Gun control proponents this is your chance...

[RoeBear]

...to speak up for fairness.

Every gun control proponent who has ever posted here has said something to the effect of "I only want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals" and "I don't want to ban guns I just want to make sure they are only owned by good people" or "The only guns that I want to see banned are assault weapons".

So here's your chance. The town of Wilmette has banned an entire class or guns, handguns. Apparently for the purpose of keeping them out of the hands of honest citizens. Banning handguns is something every gun control proponent here has said they would not do. So come on forward and tell us that you disagree with this town for doing that.


http://abclocal.go.com/wls/news/010804_ns_Wilmette.html

"Police also cited him for violating a Wilmette law that bans the possession of handguns."

(Note to mods: yes I know that a link to the Wilmette situation has been posted before, but this is a whole new tack to the discussion and besides the original thread is getting quite long)

[DBoon]

1. I'm tired of gun control discussions

Absent a general disarmament (which will never happen - the US isn't Japan), I see them as doing minimal good at controling violent crime, while angering a potent political group.

I always had an idea that liberal advocacy for gun control was a response to the exploitation of the crime issue by the right in the 60's and 70's ("law and order"). Liberals correctly saw that "law and order" disguished a racist and anti-civil liberties agenda, but felt obligated to come up with their own solution. Just a guess, and feel free to point out holes in this argement.

I think a better attack on crime is to attack youth unemployment and the breakdown of the family. Family stress is a liberal issue - it has to do with a support structure, with intervention to preent and stop child abuse, etc.

I think a few million more well paying blue collar jobs will do more to lower violent crime than any gun controls could possibly have.

[RoeBear]

2. Thank you for the very lucid response!

:loveya:

I couldn't agree more with:
"I think a few million more well paying blue collar jobs will do more to lower violent crime than any gun controls could possibly have."

Anyone else?

[CO Liberal]

8. I Believe.....

...that more good-paying jobs COMBINED WITH effective gun control is the way to go.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Township75]

7. That is a kick-ass response...

I agree.

[CO Liberal]

3. There are Still Other Classes of Guns Available

You make it sound like handguns are the only thing available for those who choose to use guns for self-defense. Don't you agree that banning handguns keeps them away from criminals, while still enabling homeowners to use other types of weapons for self-defense?

It sounds like Wilmette had a problem with handguns. And if someone is opposed to Wilmette's handgun ban, they can always move to another town.

[RoeBear]

4. So I can put you down for doing a 180...

...correct me if I'm wrong.

"I'm for keeping guns out of the wrong peoples hands."

http://realestate.yahoo.com/re/neighborhood/search.html?sa=&csz=wilmette+il&submit=Submit

FYI- crime stats for Wilmette
Wilmette National Average
Total Crime Index 1.8 3.47
Personal Crime Index 1.0 3.40


"And if someone is opposed to Wilmette's handgun ban, they can always move to another town."

Should we move to Colorado Springs? O8)

[CO Liberal]

5. I See No 180 Here

Since handguns are the preferred choice of the bad guys, banning them keeps them out of the wrong hands.

The law-abiding citizens of Wilmette still have other weapon choices if they choose to arm themselves.

BTW, I'd recommend against moving to Colorado Springs - the place is lousy with Bible-thumpers and assholes.

[Superfly]

6. That is one of the most non-liberal things I have ever heard

"And if someone is opposed to Wilmette's handgun ban, they can always move to another town."

How different is that from those rednecks we have here in the south who say "If those A-rabs don't like it here in the USA, they can always leave."

No difference whatsoever. Disgusting.

:puke:

[CO Liberal]

13. Laws Are Supposed to Reflect The Will Of The People

And anyone who does not agree with the laws in Wilmette doesn't have to live there. Period.

[Superfly]

14. Yeah! "If you're not with us, you're with the terrists..."

That's one of the most non-progressive things I have ever heard.

[MrBenchley]

21. And it's gun rights politicans making that claim

isn't it, fly?

Nothing shows what a steaming pantload the whole "gun rights" movement really is as well as the scummy public figures pushing it....like AshKKKroft.

[Superfly]

23. Well, I think you are going to find that

with each passing election, you are going to be pissing uphill fighting against the RKBA. You see, more and more states are passing laws making it easier for citizens to bear arms, and for all your grumbling, these laws are going on the books. Sorry to break it to you.

[MrBenchley]

24. Surrrrrrrrrrrrrrre....

It's John AshKKKroft's wet dream....

[Superfly]

25. Well, for all of your constant

grumbling, Ohio just became a fair issue CCW state. So, I guess you have more work ahead of you...

[CO Liberal]

26. It's Hard to Counter The Spread of Stupidity

One of the best ways, however, is to diffuse the Nuts Ruining America so they'll stop supporting Republicans.

[Superfly]

15. Want to remind you of something else

"Laws Are Supposed to Reflect The Will Of The People"

So, Patriot Acts I & II reflect the will of the people? I take it you support them as well?

[RoeBear]

43. So if I, and other pro-gun Democrats are...

...elected to your city council (or the town you are moving to for sake of arguement) and declare that all heads of households are required to keep a functioning gun in their home for self-defense.
You'd say that is within the city councils purview?

[CO Liberal]

45. Are You Saying.....

...that the authorities in Wilmette were NOT within their purview?

[iverglas]

47. try this one

It may help you sort it all out.

May your city council pass a bylaw to prohibit you from keeping poisonous snakes on your property?
May your city council pass a bylaw to compel you to keep poisonous snakes on your property?

If someone suggests that I have said that firearms are like poisonous snakes, I shall point and laugh.

And then I might ask:

May your city council pass a bylaw to prohibit you from erecting a clothesline in your front yard?
May your city council pass a bylaw to compel you to erect a clothesline in your front yard?

Or maybe:

May your city council pass a bylaw to prohibit you from selling ice cream cones out of your garage?
May your city council pass a bylaw to compel you to sell ice cream cones out of your garage?

Or:

May your city council pass a bylaw to prohibit homeowners from having six or more unrelated persons residing in a dwelling in a particular zone?
May your city council pass a bylaw to compel homeowners to have six or more unrelated persons residing in a dwelling in a particular zone?


Ya see ... my questions do not imply (and do not require) that firearms be (or be regarded as) intrinsically good or intrinsically bad, any more than they require that clotheslines be intrinsically good or bad. And municipal bylaws are also not based on intrinsic goodness or badness. They are based on the interests of the residents/ratepayers/voters in the municipality, as they and their elected councillors perceive them, and within whatever rules determine the extent to which municipal councillors may regulate land use and other activities within their territories.

And an assertion that a municipal council would have the authority to prohibit "x" just cannot be interpreted, or represented, as an assertion that the council would have the authority to compel "x" ... whatever you might choose to be represented by "x".

.

[RoeBear]

49. If they banned diamond back rattlers but not...

...timber rattlers what sense would it make? This town council has decided handguns can't be possessed but not the currently allowable assault type weapons. What sense does that make?

So should this hypothetical town be allowed to force you to own a gun?

[iverglas]

57. and somehow ...

"So should this hypothetical town be allowed to force you to own a gun?"

... I just thought the answer to that question was really, really obvious.

But maybe not, given how you've worded it.

MAY this hypothetical town force me (assuming "me" to be a resident of some town in the US) to own a gun?

Of course not. If anybody asked me the question in real life, I'd say "don't be ridiculous". No level of government may force people to do things that they do not want to do, that they have good reason for not wanting to do, and that the govt in question has no good reason (read: constitutionally acceptable justification) for forcing them to do.

But you asked whether this hypothetical town SHOULD be allowed to force "me" to own a gun.

So perhaps you're wanting my personal opinion about how things oughta be, rather than my opinion, based on my knowledge of the relevant facts, of how things actually are.

I'd say "of course not" again, of course. The rules by which we organize our societies ("constitutions") should not be changed so that people might be compelled, without justification, to do things that were contrary to their beliefs and their interests as they perceive them, that being what would have to be done in order for a town to force residents of the town to own firearms.


"If they banned diamond back rattlers but not...
...timber rattlers what sense would it make? This town council has decided handguns can't be possessed but not the currently allowable assault type weapons. What sense does that make?"

I guess that if someone affected by the rule thought it didn't make sense, they'd'a done something to challenge it by now. (On the other hand, they might just have broken the rule, kept a prohibited handgun and shot someone when the occasion arose, I suppose.)

It's entirely possible that there are some types of poisonous snakes that aren't as lethal as others, that are not so popular among negligent snake-owners as to have created the perception that there is a need to prohibit them, that move too slowly to present a danger to household visitors ... whatever, eh? Is it possible that there are things that distinguish handguns from "assault type weapons" that might have prompted different responses? Like the fact that few householders were likely to own the latter, and that there had been problems experienced with the former?

.

[RoeBear]

65. How about...

"No level of government may force people to do things that they do not want to do, that they have good reason for not wanting to do, and that the govt in question has no good reason (read: constitutionally acceptable justification) for forcing them to do."

How about a unit of government forcing all homeowners to have smoke detectors? They are for self protection, much like my hypothetical town is requiring guns for self protection. But, let's say I don't want one. Maybe I'm a religious kook who feels God will determine if my house burns or not. Or maybe I think the radiation causes cancer. Whatever.

Do you see any difference from a government entity requiring smoke detectors as compared to guns?

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RoeBear]

69. No I don't...

...please elucidate.:smoke:

[iverglas]

70. it never ends, it seems

"Do You See......
...how clouded your vision gets when guns get in to the picture????"

Do you think maybe a smoke detector would help?

I'll bet that a religious kook with holy scripture prohibiting smoke detectors (is there a Big Book of Weird Scenarios somewhere that I have not been introduced to?) would be able to get an exemption from the smoke-detector bylaw. Just as various other religious kooks get exemptions from various other laws.

Of course, leaving aside the religious kooks, given that I haven't noticed anyone presenting religious objections to mandatory firearms possession (and if a mandatory firearms possession law were constitutionally valid, religious kooks would get the same kind of exemption anyhow, I'd think) -- I'm just not sure what this purportedly analogous thing actually has in common with firearms. I'm not aware of any facts or argument -- religious kookery aside -- that could be presented in objection to mandatory smoke detector installation that would look remotely like the various objections that might be made to mandatory firearms possession.

Imposed costs? Yeah ... that would be a similar argument ... assuming that a firearm can be secured for 10 bucks, and a year's supply of ammunition for the cost of a battery ...

Accidental maiming of children who are left alone in the home with a smoke detector? Theft of improperly stored smoke detectors by criminals who use them to commit crimes and/or injure/kill someone? Drunks honking their smoke-detectors at neighbours and family members? (Actually, me and a buddy who lived upstairs occasionally used to get tipsy and take a spare smoke detector out on the sidewalk and honk it just for the sheer fun of watching the obnoxious neighbour across the street, whose friends thought that their car horns were doorbells, rush to see who had come calling on her and what her obnoxious Doberman was yapping about ...)

I do believe I give up.

.

[RoeBear]

71. "I do believe I give up."

I accept your surrender. :spank:

[iverglas]

74. Oxford Concise says:

give up
pronounce incurable or insoluble; renounce hope of

That's just one of five meanings it offers, of course.

I'm sure that you know which one I meant much better than I do.

.

[RoeBear]

50. I asked you first...

:hi:

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

11. oh really, O'Reilly?

(That's how the saying goes, I believe.)

Every gun control proponent who has ever posted here has said something to the effect of "I only want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals" and "I don't want to ban guns I just want to make sure they are only owned by good people" or "The only guns that I want to see banned are assault weapons".

Would I be correct in assuming that I am included in the class of "every gun control proponent who has ever posted here"?

Would you then be so kind as to cite something I have said that can be reduced to one (or more) of the three statements you apparently wish to put in my mouth?

"Banning handguns is something every gun control proponent here has said they would not do."

Ding, wrong again. I fully support Canadian laws/regulations regarding handguns, which I believe (I could be wrong) you would characterize as "banning handguns". I would therefore plainly not "disagree with this town for doing that" because of my opposition to "banning handguns". (Where I'm at, there would probably be some constitutional difficulties if a municipality decided to prohibit keeping a particular kind of firearm within the municipality, and I might oppose such a municipal ban on those grounds, i.e. that the by-law in question was properly characterized as "in relation to the criminal law", a jurisdiction that belongs to the federal government here.)

Up here, very much like down there, a government that wishes to restrict an individual liberty (and the possession of a particular type of firearm could possibly be characterized as an exercise of liberty) must demonstrate that it has justification, under the constitutional rules for determining justification, for doing so. So far, our Supreme Court has held (in a challenge to the legislation brought by the Government of Alberta) that Parliament had jurisdiction to enact the 1995 Firearms Act:

http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/pub/2000/vol1/html/2000scr1_0783.html

The Firearms Act constitutes a valid exercise of Parliament's jurisdiction over criminal law. The Act in "pith and substance" is directed to enhancing public safety by controlling access to firearms. Its purpose is to deter the misuse of firearms, control those given access to guns, and control specific types of weapons. It is aimed at a number of "mischiefs", including the illegal trade in guns, both within Canada and across the border with the United States, and the link between guns and violent crime, suicide, and accidental deaths. The purpose of the Firearms Act conforms with the historical public safety focus of all gun control laws. The changes introduced by the Act represent a limited expansion of the pre-existing gun control legislation. The effects of the Act also suggest that its essence is the promotion of public safety. The criteria for acquiring a licence are concerned with safety. Criminal record checks and background investigations are designed to keep guns out of the hands of those incapable of using them safely. Safety courses ensure that gun owners are qualified.

The Firearms Act possesses all three criteria required for a criminal law. Gun control has traditionally been considered valid criminal law because guns are dangerous and pose a risk to public safety. The regulation of guns as dangerous products is a valid purpose within the criminal law power. That purpose is connected to prohibitions backed by penalties.

... The problems associated with the misuse of firearms are firmly grounded in morality. However, even if gun control did not involve morality, it could still fall under the federal criminal law power. Parliament can use the criminal law to prohibit activities which have little relation to public morality.

That case dealt only with the question of federal vs. provincial jurisdiction.

As far as I know, firearms enthusiasts have been no more diligent in Canada than they have in the US about challenging firearms control legislation based on individual constitutional rights.

.

[Superfly]

12. If only that were true...

"Up here, very much like down there, a government that wishes to restrict an individual liberty...must demonstrate that it has justification...."

Unfortunately, the current powers that be have abbreviated that requirement. When justification is not available, justification is fabricated to enact rights-limiting laws. Our current experiments in curtailing citizen rights in the form of Patriot Acts I and II come to mind.

[iverglas]

16. ah, but the rules still exist

and what I can't figure out is why no one is trying to enforce them -- by challenging anything done under said Patriot Acts, e.g.

Are there specifics -- are there things actually being done -- that would prompt such challenges? Forgive such a broad and perhaps ignorant question ... but generally, a statute is only challenged once it is applied/enforced, i.e. by whoever is adversely affected by the application/enforcement of its provisions. Unconstitutional laws often tend to sit around on the books and as long as they're not being applied/enforced, nobody challenges them, and they just keep sitting around on the books.

I'm not really current on challenges here to the Canadian Anti-Terrorism Act, our (less draconian) counterpart.

I asked www.google.ca (select "pages from Canada") for "anti-terrorism act" "constitutional challenge" and found a bit.

The Law Society, in BC it seems, is challenging provisions requiring reporting of certain "suspicious" financial transactions: http://www.cle.bc.ca/CLE/Stay+Current/Collection/2002/7/02-fedleg-terrorist.htm

The Act also provides for the designation of "terrorist groups", and makes it illegal to do any activity on their behalf: http://www.cle.bc.ca/CLE/Stay+Current/Collection/2002/8/02-fedleg-terroristlist.htm There is provision for seeking a review of a designation as a "terrorist group"; there has been considerable controversy about the banning of Hezbollah, for instance: http://www.cpavancouver.org/letter_to_solicitor_general.html

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/WarOnTerrorism/2003/11/26/269279-cp.html

The federal government has put civil liberties at serious risk by casting a wider net than Britain or the United States in the pursuit of terrorists, warns a former head of Canada's spy agency.

In a bluntly worded critique published Wednesday, Reid Morden argues Canadian anti-terrorism legislation, passed following the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, gives the government "virtually unreviewable" power to label organizations and activities as terrorists.

Morden, a private consultant on security and other public policy issues, served as director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service from 1987 to 1991.

... "It is no secret that the communities most vulnerable to being listed are those which are visibly identifiable as racial, ethnic or political minorities, recently arrived in Canada as immigrants and refugees," Morden writes.

... Morden ... and predicts the anti-terrorism law will be subject to constitutional challenge in the courts.

The provisions for secret evidence, e.g. in immigration cases, are causing problems as well.

Re: the US

http://computers.sympatico.ca/news/wired/stories/0,1856,4,00/0,1572,48120-4,00.html

Because parts of the spy law are so invasive that they arguably violate Americans' privacy rights, opponents of the so-called USA Patriot Act have begun to weigh how to mount a legal challenge.

... "These things are certainly being discussed and assessed," says David Sobel, general counsel for the Electronic Privacy Information Center in Washington, D.C.

But, says Sobel, there's only one problem: An immediate lawsuit asking a federal judge to declare the anti-terrorism act unconstitutional faces an uphill battle.

Any legal challenge would focus on the Constitution's Fourth Amendment, which explicitly forbids "unreasonable searches and seizures" -- while implicitly permitting reasonable ones. Since the anti-terrorism law lets police obtain court approval to sneak into someone's house or office, rummage through the contents and leave without telling the owner, opponents could argue such a search was "unreasonable."

.

[Superfly]

17. The ACLU

(which is particularly silent on the RKBA issue)

Link

"The American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit against the federal government on Wednesday aimed at curbing the vastly expanded spy powers won under the anti-terrorism law passed soon after the Sept. 11 attacks

The suit, filed in federal court in Detroit on behalf of six Arab-American groups, targets a key provision of the USA Patriot Act that gives the FBI more leeway to conduct domestic surveillance."

<snip>

"But at the news conference at the ACLU's headquarters in Detroit, which is home to a large Arab-American community, Oakar said the ``chilling effects of the Patriot Act could happen to anyone'' and warned against the erosion of U.S. civil liberties."

--------

From the article, I cannot determine if this challenge was filed as a result of enforcement of the Patriot Act or as a peremptive measure.

[MrBenchley]

18. Since when, fly?

""The ACLU"
Posted by Superfly
(which is particularly silent on the RKBA issue)"

Hahahahahahaaha...


"We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to maintain militias to assure their own freedom and security against the central government. In today's world, that idea is somewhat anachronistic and in any case would require weapons much more powerful than handguns or hunting rifles. The ACLU therefore believes that the Second Amendment does not confer an unlimited right upon individuals to own guns or other weapons nor does it prohibit reasonable regulation of gun ownership, such as licensing and registration. "

http://archive.aclu.org/library/aaguns.html

[Superfly]

19. When was the last time the ACLU filed a lawsuit on

2 Amendment grounds?

I'll give you a hint. It's less than 1 and more than -1

[MrBenchley]

20. Gee, fly

in case you hadn't noticed, the ACLU doesn't HAVE TO....the courts ALREADY consistently reflect the ACLU's view that the Second Amendment confers a COLLECTIVE right only, just as the ACLU claims. And nobody but the really fetish-mad want to pretend that the AWB is unnconstitutional.

It's the NRA that's making the outrageous and DISHONEST claim that the Second Amendment confers an individual right...but as I've noted time and again, they are utterly unwilling to go to court to back it up, for the excellent reason that they know what utter horseshit the claim is.

[Superfly]

27. Well....for all that griping...

collective this and collective that, and horseshit claim this and horseshit claim that...

There are now 36 states that have conferred the individual right of its' citizens to keep and bear arms.

ANd for your viewing pleasure, here is a map...we'll work on New Jersey soon....

[CO Liberal]

28. As I've Said Before......

...slavery, segregation, and Jim Crow laws were once popular, too. That doesn't make any of them right.

[Superfly]

29. Well...36 states would argue with you

as would their millions of gun owners, now packing to protect themselves.

[CO Liberal]

30. A Truly Scary Thought

Millions of people packing heat ... with at least a few trigger-happy assholes among them.

[Superfly]

31. It's a wonder people even leave their houses, eh?

What, with all these armed asswipe lunatics running about....makes one just want to crawl in a dark hole and pull the world in around, eh?

[CO Liberal]

32. I Thought That Was The Pro-Gunner Position

Crouched in fear behind the front door, loaded gun in hand, waiting for someone to try and break in.

Or at the very least, waiting for a teenager to ring the doorbell and run so he can be shot in the back.......

[RoeBear]

44. I'm a pro-gunner...

...are you implying that I am:
"Crouched in fear behind the front door, loaded gun in hand, waiting for someone to try and break in.
Or at the very least, waiting for a teenager to ring the doorbell and run so he can be shot in the back" ?

[CO Liberal]

46. That's What It's Sounded Like Around Here Lately

I'm not saying EVERY pro-gunner is crouching in fear, but it's safe to assume that some are.

[RoeBear]

48. Care to say...

...which of us 'around here' sounded like we were "crouching in fear" lately?

[iverglas]

52. how about

... somebody might answer your questions just as soon as you answer the ones currently on the floor in this thread.

.

[RoeBear]

62. If it was your message that I'm ignoring it's because...

...when I open a message and it takes up more than my entire monitor I don't read it. Sorry.

[iverglas]

67. who cares whether you read them?

The question is: why do you not respond when you are asked to substantiate the things that YOU have said?

Your criteria for whether or not to read a message are really not of the slightest interest to me.

Your reasons for making statements that you appear not to be able to back up (how do I know whether you can back them up, except by observing whether you back them up, particularly when asked to do so?) aren't even of much interest to me.

Heck, if you'd try
(a) backing up your statements the first time you make them, and/or
(b) not making statements you can't back up (no claim being made that this is what you do),
you might just find a lot less stuff cluttering up your monitor.

.

[RoeBear]

68. Well...

....apparently YOU care. :hi: And you gotta know what a warm feeling that gives me. :pals:

you ask "The question is: why do you not respond when you are asked to substantiate the things that YOU have said?"

I thought I answered that when I said I don't read overly long messages.

[Jackie97]

79. Now that you've read it....

Why didn't you answer it in the very post that you made?

[CO Liberal]

53. They Know Who They Are

I'm not gonna name names.

[RoeBear]

55. But obviously you are implying that ...

...'someone', a pro-gunner who posts here is "Crouched in fear behind the front door, loaded gun in hand, waiting for someone to try and break in.
Or at the very least, waiting for a teenager to ring the doorbell and run so he can be shot in the back......."

I feel that is a pretty serious charge.

[CO Liberal]

56. If You're That Offended, RoeBear...

...be my guest and hit the "Alert" button.

[iverglas]

58. really?

"But obviously you are implying that ...
...'someone', a pro-gunner who posts here is ..."

Are there really no "pro-gunner"s who don't post here?

You might want to reread the message to which you object, and reconsider how "obvious" the inference you have drawn and called an implication actually is.

.

[RoeBear]

60. Surrrrrrre...

...the reference to "They Know Who They Are I'm not gonna name names."
meant what? The people referred to as 'they' would know who they are even though 'they' don't post here?

[RoeBear]

54. linked to wrong message

[Jackie97]

78. Gee, why can't the federal government declare it an individual right?

Thirty-six states have declared it an individual right to carry arms according to this. Why would it have to come down to what individual states say if our federal constitution supposedly acknowledges individual right to own arms?

Answer: The constitution doesn't acknowledge it.

[slackmaster]

33. Would that be the same ACLU that's backing Rush Limbaugh?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=310311

[iverglas]

37. filed away for future contemplation

The challenge might well be as a pre-emptive strike, if the ACLU (and those whose interests it represents) could demonstrate some standing, I suppose.

.

[iverglas]

34. still waaaiiiting ...

I have asked questions.

Would I be correct in assuming that I am included in the class of "every gun control proponent who has ever posted here"?

Would you then be so kind as to cite something I have said that can be reduced to one (or more) of the three statements you apparently wish to put in my mouth?

I have received no answers.

I would hate to think that anyone was all hat and no cattle.

Someone who makes an allegation:

Every gun control proponent who has ever posted here has said something to the effect of "I only want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals" and "I don't want to ban guns I just want to make sure they are only owned by good people" or "The only guns that I want to see banned are assault weapons".

... really oughter be ready and willing to back it up with something.

.

[Superfly]

36. I don't think reply #35

is helping....

Now, you may wonder where we get this perception that gun-controllers are gun banners....

[Damndifino]

38. Who said I intended to "help"?

My intention was to provide an answer to the original post. That, after all, was what we were challenged to do. Furthermore, there are "gun-controllers" and "gun-banners"; two distinct species. I happen to be one of the latter, a type which the thread's author seemed to be implying does not exist.

[iverglas]

39. missing da point / getting it backwards

The allegation made was that *no one* in a particular class had claimed to want to ban handguns -- or rather that *everyone* in that class had made one or more of certain statements, one of which amounted to saying that s/he *did not* want to ban handguns.

... "I don't want to ban guns I just want to make sure they are only owned by good people" or "The only guns that I want to see banned are assault weapons".

The response from me and the author of #35 is that we've never said any such thing. My point stands.

"Now, you may wonder where we get this perception that gun-controllers are gun banners...."

Of course, I may and can still wonder that -- since, although I support the (virtual) bans of certain weapons that are in place in Canada, for instance, I do not have any desire to ban the rest (let alone take any policy position advocating that they be banned).

It is a ... ah ... confusing bit of rhetoric to say that someone is a "gun-banner" when the factual basis of that claim amounts only to the individual's advocacy of banning certain firearms, doncha think? Particularly when s/he is actually opposed to banning others?

As I believe I have noted once before: the sale of cocaine is banned in Canada, but the sale of aspirin is not. Does this mean that Canadians are "prohibited from buying drugs"? ... or that aspirin will be the next thing to go, the ban on cocaine being just a step on the slippery slope toward banning all drugs? or that anyone who advocates banning cocaine may be assumed to be (and can be represented as) wanting to ban aspirin?

If I hate the blues, does that make me a "music-hater"? Even though I am extremely fond of Kurt Weill's oeuvre? Would it be accurate or candid to call me a music-hater based on my distaste for the blues?

No? Then why would be accurate or candid to describe someone who advocated banning handguns a "gun-banner"?

.

[Superfly]

40. Just curious,

but what exactly is your stance on firearms? I'm sure you've said it before, but without going back to look it up, how would you characterize you stance on private ownership of firearms?

[iverglas]

41. context dependent

I have no stance on the private ownership of firearms in the US, in the sense of advocating any particular legislative/regulatory approach. I do deplore the facts and attitudes surrounding firearms in the US to the extent that they impact on Canada and other countries in the world, e.g. the ease with which firearms are smuggled into Canada and used here to cause harm, and the US intransigence on international arms trade issues and the resultant difficulty in reducing the deaths and maimings of children and other civilians caught up in armed conflicts. And of course to the extent that they impact on people in the US, just as I deplore any other injustice there or anywhere else.

In my own context, I'm pretty content with the existing Canadian firearms legislation/regulations. Frankly, it's so much of a non-issue here that I don't bother thinking about it much.

The Canadian rules reflect a number of realities in Canada. One is that the First Nations have certain rights that are protected by the Constitution, treaties and judicial rulings, one of which is the right to hunt for subsistence. First Nations people could simply not have their access to firearms restricted to such an extent as to interfere with the exercise of that right. The existing rules are varied to accommodate them, where they might otherwise infringe the right: for instance, Aboriginal youth may be licensed to possess/use firearms at a younger age than non-Aboriginal youth, I believe.

Another reality that distinguishes Canada from, say, the UK, is that hunting for subsistence, or simply for food (i.e. not just for sport), is still a fairly widespread practice. Rural residents and farmers also need firearms for pest control and protection of livestock and, I suppose occasionally, themselves, from predators. Again, it would be an interference in rights to make that too difficult.

I have no desire to hunt myself, but I'm not too bothered by anyone hunting for food. I regard hunting for sport as pretty distasteful, and I'd be unlikely to be good friends with people who do that -- but that is indeed, in our time and place, a matter of personal taste, and I have no desire to impose my taste on anyone else, at least as long as there is no consensus that hunting for sport is an unacceptably barbaric practice. It is also a fact of our life here that hunting for sport, by tourists, is a crucial part of many local economies, and I'm not really so dim or self-centric as to think that my urban lifestyle could, let alone should, be the model for people in those places, or that my personal or cultural values should necessarily be adopted by them.

Experience makes it very clear that handguns are the weapon of choice for people who (a) want to commit crimes that firearms facilitate (e.g. robbery), and (b) want to pursue and kill someone else. Any legitimate reason that someone might have for wanting a handgun -- which I'm hard pressed to think of -- is plainly outweighed by the risks that such weapons present to society, by virtue in particular of the relative ease with which they can be concealed and used.

"Self-defence" is simply not a recognized legitimate reason for acquiring a firearm in Canada, any more than in the UK. To the extent that it might be a legitimate reason, then again, it is outweighed by society's interest in public safety and the safety of individuals, which justifies restricting access to firearms.

Canadian legislation/regulations do not specifically provide for an inquiry into someone's reasons for wanting a firearm, and I'm really not familiar with what a person applying for a licence would be looking at in terms of satisfying the issuing authority that a licence should be issued. I'm not aware of any flood of complaints about any allegedly improper denials of licences.

I completely support the registration of firearms, as a means of ensuring that if circumstances arise in which an individual should not be in possession of firearms, they can be removed. Too many women in Canada (and too often, their children) have been stalked and killed by partners and former partners using firearms, for instance. Registration is also a deterrent to unlawful transfers, and to unsafe storage leading to theft.

I have personally known, well, two individuals who owned firearms. One was my contractor/tenant/good buddy, who had two, I believe, possibly including a handgun (this was several years ago), for which he had whatever permits he needed. I don't know why he had them, but I suspect it was just one of his "I'm idiosyncratic" whims. I specified in his lease that they not be kept in the apt. he rented from me, and he had no problem with that at all. The other was a love interest in a small town over 25 years ago, who, along with a good chunk of the local legal community, was fond of drinkin' and huntin' on the weekend. (I have no doubt that they have all registered their firearms as the law has since required.) His 13-yr-old son had killed himself with one of the household hunting rifles about 5 years earlier. That incident, and of course my work experience researching homicides in Canada, for instance, and things like the murder of a tourist on the streets of the capital city by a bunch of teenagers who had broken into a private home and stolen the improperly stored firearm there, are among the reasons why I strongly support safe-storage laws, and probably better inspection/enforcement action than actually goes on here.

I find the whole assault-weapon ban business boring. I'm sure that any of those things that are currently banned in the US are banned in Canada, and that's fine with me.

.

[Superfly]

42. Thanks for your reply.

That took a lot of time and thought, and for that I am grateful. I will keep that response in mind when corresponding with you in the future.

Whereas it appears some of your positions on firearms were born out of unfortunate circumstances, the genesis of my stance on guns was fashioned in a similar fashion. I am sure that many people who are very passionate and outspoken on the issue have been negatively affected by the influence of gun violence.

My current position evolved to what it is today after 2 very quick and potentially deadly situations last year. Prior to that, I was a firearms enthusiast to the point of wanting guns for sport and not necessarily protection (I am a big guy and carried other non-lethal means of defense prior to these incidents). I am an avid hunter and marksman (rifle team member eons ago), so the purchase of my firearms was dictated by their application in sport.

After feeling completely victimized by these 2 events, I vowed to never be left underhanded again, so I now carry a firearm whenever practicable. (Try carrying a pistol to the beach...it's fairly conspicuous)

Now, I know you've been victimized yourself in the past, and whatever means you choose to defend yourself from future attacks is your personal choice and completely commendable. I hope that misfortune never finds you, or anybody, ever again.

So, I hope that you and I (at least) can use this discussion as a foundation for future constructive discussions. These constant flamewars, though sometimes fun, can grow tiresome. :-)

[RoeBear]

51. There is something else going on in Canada...

...to account for the lower crime rate, something other than access to handguns.

"Experience makes it very clear that handguns are the weapon of choice for people who (a) want to commit crimes that firearms facilitate (e.g. robbery), and (b) want to pursue and kill someone else. Any legitimate reason that someone might have for wanting a handgun -- which I'm hard pressed to think of -- is plainly outweighed by the risks that such weapons present to society, by virtue in particular of the relative ease with which they can be concealed and used."

If I was so inclined as to begin a life of crime and couldn't get a pistol; it would certainly be easy enough to make a sawed off little 410 semi-auto shotgun. I would then have as concealable and deadly a weapon as any pistol. Obviously Canadians have access to hack saws and 410 shotguns, too. There just is something else going on 'up' there.

[iverglas]

59. and just who the heck ...

said there wasn't?

You will recall that I deplored attitudes in the US regarding firearms -- just for starters.

.

[RoeBear]

61. So what is the point of banning...

...handguns in the USA? If attitudes can't be changed here then there will just be a substitution of weapons.

[iverglas]

63. excuse me

"If attitudes can't be changed here then there will just be a substitution of weapons."

And once again, we have ... drumroll ... assuming facts not in evidence.

Wherever did you get the idea that I had said "attitudes can't be changed <in the US>"?

If *I* didn't say that -- which I most certainly didn't -- why would you ask *me* a question ("So what is the point of banning handguns in the USA?") premised on the assertion that "attitudes can't be changed <in the US>"?

Quite apart from whether *I* said it, does it make any sense to say that "attitudes can't be changed <in the US>"? Not that I can see.

Is whether attitudes can be changed (i.e. in such a way as to make the law unnecessary) usually regarded as a good reason not to make a law? Not that I'm aware of.

Some people's attitudes toward people of different religions, races, ethnicities, sex, sexual orientation ... you name it ... undoubtedly can't ever be changed. Would that mean that there should be no laws to prohibit them from discriminating against such other people? Quite the opposite, I'd think.

If people's actions, whether or not those actions are expressive of or determined by an "attitude", are contrary to an important public interest, it's not uncommon for laws to be made prohibiting those actions.

By the way, I'd think you might have noticed that I referred to attitudes regarding firearms (I've said it twice before, already, in this sub-thread), NOT attitudes surrounding handguns. Given that fact, I can't even figure out what your post has to do with anything I've said.


"If attitudes can't be changed here then there will just be a substitution of weapons."

Y'know, I do think that if anybody had any proof of that assertion, it would have been published somewhere by now.


Things hereabouts might be a lot more pleasant, and more coherent, overall, if you'd stick to the facts in evidence when you make assertions, whether about stuff in general or individuals in particular.

.

[RoeBear]

72. Enlighten me...

...which would be a higher priority. Addressing the reasons people commit crimes or eliminating a particular class of guns.

For instance, I am now overlord of the continent.

I can stop drugs from getting onto our soil or ban handguns.
Which would be more effective at lessening crime?

I can eliminate poverty or ban handguns.
Which would be more effective at lessening crime?

[iverglas]

75. let's try this one

You are now overlord of the continent. (Any chance you might settle for your own portion of the continent -- i.e. *your* "soil"?)

You can stop drugs from getting onto your soil, or eliminate poverty.
Which would be more effective at lessening crime?

Remember ... you only get one.

Not sure why that is ... after all, you're the overlord ... but that seems to be *your* premise, so we'll go with it, 'k?

.

[RoeBear]

77. Because I'm only partially...

...omnipotent. :toast:

Edited to change: impotent to omnipotent

[iverglas]

64. ^^^ this message here

I don't know how big your monitor is, but I doubt that the message takes up more than it.

Just in case, here ya go again ... for the fourth time:

Would I be correct in assuming that I am included in
the class of "every gun control proponent who has ever
posted here"?

Would you then be so kind as to cite something I have said
that can be reduced to one (or more) of the three statements
you apparently wish to put in my mouth?

(edited to get the ^^^ in the header pointing a little more obviously at the post in question ... the one this one is in reply to)

.

[RoeBear]

73. What part of my statement...

...offended you?

[iverglas]

76. I give up

Why would you ask what part of your statement offended me?

Why don't you just answer the questions?

That would sure make for having to read a whole lot less stuff, I'd think ...

.

[Damndifino]

35. Put me down for one of those too

Original Post: "Banning handguns is something every gun control proponent here has said they would not do."

I haven't. It is exactly what I would do. Pump-action shotguns and self-loading firearms of any description can go in the crusher for me, too. But then I'm British, so perhaps have a skewed perspective.

[liberalhistorian]

22. I agree, that's as stupid and

unfair as the town in Utah that passed an ordinance saying each household MUST own at least one gun.

Of course, my gun position has changed a lot since my robbery experience in August, while I'm not yet ready to be a total all-guns-all-the-time advocate, I'm no longer a staunch Brady Group, Million Mom gun-control advocate, either, and probably never will be again.

I never thought I'd see the day when I'd actually be considering firearms training and purchasing one for myself, but there's nothing like feeling the cold barrel of a gun pressed into your ribs and neck and feeling the total helplessness and powerlessness caused by the knowledge that that person had total control over your life at that moment and you had NOTHING to change your perspective.

[RoeBear]

80. Well I got EXACTLY what I expected...

...not a single gun control proponent could come forward and say they were against a town banning an entire class of guns. (from regular posters in the Gun Dungeon, kudos to you DBoon, stick around and become a regular)

After all the talk of "I only want to keep them out of criminals hands" and "I'm not a gun banner" I thought maybe one of you might see the inconsitency of this town in Illinois.

So is anyone willing to take the next step? If banning handguns in Wilmette is ok how about banning them across the USA?

[CO Liberal]

81. Let's Look At This Another Way, RoeBear

Since handguns are the preferred weapon of choice for burglars, murderers, and assorted bad guys, why don't YOU justify NOT either banning them or controlling their distribution?

[Superfly]

82. Because...

burglars, murderers, and assorted bad guys could not give one shit for bans and gun control!

[CO Liberal]

84. But If You Control The Supply.....

...you make it harder for the bad guys to get them.

[Superfly]

85. No, you do not make it harder...

they just find weapons in other places (as they do now), including stealing from the police.

[Romulus]

86. au contraire, mon frere

I agree with CO on this one.

If the legal pipeline is controlled, the only avenue is the criminal pipeline, which is largely made up of firearms diverted from the legal pipeline. By tightening the legal pipieline controls, you can restrict the amount of diversion going to the criminal pipeline. That makes it harder to acquire criminal pipeline firearms because the supply is restricted. A similar phenomena can be seen in the MD legal firearms market - everything is so ^%@# expensive here because of all the firearms laws that have reduced the supply. I can still purchase firearms, just at a greater cost. The higher cost also prohibits others from acquiring them for the same reason - they are priced out of the market.

Sure, there will still be a criminal pipeline, but the key here is to shrink that diversion as much as possible, therefore restricting the criminal supply, without turning the legal pipeline into a mere figment. Finding the balance is the key.

[Superfly]

88. I'm going to have to disagree with you on that...

The shortage in the supply of firearms in MD is an illusion only visible to the law-abiding who would purchase a firearm through legal channels.

The criminal element takes advantage of non-legal means of acquiring firearms before legal means. That includes executing straw purchases through neighboring states, theft, and black market private sales. The majority of guns used in crimes are old, beat up things that have been handed down from thug to thug. I guess you can argue that eventually, those firearms will disappear through use or confiscation, but that will not happen for many decades to come.

Balance is not the key. The key is finding a solution where citizens like you or I have every choice in finding the firearms we deem necessary for our individual defense while keeping the same from criminals.

[iverglas]

91. absolutely

Allow me to say: "ditto", pretty much completely.

The validity of the assertion is evident in many other countries, including Canada, where handguns are (effectively) banned. Handguns used in crimes in Canada -- handguns account for a much lower percentage of firearms used in crimes than in the US -- are virtually entirely illegal -- either never registered in Canada (i.e. smuggled into the country) or in the possession of someone other than their registered owner (i.e., usually, stolen from the legal owner).

It is undeniably a whole lot harder to obtain a firearm (or anything else) by smuggling it into the country or stealing it from a legal owner than to obtain it by purchasing it (or having someone purchase it, etc.). It is also a whole lot harder to steal something from a legal owner when there are very few of the thing in the hands of legal owners, and very few legal owners.


"Sure, there will still be a criminal pipeline, but the key here is to shrink that diversion as much as possible, therefore restricting the criminal supply, without turning the legal pipeline into a mere figment. Finding the balance is the key."

The decision in Canada is to turn the legal pipeline into what you would probably call "a mere figment". That, as you point out, is a policy decision separate from the facts of the matter.

The policy decision needs to be based on real facts, and identifying those facts, so as to have some common ground in terms of the subject of the discussion and the likely effect of various possible policies, is "the key" to any useful discussion of those policies.

.

[Romulus]

95. sort of

The validity of the assertion is evident in many other countries, including Canada, where handguns are (effectively) banned.

I don't think so. From what I've seen on the CAN firearms licensing page, certain-sized handguns were banned from new sales, but others aren't. All you need to do is pass the basic licensing requirements and be a member of a shooting range, and you get a handgun license. So there are still handguns around and available.

The decision in Canada is to turn the legal pipeline into what you would probably call "a mere figment".

I don't think so, again. At least in Bowling for Columbine, CANs in that movie said they had no problem legally purchasing Glock handguns, etc. So firearms are still available.

Minor points. But they raise the issue of why CAN still has a low homicide rate while maintaining handgun availability.

[liberalhistorian]

87. The bad guys

will ALWAYS ALWAYS find ways to get guns, whatever guns they want, whenever they want. ALWAYS. They don't give a flying fuck about laws or bans or regulations or whatever, so why SHOULDN'T law-abiding citizens have reasonable access to firearms (and before I get flamed, notice I said REASONABLE access)!

It took me being robbed at gunpoint and having nothing at all to defend myself with to finally realize that, even though I'd pretty much known it before.

[Superfly]

89. And reasonable access

to me, means affording citizens like you and me the option of finding and purchasing guns as good or better than the criminal element.

[iverglas]

92. assertions

Any substantiation for them?

The bad guys
will ALWAYS ALWAYS find ways to get guns, whatever guns they want, whenever they want. ALWAYS.

Sez you, is about all that needs to be said to that.

You've made an assertion without anything at all to back it up. Your assertion does not take into account, or respond to, anything that was said about the effects, in reality, of restricting the number of handguns (for example) in circulation, just for starters.

A lucid explanation was given of how and why restricting legal access to handguns could be expected to reduce the number of handguns in the possession of people not legally permitted to have them / people who intend to use them for criminal purposes.

All you've said in reply is "is not!"


They don't give a flying fuck about laws or bans or regulations or whatever, ...

And the post to which you responded didn't say a flying thing about whether the "bad guys" care, or should care, or could be made to care, about any of that. Your statement is completely irrelevant to the points that were made in the post you were responding to.

"Bad guys" also don't give a flying fuck about parking bylaws and no-parking signs. But if concrete barriers are placed where they want to park, they won't be able to park illegally whether they want to or not, and regardless of how flightless the fuck they give about the rules.

"Bad guys" don't give a flying fuck about the law that says "thou shalt not steal cars". But if we all park our cars in a locked garage, remove the key from the ignition, and put one of those bar thingies on the steering wheel, the bad guys won't be able to steal very many of our cars, regardless of how much they want to and how little they care about our rules.

(And heck, if very few of us had cars, and all those cars were locked up and sealed tight, they'd be able to steal even fewer of them, that's true indeed.)


It took me being robbed at gunpoint and having nothing at all to defend myself with to finally realize that, even though I'd pretty much known it before.

And I have yet to figure out, despite this mantra about how one is never going to feel powerless again, exactly how your having a firearm would have prevented what happened to you.

If I may venture a guess, the bad guy in question wouldn't have given a flying fuck whether you had a firearm or not, because he drew his first. It seems that your assertion works better against your own argument than for it.

.

[RoeBear]

83. Justify?....Ok...

...Bad guys will get guns anyways. Remember my comment about sawed off shotguns? If you were able to successfully ban handguns the criminals would substitute a different type of weapon.

You'd ban shotguns next?

What happened to "I have no problem with honest citizens owning guns?"

[CO Liberal]

93. In a Nutshell....

I have no problem with honest citizens owning guns. But if banning or restricting the distribution of one class of guns (such as handguns) reduces the supply of guns to the bad guys whil still allowing honest citizens to have access to other types of firearms (such as rifles or shotguns), this is an avenue that needs to be explored.

[iverglas]

90. and what EXACTLY would you have expected

... if you had asked us all "HAVE YOU STOPPED BEATING YOUR DOG?"

Because that is EXACTLY what you asked us.

You set up a loaded question -- a question loaded with FALSE PREMISES, at least in regard to me. (I'll speak only for me.)

I have NEVER beat my dog, so HOW could I possibly answer the question "have you stopped beating your dog?"? The question is not directed to me, because it can only be directed to a person who has beat her dog, and I am not such a person.

I have never said ANY of the things you attributed to EVERY MEMBER of the class of gun-control advocates in this forum.

Therefore your questions were not directed to me, because they were directed to people who had said the things you "quoted", and I AM NOT ONE OF THEM.

NONETHELESS, even if someone HAD said one or more of the things you "quoted", it is not at all inconceivable that s/he would still not "be against" the adoption of the measure you referred to by the municipality in question, since while S/HE might not advocate that measure, s/he might perfectly well recognize that it is a measure that a city/state/nation could properly adopt (i.e. if the measure complied with the applicable rules and were democratically chosen).


After all the talk of "I only want to keep them out of criminals hands" and "I'm not a gun banner" I thought maybe one of you might see the inconsitency of this town in Illinois.

DESPITE all your talk about what other people allegedly said and what it purportedly means, YOU have not succeeded in demonstrating any inconsistency at all. Frankly, I haven't even noticed you TRYING to do that.


So is anyone willing to take the next step? If banning handguns in Wilmette is ok how about banning them across the USA?

Not me. I take no position on public policy issues in the US.

Handguns are effectively banned in Canada, and I'm very cool with that. And I NEVER SAID I WASN'T, and in fact I have repeatedly said I am, and I STILL DO NOT PROPOSE TO BAN ALL FIREARMS, or any that are not already banned, in Canada.

.

[CO Liberal]

94. Pro-Gunners Often Accuse Us Of Dealing With Emotions....

...when it comes to guns. But I believe some pro-gunners also deal with emotions when they imply that everyone who favors reasonable gun control is actually a "gun-grabber", out to take away all their guns.

(Edited on second thought to remove a few words that some might have taken offense with.)

[davidinalameda]

96. locking thread

getting unwieldy

do you expect me to come up with something original each time?

:bounce: