Go ahead, Feinstein, MAKE MY DAY

[Keroin]

Eh. You don't need a computer. You don't need canned beans. You don't need cigarettes. You don't need coffee. And, no, you don't need a car either.

You need water. You need food. You need protective clothing. You need shelter from inclement weather. Cars are a luxury. They may be seen as a necessity of the modern world, but they are not.



Why wouldn't they be allowed? They were legal once in Canada too. They were (I assume) criminalised by act of parliament, not Canadian history. You Canucks have similar gun ownership rates in various provinces to the US. Fortunately for you, the demographics of those provinces are such that gun crime is less of an issue. (Oh, erm, shouldn't have mentioned that. Gun control debates go all skewy when population density comes into play.)

Strictly speaking, no, a car is not a basic necessity but on the scale of necessity I would argue it plays a far more vital role to the average person than does a gun.

As for the second part. Yes, gun laws have changed drastically in Canada just in my lifetime. Since I've been of legal age to own one, though, there have been no private sales. Well, maybe for shotguns and those are a necessity in many locales, especially the back country. You'll have to forgive me my perspective, I just never saw the need for them and I've lived in some sketchy areas.

I'd also add that most Canadians that own legal firearms probably have shotguns or rifles for hunting. With everyone I know who owns a gun, this is the case, except for my friend "The Legend", who is a trick shooter - but he grew up in Australia and we all know how they are.

 

[Keroin]

The culture just does not support it.

Bunch of lazy hippies! Damn Canucks!

 

[Homburg]

Strictly speaking, no, a car is not a basic necessity but on the scale of necessity I would argue it plays a far more vital role to the average person than does a gun.

No argument there. After all, you're talking to a guy that hops in the car for six hours at a shot for work, and literally could not do my job without that car. Not to mention that fact that I work in the auto industry, and thus my job's very existence is predicated on the use of automobiles. I just dislike the "You don't need a gun" arguments.

And, as you point out, there are people that really do need firearms. They aren't the average soul, but they exist.

As for the second part. Yes, gun laws have changed drastically in Canada just in my lifetime. Since I've been of legal age to own one, though, there have been no private sales. Well, maybe for shotguns and those are a necessity in many locales, especially the back country. You'll have to forgive me my perspective, I just never saw the need for them and I've lived in some sketchy areas.

I'm not one that has a need for guns either, generally speaking. This is why I've had a concealed carry permit for about ten years now, yet I've carried all of twice, maybe. I want the card because I want the card. I want the freedom to carry should I decide to. Haven't decided to.

That said, there was a period of time when I did need a gun, and I carried openly. Yay for working armed security.

I'd also add that most Canadians that own legal firearms probably have shotguns or rifles for hunting. With everyone I know who owns a gun, this is the case, except for my friend "The Legend", who is a trick shooter - but he grew up in Australia and we all know how they are.

Yeah, even more gun-controlled than you Canadians.

Bunch of lazy hippies! Damn Canucks!

I'm so jealous.

 

[Netzach]

Yeah, even more gun-controlled than you Canadians.

And they STILL had their own horrific rampage with a whole bunch of dead people, if memory serves. Everyone likes to portray the US as a bunch of dangerous gun-toting lunatics, but a fast look at the homicide stats of London, where gun control is in effect, shows that limiting availability of weapons through legal means doesn't keep people safe. It's the same smug reaction as to our banking meltdowns, no one has to look very far in the EU for examples of excess, greed, and silliness.

 

[Netzach]

The Governor General has certain powers, one of them is the ability to prorogue parliament. However, she did this at the request of Prime Minister Stephen Harper, not at the request of the Queen.

The Queen is considered our Head of State but that's pretty much just a title and she is merely a figurehead, (much like in her own country).

Granted, yes, But this whole idea that you guys have to ask her to do her little bit of Commonwealth theater and say "suspended" is freaking weird, sorry.

 

[Daddy2mylilgirl]

I don't know about your locality, but here you pass a written test, a road test, and are required to take driver's ed in high school. With a gun, if you're old enough, a resident, and have a clean background, you can buy a gun. A conscientious dealer that has the luxury of time might ask you if you know how to handle the gun when you buy it, but that's it. There is zero knowledge requirement to buying a gun.

I actually dislike this. While I may be pro-gun rights, I would not mind seeing some mandated firearms education for prospective buyers. Something akin to a driver's license for gun owners would not hurt my feelings, as the basic education necessary to obtain one would likely cut down on Non-intentional Discharges.

I was just countering ZRT's "tons more training" statment in regards to driving a car.

It is that way here too. Its not like you get years of training to drive a car. It's only about 20 minutes a week of actual driving with a "professional" for about 5 months then a written test and road test. So its not like people get into a car that much more prepared to drive safely as opposed to shooting a gun. People are really only slightly more prepared to handle one deadly weapon as opposed to handling another.

I agree with at least taking a class about owning/using a gun. Couldn't hurt.

This is only but so useful a modifier to the statistics. Cars aren't just more deadly than guns by volume, they're more deadly by percentages too. It's actually not that easy to kill someone with a gun. You have to hit them in the right spot, and most people just aren't that good a shot. But hit someone with a car and their odds aren't that hot. Massive crush trauma is far more difficult to treat than a gunshot wound.

The amount of use argument is only so worthy in general though. We're not talking about an increase or decrease in how often guns are used here. We're just talking about sales transaction. There will be neither more nor less guns in existence because of any such legislation. So it would be more fair to compare how many cars total are int he US versus how many guns. And remember that a lot of cars are just sitting around collecting dust just like the guns you mentioned.

Still, the primary worth of the argumental comparison of guns to cars or guns to swimming pools is to provide perspective. It is a way of saying, "Hey, you're fired up over this issue, sure, but are you aware that X random common thing cause vastly more deaths than firearms?"

But isn't it an easy way out for gun right advocates to use to downplay how dangerous guns can be like, "Why blame guns when X random common thing causes vastly more deaths? Why aren't you picking on X?".

I'm not arguing for a second that cars aren't more dangerous or deadly. I'm just saying that millions of millions of people aged 16 -100 use cars every day for multiple uses. Guns just aren't used enough to compare them to cars.

People drink and drive. They fall asleep at the wheel. They talk on their cell phones. They illegally race them. Cars are used for a variety of tasks with each one having the potential for death or injury.

Guns are used at a range, for hunting, for law enforcement, for illegal activity, and for sport. And I'm sure other things.

If you drive to the store, you may never come back. If you go to the shooting range, you're probably coming back. Unless you drove there.

So, of course, cars will have a higher death/injury rate than guns. And a higher percentage too cause of use. How many people actually use their guns everyday? How many people actually use their cars everyday?

I just think its a warped perspective to compare guns and cars. Not wrong. Just not a fair comparison.

It goes along with JM's comments vis a vis health care reform. Spend energy and emotional capital in places where reform can do good. Gun control is an emotion-driven issue, not a rational one. The majority of democrat politicians that are ignoring gun issues are smart. It won't gain them votes, but can certainly lose them, and their energy is better spent pushing the progressive agenda in places where they can do greater good.

[political rant]Eh. I'm so tired of this argument. Every time the government spends money on foreign aid or a defense contract people throw a hissy fit about how they could have spent that money on something better in the US. Then, of course, they complain when their taxes are raised to pay for those programs in the US or even locally that they bitched about wanting in the first place.

I just think the Dem vs Rep is so far beyond fucked there is little hope. It has become such a pissing contest that they don't care about the American people, only about getting re-elected. Self-interest, big business, and lobbying has destroyed the republic. As they say, the first day of re-election for any politician is the day after they are elected.

I firmly believe that a Dem or Rep would not hesitate to vote against a bill sponsored by the other party even though that bill might help millions of Americans. That is, as long as their nay vote can't be used against them in the next election.

I just hate what the political party system has become. How is independent a party? Doesn't independent mean you don't have a party?[/end political rant]

Sorry. I love American history. I enjoy reading books on Lincoln, Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, etc. and I just hate to see what has become of such an amazing political system they helped build.

 

[Homburg]

I was just countering ZRT's "tons more training" statment in regards to driving a car.

It is that way here too. Its not like you get years of training to drive a car. It's only about 20 minutes a week of actual driving with a "professional" for about 5 months then a written test and road test. So its not like people get into a car that much more prepared to drive safely as opposed to shooting a gun. People are really only slightly more prepared to handle one deadly weapon as opposed to handling another.

I agree with at least taking a class about owning/using a gun. Couldn't hurt.

Well, I agree to an extent, but that slight amount of class time and prep could prevent ND's.

I'm also one of those people that thinks the driving age should be 18. Let em have a learner's permit before then.

But isn't it an easy way out for gun right advocates to use to downplay how dangerous guns can be like, "Why blame guns when X random common thing causes vastly more deaths? Why aren't you picking on X?".

*snip reasonable arguments*

I just think its a warped perspective to compare guns and cars. Not wrong. Just not a fair comparison.

Not a fair comparison? Well, I'd call it fair, just imprecise. It serves purposes outside of direct rhetoric though. Again, gun control is a very emotional issue, and people tend to get wound tight and irrational around the topic. Sometimes it helps to shake up the box a bit and get perspective introduced.

Still, at the end of the day, I'll let my kid play at a friend's house whose parents own guns more easily than I would let them play at a house with a pool in the backyard. The odds of getting my kid back are better.

[political rant]
I just hate what the political party system has become. How is independent a party? Doesn't independent mean you don't have a party?[/end political rant]

Sorry. I love American history. I enjoy reading books on Lincoln, Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, etc. and I just hate to see what has become of such an amazing political system they helped build.

I don't disagree, bro. I Think the whole thing has gone down the shitter, and those that feel like their party has a lock on the answer are just as much at fault as their opposites that feel the same way.

--

And they STILL had their own horrific rampage with a whole bunch of dead people, if memory serves. Everyone likes to portray the US as a bunch of dangerous gun-toting lunatics, but a fast look at the homicide stats of London, where gun control is in effect, shows that limiting availability of weapons through legal means doesn't keep people safe. It's the same smug reaction as to our banking meltdowns, no one has to look very far in the EU for examples of excess, greed, and silliness.

Yup, gun control is not the magic fix.

 

[Keroin]

Granted, yes, But this whole idea that you guys have to ask her to do her little bit of Commonwealth theater and say "suspended" is freaking weird, sorry.

Thankfully nothing about American politics is weird.

 

[Netzach]

Thankfully nothing about American politics is weird.

Oh, no doubt. I mean, Jesus, hello, I'm still a senator short from the fall!

 

[Keroin]

Oh, no doubt. I mean, Jesus, hello, I'm still a senator short from the fall!

LOL.

But seriously, the whole prorogue episode was the single most exciting thing that has happened in Canadian politics since Trudeau flipped the bird. We're generally not very exciting when it comes to politics. If this were middle earth, we'd be Ents. (C-SPAN is prescribed by doctors for people with chronic sleep problems.)

Local politics can be interesting. Our first gay MP got busted for shoplifting and one of our premiers made a deal with a mob-run company to have a deck built on his home in exchange for a casino license. Stuff like that happens all the time. But once our politics go federal...snore.

(Returning to the gun thing): If there's a shooting in Vancouver, it's HUGE news. One of my friends lived in Oakland for awhile and said it took her a long time to get used to the sound of gunfire...almost every night. Yikes. That is not how I'd want to live.

 

[Homburg]

(Returning to the gun thing): If there's a shooting in Vancouver, it's HUGE news. One of my friends lived in Oakland for awhile and said it took her a long time to get used to the sound of gunfire...almost every night. Yikes. That is not how I'd want to live.

Shortly after we moved in here, a night club opened in the shopping center adjacent to the house. The music was loud and awful, and it seemed like there was always some sort of altercation going on. There were a couple of incidents with guns involved, and the police came down on the club like a hammer. It was great, because I don't live in a great neighbourhood. Not a horrible one by any stretch, but not a high rent district. Still, the police were on it.

Eventually, the city just revoked their ABC license. No booze means no night club. Effective crime control.

 

[ZRT]

Actually, there isn't that much more training to drive a car than shoot a gun. All you need to do is pass driver's education and a road test and you can drive.

And the first thing you are told when you handle a loaded gun is don't ever point the gun at anything you don't intend to kill or injure.

Plus, the biggest thing you are overlooking is the fact that cars are used more than guns. Of course cars will be more dangerous and involved in more deaths when millions and millions of people use them everyday. Most private citizens who own a gun keep them locked away (hopefully) for most of the time.

You missed the second part, about public information campaigns, campaigns against drunk driving, defensive driving classes, etc.. Day to day law enforcement probably concerns itself more with traffic control than any other aspect. The energy and money spent on mitigating misuse of automobiles vastly dwarfs that of any firearms-related programs by sheer necessity.

The reason I bring up the car analogy is because so many people say 'We license people to drive cars, why not to own guns?' So I say 'Cars kill a lot more people, despite all our efforts at mitigation of their damage.' The need is obvious for cars, not so much for guns.

I agree with at least taking a class about owning/using a gun. Couldn't hurt.

Sure. Make it a part of the school curriculum. I'd love that. But mandatory requirements for exercise of constitutional rights is a very dangerous path to only be entered into by sheer demonstrable necessity, lest we end up with something analogous to poll taxes and other targeted governmental abuses.

But isn't it an easy way out for gun right advocates to use to downplay how dangerous guns can be like, "Why blame guns when X random common thing causes vastly more deaths? Why aren't you picking on X?".

I'm not arguing for a second that cars aren't more dangerous or deadly. I'm just saying that millions of millions of people aged 16 -100 use cars every day for multiple uses. Guns just aren't used enough to compare them to cars.

People drink and drive. They fall asleep at the wheel. They talk on their cell phones. They illegally race them. Cars are used for a variety of tasks with each one having the potential for death or injury.

Therefore they are far more deserving of regulation than guns. That's my point.

Guns are used at a range, for hunting, for law enforcement, for illegal activity, and for sport. And I'm sure other things.

And depending on what statistics you accept, anywhere from 300,000 to a million-plus incidents of armed self defense a year.

The relevance of boats on rivers is lost on me.

Point being that all the items you referenced the purchase of involve some form of public interaction by necessity. You share the road, the river, or contiguous land borders.

From the table you reference, the 39.6% = friends and family seems to support the need for regulation of private sales.

By... what? Preventing the families of felons from buying guns? Straw purchases are nearly impossible to prevent. You're talking about a massive increase in bureaucratic overhead and intrusion with virtually zero return because, again, 'something must be done'.

However, if your main point is a cost objection, that's at least an objection I find rational.

Nice to know you find something rational there.

The point of the ATF quote was that the ABC article specifically references private sellers rather than licensed dealers.

And? So there's an instance where a guy got a bunch of guns at a gun show, bucking a massive trend that shows that criminals usually don't. If it was to their advantage to do so, they would, but they don't. So it's obviously a societal non-issue.

My answer to your question is a chuckle and a no.

Okay. My answer to your answer is a chuckle.

OK, let me give you a personal story to highlight one of the important differences, (for me), between guns and cars and why the comparison doesn't work.

Shortly after leaving highschool, I dated and eventually moved in with a guy who owned guns. Three handguns (9mm), a couple of shotguns, and an M16. He was a decent fellow and would have passed any psychiatric evaluation with flying colours, I'm certain. We were together almost three years but for a variety of reasons I decided to end the relationship and move out.

Well, he snapped. Hello stalker. He knew the legal system and never crossed the line that would have allowed me to seek legal action, but he was a threat, nonetheless.

Despite my fears, I dealt with the situation as intelligently as possible and did manage to bring a peaceful end to the problem.

At no point, during the few years he was stalking me, did I think, "Oh my god, I'm in so much danger, he has a car and could kill me at any time!" However, the knowledge that he could very easily show up, pretty much anywhere, and blow my brains out made for some very sleepless nights.

Not meaning any disrespect, but I can answer your story with the story of a woman who lived in a disadvantaged neighborhood and had to walk to college and back every day. She was a classmate of mine, and she once had a very large man (she was all of five foot nothing tall and about ninety pounds soaking wet) chase her all the way to her apartment. She got the door slammed in his face just in the nick of time for him to barrel straight into it. Whatever his intentions were, they obviously weren't good for her. After that, she got a gun for self defense.

(No, I did not buy a gun to defend myself. I refuse to let fear rule my life.)

This one always gets me. Do you buckle your seatbelt when you drive? I do, and I don't characterize it as letting fear rule my life. It's a prudent precaution.

Every time I get in a car, I know the risks. I've been in accidents, (not my fault, BTW). But I need a vehicle. I do not need, (and I'd argue the same for the majority of the population), a gun. For something that is not, as a general rule, a necessity but is designed to kill, (even if it's just squirrels), why shouldn't there be strict regulations?

Because sometimes tools for killing come in damn handy. Ask the people who had to defend their homes after various hurricanes have struck the country, or the ones who couldn't because they weren't allowed to possess weapons or had them confiscated a la the idiocy that went down after Katrina. Or the Koreans who were targeted during the Rodney King riots. Or any number of instances where civil authority can and has broken down and the only method of protection is a firearm.

Ask the woman I knew in college. Ask the other one I knew who had to carry her bank deposits out at night. Ask any number of people who live in very bad places where the police only come to collect the corpses.

And private gun sales? Why are these even allowed? I don't get it.

Transfer of private property among citizens? What's the problem there?

But I realize the futility of my questions and my arguments here - it's like trying to make an argument for birth control in the Vatican. America is a gun culture and I suspect it always will be. The idea that time, money and energy would be better used on social programs and such is valid but I haven't seen any big leaps forward in my lifetime, if anything, it seems as if things have gotten worse.

They're welcome to just leave it alone and knock off ridiculous made-up issues like, well, just about everything the Brady campaign has come out with, ranging from Gun Show Loopholes to Assault Weapons to Plastic Guns to Armor Piercing Bullets to Saturday Night Specials, ad infinitum. I'd be a lot happier with the Democrats if they weren't embracing such blatantly false issues, because it shows both an ignorance of Constitutional law and reality on the ground. Ignorance at best, or malicious deceptiveness at worst. (I find the latter more likely, though the stupidity of the average congressman should never be underestimated.)

 

[Daddy2mylilgirl]

You missed the second part, about public information campaigns, campaigns against drunk driving, defensive driving classes, etc.. Day to day law enforcement probably concerns itself more with traffic control than any other aspect. The energy and money spent on mitigating misuse of automobiles vastly dwarfs that of any firearms-related programs by sheer necessity.

The reason I bring up the car analogy is because so many people say 'We license people to drive cars, why not to own guns?' So I say 'Cars kill a lot more people, despite all our efforts at mitigation of their damage.' The need is obvious for cars, not so much for guns.


Sure. Make it a part of the school curriculum. I'd love that. But mandatory requirements for exercise of constitutional rights is a very dangerous path to only be entered into by sheer demonstrable necessity, lest we end up with something analogous to poll taxes and other targeted governmental abuses.



Therefore they are far more deserving of regulation than guns. That's my point.



And depending on what statistics you accept, anywhere from 300,000 to a million-plus incidents of armed self defense a year.

I still don't think the argument of cars vs gun is a balanced one. Cars kill more people. But guns don't just go BANG! with a little flag shooting out from the barrel when you pull the trigger. Guns kill people too.

Hell forget about the guns. Legislation, for the most part, doesn't regulate guns. It regulates the people who buy and own the guns.

So, why does it matter to law abiding citizens, whether the government wants to introduce legislation to make it harder for people who shouldn't own guns (felons, metal instability, etc) to own them? Especially, if it will not affect law abiding citizens from buying all the guns they want.

Guns can only be regulated when they are bought. Not after. The only time law enforcement gets involved with guns is after they have been used in a crime. A cop can't see if someone is carrying a concealed weapon and might use it for a crime. A cop can see if that person is speeding or driving drunk.

 

[WriterDom]

Why not have tougher laws for people who commit crimes with guns?
I'd be all over that. Twenty years without parole for just using a gun. The tack on extra years for the shooting or robbery. Or life without parole even.

Once Marquise,Ramarcus,Venustiano, and Billy Bob leave the hood for good you don't think that will have some effect?

 

[ZRT]

I still don't think the argument of cars vs gun is a balanced one. Cars kill more people. But guns don't just go BANG! with a little flag shooting out from the barrel when you pull the trigger. Guns kill people too.

The ironic thing is that when you hear about some idiot getting drunk and killing a couple of people because he was doing ninety down the wrong side of the freeway and had a head-on with them, you don't hear people saying 'We need to do something about cars!'

Hell forget about the guns. Legislation, for the most part, doesn't regulate guns. It regulates the people who buy and own the guns.

Until you get to stupid and worthless pieces of legislation like the so-called Assault Weapons Ban, which was aimed at weapons that looked mean without being any more or less effective than dozens of other weapons in their class. It was aimed at weapons, and was driven by lies and hysteria.

So, why does it matter to law abiding citizens, whether the government wants to introduce legislation to make it harder for people who shouldn't own guns (felons, metal instability, etc) to own them? Especially, if it will not affect law abiding citizens from buying all the guns they want.

They usually don't object to this. As I said before, the NRA was backing the current instant check system for years, and after the useless waiting period from Brady sunsetted, we finally got it. Of course, in my opinion it's kind of useless because as noted before, the typical criminal isn't getting his weaponry from legal sources anyway.

The NRA has also been on record for years as supporting stricter mandatory minimums for gun crimes. There are regular PSAs for Project Exile, at least around here.

So what reasonable controls do you see that would reduce criminal acquisition of weapons while not impeding lawful purchase?

Guns can only be regulated when they are bought. Not after. The only time law enforcement gets involved with guns is after they have been used in a crime. A cop can't see if someone is carrying a concealed weapon and might use it for a crime. A cop can see if that person is speeding or driving drunk.

So again, how do you keep them from making the acquisition without impeding lawful purchases?

Apologies if I see brusque- I respect your argument, haven't had my morning coffee yet.

 

[Homburg]

Hell forget about the guns. Legislation, for the most part, doesn't regulate guns. It regulates the people who buy and own the guns.

Actually, there are LOADS of laws on the books legislating the guns themselves. The Firearms Act of '68 is a stellar example. There are also all sorts of regs on the state and local level.

To give an example, imported guns, by federal law, have to pass a checklist of featuires before they are allowed in the country. It is on a point system, so they can mix and match features til they reach the threshold. Glocks are very good guns imported from Austria. They are safe, effective, reliable, and the sidearm of choice for many a police department. Yet they are not legal to import int he form that you see them in when you go to a gun store. They don't legally make the number of features the ATF looks for. So every Glock is (or was, it may have changed) imported with crappy, ineffective adjustable rear sights mounted. Then they are shipped to their clearinghouse where those sights are removed, and the much more effective and, (for the purpose of a duty pistol) safer fixed sights are mounted.

Yeah man, I know I feel safer that our gun laws require Gaston Glock to put a useless adj sight on his pistols that gets removed and tossed once they cross our borders.

So, why does it matter to law abiding citizens, whether the government wants to introduce legislation to make it harder for people who shouldn't own guns (felons, metal instability, etc) to own them? Especially, if it will not affect law abiding citizens from buying all the guns they want.

Because these laws ONLY affect law-abiding citizens. The criminals get their guns from criminal sources. Even pawn shops do instant checks these days.

Guns can only be regulated when they are bought. Not after. The only time law enforcement gets involved with guns is after they have been used in a crime. A cop can't see if someone is carrying a concealed weapon and might use it for a crime. A cop can see if that person is speeding or driving drunk.

Sort of. After a while, you get used to looking for concealed weapons. I got to the point where I could see them pretty easily (I don't pay as much attention these days). I've made plainsclothes FBI agents, and they're damned good. Secret Service is beyond me though. We used to see them on a semi-regular basis where I worked for a few years during college, and you could never tell that they were carrying.

LEO's are also allowed to make "Terry stops". Basically it amounts to the legal right to stop anyone on the street and frisk them for weapons. Terry v. Ohio set the precedent.

--

Why not have tougher laws for people who commit crimes with guns?
I'd be all over that. Twenty years without parole for just using a gun. The tack on extra years for the shooting or robbery. Or life without parole even.

Once Marquise,Ramarcus,Venustiano, and Billy Bob leave the hood for good you don't think that will have some effect?

See "Project Exile". It worked wonders in Richmond as part of a major crackdown on violent crime.

--

Until you get to stupid and worthless pieces of legislation like the so-called Assault Weapons Ban, which was aimed at weapons that looked mean without being any more or less effective than dozens of other weapons in their class. It was aimed at weapons, and was driven by lies and hysteria.

REading about the TEC-9 is a good way to learn why "ugly gun" legislation is pointless.

So what reasonable controls do you see that would reduce criminal acquisition of weapons while not impeding lawful purchase?



So again, how do you keep them from making the acquisition without impeding lawful purchases?

Most people on the other side of the argument aren't really concerned about not impeding legal purchases. Many approve of the idea.

 

[ZRT]

REading about the TEC-9 is a good way to learn why "ugly gun" legislation is pointless.

Oh god, those pieces of shit. I remember an anti-gun cop saying 'Well, they're useless junk, but I think we should ban them anyway.'

Why? Because they look nasty.

I essentially class AK-47s in that category. The full-auto version as distributed globally has basically two virtues: any untrained idiot can use one without doing any maintenance on it, and corollary to that, they can be dragged through the mud, stomped, and thrown off of buildings and still crank a 7.62 downrange vaguely toward whatever you were aiming at. Just don't expect it to hit shit.

They're basically designed for Soviet-style armies and mass infantry attacks, but because they look nasty and are the poster child for 'assault weapon' hysteria, people think they're good for much more than a really rugged doorstop. The semi-auto civvy version is basically a toy, and at today's rates, it's an overpriced toy.

Most people on the other side of the argument aren't really concerned about not impeding legal purchases. Many approve of the idea.

Yeah, but D2MLG isn't 'most people on the other side', so I'm interested in hearing what he'd propose, even if I disagree with it.

I've been in this particular advocacy literally from childhood, and I've seen most of the arguments already. I've seen the faked-up hysteria over every issue Brady comes up with- my personal favorite was the dread 'Plastic Guns' that every nogoodnik was going to carry onto airplanes. Excepting that the Glocks they were demonizing were seventy percent steel and easily show up on metal detectors.

So I have kind of heard it all, but that doesn't mean I won't strive to have reasonable discussions on the matter.

 

[WriterDom]

I just want two more guns. The 38 only because I liked the way it fit my hand. And a 20 gauge double barrel. I have a 22 rifle and a 12 gauge. A high powered rifle might come in handy, but I don't consider myself a hunter anymore.

 

[JMohegan]

The ironic thing is that when you hear about some idiot getting drunk and killing a couple of people because he was doing ninety down the wrong side of the freeway and had a head-on with them, you don't hear people saying 'We need to do something about cars!'

Actually, there are people saying exactly that. The difference is that fewer people are listening.

Arguments against those measures sound exactly like arguments made in opposition to gun control measures:

- it would cost too much
- it's not fair to inconvenience responsible people
- it won't work
- irresponsible people will find some way around the law
- it's wrong to violate the civil rights of so many, in order to save the lives of so few


Proponents of anti-drunk driving measures care for the same reason that the kid in the ABC article on gun shows cares, and the political and civic leaders in Detroit and Chicago care. They don't see this as somebody else's problem. It's very real to them.


Of course, proposed measures relating to both cars and guns may legitimately be debated. But what's not debatable is the fact that people are dying. The question is: what, if anything, can be done?

Another parallel I see here is the role in societal attitudes & behaviors in contributing to these deaths. Toward having a few drinks & driving on the one hand, and the purchase of illegal drugs (fueling inner city violence) on the other. There's plenty of culpability to go around.

 

[WriterDom]

Actually, there are people saying exactly that.

Of course, proposed measures relating to both cars and guns may legitimately be debated. But what's not debatable is the fact that people are dying. The question is: what, if anything, can be done?

.

Not very many are dying here. I've never heard a shot fired in anger. What you have to do is change the inner city culture. Good luck with that.

 

[Netzach]

Not very many are dying here. I've never heard a shot fired in anger. What you have to do is change the inner city culture. Good luck with that.

I think the dead woman would beg to differ with your assessment.

 

[ZRT]

Of course, proposed measures relating to both cars and guns may legitimately be debated. But what's not debatable is the fact that people are dying. The question is: what, if anything, can be done?

I'd say that the first step is to approach the issue with some honesty, which the Brady Campaign and their political associates have singularly failed to do.

I've mentioned before the various falsified issues that they've come at us with over the past thirty years, but I'll actually go into some detail on them now.

Snubbies: Late seventies, actually pre-dating the involvement of the Bradys in the anti-gun movment, it was determined that short-barrel revolvers were the end of society as we know it, because they were easily concealed and it was claimed that they were the 'weapon of choice' of the ill-intentioned. First case I know of where the whole concept of 'weapon of choice' meme was first perpetuated. Honestly, this one was pretty much the closest one to a legitimate issue that they came up with, because the entire point of a short-barrel revolver is ease of concealment. However, it also makes them quite handy for personal defense, but the Brady bunch and their predecessors tend not to recognize any sort of right of self-defense.

Saturday Night Specials: First usage that I'm aware of where trendy marketing was used. Supposedly the criminal classes went from snubbies to cheap handguns. This of course overlooks the fact that criminals can get the guns they want cheaper by stealing them or buying through fences. On the other hand, the economically disadvantaged that would've been penalized by bizarre legislation taking out guns that were somehow too cheap would have just had to suffer at the hands of those for whom cost isn't as much of an object. The proposed bans would've simply been another 'nasty gun' ban that had no effect beyond the incrementalism that Brady et al are avowed practitioners of.

Plastic Guns: Glock came out with a firearm that incorporated some plastic polymers in the frame. Various idiot pols and anti-gunners determined that these somehow could elude metal detectors despite being over fifty-percent steel. They blipped every freaking metal detector in existence, but honesty isn't an overwhelming facet of the movement. Another ban that would've banned perfectly legitimate weapons to solve a nonexistent problem.

Armor-piercing bullets: Allegedly criminals were using AP ammo to kill cops left and right, except... they weren't. There hadn't even been a documented cop shooting with AP prior to the 'controversy', and the first (and only case that I'm aware of) was an officer who was shot in the head. In fact, the controversy was blamed for an increase in suspects aiming for cops' heads because they hadn't been aware previously of the proliferation of light protective vests in the cop biz. Can't statistically back that one offhand, though.

The problem with the AP issue was that basically any rifle round is armor-piercing, at least for light armor vests used as the standard. The proposed legislation would've banned a lot of standard hunting rounds. And hell, I can make an AP round that'll punch through your standard police vest with a wooden dowel and a pencil sharpener.

Brady Bill/Waiting periods: Background checks were widely acceptable, but the waiting periods were useless. There was little to no documentation of people getting mad, going and getting a gun, and killing people. Why? Because people of a mind to kill somebody right here, right now tend to either already have weapons at hand, or use something easily available like a kitchen knife or a pipe.

On the other hand, a woman leaving an abusive ex might just have a pretty clear and present need for protection for herself and possibly her children, but hey, tough shit.

So-called assault weapons: First of all, the term is wrong. True assault rifles are regulated as select-fire weapons and take a ton of paperwork, hassle, and licensing to legally acquire and possess. They also are virtually never used in crimes, because the people willing to wade through all the process are generally law-abiding to begin with.

What was being demonized were semi-automatic rifles patterned after full-auto military weapons, which are an entirely different beast. Of course 'semi-automatic rifle' sounds much less scary than 'ASSAULT RIFLE'.

Now, on this controversy, it was entirely manufactured. Yes, there were a few high-profile shootings, starting with Patrick Purdy and followed by some copycats looking to make the news in their blaze of glory. But in crime terms, they were a nonexistent blip because criminals need weapons they can conceal. AKs just aren't that concealable, even the folding stock variety.

Secondly, they aren't abnormally lethal, as weapons go. For example, it's common to refer to them as 'high-powered assault rifles'. Well, by definition an assault rifle isn't high powered -at all-, because the entire point of the design was to create an intermediate cartridge rifle that could fill a fire support gap in small units.

So other than splashy media attention tragedies, that wound down as the killers got less and less attention with each iteration, they have never been a significant factor in crime in this country.

Furthermore, legislators continually showed their ignorance by using such defining terms as possession of a bayonet lug, as if that means a damn thing. (I defy you to find me ten cases of people being bayoneted in this country in the past twenty years. Hell, I'd be surprised if you find five.)

Finally, the definition of irony: the same criminals who were down and out and allegedly buying Saturday Night Specials just a few years before were now allegedly buying far more expensive semi-auto rifles to go about their dirty deeds. Was this a success of Reaganomics?

Black Talons OMG: Brief attempt to create a stir over hollowpoint ammo, ignoring the fact that hollowpoints are favored not just for increased stopping power (which is actually a fairly marginal increase anyway), but also for bystander safety due to their decreased probability for ricochets and overpenetrations. Hence why cops use them.

Gun show loophole: we've been over this one. Pure bullshit, statistically.

High-powered sniper rifles: Aren't used in crimes. The oft-cited 'can hit a target from a mile away' is meaningless because that's simply beyond the marksmanship ability of probably over ninety-nine percent of the shooting public, especially your basic inner-city criminal type.

---
So. What we're down to is basically 'We don't want people shooting people'. Most pro-gunners are pretty heartily down with that sentiment. Come up with reasonable solutions and there's something to talk about. Continue to demonize weapons and gun owners with lies and obfuscations and it goes nowhere.

Personally, I favor mandatory firearms safety education in schools. It'll cut down what's already a pretty small accident rate, compared to other common items. But also it'll serve to demystify weaponry, especially if kids are allowed to handle them under safe, observed conditions.

Follow up on Exile and keep making the penalties harsh for misuse. It's reactive, but that's how most criminal justice works. Same as how the laws against murder have to be reactive.

Most of all, don't succumb to the notion that 'something must be done' and embrace every media sensation that comes along. There are some people making a lot of money and political hay on keeping this issue alive, which is of course the disease of advocacy groups of all stripes.

Another parallel I see here is the role in societal attitudes & behaviors in contributing to these deaths. Toward having a few drinks & driving on the one hand, and the purchase of illegal drugs (fueling inner city violence) on the other. There's plenty of culpability to go around.

Legalize drugs and at the same time recognize that people have a right to defend themselves against predation.

The drug war is ample illustration of how the government cure can be so much worse than the disease.

 

[RhymeSmith]

Hmmm. Funny how selective they are in their zeal for defending American rights.

It's funny how selective everyone is, about defending American rights. Heat toters aren't alone in this regard.

 

[Homburg]

Saturday Night Specials: First usage that I'm aware of where trendy marketing was used. Supposedly the criminal classes went from snubbies to cheap handguns. This of course overlooks the fact that criminals can get the guns they want cheaper by stealing them or buying through fences. On the other hand, the economically disadvantaged that would've been penalized by bizarre legislation taking out guns that were somehow too cheap would have just had to suffer at the hands of those for whom cost isn't as much of an object.

Davis Firearms, a purveyor of cheap, crappy guns, ran a surprisingly well-written ad around this time asking (paraphrased) why congress felt that poor people should not be able to defend themselves too.

Secondly, they aren't abnormally lethal, as weapons go. For example, it's common to refer to them as 'high-powered assault rifles'. Well, by definition an assault rifle isn't high powered -at all-, because the entire point of the design was to create an intermediate cartridge rifle that could fill a fire support gap in small units.

The NATO standard 5.56mm round was designed specifically to wound, not kill. Its' lethality was purposefully scaled back.

Finally, the definition of irony: the same criminals who were down and out and allegedly buying Saturday Night Specials just a few years before were now allegedly buying far more expensive semi-auto rifles to go about their dirty deeds. Was this a success of Reaganomics?

*snort*

Win.

Feel free to add the "Guns bought in the US and smuggled into Mexico" to that list. Yeah, Mexican cartel hitters want semi-auto rifles at $1000 a pop when they can get AK's for less than $100.

I Don't doubt that American guns are winding up in Mexico, but not the "vast majority" as has been claimed in more than one article.

Personally, I favor mandatory firearms safety education in schools. It'll cut down what's already a pretty small accident rate, compared to other common items. But also it'll serve to demystify weaponry, especially if kids are allowed to handle them under safe, observed conditions.

Given that similar arguments are made about teaching sex ed in schools, I can only assume that firearms education would likewise turn students gay.

Legalize drugs and at the same time recognize that people have a right to defend themselves against predation.

The drug war is ample illustration of how the government cure can be so much worse than the disease.

Hear hear!

 

[Homburg]

It's funny how selective everyone is, about defending American rights. Heat toters aren't alone in this regard.

Very much so. I find it amusing that those who yelled loudest about the civil rights abuses in the PATRIOT Act have no qualms about the civil rights abuses being foisted on gun-owners.