held responsible for every murder in this country, but if a company markets their weapons as having "print proof" technology, there is a problem. What I am saying is, let the juries of this nation decide if a gun manufacturer is responsible for a death or not (in the past they have yet to find that they are).

If a gun malfunctions and causes injury or death yes, sue them. But if the weapon is legally sold how can the manufacturers be held liable for what the user did?

Third, why the hell do we need gun registration? That may be the biggest dumbass idea I have heard in a while. So much cost, so much prying into people's lives, so little effectiveness. Could someone explain to me why we need it?

Good question, registration is usually the first step towards confiscation and other infringements.

And finally, can someone tell me what Project Exile is that Governor Ehrlich was so big on? I am not quite sure what it is. Thank you.

Project Exile is about charging and sentencing criminals that use firearms under Federal statutes and imposing mandated penalties without the ability to plead them down.

 

[Ken King]

Originally posted by rraley
Oh yeah I forgot to ask: Do the gun owners here believe that any sort of gun control measure like background checks before selling guns or the assault rifle ban will jeopardize their ownership of a shotgun or pistol?

I have no problem with back ground checks. It makes it tougher for an already convicted criminal to obtain one. Not much grant you, but at least they just can't walk into any gun store and get one.

 

[rraley]

Re: Re: Gun Control

Originally posted by Ken King
Why ban any weapon if the wording of the Second Amendment and why it came about mean anything? Any firearm excluded seems like an infringement.

If a gun malfunctions and causes injury or death yes, sue them. But if the weapon is legally sold how can the manufacturers be held liable for what the user did?

Well there are always times in which the rights set aside in the Bill of Rights may be infringed in order to strike a balance between the rights of the individual and the safety of others. For instance, in the case of the First Amendment, one has the right to free speech, but he or she may not commit libel or slander. There are some guns that must be banned in order to keep the public safer. For instance, there is no reason that people should have cop killer bullets or a gun that can shoot 30 bullets in a matter of seconds. There just is no reason from my standpoint. Furthermore, if the right to bear arms is not abridged in any cases, then wouldn't that mean that background checks and gun lock laws are unconstitutional? I think that in some cases, gun restrictions can be instituted.

Gun companies should definitely be responsible for gun malfunctions that cause injury and death. But if a company advertises that their guns are fingerprint resistant or if a company permits and knows that their guns are sold on the black market, shouldn't they be held responsible?

 

[sleuth]

Originally posted by rraley
First of all, I do not see the purpose of opposing automatic weapon bans. These guns are not used for hunting (I am not sure how many people want to hunt with an AK-47) and their easy and legal flow through this nation seems to create too much opportunity for violence. So, just like President Bush, and Senator Kennedy, I wholly do not believe that the assault rife ban should expire.

My opinion is that any ban on any firearm is an infringement on our rights. No ban on automatic weapons is going to stop criminals from going out and obtaining them, and if they got'em, then I want to have the option of havin' 'em too.

Originally posted by rraley

Secondly, I could see how some gun companies could be held responsible for gun crimes. I am not saying that all gun CEO's should be held responsible for every murder in this country, but if a company markets their weapons as having "print proof" technology, there is a problem. What I am saying is, let the juries of this nation decide if a gun manufacturer is responsible for a death or not (in the past they have yet to find that they are).

I'll agree with Ken on this one.

Originally posted by rraley

Third, why the hell do we need gun registration? That may be the biggest dumbass idea I have heard in a while. So much cost, so much prying into people's lives, so little effectiveness. Could someone explain to me why we need it?

Gun registration is for two reasons, IMO. One is to deter anyone who might be on the fence of whether or not they want to shoot someone, and have that accountability of knowing the weapon can be traced back to them. It allows for 'second thoughts' to take place, and hopefully good sense will prevail. That being said, if someone is really determined to kill someone, gun registration isn't going to stop it.

Secondly, the weapon CAN be traced back to owners, if used in a crime. I think that's fair and also helpful to investigators of the crimes, even if the weapon used is stolen from the owner. At the very least, they might be able to determine who might have had opportunity to steal the weapon and thus who might have used it.

Forget gun control. I like Chris Rock's idea... BULLET control. Make every bullet cost $5,000, then you know if someone got shot he MUST have deserved it.

 

[sleuth]

Originally posted by rraley
Oh yeah I forgot to ask: Do the gun owners here believe that any sort of gun control measure like background checks before selling guns or the assault rifle ban will jeopardize their ownership of a shotgun or pistol?

Background checks are ok by me. As far as I'm concerned, the moment you're convicted as a felon, your right to own firearms should be revoked.

 

[Ken King]

Re: Re: Re: Gun Control

Originally posted by rraley
Well there are always times in which the rights set aside in the Bill of Rights may be infringed in order to strike a balance between the rights of the individual and the safety of others. For instance, in the case of the First Amendment, one has the right to free speech, but he or she may not commit libel or slander. There are some guns that must be banned in order to keep the public safer. For instance, there is no reason that people should have cop killer bullets or a gun that can shoot 30 bullets in a matter of seconds. There just is no reason from my standpoint. Furthermore, if the right to bear arms is not abridged in any cases, then wouldn't that mean that background checks and gun lock laws are unconstitutional? I think that in some cases, gun restrictions can be instituted.

It is the only amendment that specifically says that the right shall not be infringed upon. Granted it was written when flintlocks and percussion capped weapons where the order of the day, but it seems that the intent was that the populace was to be allowed to be as well armed as the government could be.

Gun companies should definitely be responsible for gun malfunctions that cause injury and death. But if a company advertises that their guns are fingerprint resistant or if a company permits and knows that their guns are sold on the black market, shouldn't they be held responsible?

Which manufacturers permit their guns to be sold on the black market? If they are doing that then they should be criminally prosecuted. Fingerprint resistant doesn’t mean fingerprint proof. Wearing gloves can achieve the same effect, so should we ban selling gloves to all gun owners?

 

[rraley]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Gun Control

Originally posted by Ken King
It is the only amendment that specifically says that the right shall not be infringed upon. Granted it was written when flintlocks and percussion capped weapons where the order of the day, but it seems that the intent was that the populace was to be allowed to be as well armed as the government could be.

Which manufacturers permit their guns to be sold on the black market? If they are doing that then they should be criminally prosecuted. Fingerprint resistant doesn’t mean fingerprint proof. Wearing gloves can achieve the same effect, so should we ban selling gloves to all gun owners?

I am of the opinion that our nation in the year 2004 should follow every single part of the Constitution word for word because it was written back in the Stone Age practically (of course exaggerating but 1789 America and 2004 America are very, very different). The originial intent of the Constitutional framers was to protect the people from the government so they left it open for the people to be as well armed as the government. But in this day and age, it is impossible for the people to be just as well armed as the government. These guys have stingers, tanks, nukes. How can the people defend themselves against that? And what president in our history has seemed prepared to turn our military against us? The focus of the second amendment in today's terms should be to produce an environment in which individuals can defend themselves against intruders, etc. and still maintain a safe society. Having people run around with AK-47's, whether they are good, law abidding people or not, scares the eff out of me. If someone with a pistol is upset, they are killing one person. Someone with an AK-47 gets upset, they are killing 20.
Furthermore the idea of not abriding the right to gun ownership does that entail the right to own a grenade launcher?

What does fringerproof resistant mean anyways? When I see that I think, "wow if I use that gun, there won't be any fingerprints on my gun." Isn't that the intent of such a line in an advertisement? We shouldn't sue glove companies that is utterly ridiculous of course, but if a gun company is saying that their guns will not have prints on them aren't they basically going after criminals?

 

[Ken King]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gun Control

Originally posted by rraley
I am of the opinion that our nation in the year 2004 should follow every single part of the Constitution word for word because it was written back in the Stone Age practically (of course exaggerating but 1789 America and 2004 America are very, very different). The originial intent of the Constitutional framers was to protect the people from the government so they left it open for the people to be as well armed as the government. But in this day and age, it is impossible for the people to be just as well armed as the government. These guys have stingers, tanks, nukes. How can the people defend themselves against that? And what president in our history has seemed prepared to turn our military against us? The focus of the second amendment in today's terms should be to produce an environment in which individuals can defend themselves against intruders, etc. and still maintain a safe society. Having people run around with AK-47's, whether they are good, law abidding people or not, scares the eff out of me. If someone with a pistol is upset, they are killing one person. Someone with an AK-47 gets upset, they are killing 20.
Furthermore the idea of not abriding the right to gun ownership does that entail the right to own a grenade launcher?

You lost me on the first sentence, should it or should it not be followed? When it has been deemed necessary there have been amendments to keep pace with changes of time.

I had the feeling that you were going to go here, why shouldn’t a law-abiding person be able to acquire these arms as well as others? I mean if you have the money, why can’t you get what you want to protect yourself? Wasn’t an F-18 recently sold on e-bay?

Well the person with a pistol, shotgun, or hunting rifle can kill just as many as the person with an AK-47. The only difference that I see is that the AK-47 is seen as a weapon of war when stacked up against the others.

The amendment says the right to keep and bare arms, it doesn’t differentiate between any of the multitude of weapons. I guess back when it was first established a person could own a cannon if they chose to. Banning any of them would be an infringement, wouldn’t it?

What does fringerproof resistant mean anyways? When I see that I think, "wow if I use that gun, there won't be any fingerprints on my gun." Isn't that the intent of such a line in an advertisement? We shouldn't sue glove companies that is utterly ridiculous of course, but if a gun company is saying that their guns will not have prints on them aren't they basically going after criminals?

Resistant, to me, means that with a little care you might not leave a print as the material of the gun has been textured to not provide a smooth surface. As to the intent, that is your interpretation, for an owner it might mean that there is less care necessary to remove the harmful oils that are left on the gun after handling it.

 

[Christy]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gun Control

Originally posted by rraley
And what president in our history has seemed prepared to turn our military against us?

I imagine the Germans asked themselves that very question when licensing and registration became law in 1928. (The Nazi's didn't take power in Germany until 1933). Bingo, bango, they had inherited the entire list of gun owner's in Germany when they took power. They then decided that they would seize firearms from those they decided were "unreliable citizens" (aka Jews and other undesirables who weren't members of the Nazi Party). You see where I'm going with this rraley? By 1938 only those that were members of the Nazi party could legally own a firearm. You know the rest of the story.

Restricting gun ownership only works on law abiding citizens. Do you really want to disarm law abiding citizens and give all control over to the criminal element?

Rather than obsessing over restricting gun ownership, focus your energy on putting pressure on the Government in REALLY prosecuting criminals. Violent crime is violent crime. Being murdered by a firearm, or bludgeoned to death still makes you dead. JMHO :shrug:

 

[vraiblonde]

I was going to respond but Christy pretty much said everything I'd have said.

Rather than obsessing over restricting gun ownership, focus your energy on putting pressure on the Government in REALLY prosecuting criminals.

That's the main point for me, right there. Nothing more needs to be said, imo.

 

[rraley]

You all here have made some damn good points about gun control (in fact you that have spoken on these issues have set out a coherent defense of gun rights). I have always felt that the argument that gun control only causes law-abidding criminals to be hurt as very compelling (which is the reason that I would like to say that I am generally opposed to gun control). Let me make it clear that I oppose registration and while the argument with the Nazis definitely makes sense, it is hard for me to imagine our nation degrading into that and if it did, I question the ability of the people to defend themselves against the government. I still feel that a society without assault rifles and grenade launcers (which if the second amendment was never abridged would be allowable) is much safer than one with them. And yes, criminals will get them, but if they forced to go to the black market, at least things will be tougher for them to obtain the weapon.

I would not characterize my statements on gun control as obsessing. I just wanted some dialogue on it; you know; see the opinions of others (my parents are pretty damn liberal and well high school students are not too big on talking about political issues as you might imagine). I absolutely agree with you that prosecutors need to get tougher on criminals and pushing for the maximum sentence in violent crime (we also should repeal parole for violent crimes). And Project Exile seems to be a good program, one that the state of Maryland should participate in.

Anyways, thank you for the input everyone.

 

[Warron]

Originally posted by rraley
First of all, I do not see the purpose of opposing automatic weapon bans. I wholly do not believe that the assault rife ban should expire.

I think you are a little confused. The assault weapon ban has absolutely nothing to do with automatic weapons. Automatic weapons have been banned in the US since 1934 under a completely different law that, as far as I know, will never expire.

The assault weapon ban is nothing but a political joke and shows the quality of our politicians with its existence. It bans weapons with specific characteristics such as pistol grips and bayonet mounts and large capacity magazines. All of these weapons are semi automatic, not automatic. You can buy the exact same weapon that uses the exact same bullet, without these features and it is completely legal. And the funniest part is that these features have always been the realm of the collector. There has never been a rash of people being killed by bayonets outside of a war. Criminals tend to stick to the cheap versions that have none of the features banned by the assault weapon ban. As such, the ban is nothing but a political gimmick to make weak-minded people feel safer.


Here is the official definition of an assault weapon.

·semiautomatic rifle that can accept a detachable magazine and has more than one of the following features: pistol grip, folding or telescoping stock, flash suppressor, threaded barrel, grenade launcher, or bayonet lug.

·A semiautomatic shotgun that has more than one of the following features: pistol grip, folding or telescoping stock, detachable magazine, fixed magazine capacity of more than 5 rounds.

·A semiautomatic pistol that can accept a detachable magazine that has more than one of the following features: magazine attaches to the pistol outside the grip, threaded barrel, weight of 1.42 kg or more unloaded, barrel shroud, or a semiautomatic version of a fully automatic firearm.

http://www.factindex.com/a/as/assault_weapons_ban__usa_.html

 

[Larry Gude]

rraley...

I still feel that a society without assault rifles and grenade launcers (which if the second amendment was never abridged would be allowable) is much safer than one with them

I can't find the damn law, but in the 1930's somewhere the federal government restricted private ownership of fully automatic weapons and explosives.

Propaganda has lead you to think 'machine gun' when you hear 'assault weapon'.

There is NO, ZERO, NADA, NYET, practical difference bewteen the 'assault weapon' used by the beltway murderers, a .223 caliber AR15 carbine, and a typical bolt action hunting rifle of the same caliber.

Well, the hunting rifle would be more accurate but, either would do the job. One shot, one kill. You could do it from a further, safer distance with the hunting rifle.

Cities like DC that PROHIBIT you from protecting yourself with even a .38 caliber snub nose revolver even in your own HOME, are damn sure not interested in you knowing what they are up to or even talking about when they say 'assault weapon'. You are simply suppossed to become fearful, disarm and obey them.

In 1993 (the year before the ban) 8% of violent gun crime was commited with an 'assault' rifle. Today, that figure is somehwere around 2-4% depending on whose agenda is behind the stats.

So, does all the nosie about 'assault' weapons seem relevent to a 4-6% decrease in the use of 'assault' weapons? That doesn't mean 4-6% less gun crime, just 4-6% that wasn't commited with an 'assault' weapon. Those crimes are now commited with non 'assault' weapons.

BTW: An AK-47 in 7.62 caliber and a scope makes a tough, reliable, cheap and very decent deer rifle.

Search a few websites, pro or con, and find out what a damnable, nonsensical power grab the "Assault" weapons ban is.

As far as liability, that is another height of insanity. Wanna sue Ford because your Taurus starts when you turn the key, goes when you hit the gas and stops when you hit the breaks?

More gun control maddness? Gun locks.

If a person CHOOSES to have a firearm at home to defend themselves, why in the name of Rube Goldburg would you put a lock on it????????

Got a padlock on your fire extinguisher in the kitchen or garage?

When I have more time I'll add to this...

Good thread!

 

[rraley]

Wow, Mr. Gude, you got me convinced there. Thank you for giving me information on guns - something which I know very little about - and because of that information, I am able to make a more coherent decision based on the facts. If the assault rifle ban does all that Mr. Gude says it does (which I bet it does, he has proven himself to be a very smart man on the forums here) such as endangering weapons that are used for deer hunting, then I must say that is utterly pointless in having it on the books.

 

[Christy]

Originally posted by rraley
it is hard for me to imagine our nation degrading into that and if it did, I question the ability of the people to defend themselves against the government.

Well about a handfull of half starved Jews did a pretty good job of holding off German troops for about a month, with just a minimal amount of firearms and homeade weapons. (Warsaw Ghetto Uprising) http://www.ushmm.org/outreach/wgupris.htm
Just think of how much more successful they would have been if they had just a bit more to arm themselves with.

 

[hwyman3]

While much attention has been paid to gun control since Columbine, that tragedy proves why gun control laws so not do what their supporters claim they do. The students responsible for that tragedy violated 27 laws with regard to firearms. Would a 28th or 29th law have made a difference? Probably not. As was mentioned before, Washington DC has very strict gun control laws. The average citizen cannot own firearms, yet Washington has one of the highest murder rates in the nation.

As for gun makers being responsible for their guns being misused, I agree with the previos post about suing car manufacturers. Is it Ford or General Motors fault that people drive a Taurus or Monte Carlo while intoxicated? Any product can be misused. What we need to do is make penalties for the misuse of a gun more severe.

 

[tlatchaw]

rraley: In your original post you made mention of safety training for firearms. While I am unsure whether I would support this as a prerequisite for gun ownership (because it would create a reliable list of gun owners that could be then be persecuted by the government) I would like to remind you that high quality inexpensive courses like this are available.

Just contact your local branch of the NRA. They'll be happy to show you the safe and responsible way to own and use your gun. They're really not the boogeymen that the left makes them out to be.

A quick look on Dogpile brought up lots of links with both southern Maryland and NRA present. Here's one that looks promising: http://www.stcharlessc.com/

It's refreshing to read posts from a young person that has an intelligent and insightful political view such as yourself. You clearly think for yourself and have not succombed to the brainwashing effects of MTV, Teacher's Unions, and the Democrat party. Keep your wits and think for yourself.