Quick show of hands: Is there anyone in this (guns) forum that believes...

[Shagbark Hickory]

Guns should either be banned or be strongly regulated?

In the past, I never get any backup in here and I see only pro gun topics.
I don't want to be a troll in here obviously so if there are like-minded people in here, please don't be afraid to chime in.
If not, I will stick with the other forums.

[slackmaster]

1. I regard the current level of regulation at the federal level as appropriate

The National Instant Check System could use some improvements in data integrity and currency, but most of the problems with those are the fault of states that are not doing a good job of providing data about prohibited people.

[dddem]

5. I'm no expert.

I don't own guns, I don't like guns, but I support the rights of Americans to responsibly own guns for hunting or protection. I live in Massachusetts, which, from what I understand, has some of the strictest gun laws in the country. I'm about 20 minutes from the New Hampshire border, where, I'm told, it's quite easy to drive there and purchase a weapon from a gun show or the like, with very little restrictions. So my qustion is, what's the point of living in a state with strict laws, when it's so easy to purchase weapons 20 minutes away. Not to mention the internet.
I guess I'm confused about why responsible gun owners would have such an issue with stricter federal gun laws. It seems to me that you all would benefit as well, because you would be bolstering your argument about responsible gun ownership.
I'm really not trying to incite an argument, I'm truly trying to understand the thinking, because as I've stated, I'm personally against owning a weapon, so I have no interest personally in how easy or difficult purchasing a weapon may or may not be.
Thanks for educating me!
Peace.

[slackmaster]

8. I can't address the issue of "stricter federal gun laws" without specifics

:hi:

[dddem]

10. Again, I'm no expert,

but to me it makes sense to have laws and regulations that apply no matter what part of the country you are in. I realize I'm implying that we should have Federal Regulations, and I realize that many people have the "live free or die" attitude, but let's say, just for the sake of argument, that each state enacts laws that are the same as the other states, then we could all get along, couldn't we?
Yes, I'm aware tht I'm naive and simplistic, but I really don't think it should be so hard.
A girl can dream!
Peace.

[slackmaster]

13. States can enact laws that are more restrictive than federal laws, but political reality says...

...Restrictions on the ownership and use of firearms are no-go in many states. A law that might pass in Massachusetts would probably go over like a lead balloon in Montana.

[SteveM]

16. Actually, a federal law was proposed to make concealed-carry...

laws recognizable in and between all the states which have them. This would be a great relief to those who carry, and travel between states/localities. But it puts that power into the hands of the feds, just like federal gun-control legislation would do so. Preferable would be a compact between various states.

[Flyboy_451]

28. i will try to respond to both of your posts...

,Most gun owners are in favor of some regulation. I know this is contrary to everything you hear in mass media, but consider that mass media has a habbit of being less than honest with regard to the firearms issue. Your example of traveling 20 min. To New Hampshire is a good example. While it may be possible to acquire a gun in NH, if it is a handgun, it is also illegal. A handgun can only legally be transferred across state lines by a licensed dealer. Long guns are a different story. They may be sold to individuals across state lines, unless this contradicts state law. Either way, laws are in place at the federal level. A possible solution is to require a background check for all sales, including those of one individual to another.

It now becomes an issue of enforcement. I know of no way to aggressively enforce this type of law other than maintaining a registry of firearms. This will get little, if any, traction with guns owners. And it is hard to fault them for this. You will hear it spouted that the government won't come for your guns, or many other similar statements, but the truth is that it has already happened in places such as Ca. And new orleans following Katrina.

While many gun owners may support a mandatory background check (some would even welcome it because it gives us another tool to insure that a potential buyer can legally posess guns) it would be have to be structured so that we as individuals had access to the NICS system without having to go through a dealer and thus be charged for the service of having a gun transfered.

The problem is not that we are opposed to regulation. The problem is that we think regulation should truly serve a purpose other than making someone "feel good", while also insuring continued freedom from government harassment. We have a pretty good system in place. It could use improvement, but any changes need to be of real benefit, not what has been proposed in recent years.

Jw

[Glassunion]

36. Very well put.

[benEzra]

22. It's actually a Federal felony for a Massachusetts resident to go buy a gun in NH or another state,

so anyone who does so is committing a crime. All sales by a gun dealer (even at a gun show) require ID and a Federal background check, so a Massachusetts resident could only get a gun from NH on the black market or via an illegal private sale (illegal because of the prohibition on interstate sales). All interstate gun sales must go through a Federally licensed dealer, must involve tracing and identity paperwork (BATFE Form 4473), and must involve a background check.

We actually have quite a bit of Federal gun regulation on the books (tight controls on automatic weapons and over-.51 caliber guns, a pretty broad armor-piercing ammo ban, prohibition on possession by criminals or the mentally incompetent, background checks, tracing requirements, etc.) and most of it reflects a pretty broad consensus. The problem I have with most new proposals is that they tend to be aimed primarily at reducing/harassing lawful ownership (most notably the "assault weapon" fraud) rather than narrowly addressing criminal access/misuse, although there are exceptions such as the NICS improvement act passed a couple of years ago.

[Euromutt]

26. A couple of your concerns are already illegal

Under the Gun Control Act of 1968, it's illegal to sell firearms across state lines without going through a Federal Firearms Licensee (FFL, in other words, a "licensed gun dealer"). Thus, you can drive to New Hampshire and visit a gun show, but it would be quite illegal for you to purchase a firearm, or for anyone to sell one to you, since you're not a resident of New Hampshire.

The Gun Control Act also outlawed sales of firearm by mail order, and that applies to internet sales as well. You can visit a firearm distributor's website and order a gun, yes, but the gun cannot legally be shipped directly to you. It has to be shipped to an FFL in your state, who has to check your ID, have you fill out an ATF form 4473, and contact NICS to run a background check.

So if your question "why aren't these things illegal?" the answer is "they have been for over forty years."

[dddem]

34. One of the reasons I come to this site.

Here we have several posters who disagree with my position, and yet, all of the responses to my question (which I'm sure you all have heard again and again) were respectful, helpful and thoughtful.
Thank you all. I love being a Democrat.
Peace.

[RSillsbee]

39. why responsible gun owners would have such an issue with stricter federal gun laws.

Because they have been shown time and again to have no effect on anyone but those inclined to obey the law.

Thomas Jefferson knew that 200 years ago

“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” (Quoting Cesare Beccaria)

Cesare Beccaria Knew it before that

The laws of this nature are those which forbid to wear arms, disarming those only who are not disposed to commit the crime which the laws mean to prevent. Can it be supposed, that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, and the most important of the code, will respect the less considerable and arbitrary injunctions, the violation of which is so easy, and of so little comparative importance? Does not the execution of this law deprive the subject of that personal liberty, so dear to mankind and to the wise legislator? and does it not subject the innocent to all the disagreeable circumstances that should only fall on the guilty? It certainly makes the situation of the assaulted worse, and of the assailants better, and rather encourages than prevents murder, as it requires less courage to attack unarmed than armed persons.

[one-eyed fat man]

40. Crossing the state line to buy a handgun is a felony.

Under Federal law, as a Massachusetts resident, the only legal way for you to buy a gun in New Hampshire is to have a licensed FFL dealer there transfer the gun to a licensed dealer in Massachusetts, where you undergo the the NICS check and upon passing and complying with all state and local requirements, take possession.

Since it is Massachusetts, the gun has to also be one that is permitted under state law and you have to comply with all the local laws at the time of purchase.

The same procedures apply to internet sales. Even from private individuals. If you wanted to buy a gun, legally from a private individual in another state, Federal law requires the gun to be shipped to a an FFL licensed dealer in Massachusetts. State laws might impose further restrictions on both ends, but as a minimum you must comply with Federal, Massachusetts and what ever local laws there are for you to do it legally.

But if you don't care about the laws, ask the guy you buy your dope from how to get one.

[Old and In the Way]

2. Handguns are the great equalizer.

1 bullet offsets the results of wrongly settled elections. If we have enough people employing their 2nd Amendment rights against democrats going forward, we'll do away with that pesky democracy thing. Of course, when that happens, the Constitution (and that beloved 2nd Amendment) won't really mean much, will it?

[SteveM]

17. A little over the top, wouldn't you say?

Actually, if enough people shot at Democrats, the latter would most likely fire back, or obtain something to fire back pretty quickly. BTW, shooting at others (Democrats, or whoever) is not "employing...2nd Amendment rights," but you knew that).

[Old and In the Way]

29. Sorry, I meant 2nd Amendment remedies.

Apparently it is according to Sharon Engle. Who am I to question a Republican that values bullets as a way to correct ballot errors?

And, no, I think if enough people shot at Democrats, people would stop running as Democrats. Democrats may aspire to public service, but how many Democrats have to die before that ideal becomes a act of martyrdom? If a mainstream, Bluedog conservative Democrat like Gabrielle Giffords can take a bullet in the brain by yet another maladjusted, loner with fantasies of ridding our government of these "socialists, commies, traitors, or ____(fill in the blank)___", it can happen anywhere. And when the opposition Party is using eliminationist language to 'fire up" the base and intimidate the opposition, that's a recipe for more incidents in the future.

BTW, my wife ran for state rep where I live here in Maine a few years ago....she got 3 threats made against her. She almost dropped out because of that. You can argue for your gun rights all you want, but if we lose our Democracy because of handguns...that's a pretty sad trade-off, IMHO.

[SteveM]

32. I see some of your points, but you pose a poor trade-off...

We are not going to lose our Democracy because of handguns, and in any case there is no law which will curtail the possession of handguns; surely, you would agree with this. So, the trade-off is false.

We CAN lose our democracy because the far right is far better at gaining political power, especially when the Democratic Party wants nothing to do with anything resembling the "Left" (whatever that is), and rushes about appeasing the right at every opportunity, calling it "reaching across the aisle." Them boys on the right don't compromise, they have contempt for compromise and see it as a sign of weakness. They play the bully because it works when no one is fighting back, and a political party can't fight back when it is bereft of clear, concise policy and, yes, ideology. The public may not like the talk about "left-right," but they won't support a party which has a murky image of what it wants to do and what it stands for. The sad thing about all this is the extreme Right is not that big, but then how many people does it take to run a room of 100? 50? 25? 15? How low can the Democrats go by giving in and running from the Far Right's labels.

THIS is the real problem with the frankly unpolarized politics in this country. Polarization requires 2 or more poles, but there is but one: the Right. In this light, a relatively small bunch of punks waving handguns is a trivial matter.

People may very well "stop running as Democrats" if what they see is only what the Right says about them. Maybe it's time to look at the big picture and see that what this country needs a second opposition party, not a whimpering victim which whets the Right's appetite for more.

BTW, I say to those on the right (and I have done this) that I have plenty of guns, and am not in the least worried about gas-passing from the wrong end.

[eqfan592]

23. That's a very myopic way of looking at things. (nt)

[benEzra]

24. Is *that* why 50 million people own them? Hmmm, silly me.

I thought my wife and I owned them for self-defense, target shooting, and competition. Or maybe ours are just defective. :eyes:

Seriously, given 40 or 50 million handgun owners and the extreme rarity of political assassinations (particularly with handguns), I think your scenario falls squarely into the category of hyperbole.

[Old and In the Way]

31. That means 250-275 MM people in the US don't, right?

I'm sure we'll have this same argument again and again and again. If you should lose your representative to a handgun, maybe you'll feel different. Or maybe not. Maybe you won't care when you can vote for anyone on the ballot - but the only name has an (R) after it. Maybe this will be the only incidence we'll see...or maybe they'll be a lot more acts of violence directed at Democrats as non-Democrats use their 2nd Amendment remedies. Time will tell.

[benEzra]

33. Roughly half of gun owners are Dems and indies. Stereotyping us doesn't help your side. (n/t)

[Crunchy Frog]

3. I occasionally post here and I DO think that they should be better regulated.

I may be considered a troll here too, though, but I don't think there's anything specifying what your position has to be in order to post on this forum.

[bluerum]

4. Regulation is a must.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

6. There are thousands of gun laws on the books... what we need is adequete enforcement.

Criminals don't care about the laws they are ALREADY breaking. New laws won't change anything. And simply banning an item, of which already has 300,000,000 units in public circulation, is really not a logical or effective solution. I think STRICT regulation of gun laws and increasing sentancing for gun-crime convictions is a MUST. We need to crack down on criminals with guns.

For what it's worth, there are more than a few pro-regulation gungeoneers.

[CTyankee]

14. "criminals with guns" is great. Looks like Loughner wasn't a "criminal" in the eyes of the law, tho.

Sweet talk but look what happened. I know from first hand experience about "law abiding" gun owners who weren't criminal until they committed their first act of murder...

[SteveM]

18. Most people who commit murders have a long list of violent felonies...

If you find a criminal record on Loughner, or record of adjudicated mental incompetence, then the store which sold the gun would be in trouble. Otherwise, take your shots at the 5th Amendment or propose its repeal.

[Pancho Sanza]

20. All criminals were "law-abiding citizens" until they weren't...

Somebody will eventually invent a test that everyone will be forced to take at ...maybe age 5?...that will let us know he or she needs to be institutionalized because of the probability (at first, then later on "possibility") of future sociopathic behavior. Then we will have REAL Utopia!

[CTyankee]

38. Well, in my family's experience, it was the easy availability of the gun

and heavy drinking on the part of the heretofore non-criminal shooter that combined lethally. "Who knew?"

Without the gun, the shooter would not have been able to kill and wound as he did (and turn the gun on himself in suicide).

Years earlier, my family's neighbor in a nice area of Dallas, pulled her gun out of the glove compartment of her car and shot her unfaithful husband dead in the driveway. She had a bit of a temper...

In both instances, guns were kept for "protection."

Both murders occurred in Dallas. I no longer live in Dallas.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

42. "Without the gun"...

Thats' the problem (for two reasons):

1) The gun is a tool of the offender. The ill will, rationale, or lunacy of the holder is the ROOT cause of the crime. Getting rid of violent crime is much more difficult than getting rid of "gun crime". Look at Countries like UK that attempt to get rid of "gun crime" yet violent crime remains undeterred. They're even talking about banning pocketknives & pointy kitchen knives. Criminals will be resourceful and banning guns will not deter them or lower violent crime rates. I believe the means of the violent crime are insigificant to the fact that violent crime is actually ocurring. It's like playing the "Would You Rather..." game with society - it's a zero sum game that does nothing but waste resources and freedoms.

2) "Without the gun"... in and of itself that sentiment is logisticly unattainable for 2 reasons: existing supply, public knowlege of the technology. There's too many existing guns (which will be functional for 100+ years) and there's too much knowlege about how to manufacture proper or improvised arms to keep guns from being available (even if illegally available). You share a motive and I ask you to consider the means. It's just not possible. No matter how many laws we write there is no way to keep desirable items from circulation (guns, drugs, etc...).

[CTyankee]

44. Well, I am not simpleminded. I've put a great deal of thought into these murders.

In the earlier case, there might have been another means of disposing of the errant husband and another opportunity. But the gun made it so easy to do and get it over with quickly. The lady had a pretty famous trial in Dallas, had a high priced lawyer, got convicted but spent her term in the prison hospital due to a "heart condition." She was later pardoned by the departing governor. Allen Shivers (in whose campaign she had previously been a high dollar donor).

In the more recent incident, I am convinced my neice could have overcome or eluded her killer had he not had a gun (always kept loaded in night table drawer) but, say, a knife. She was 24, healthy and strong. He was 70 and highly intoxicated. Her mother, also wounded but survived, was only in her 40s and strong. The grandmother, also wounded but survived to die of her terminal cancer two weeks later, would probably have been shielded by the other two women. He could only attempt to stab one victim at a time...easier and faster to get off gun shots. There is no way that the young woman's mother, seeing her daughter attacked by a man with a knife, would not pick up a heavy object and hit him with it...

But you do have a point in one respect: we cannot reduce gun violence until we change the American mindset with regard to our society and the cost/benefit of our so-called gun rights. I don't know if you have ever travelled outside of the U.S. but you might want to spend some time wandering around western Europe and get a feel for the mindset in other constitutional democracies. Why do they not have the gun problems we have?

[benEzra]

27. He had made several death threats prior, but was never charged, it seems.

There are laws in place by which he could have been declared mentally incompetent, if the prior crimes had been taken seriously and followed up on, and that declaration would have barred him from legally purchasing a gun, though he might have still gotten one. As with Patrick Purdy in 1989, though, the prior crimes were ignored. I don't have all the info, so maybe that decision was reasonable and maybe it wasn't, but this wasn't a failure of law so much as it was a failure to apply the law, if you want to look at it that way. The relevant laws have been on the books for over 40 years.

[DCKit]

15. +1

No matter the topic, the reaction is to always pile more laws on top of existing law which would be more than adequate to address the situation IF THOSE LAWS WERE ENFORCED to begin with.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

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

[SteveM]

19. I'm old too, and I think you are cellulose as well! so there. nt

[Kali]

9. I don't think banning works for much of anything. (although I would be open to

banning talk radio and most all tee vee ;-) )

I think enforcement of existing laws/regulations would be a good start then we could think about if more laws are needed.

I also think taking mental health and the treatment of sick people in this country more seriously would help, not just in terms of potential violence but also in creating healthier humans and communities.

oh and I'm not a usual poster in this forum but sometimes posts catch my eye from the latest page.

[JohnnyRingo]

11. I own guns, and always have

I believe in the NRA's stated policy of "prevent guns from the hands of criminals, not the law abiding".
Unfortunately, when common sense regulation comes up, it's clumped in with "gun grabbing". A little consistancy would be productive.

[SteveM]

21. Merely calling something "common sense" doesn't cut it...

Any proposed controls and regulations should affect a societal problem. Law passing is not for "feeling good," or the exercise of "righteous indignation," or for gaining satisfaction that you have scored points in a culture war. I have seen very few so-called gun-control laws which really address societal problems. That is because the purpose behind the laws is other than solving social problems. It should be noted that violent crime rates have been going down for some 15 years, even as the number of firearms in civilian hands has gone up by over 100,000,000. Keep in mind that "moral panics" often degenerate into prohibitionism and culture war.

You can expect hard, "consistent" criticism when the same proposals are broached using the same data or "reasoning."

[madrchsod]

12. guns regulated? yes and no...

certain types or models need to be regulated and tracked.other guns need not be regulated or tracked.

what needs to be done is tighter background checks and tighter controls on gun shows.

when i moved into town i gave my guns to a friend who hunts.

[SteveM]

25. Please identify those "...models [which] need to be regulated..."

What do you propose with regards "tighter" BG checks? As for gun shows, the NICS test is only for Federal Firearms Licensees; in other words an individual non-dealer who wishes to sell a gun who wants to use the NICS CANNOT use it. Dealers at gun shows must (and do) run the NICS test right on the spot; individuals who sell guns do not. If you have a proposal whereby individuals would fall under the NICS requirements, then make it. This has been a subject of debate among pro-2A folks here for some time. BTW, less than 20% of gun owners DO NOT hunt.

[AtheistCrusader]

30. Depends on your definition of 'strong' regulation.

Banned, no.

One legislators 'evil saturday night special' is a poor mans only access to self defense in a 25+ minute wait for the police to arrive world.

[LemmingWarrior]

35. I'd like to see guns highly regulated

But that will never happen because the lobbyists are too strong. Maybe we need to see a few more on-the-street-in-your-face-shootings before America has had enough. How much is too much or not enough, we'll see.

[X_Digger]

37. Considering the fact that crime is at a 20 year low.. good luck with that. n/t

[jeepnstein]

41. I see a problem...

with mentally ill individuals being able to pass a NICS check and buy arms. What's the answer? Darned if I know. I'm pretty sure stripping lawful citizens of their rights won't fix it. If you look at these mass shootings the common denominator seems to be mental illness left untreated. Dealing with that won't further the cause that some statists truly desire.

I think it's pretty safe to assume that neither of us are going to go out and shoot someone to make a statement. I'll go so far as to say that the overwhelming bulk of citizens in the U.S. can be regarded as quite trustworthy with their arms. Of course right now the reactionaries are out in force telling us all about how each and every lawful gun owner is a massacre waiting to happen, and for some reason they own the airwaves.

I wouldn't mind seeing the 1986 law that closed the NFA registry repealed. Instead of a tax payment I would prefer that the applicant for a transfer provide proof of training on that specific weapon platform, much in the way a police officer qualifies on a weapon before using it on duty. Even having semi-annual re qualifications on the specific NFA item wouldn't bother me in the least. As long as ownership of the arms are not prohibited I would tend to believe this would be a better system than someone just buying the weapon and squirreling it away out of sight and out of mind.

As far as non NFA arms go I think we have a pretty good system right now. What needs to be done is some kind of safeguard that would allow a mental health care provider to flag an individual under NICS. That wouldn't eliminate the mentally ill from acquiring arms but it would put a dent in it. Also, I firmly believe that a person who cannot pass a NICS check should be charged with a felony if found in possession of a firearm.

Any firearm used by a police department should be available to citizens living in that jurisdiction. And it should be available in exactly the same configuration as issued by the police.

[Shagbark Hickory]

43. OK so I count 1, maybe 2.

Thanks for playing.

[ileus]

45. plenty of regulations already in place.