Emotional about gun control? Please read

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
So if they are suicides, then they shouldn't be counted as family members killed?

[/ QUOTE ]

Depends on what you mean. They certainly shouldn't be counted as evidence that guns are "more dangerous to family"
since people who want to kill themselves aren't going to be deterred by the lack of a gun. Since the statistic is used to show that guns are "more dangerous to family", including this information makes it a bad statistic.

[Koss]

[ QUOTE ]

They're *correctly* including things like the Holocaust and the slaughters by Stalin where gun control prevented the population from defending themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

Implying that 56 million deaths would have been prevented if those people would have had unrestricted access to buy guns is quite the stretch.

I'm sure this article makes some good points about how our current gun control legislation does little to prevent crime, and how legal gun owners are not part of the problem, but I can't get past all the facts this article points out that in no way relate to the point they are trying to get across.

I have some serious questions about gun control, because it's a debate I don't really understand. Everyone I talk to who is anti gun control seems to equate gun control with "ban all guns." I never saw it that way, and I don't know why some do. Can someone explain this to me. Let's say I'm a 23 year old who wants to buy a hand gun to protect his family. I could easily pass a criminal background check and a drug test. I walk into a gun shop and want to buy a hand gun, lets say a 9mm. What resistance am I likely to encounter? I kind of figured pending a background check and a 5 day waiting period I'd get my gun(s). Now, what I can't figure out is why gun activists would have a serious problem with this. My ability to buy a gun was not really impeded upon. The fact that there are more guns than cars in this Country is telling me that they are not that hard to get. Also, why would gun activists be against a police database profiling the evidence of guns. So maybe it's inefficient and not as effective as people who watch CSI would like to think. Why is this an issue pro-gun folks would pick to fight? As long as they are using their guns for legal purposes, they should have nothing to worry about. Why care if your gun's "fingerprint" is in a database? Fighting something like this just makes pro-gun folks look like criminals. I just don't understand why people treat gun control as all or nothing issue.

Is allowing anyone, to buy any gun they want, at any time, really the issue here? Can't the government regulate and monitor the sale and useage of firearms in this country while doing very little to impede the ability of law-abiding citizens to buy guns? To me it looks like that's what the pro-gun folks are lobbying against, and I can't for the life of me figure out why!

[The once and future king]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Seriously, page 89: "Thoughts on gun confiscation." So if the U.S. government starts confiscating guns, expect millions to be rounded up and killed? Nice bogeyman.

"Over 56-million people have died because of gun control in the last century . ."

You know, I think GC advocates are out to lunch on a lot of things, but come on...

[/ QUOTE ]

They're *correctly* including things like the Holocaust and the slaughters by Stalin where gun control prevented the population from defending themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL. For this to be true we would have to be talking about control of anti tank weapons and the like. On a few occasions jews did fight back with guns, they were still crushed utterly. Citizens with guns would have just been an inconvienance to Stalin/Hitler at most.

P.s. I am undecided about gun control am probably slightly pro gun freedom but that dosnt stop me from thinking the above arguement is ridiculous.

[MoreWineII]

Banning all guns is a stupid and unrealistic stance. Arming everyone is equally stupid.

[nef]

[ QUOTE ]
I have some serious questions about gun control, because it's a debate I don't really understand. Everyone I talk to who is anti gun control seems to equate gun control with "ban all guns." I never saw it that way, and I don't know why some do.

[/ QUOTE ]

Most of us truly believe that the objective of the gun control lobby is to ban all guns. All guns are banned in Washington D.C., Chicago has essentially banned all handguns as has Morton Grove and a few other cities. If you read the IL State Supreme Court case where the Morton Grove ban was challenged it is clear to see that when the ban was passed in Morton Grove, its purpose was to publicize a political viewpoint, in hopes that other areas would follow suit. It was not addressing any particular crime problem in that town. Diane Feinstein was quoted on 60 Minutes as saying that if she could’ve gotten the votes, she would’ve passed an outright ban on all guns. BTW Diane Feinstein has a California carry permit and armed guards. Guns are necessary for her protection, but not for us unwashed masses.

Most gun owners believe gun banners are just taking incremental steps that are currently politically palatable with an aim to essentially end civilian gun ownership. Currently, its “assault weapons,” the definition of which gets broader virtually every time one gets mentioned on the news. Next it will be “sniper rifles (hunting rifles)” or maybe the rest of the semi-automatic weapons. Or maybe “armor piercing ammunition” which would essentially ban all hunting rifle ammunition because every center fire rifle is armor piercing if you define it the way the gun banners define it. You just have to give something a scary name and the people will accept it. The leading gun control advocate group was called Handgun Control Inc. with a stated purpose of a ban on handguns before they changed their name to the more politically feasible Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

Look at the states that already have these so-called common sense gun laws. States that the Brady Campaign give a “B” or “A” grade for their gun control laws, its not like they have stopped pressing for more gun control there, they now want handgun registries, serialized ammunition stamping, etc. They will never stop, that’s why we never will give an inch.

[ QUOTE ]
Can someone explain this to me. Let's say I'm a 23 year old who wants to buy a hand gun to protect his family. I could easily pass a criminal background check and a drug test. I walk into a gun shop and want to buy a hand gun, lets say a 9mm. What resistance am I likely to encounter? I kind of figured pending a background check and a 5 day waiting period I'd get my gun(s). Now, what I can't figure out is why gun activists would have a serious problem with this.

[/ QUOTE ]

The 5 day waiting period is a federal law that is now kaput. Waiting periods are now based on state laws, most states don’t have one, CA has a 10 day, FL and IL have 3 day on handguns, don’t know any others off the top of my head. You basically just have to pass an instant background check. The check includes, drug convictions, felony convictions, domestic violence convictions, restraining orders or mental health issues.

Almost all gun activists have no problem with a background check, even the NRA probably supports it. BTW most hardcore pro-gun, pro-liberty guys piss on the NRA for too much compromise.

I don’t agree with the waiting period because what if I need protection today? Also, I doubt the waiting period has much significance for people who already pass the BG check. Plus, I already have gun(s), what’s the point of a waiting period now?

The background check is not really what most pro-gun activist work against. In liberal states we are usually fighting legislature that would change us from law-abiding citizens to felons overnight, or legislation that would require us to relinquish lawfully acquired property. In IL they try to pass an “assault weapons” ban every year. This ban includes various semi-automatic rifles, shotguns, handguns and “high capacity” magazines. It has no real logic to it and is not based on ballistics or any science, or crime weapons used. It recently added .50 caliber rifles. The way the most recent law was worded, it would have made 8 of my rifles and about 100 of my magazines felony counts. Three of those rifles are WWII era or Korean War era M1 Garands. It also would have made most rifles and pistols used in Olympic competition illegal. It also would have made my deer hunting shotgun illegal, in a state that doesn’t allow rifle deer hunting. They tried to get around some of these complaints with some amendments. Most didn’t pass, but the bill is unacceptable even with these exemptions. To show how ignorant they are, in response to the hunting shotgun complaint, an amendment was proposed to exempt all weapons permitted for hunting by the wildlife code. Except in the wildlife code, there is no restriction on type of rifle used for hunting coyote, fox, raccoon, skunk, and a few others. So now what, my AR-15 is exempt from the ban because it is legal to hunt coyotes with it? If not, then how does that amendment protect anything?

In CA, their legislature either narrowly defeated or Arnold vetoed a bill for ammunition serialization. The bill called for serialization of every ammunition casing. It required every manufacturer to put a serial number and track every single bullet sold. Can you imagine the costs of this? Most of my gun nut buddies have 5,000+ rounds and most hunters or recreational shooters usually have a couple hundred on hand. This law could increase the cost of ammunition 10x. The stated purpose of this was supposed to be solving crime, but it would probably have minimal effect at that. It would have the effect of greatly increasing the cost of manufacturing ammunition, and it would be a great deterrent to gun ownership. The high round count for gun nuts is not some revolution fantasy, rather its due to economics, buy a lot of the cheap stuff when its around and then shoot it up, while waiting for another good deal.

Other things pro-gun activists fight for is usually less restriction on concealed carry licensees (CCL’s). Most states (48) have CCL but they either have stupid parts to it, or they greatly restrict the locations it is available. For example in OH if you have a concealed carry permit, you carry concealed, except in the car. In the car it has to be in “plain sight.” Case law has ruled that on the passenger seat doesn’t constitute plain sight. That’s pretty [censored] up. Your gun is a lot safer staying in your concealed holster than if you have to whip it out and put it on the dash every time you drive somewhere. Plus if someone sees you holstering when you stop somewhere and wets their pants and calls the police you could be arrested for brandishing.

Other states have great restrictions on where you can carry, for example places that serve alcohol (including restaurants) or churches. The knee jerk reaction is always, “Why do you need to carry in a Church. It is not safe for the children, etc.” I want to carry in a church (with the church’s permission) for the same reason I want to carry anywhere else, for lawful or moral self defense. I have passed the BG check, I have taken training, I am licensed by the state as suitable to carry, what’s the problem? Its not like churches are magic, crime-free zones, neither are schools, another place where guns are prohibited. I can point out several murders that have happened in churches or during church services in the past few years.

One more thing gun rights activists are pushing for now is what is called “Castle Doctrine.” This basically is a protection for homeowners who defend themselves on their own property. Most states already have leniency on lethal force in your own home, even CA and IL allow deadly force on B&E or felonies. Texas you can pretty much shoot anyone on your property at night. Castle Doctrine basically changes the law and presumes that someone who breaks into a home while it is occupied intends great bodily harm on the occupants. More importantly, it provides a liability shield. If someone breaks into your house, and you are proven to have lawfully defended yourself, the shot bad guy will not be able to sue you civilly. This law is important because it can cost $10’s of thousands of dollars to defend yourself from prosecution, and even if you are found to have acted lawfully, you could still lose everything in a civil suit.

This law mainly protects urban people, because not many rural DA’s are gonna prosecute someone who shoots an intruder. In IL, there was a guy, Hale, from Wilmette who got burglarized, and slept with his gun the next night. The burglar came back the next night and Hale shot him. The police and DA tried to throw the book at Hale. He owned a handgun in a town with a ban. They couldn’t get him on anything except the handgun ban. The people of this state were really pissed off by this, and the state law was soon changed so that using a handgun for lawful self defense on your own property was an affirmative defense for violating a municipal handgun ban.

[ QUOTE ]
My ability to buy a gun was not really impeded upon. The fact that there are more guns than cars in this Country is telling me that they are not that hard to get. Also, why would gun activists be against a police database profiling the evidence of guns. So maybe it's inefficient and not as effective as people who watch CSI would like to think. Why is this an issue pro-gun folks would pick to fight? As long as they are using their guns for legal purposes, they should have nothing to worry about. Why care if your gun's "fingerprint" is in a database? Fighting something like this just makes pro-gun folks look like criminals. I just don't understand why people treat gun control as all or nothing issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

The high availability of guns means that most laws have little effect on criminals but great effect on law abiding citizens.

Why can’t George Bush listen to your phone conversations, as long as you are doing nothing illegal, what’s the problem? Why can’t the police just enter your home without a warrant? If you aren’t a criminal, what’s the problem?

We don’t trust the government, that’s kind of the point to free speech and a right to bear arms, another check on government power. We don’t want a database of who owns guns because it greatly lowers the costs of confiscation for the government. Also because we know the restrictions wont stop there.

It basically comes down to what I said before, we wont accept anything because the anti-gun groups will never stop pushing for gun control. Its not like we will come to a compromise and then they will just leave us alone. They didn’t stop after NFA 1934, they didn’t stop after GCA 1968, we actually gained ground with FOPA 1986, then Bush I and Clinton brought about various “assault weapons” bans and the Brady law.

[ QUOTE ]
Is allowing anyone, to buy any gun they want, at any time, really the issue here? Can't the government regulate and monitor the sale and useage of firearms in this country while doing very little to impede the ability of law-abiding citizens to buy guns? To me it looks like that's what the pro-gun folks are lobbying against, and I can't for the life of me figure out why!

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes to your first question, with the exception that criminals may be prohibited with due process. If I am a responsible citizen and not a criminal, what difference does it make what kind of gun I am buying. Yes to your second question, which would be accomplished with some changes in the system we have in place.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
Banning all guns is a stupid and unrealistic stance. Arming everyone is equally stupid.

[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't seen anyone advocating "arming everyone." Buy your own gun, commie.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes to your first question, with the exception that criminals may be prohibited with due process.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just curious, do criminals not have the right to defend themselves in their homes from armed intruders? Where in the Second Amendment does it restrict the ownership of arms to non-criminals? [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
but I can't get past all the facts this article points out that in no way relate to the point they are trying to get across.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please name a few of these irrelevant facts.

[ QUOTE ]
I kind of figured pending a background check and a 5 day waiting period I'd get my gun(s). Now, what I can't figure out is why gun activists would have a serious problem with this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nobody I know cares about the 5 day waiting period. However, the waiting period is useless. I suggest you check out page 51 (or 44) of the PDF for some "irrelevant" facts. The "time to crime" is typically one to twelve years according to the BATF. Even though all the statistics I've read at the CDC show the waiting period as being mostly ineffective, I am not against it.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, why would gun activists be against a police database profiling the evidence of guns. So maybe it's inefficient and not as effective as people who watch CSI would like to think. Why is this an issue pro-gun folks would pick to fight? As long as they are using their guns for legal purposes, they should have nothing to worry about. Why care if your gun's "fingerprint" is in a database? Fighting something like this just makes pro-gun folks look like criminals. I just don't understand why people treat gun control as all or nothing issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

Check the PDF on page 13 (6 of PDF) for some "irrelevant" facts. Maryland spent several million dollars on a ballistics database. Do you know how many crimes it solved? ZERO. Canada has spent billions on their database and the results have been just as dismal. The PDF also states that the Fraternal order of Police doesn't want it.

also
the Maryland State Police Forensic Sciences Division has called for scrapping the state`s ballistic imaging program-
http://www.nraila.org/CurrentLegisla...d.aspx?ID=1464


Read that PDF. Then read this for more technical information as to why the database is useless.
http://smallestminority.blogspot.com...ng-doesnt.html


Honestly, there are certain litmus tests I have right now for gun control advocates to see if they have an inkling of a clue. The .50 cal ban, the ballistics database (as a cost effective measure), assault weapons ban, and the "armor piercing" Teflon coated bullet ban are at the top of my litmus test. Anyone that supports those has been getting their news from the wrong sources.


Hey nef, excellent post.

[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]

Let's say I'm a 23 year old who wants to buy a book to enlighten his family. I could easily pass a criminal background check and a drug test. I walk into a book shop and want to buy a book, lets say a libertarian classic. What resistance am I likely to encounter? I kind of figured pending a background check and a 5 day waiting period I'd get my book(s). Now, what I can't figure out is why free speech activists would have a serious problem with this. My ability to buy a book was not really impeded upon. The fact that there are more books than cars in this Country is telling me that they are not that hard to get. Also, why would free speech activists be against a police database profiling the readers of politically subversive books. So maybe it's inefficient and not as effective as people who watch CSI would like to think. Why is this an issue pro-liberty folks would pick to fight? As long as they are reading their books for legal purposes, they should have nothing to worry about. Why care if your books' titles is in a database? Fighting something like this just makes pro-liberty folks look like criminals. I just don't understand why people treat book control as all or nothing issue.

Is allowing anyone, to buy any book they want, at any time, really the issue here? Can't the government regulate and monitor the sale and readership of books in this country while doing very little to impede the ability of law-abiding citizens to buy books? To me it looks like that's what the pro-liberty folks are lobbying against, and I can't for the life of me figure out why!

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Three of those rifles are WWII era or Korean War era M1 Garands.

[/ QUOTE ]
Lucky bugger! [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]