The Alternate Reality of Gun Control—Why so false?

[TPaine7]

As I have pointed out before, gun control—often at the highest levels of government—too often relies on objectively false data. As a small sampling, consider the alternate realities of http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x176226#176809">an old Supreme Court decision penned by a Chief Justice, a dissenting modern Justice, and a prominent gun ban organization.

Councilman Thomas, in his quest to keep handguns out of the hands of District citizens, resorts to a convenient alternate reality:

D.C. City Councilman Harry Thomas has introduced a resolution titled "Sense of the Council of Future Handgun Resolution of 2008." The resolution makes the following findings:

(1) Accidental deaths by firearms rank in the top 10 of accidental deaths in our country.

(2) Approximately 1,500 deaths per year result from the accidental use of a fire-arm. Of the 1500, 75% are young males between the age of 14 and 25, who unintentionally shoot themselves or someone else.

These finding are clearly false. According to the 2005 data (National Vital Statistics Reports, Volume 56, Number 10, April 24, 2008, Table 18), the total number of accidental firearms deaths, for all ages combined, was 789--about half the figure that Thomas claims. Firearms are not in the top 10 causes of accidental death, but are outranked by the following specified categories: Drowning, Fall, Fire/flame, Motor vehicle traffic, Pedestrian (not including from motor vehicles), Other land transport, Other transport, Natural/envivronmental,<sic> Poisoning, Struck by or against, Suffocation.

According to the "findings," there are about 1,125 accidental firearms deaths annually, involving males aged 14 to 25. Using the excellent on-line query tool from the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, you can find the 2005 total number of fatal gun accidents for males aged 14-25 was 219.

Source: http://volokh.com/posts/1216828838.shtml

I would actually like to understand why so many leaders for gun control abuse the credulity of the good, honest foot soldiers. There are many decent people whose gun control aspirations are rooted solidly in an honest and noble desire to stop criminal and accidental deaths. Why abuse them by lying to them? Are they only useful fools to the leadership?

Please note, I am not saying that Councilman Thomas is (necessarily and intentionally) lying; he may simply be repeating information from anti-gun advocates. If so, there is still a liar, someone using disinformation to effect social change. If you are an honest US citizen who favors strict gun control, it seems the liar, whoever he or she may be, either

1) Thinks you are too busy or too cloistered among like-minded people to find out the truth,
2) Underestimates your critical thinking ability,
3) Underestimates your honesty and the degree to which you resent being lied to, or
4) Sees you as chess piece to be used while you can to maximum effect

As a former gun control believer, I am curious as to what you decent, honest gun rights opponents think about that.

<Corrected typo>

[aspergris]

1. Nice volokh.com reference

I've been following Heller and other constitutional issues there, every day. It's a refreshing blog because people actually understand the laws they are posting about.

I would also note that "accidental" gun deats (the proper term is "unintentional") are iirc about the 10th accidental cause of death in the rankings, well below drowning, vehicle collisions, and falls.

For example, FAR more kids are killed by bathtubs and pools than are killed by guns.

[TPaine7]

2. An additional note

I am hoping for a civil, respectful, and rational exchange of ideas here. (I'm a part-time optimist.)

Gun control advocates, please note that the OP assumes your decency and honesty. The liars in question are either named leaders or behind the scenes propagandists. I am asking your opinion of their tactics and motivations, not imputing their misdeeds to you.

[Trajan]

4. Blah Blah Blah .....

[TPaine7]

5. And a good day to you, sir.

I hope you'll find the time to answer the OP's questions.

In any event, all the best to you and yours.

[Hydra]

3. Whenever people have to lie or reframe an issue to convince people

You know something's up. The truth speaks for itself.

[spin]

6. "47.3% of all statistics are made up on the spot." -- Steven Wright

I always distrust statistics though I often use the ones I like to prove my point. It's not at all surprising that people who have opposite views to mine will do the same thing.


if you are an honest US citizen who favors strict gun control, it seems the liar, whoever he or she may be, either

1) Thinks you are too busy or too cloistered among like-minded people to find out the truth,
2) Underestimates your critical thinking ability,
3) Underestimates your honesty and the degree to which you resent being lied to, or
4) Sees you as chess piece to be used while you can to maximum effect

You summed it up nicely.

1) Most people will not question statistics that agree with their position.

2) "Think about how stupid the average person is; now realize half of them are dumber than that."
- George Carlin
I've often suspected that our educational system is designed to produce wage slaves without the ability to think critically.

3 )Politicians lie to us so often that we've grown accustomed to it. Most politicians are far from honest and really don't think the average citizen could be better than they are.

4) We ARE chess pieces and the big boys know how to move us around the board to their benefit.


Question: why are you a former gun control believer?

[TPaine7]

8. Why am I a former gun control believer?

LOL!

That is a very long story. I once believed that the people could not be trusted with arms. I was also very ignorant of the actual history of gun policy in the US, and thought almost any gun control was legitimate.

The short answer is that I began to research the issue. The more I researched, the weaker and more dishonest the anti-gun position looked, and the stronger the pro rights position looked. I found exaggerations and twisting on both sides to be sure, but there was no comparison between the quality of data and thinking on the opposing sides--the best gun rights advocates and data clearly outclassed the best of the opposition, legally, historically, practically, and morally--IMO.

Especially shocking was comparing the actual history of US gun law with the "collective rights" theory.

It is true that most people will not needlessly question statistics (and other data) that supports their position. Honest people, however, will examine their positions in the wake of (verbal) conflict.

Bottom line: I heard opinions that countered mine, and examined reality to find the truth.

[spin]

13. Congratulations, If more people did this...

we would live in a much better society. This applies to many more issues than the gun debate.

I agree with you that the anti-gun position is largely emotional and the pro-gun position has better facts and statistics to back up their viewpoint.

Many people who move from anti-gun to pro-gun do so because of a violent event in their life or an incident that happened to a close friend or relative. It often takes a life changing incident to cause a person to alter his/her viewpoint. Few people have the time or inclination to research facts and adopt informed positions on the major issues our society faces. With our modern technology, we often are faced with information overload.

[Tejas]

16. "I once believed"

In hindsight, is there an instance or incident that you'd like to take back?

just curious

[TPaine7]

17. Not really,

I was young and not as knowledgeable about such things. It was only natural that I should adopt the default position of "decent society" around me.

I was not resistant to the truth when I discovered it; that's the best I can hope to achieve as a human being.

[beevul]

7. Like I said in another thread...

Like I said in another thread...

This is why we (the pro side) win, and why we are going to keep winning. Our counterparts - some of them at least - on the other side of the gun issue continue to use spin and dishonesty to try and make their case, and all that does is turn people who ARE really reasonable and who are undecided against them.

The tactics they have employed and continue to employ hurt them far worse than anything else.

[slackmaster]

9. Confirmed - Item (1) in Thomas' list is bullcrap

Go to http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/leadcaus10.html and roll your own query. For 2005, firearms accidents come up as 12th among death from unintentional injury.

[slackmaster]

10. Confirmed - Item (2) in Thomas' list is bullcrap too

In 2005 there were 789 accidental deaths by firearm in the USA.

233 of those were people age 14-25.

The disconnect I keep seeing is that the gun-ban freaks keep making shit up.

http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate.html

[beevul]

11. It would be very interesting...

It would be very interesting, and highly enlightening, to find out where he got his numbers from.

[slackmaster]

12. Probably got them from a place where neither of us would want to go

I kind of like being out in the sunshine, if you know what I mean.

[beevul]

14. Alimentary, my dear Slackmaster.

:rofl:

[Tejas]

15. so true, Thomas's ANALysis wreaks n/t

[TPaine7]

18. It fascinates me that when fact based questions are addressed to

"decent, honest gun rights opponents" no one answers except Trajan:

"Blah Blah Blah ....."

[iverglas]

19. so fascinated, and yet so boring

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/111/4/741

Objectives. Unintentional firearm death is often considered a nearly negligible proportion of overall gun death. These rates are based on medical examiner (ME) and coroner death classifications, which affect derived epidemiologic data and subsequent prevention measures. The aim of this study was to compare the proportion of pediatric unintentional gun deaths in Miami-Dade County based on manner of death coding by the ME with an intent-based classification of child gun deaths.

Methods. ME and police records for all pediatric firearm fatalities in Miami-Dade County from 1994 to 1998 were reviewed. The ME’s assignment of manner of death as homicide, suicide, or accident was compared with an intent-based classification of intentional homicide, intentional suicide, and unintentional firearm death based on expressed or implied evidence of intent to harm.

Results. There were 123 pediatric firearm deaths in Miami-Dade County from 1994 to 1998. A significant difference between ME coding and the intent-based classification was found for homicide (94 vs 78) but not for suicide. A significant difference was also found between the ME’s coding for "accident" and the investigator’s classification of "unintentional" firearm death (4 vs 26).

Conclusions. The incidence of unintentional pediatric firearm deaths is significantly underreported by the Miami-Dade County ME when the classification of "accidental" firearm death is used. Reviewing the manner of death classification criteria or establishing an intent code on official death documentation is recommended. Furthermore, clinicians should be aware that the true incidence of unintentional gun death may be higher than that reported as accidental.

Just a little grist for your mill, and an indication of why some might find your number play so boring.

[TPaine7]

20. Relevant facts only bore propagandists.

I see the "study" quotes the CDC, Hemenway, and The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence as if they were legitimate scientific sources. (Of course, in the alternate reality of gun control's leadership, they are.)

:rofl:

[iverglas]

21. I see you don't have a clue, as usual

Damn I love an undergraduate.

[TPaine7]

24. Let’s look at the lead researcher:

It seems that Dr. Judy Schaechter is an antigun activist. She received the Women of Valor Award in part for her “efforts on... gun control” in 2000.

Source: http://www.ncjwgms.org/support.html

The lead activist researcher was asked to find data to support policy decisions:

After Miami-Dade community leaders asked Schaechter for more hard research to guide their efforts, Schaechter instituted a computerized tracking system to tally countywide data on firearm killings. This year, the tracking system will expand to include nonfatal firearm injuries.

Source: http://www.injuryfree.org/article_display.cfm?PermanentId=FBC680D0-34CC-4515-8C4235748A0B7D9D

She is an award winning gun control advocate who provides “hard research” to support policy decisions.

[iverglas]

25. let's look at the journal

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/misc/policies.shtml


Perhaps you can now provide us with the journalistic and professional standards applied by Volokh to ... himself ...


Says you:

The lead researcher was asked to find data to support policy decisions:

Says the source you cite as substantiation:

After Miami-Dade community leaders asked Schaechter for more hard research to guide their efforts, Schaechter instituted a computerized tracking system to tally countywide data on firearm killings.

Is your problem that you can't read, or that you have not an iota of regard for the truth?

Some other things your source actually says:

http://www.injuryfree.org/article_display.cfm?PermanentId=FBC680D0-34CC-4515-8C4235748A0B7D9D

Schaechter knew that other communities had succeeded in reducing violence and injuries involving children. In Harlem, where youngsters were falling from tenement windows, a pediatrician launched the educational Children Can't Fly campaign and helped pass a law requiring landlords to install window guards. The number of falls plummeted 96 percent.

Using that same approach --bridging public health and public policy --Schaechter developed Not One More, based on the proposition that "not one more" child would die from gunfire.

Not One More did not advocate banning guns. Instead, it focused on prevention with a special emphasis on guns in the house, because most guns used to kill youths come from their own homes. The group helped distribute thousands of free trigger locks in Miami-Dade and Co-sponsored two gun buyback events in 2000 that took in more than 500 guns.

... Q: What kind of information is the Partnership for the Study and Prevention of Violence capturing in its surveillance of firearm deaths?

A: For any person of any age who is killed by a gun in Miami-Dade County, we track location of the incident, date, specifics about demographics, ethnicity, race. We follow why this happened. Was it an argument between intimate partners, was it a homicide/suicide?

You appear to have something against educating the public and collecting accurate data for use in public policy making. Who knows what your problem is?

[TPaine7]

26. Oh my!

I misread.

If I had "not an iota of regard for the truth" I would have answered with spin, BS, and diversion like iverglas did here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x176226#176531

I don't need to spin and divert attention.

So the truth is that Schaechter is an activist who provides "hard research" to guide the efforts of "community leaders." Oh, and as the quote in iverglas' last post shows, she is involved in shaping public policy.

"You appear to have something against educating the public and collecting accurate data for use in public policy making."

No, I doubt the accuracy of "studies" by award winning anti-gun activists who cite Hemenway, the CDC and the Brady organization as authorities. Of course, iverglas knows this, so this is her pathetic attempt to trick someone. (I think even she realizes it won't fool me.)

[iverglas]

27. the cup of disingenuousness overfloweth

I was just going to let it slide, but you seem intent on the misrepresentation.

No, I doubt the accuracy of "studies" by award winning anti-gun activists who cite Hemenway, the CDC and the Brady organization as authorities.

If you can read, you know what they were "cited" as "authorities" for.

The difficulty in determining intent must not be minimized. Witness statements, even from well-intentioned family members, are often helpful but may not always be reliable. The family of a child who committed suicide may prefer that it be recorded as unintentional to avoid social or religious stigma. Conversely, the family of a child who unintentionally shot herself with a parent’s gun may prefer that it be reported as an intentional act potentially to avoid prosecution in a state with a child access prevention law (which holds the gun owner responsible if a child uses his or her firearm).<16>

16.# The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. Facts About Gun Laws. Available at: www.bradycampaign.org/facts/gunlaws/cap.asp. Accessed June 2001

The Brady citation is to:

CHILD ACCESS PROTECTION (CAP) LAWS
State Summaries

Unless you want to dispute the accuracy of that summary, you might want to shut up.

The creation of a national violent death reporting system has been endorsed by numerous medical and public health organizations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics.<18–20>

19.# Barber C, Hemenway D, Hargarten S, et al. A call to arms for a national reporting system on firearm injuries. Am J Prev Med.2000; 90 :1191 –1193

The Hemenway citation is to this article:

http://www.ajph.org/cgi/reprint/90/8/1191.pdf

It is cited as substantiation for the statement The creation of a national violent death reporting system has been endorsed by numerous medical and public health organizations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics. It substantiates that statement. Unless you want to dispute the truth of that statement, you might want to shut up.


I, of course, don't suggest that you shut up. I am happy for you to continue this display of monumental ignorance, or appalling disregard for the truth, for as long as you choose.

[TPaine7]

29. Indeed it doth. . .

"I was just going to let it slide. . ."

The mercy! The nobility!

"If you can read. . ."

I do ok. I typically start at the beginning of a document, though, not in the middle or towards the end.


In this case, I read the abstract first, then the introduction:

Firearm injury is the most lethal of all types of violence<1> and the second most common cause of death for young people.<2>

I thought those were interesting claims, so I went to the footnotes. Lo and behold, they quoted the CDC for the bold claim of footnote 2--yes footnote 2.

I guess if I read better, and if I had a PhD in bovine scatology, I would understand that I should have started in the middle of the document, skipping footnote 2. They must cover that in advanced sophistry.

Ok, one strike. I skimmed the rest of the footnotes. What's that I see? The Brady Campaign?! Hemenway?! Ok, that's three strikes already, but just to be fair I googled the lead investigator. Sure enough, she's an anti-gun activist--an award winning one.

Imagine that you are reading a study on non-violence and community building. It was recommended by a local petty criminal, but you try to keep an open mind. The second cited source is Mayor Daley quoted making a dubious statement about clean local government.

You skim the footnotes, and a couple of names jump out at you--Charles Manson and Jeffrey Dahmer. Would it actually matter that Dahmer was quoted to say that "family is very important"? What if Manson advocated "kindness to poodles"? Would it help if the author were married to a mob princess?

What if an astronomy magazine you picked up had articles by prominent flat-earthers? Or a energy study had a citation by a perpetual motion "scientist"? Would you take any of it seriously?

Put in my position, would you "shut up" or would you laugh at the person recommending the "study"?

Iverglas tried to pawn off a paper by an award winning anti-gun activist whose "study" quotes the CDC, Hemenway, and the Brady Campaign. She got called on it. She's trying desperately to recover.

She skipped footnote 2 (no doubt innocently, wink wink) and triumphantly quoted a fraction of the relevant citations as if she were being exhaustive. (The CDC was cited at least 3 times in footnotes 2, 3, and 13.) This incorrect, incomplete, and tactically biased listing was put forth as evidence of my illiteracy or dishonesty, and my "monumental ignorance."

Oh well... I make mistakes, but I take care not to make them while calling someone else illiterate, dishonest, or monumentally ignorant.

As you've probably guessed by now, I chose laughter.

:rofl:

She's soooooo entertaining when she's mad!

[Realityhack]

30. That is interesting.

Differing methods of classification and potential classifier bias etc. Definitely one way you can get vastly different numbers.

I am no fan of banning guns. But I do support efforts to reduce accidental gun deaths and reduce the number of firearms that make it into criminal hands.

Obviously in order to form intelligent policy we need good information to work with. I think far too few people spend the time to understand more than just a number or percentage, but how that number was generated, what it actually represents.

[Indy Lurker]

22. A couple of thoughts

first, your using fresh data.

There are plenty of places using census data, which is at best from 2000, and in the case below, goes back to 1996 as "most recent data available"




Second, you need to look at how things are grouped.


If you combine Motor vehicle traffic, Pedestrian (not including from motor vehicles), Other land transport, Other transport, into a giant Transportation category, you just bumped it up 3, from 12 to 9.


I think if you are trying to prevent accidental deaths, you would focus on seatbelts and handrails.

[TPaine7]

23. 12 vs 9 can be explained various ways

And could possibly be explained by different groupings.

The other assertion appears to be way off base:

(2) Approximately 1,500 deaths per year result from the accidental use of a fire-arm. Of the 1500, 75% are young males between the age of 14 and 25, who unintentionally shoot themselves or someone else.

[old mark]

28. There would be no reason to even advocate gun control

if the truth was accepted.

Swimming pools are many times more dangerous, especially to children, than any gun or gun collection, yet there is no national (or international) movement to ban or even regulate them.

There is no logic here, only inflamed emotion, and the problem for pro-gun folks it to attempt to get the truth out and overcome the effects of the lies.

There is an FBI report stating that guns bought at gun shows are not even remotely a significant factor in crime,yet there are still people calling for the "elimination of the gun-show loophole" (whatever that may be) even though the report was issued in the late 1990's. \

Most of the statistics and "facts" emanating from the gun-control organizations are false. All of these have been refuted for years, again and again.
They are still repeated as absolute truth every day by those who do not want to know better.

These people are after money and power, and that is their agenda, period.

mark

[Realityhack]

31. Hmmm...

Personally I am not after money or power. And I do not support much of the current never mind proposed gun legislation.

But I do support reasonable gun control legislation. And I think most gun owners probably do as well.

I think one problem with gun control is that it is/has become so emotionally charged and is now a sound bite issue instead of a reasonable discussion on specific measures that might be useful.

[Angleae]

32. Define "reasonable gun control legislation"

One persons resonable legislation is completely unreasonable to another. There are too many people that think Washington DC, Chicago, and NYC have "reasonable" gun control laws.

[Realityhack]

33. That is very true...

and of course what actually IS reasonable may vary between say a densely populated city to a very rural area.

Lets see, some examples *I* would see as reasonable.
- Requiring gun permits
- Reasonable waiting period to get your gun permit (say 30 days or something)
- Requiring a permit/background check before purchasing a weapon
- Having a system to 'pool' background check data so this can be done quickly and accurately
- Requiring people to take a basic course in gun law and gun safety before being issued a permit
- Requiring people to periodically renew their gun license and perhapses take a refresher course on legal issues that may have changed
- Ban on some weapons, for example I don't think anyone needs access to an anti tank missile
- Possibly require certain safeguards during storage to prevent unauthorized access to the gun
- Ban on fully automatic weapons (I know some might disagree here)

I am sure their are a few more. I think most gun owners would agree with this kind of stuff. I know a lot of people might argue against it but I think slightly higher standards for a concealed carry permit would be fine.

[spin]

34. The NRA might disagree but it's not a bad list...

Most of your list is already a requirement for concealed carry in Florida.

I like the idea of a gun class to teach basic handling, safety and the legal aspects of using a gun for self defense. I've encountered shooters on the range who had purchased a weapon but had no idea of even how to determine if it was loaded. Not all new gun owners travel to a range to check out their weapons, so I believe many are totally unsafe with their weapon. Many people get all their gun training from movies and suffer serious misconceptions of when and if they can use their weapon.

There already are restrictions on fully automatic weapons. While you can own them in many states, the process of obtaining a license is complicated and somewhat expensive. The media often mistakes semi-auto weapons for fully automatic weapons and lump both under the category of assault weapons. There is a large difference between the two types.

I notice that you didn't list registration of weapons. In Florida this is not a requirement and in my opinion serves little purpose.

It would make sense for Washington D.C. to use your list rather than the draconian system they are trying to implement.

[Realityhack]

36. well

yes I know most are already in place.

I think registration might be a good idea. IMO I think it is quite clear that guns should be tracked at least to the point of sale. However, as they can then further change hands I think registration is a decent idea. Even if the gun owner only had their gun stolen knowing where it came from originally could help when an illegal gun is found. It would also make some sense for instance in the rare case where a gun licence where revoked. You would know the person should have XYZ guns.

It's just my 2 cents. I think a lot of NRA members would be ok with those laws and probably several others.

[Recursion]

35. Most of those exist already.

- Requiring gun permits

"Permits" in what sense? A per-owner license of sorts, or a per-weapon license? Are the police required to issue them or do they issue them at their own discretion?

- Reasonable waiting period to get your gun permit (say 30 days or something)

Again, is this per-gun or per-person?

- Requiring a permit/background check before purchasing a weapon

If you mean like a "firearms license" which shows you have completed a background check and had reciprocity in all the states like a driver's license, that would be cool.

- Having a system to 'pool' background check data so this can be done quickly and accurately

Like NICS which we have already? But if it can do it quickly, why would we need to wait 30 days?

- Requiring people to take a basic course in gun law and gun safety before being issued a permit

That could be part of this permitting process. Concealed-carry permittees generally have to do this already. Would you need to take this course to just keep a rifle in your house?

- Ban on some weapons, for example I don't think anyone needs access to an anti tank missile

For all practical purposes banned since the 1930's

- Possibly require certain safeguards during storage to prevent unauthorized access to the gun

Sure, that can be under the same rubric that we regulate leaf burning, etc. Some localities do have storage laws. And furthermore unsafe storage is already tortious. I know people will say "that only does anything after someone is hurt or dead", but storage regulations are the same way: there's simply not a reasonable situation where police are going to come into people's houses and check how they are storing their weapons.

- Ban on fully automatic weapons (I know some might disagree here)

For all practical purposes banned since the 1930's. The NRA isn't working to overturn that and I don't know of any significant lobbying groups that are.

[Realityhack]

37. I know.

In fact I thought I mentioned that i knew. Anyway, thanks for the feedback. Sorry I didn't get to this until today.

- Requiring gun permits
>"Permits" in what sense? A per-owner license of sorts, or a per-weapon license? Are the police required to issue them or do they issue them at their own discretion?

Per owner. Clear standards for what grounds could be used to deny one and an appropriate appeals process.

- Reasonable waiting period to get your gun permit (say 30 days or something)
>Again, is this per-gun or per-person?

Per person. I don't think a waiting period on each gun would do much good. If the facts where their then 24hrs or something might be ok. People do actually do rash things sometimes.

- Requiring a permit/background check before purchasing a weapon
>If you mean like a "firearms license" which shows you have completed a background check and had reciprocity in all the states like a driver's license, that would be cool.

Yes. Except I would say in addition to seeing if the permit is still valid they would re-check the database to see if it should have been pulled but wasn't for whatever reason. Nothing crazy just make sure this person isn't on the holly fuck don't give that murderer a gun again list.

- Having a system to 'pool' background check data so this can be done quickly and accurately
>Like NICS which we have already? But if it can do it quickly, why would we need to wait 30 days?

Yes. The 30 days would be for so called 'cool down' and to allow for any recent offenses to propagate into the system. As I see this as a one time per owner thing (unless you let something lapse) I think a wait in that time-frame would be reasonable.

- Requiring people to take a basic course in gun law and gun safety before being issued a permit
>That could be part of this permitting process. Concealed-carry permittees generally have to do this already. Would you need to take this course to just keep a rifle in your house?

Yes. IMO it makes sense to require everyone to take a basic course even for a rifle in the house etc. You still may have to transport it some time, their could be a requirement on reporting a lost/stolen gun (reasonable I think) etc. People should be reasonably informed of some basic information before being given a gun license IMO.
Yes I know this is required for some people some places now. I was just pointing it out as a gun law I am ok with.
Furthermore I can see a second level of more specific information for a carry permit. Another class handling more specific issues.

- Ban on some weapons, for example I don't think anyone needs access to an anti tank missile
>For all practical purposes banned since the 1930's

Yeah I know. The thing is I was pointing out that even though we may disagree on where the line is their ARE weapons that IMO are strictly non-civilian and have no place in peoples homes/etc. this might apply to particular ammunition types too (not sure their - no example off hand). Anyway some people claim that they should not be banned. I think most people though can agree their IS some limit.

- Possibly require certain safeguards during storage to prevent unauthorized access to the gun
>Sure, that can be under the same rubric that we regulate leaf burning, etc. Some localities do have storage laws. And furthermore unsafe storage is already tortious. I know people will say "that only does anything after someone is hurt or dead", but storage regulations are the same way: there's simply not a reasonable situation where police are going to come into people's houses and check how they are storing their weapons.

Yep. Basically IMO it is reasonable to hold a gun owner responsible for storing their guns in a reasonable manner. Obviously this is after the fact but I would have no problem with it being more than just tort. In addition more specific laws could actually shield responsible gun owners by giving them a chance to show they complied with XYZ regulations (possibly plus some) when the tort cases do come up.

- Ban on fully automatic weapons (I know some might disagree here)
>For all practical purposes banned since the 1930's. The NRA isn't working to overturn that and I don't know of any significant lobbying groups that are.

I am not aware of any significant groups but some people bring it up. It was just another thing I thought I would mention about specific types of weapons that most of us (as a society) can agree are just not for civilian use.

[tburnsten]

38. You cleared up quite a bit

And you came away sounding like a free thinker, instead of an "I really think guns are bad but I am going to pretend that 'hunters' and 'target shooters' are ok" type.
"their ARE weapons that IMO are strictly non-civilian and have no place in peoples homes/etc. this might apply to particular ammunition types too (not sure their - no example off hand). Anyway some people claim that they should not be banned. I think most people though can agree their IS some limit."

What is wrong with the limits we have right now? An AR-15, while somewhat menacing in appearance, is functionally no different from any other semiauto target/hunting rifle, and their accuracy potential and ergonomics, as well as versatility and ease of customization are causing them to really catch on and explode in popularity. By "non-civilian" these type of rifles aren't what you are talking about are they? When I hear non-civilian weapons what pops into my mind is anything that is not highly discriminatory in its placement of projectiles/destruction of objects, such as explosives, those are closely watched and with good reason. A weapon which fires a single shot for each pull of the trigger doesn't match up to me, but some semiauto rifles take a lot of heat from people who aren't actually interested in learning how they work just based on their looks. I hope you don't fit that description.



As far as full autos, those are in the civilian population in such extremely limited quantities and at such great expense that the people who own them usually own more than a couple, and they are what is known as "range toys", i.e. a weapon that is guarunteed to put a huge grin on the face of whoever shoots it, but that doesn't have any real purpose other than as an expensive way to have fun once in awhile. And they are expensive, typical prices for any decent FA weapon runs at a minimum $10,000, up to about $30,000, even the crappiest of the FA capable weapons out there still cost at least $4-5,000. Not exactly a real cause for concern, and even if they were easily and affordably accessible, FA fire is not very useful in any combat situation. I am in the service, the last time I used burst fire was in an excercise in Basic that was just an item for the company to check off, there was no real training going on other than weapons handling and safe movement.

[Realityhack]

39. Thanks. No I am not in that camp

As far as the restrictions that exist now I am guessing they probably ban some weapons that should not be. I don't know about anything that is legal that should be banned. I must admit some level of ignorance. I was talking more as a general guideline that we can agree even as people ok with gun ownership that SOME limits should exist. Exactly where to draw the line is harder to say.
Personally I have absolutely no problem with the AR-15.

As far as fully automatics I don't think I would have a problem with banning even the 'range toys'. While you are correct that they have little tactical advantage, they are rather indiscriminate.

[tburnsten]

40. Well pretty much any ordinary weapon is AOK right now

except for a really big tax and highly discretionary vetting process for anyone who wants to own an item such as a shorter barreled rifle or shotgun, or a handgun with a vertical foregrip or stock (?I guess they are scary?) and supressors and full autos.

I personally think supressors should be viewed as a safety and noise pollution device, since they don't actually "silence" any gun and the firearms they are mounted on are still quite loud, still loud enough that hearing protection is a must, and they are so bulky and expensive that even if they were unrestricted crime would be sort of a non-issue with them, since no crime committed with a supressor would be any worse or any easier to get away with than with an unsupressed firearm. In Europe one of the things they do right is to view the supressor as a safety device, and many countries actually require them in some areas.


If full autos were fully banned, and they might as well be at this point, I don't think it would have much impact one way or another. MG ranges are a valuable source of training for security personnel, and in my state when a unit schedules Soviet Weapons Training they do it at a private range, using weapons owned entirely by a private citizen. Otherwise they aren't really useful for much other than the fun factor.

[Realityhack]

41. Interesting...

I did not know suppressors where viewed that way in Europe.

[tburnsten]

42. For the most part firearms are pretty limited

but in many scandinavian countries supressors are required for any hunting, to avoid disturbing more wildlife than is absolutely neccessary.

Even the UK, as gun-unfriendly as they are have developed an integral supressor equipped shotgun barrel, called the hushpuppy.