How much gun control do you want?

[Abin Sur]

Whether you're in the USA (the vast majority of posters, I suspect) or not...what level of gun control regarding the acquisition of firearms do you think is appropriate? For simplicity's sake, let's reduce the choices to the following:

1) Go back to pre-1934 (US); you can order a machine gun through the mail. Essentially no restrictions on firearms.
2) Pre-1968 (US): Heavy restrictions on automatic & short-barreled weapons, but you can still get virtually all other firearms by mail.
3) Current law (US): No new manufacture of automatic weapons (for civilians), no firearms through the mail.
4) California (current): No magazines over 10 rounds, "assault" weapon ban, waiting periods, registration.
5) Chicago, pre-2010: No handguns. Hunting-style (Fudd guns)) allowed.
6) United Kingdom (current): Fudd guns with heavy restrictions, no handguns.
7) Japan (current): Virtual ban on all firearms (rare exceptions).

Just curious what the general "feel" is here.

For the record, I'm going with 1.

[onehandle]

1. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold vote #1 from beyond the grave. nt

[SteveM]

109. Klebold opposed Colorado concealed-carry. Got any ideas why? nt

[iverglas]

144. y'know

that really is beyond tasteless.



:puke:

[TheWraith]

161. But a little cadaver dangling in post #1 is fine?

You have an awfully convenient definition of "tasteless."

[DanTex]

118. They'd be satisfied with anything up to #3

Their guns were purchased via the gun show loophole.

[SteveM]

152. Please explain how that was done through a "loophole."

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

159. They had...

...the son of some HCI activists go to a gun show and buy for them. ;)

I thoroughly enjoy irony; you?

[TheWraith]

160. Actually, they did just fine with more restrictive laws than we have now.

So did the Virginia Tech shooter, who carried those 10 round magazines that some people keep insisting are "more safe."

And so did the Norway shooter, who operated in an environment far more restricted than the US could ever be.

[jschurchin]

2. No restriction on gun ownership, period.

Levy a $150 per round tax on ammunition.

[Taverner]

5. Problem is that it is easy to make rounds at home

Lead, saltpeter is all you need

[jschurchin]

13. Yeah, not quite that simple though.

Unless you intend to beat the bullet into the casing with a hammer, you need reloading equipment and primer's, powder, and the bullets themselves.

Think about it, how many of us, besides the really hardcore hunters and shooters would go through the trouble of buying everything you need to reload brasses.

Not many.

[Taverner]

20. Yes, but then there would be a black-market for bullets

[PavePusher]

22. How many people, besides hardcore drinkers would go through the trouble...

of buying everything you need to make beer or distill whiskey, gin and vodka?

"Not many", eh?

History... something about "repeating" springs to mind...

[spin]

31. Self delete. replied to wrong poster. (n/t)

[SteveM]

112. Within view of the press box at Florida Field (U.F. football stadium)..

and our house on a dirt road, our neighbor made "stump rum," a cane-based liquor which could make you forget about heart-burn.

[spin]

30. I know plenty of hunters and shooters who have reloading equipment ...

and the powder, primers and bullets to produce thousands and thousands of rounds.

By your definition they may be hardcore shooters and hunters but they are far from rare in Florida where I live.

You can buy a reloading kit from Amazon.com for less than $40. For example this kit for 308 Winchester priced at $34.00 + $5.49 shipping.


http://www.amazon.com/Lee-Loader-Kit-308-Winchester/dp/B00162PWI6/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1313340621&sr=8-4

Even such a cheap and simple kit can produce high quality and extremely accurate ammo. You don't even need any special skills or training to reload ammunition. I started reloading with one of these kits and made about 6000 rounds of .38 caliber ammo before I moved up to a more expensive reloading system.

And you can buy that system from Amazon for $356.00 + $25.00 shipping.

RCBS - Rock Chucker Supreme Master Reloading Kit


http://www.amazon.com/RCBS-Chucker-Supreme-Master-Reloading/dp/B001MKBV50/ref=sr_1_1?s=sporting-goods&ie=UTF8&qid=1313341132&sr=1-1

But if you want to load ammo in large quantifies quickly you can order a Progressive Reloading Machine from Amazon for $385.00 + $28.74 shipping.

Dillon Precision RL550B Progressive Reloading Machine


http://www.amazon.com/Dillon-Precision-Progressive-Reloading-Machine/dp/B0039P9JTQ/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1313341311&sr=8-1

[NewMoonTherian]

35. Reloading isn't that big a deal.

If one person in a given group has the machinery, it's a simple matter to supply everyone.

The problem is acquiring brass, primers and powder if they're made illegal to manufacture. Only black powder would be available, and that's such a hassle. I know a few people can turn new brass, but the cost would be prohibitive. I've never even heard of making primers at home.

[Abin Sur]

80. I read a time travel series

In which the hero (who's an engineer) is sent back to 13th Century Poland and decides it's up to him to turn back the Mongol Invasion of 1241 by upgrading the local technology level.

After 10 years (he went back to 1231) he still hasn't managed to invent the primer. He does manage to invent steamboats, black powder rifles, cannons, and poison gas.

[Atypical Liberal]

92. I do.

I reload quite a bit. I just made 550 rounds of .45 ACP one evening last week.

I recycle my brass and scavenge it from the the local shooting range. I cast my own bullets from recycled wheel weights.

I can reload 500 rounds of .45 ACP for about $25. If I buy them at the store it costs about $200+.

I started reloading because of the cost of ammunition. Your proposed idea would accelerate that.

[SteveM]

111. I don't make them, but I purchase from those who do...

The market for re-loads dried up during the ammo/commodities price jump, but some re-loaders have taken to selling 50-in-a-baggy for prices under factory stuff.

[rl6214]

147. I don't consider myself "hardcore" but for financial reasons

I reload,

9mm
45acp
.40 cal
.38
.357mag
.223
30-06
.380

That's about it but that's quite a bit. Saves me lots of money.

[RSillsbee]

42. you need a lathe to turn your brass too NT

[baldguy]

14. Like Somalia?

[jschurchin]

15. ???????????? nt.

[baldguy]

17. The libertarian ideal doesn't work for guns or economics.

It causes more problems than it purports to solve.

[gejohnston]

25. the average person in Somalia probably does not have any

Since various warlords and dictators replaced civil government, do you think these thugs want their subjects armed? I don't. Even if they did not have a problem with it, they could not afford them.
Other than that, I agree that libertarian society would quickly turn in to a feudal kleptacracy.

[iverglas]

56. c'mon, read post 2

Not just the subject line ...

[baldguy]

68. Read post #5

and #30

[iverglas]

71. c'mon, we can buy the "bathtub bullets" meme if we like

the fact is that the poster who proposed to allow all firearms and tax ammunition out of existence was being facetious.

[Abin Sur]

74. The $100 tax on each bullet line

Was originally from a comedy routine, IIRC. While there are those who would endorse such a measure, they're few and far between.

That having been said, there was a Baltimore mayoral candidate who recently seriously proposed taxing ammunition at $1 per cartridge. Mind you, that would raise the cost of a brick of .22 LR ammunition by over 1,000%!

[iverglas]

76. Chris Rock

Probably not the first.

[SteveM]

114. No, Brick. Chris Brick. nt

[Taverner]

3. #3, but for the entire US

California has too strict of gun laws

Also, every state should grant CCWs

California only gives them out to ex-cops, currently

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Trajan]

6. For the record ...

You will be very happy in the Guns forum .... Not so much in the rest of DU ...

Enjoy your stay ....

[iverglas]

57. sniff

Here I'd thought the poster's attentions in my direction last week were because of my natural charm and wit ... but now I suspect I was being exploited for the post count ... ;)



added important omitted apostrophe

[Abin Sur]

61. "Exploited"? n/t

[SteveM]

115. Been here for 5+ years, and still like it! How 'bout you?

Are you enjoying the Gun Forum? I enjoy posting on other forums & groups as well!

[LonePirate]

7. 7 - Guns in the hands of citizens do far more harm than good

[ManiacJoe]

46. Care to backup your claim?

[We_Have_A_Problem]

100. and this claim is based on, what exactly? n/t

[SteveM]

116. Please give us some cites and links. Thanks. nt

[Philippine expat]

143. LonePirate,

What are you basing your statement on?

[MineralMan]

8. Just enough.

I can't take any post that refers to shotguns as "Fudd guns" seriously.

[iverglas]

58. Aw, c'mon

Join me over here in the giggling corner. ;)

[Abin Sur]

59. I'm too amused by the term "Fudd gun" not to use it. n/t

[SteveM]

117. Field & Stream "awards" the Elmer to someone special every year. nt

[Denninmi]

9. Hardly an expert on this issue. Just some opinions.

I think that we need greater controls on the sales end, so that people like the Tucson shooter can't get guns so easily -- stricter checks and certifications. And, I don't believe that anyone needs automatic weapons except for law enforcement under limited circumstances. Open carry makes me nervous, but I guess it hasn't caused major new headaches overall. I don't see any basic problem with recreation use of firearms nor for self defense use if the person has proper training and registration. Granted, you will NEVER have a perfect system that screens out all of the nuts and criminal elements.

I guess its probably closest to the "California" model you give above.

[NewMoonTherian]

39. I disagree, but you seem very reasoned and courteous.

I haven't noticed you around the Gungeon, so I hope you'll post often in the future! :toast:

For the record, I'd vote for a hybrid of options 1 and 3. I'm glad you mentioned open carry as well, as it wasn't specifically touched on in the OP. There are so many finer details in this larger issue of gun rights, it's difficult to boil it down into X number of options and please anyone.

[Scuba]

10. As a gun owner (handguns, rifles and shotguns) I'm somewhere around a "7"....

...I favor waiting, periods, extensive background checks and registration.

[Cool Logic]

11. How much freedom do you deserve...?

[rfranklin]

16. If you define freedom as firearms...

but there are too many places around the world where weapons are the reasons for a lack of personal security and freedom.

[PavePusher]

23. Yes, because some assholes have them...

and the rest of the Citizenry... doesn't.

[Cool Logic]

27. That is because there are too many people around the world that have no moral values.

But other places in the world, do not matter. For this debate was long ago settled, by those who established our Republic.

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. Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774_1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764

Americans the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust their people with arms. ~ John Adams

The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference they deserve a place of honor with all that is good. ~ George Washington

The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun. ~ Patrick Henry

They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~ Benjamin Franklin

The balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world not destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside ... Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them ... the weak will become prey to the strong. ~ Thomas Paine

[rfranklin]

32. Despite your quotations, guns do not guarantee freedom...

Your freedom is more constricted by the Citizens United decision than it is by any handgun regulations. What are you going to do, shoot up some corporate headquarter lobbies?

[Cool Logic]

33. Anyone can form a corporation (LLC) in a matter of minutes for +/- $40...

The history of campaign finance reform is the history of incumbent politicians seeking to muzzle speakers who publicly criticize them and their legislation.

McCain–Feingold was a constriction on free speech. Everyone from the ACLU to the Heritage Foundation understood that.

[rfranklin]

34. That is just silly...I can form a corporation but can I spend $10 million?

No, because I don't have it. Your logic is a failure.

[Cool Logic]

41. What your naiveté overlooks is that rich corporations already write the rules from K-Street...

where the rich and the powerful always have a seat at the table. McCain–Feingold, targeted small corporations and individuals who work on Main Street and was an effort to silence their voices.

[rfranklin]

51. Your belaboring a point that is barely germain...

I was making a point about how corporate cash and big money donors are more of a threat to our freedom than handgun regulations. Somehow that turns into a discussion of small money donors.:shrug:

[DanTex]

38. In 1764 you may have had a point.

But in 2011, these silly arguments are largely confined to the right-wing in the United States. The rest of the civilized world has pretty much come to understand that you need to control gun ownership in order to avoid the massive amount of gun violence we see in this country. And they've been largely successful -- no other wealthy nation has anywhere near the level of gun violence that we do.

I'm not sure how strongly you believe in "American Exceptionalism", but actually other places in the world do matter. Because the idea that only the US matters is also largely confined to the American right.

I don't find it at all difficult to accept that other countries are doing some things better than the US. I can also understand that in other areas, the US does things better. Quoting founding fathers is fun and all, I'll go with logic and reason over constitutional fundamentalism every time.

The US gun lobby often reminds me of that story a while back about how US students did very poorly on math tests versus other countries. But where we really excelled is in how well our students thought they did. If you look at the data, the US clearly has the worst gun policy in the industrialized world. But if you forget the facts and just toss around patriotic slogans, then things are great.

[Cool Logic]

45. The point is still valid, as it will always be; for the belief in freedom is a timeless idea.

massive amount of gun violence we see in this country

Does not exist, except in your mind. For the facts of reality, tell us a completely different story.
http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2011/may/crimes_052311/crime_052311

the idea that only the US matters is also largely confined to the American right.

When the topic of discussion relates to US law, the behavior of citizens in other countries, does not matter.

logic and reason over constitutional fundamentalism every time.

What you seem to be advocating is, "legislating from the bench;" also known as, changing the rules in the middle of the game.

A legal system that is not based on objectively valid principles, is based on the doctrine that feelings are the creator of facts. It is arbitrary, irrational, and blindly emotional. Lady Justice is supposed to be blind. She is not supposed to be arbitrary, irrational, or emotional.

the US clearly has the worst gun policy in the industrialized world

When civilized humans apply logic and reason, they conclude that a necessary consequence of a person's right to life, entails the right to self-defense.

[DanTex]

48. More platitudes. Keep 'em coming... Freedom! USA!

Does not exist, except in your mind. For the facts of reality, tell us a completely different story
The US has far higher levels of homicide and gun violence than any other wealthy country. Are you denying this? If so, please state so clearly, thereby letting everyone else on this board know that you have not a clue about gun crime statistics.

When civilized humans apply logic and reason, they conclude that a necessary consequence of a person's right to life, entails the right to self-defense.
Better check those homicide and gun violence statistics again. All other wealthy nations are doing better than the US preserving the right to life by regulating gun ownership rather than flooding the streets with guns.

What you seem to be advocating is, "legislating from the bench;" also known as, changing the rules in the middle of the game. --- A legal system that is not based on objectively valid principles, is based on the doctrine that feelings are the creator of facts. It is arbitrary, irrational, and blindly emotional. Lady Justice is supposed to be blind. She is not supposed to be arbitrary, irrational, or emotional.
Whatever that means. I'm advocating crafting gun policy in such a way that it reduces the amount of violence and death. As opposed to using quotes from George Washington and Patrick Henry as a reason to ignore the 30,000 people who die from gun violence every year.

[Cool Logic]

49. Well, let me state clearly that the US does not have far higher levels of homicide

than other wealthy nations, when the comparison that is made is apples to apples. Crime rates in the US must be evaluated and adjusted to account for our diversity of geography and demographics. As you can see below, many regions in the US are on par with the UK, Canada, France and Scotland.

However, it is your inability grasp the concept of objectively valid legal principles, which reveal the influence that your emotions have on your decision making process. Thus, I must conclude that you are no different than most other anti-gunners, who are governed by their feelings.

[DanTex]

50. Wow, more clueless then average! Go on then!

I mean, the strict constructionism I've seen before -- right-wingers have been using that stuff for decades, not just to support guns, but to oppose the civil rights act, the new deal, etc. So you're definitely not the first person I've found spewing brainless constitutional fundamentalism.

But to deny that the US has a higher rate of homicide. Bold move! I mean, the inability to look at two numbers and see which one is bigger, that is something new.

My favorite part is that instead of actually finding a controlled statistical comparison, you just show some colorful pictures. I guess "apples to apples" to you means picking the lowest crime regions in the US and comparing them to the highest crime regions in the UK.

I think you've got a big future as a propagandist!

[Cool Logic]

52. "the inability to look at two numbers and see which one is bigger"

Now you have revealed that you understand less about data sets and statistical analysis, than you do the Constitution.

I did neglect to include the link to the page with the data. But I doubt that you would find the facts useful to your argument.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States#cite_note-Crime_in_The_United_States_2008.2C_FBI_Statistics-37

[friendly_iconoclast]

53. Don't feel bad. You've been ridiculed, but not refuted.

As you've seen, that's a very common occurence.....

[DanTex]

82. BTW, comparing US vs UK crime rates requires statistics from both the US and UK...

Not to get technical (don't worry, I won't tell anyone if you don't either).

If you have any actual statistical analysis to present, please let me know. After all, Duchamp turned a urinal into a work of art; maybe your statistics have a future in MoMA.

[Buzz cook]

157. This from the source you link to.

"Some countries such as Canada, however, have similar definitions of what constitutes a violent crime, and nearly all countries had the same definition of the characteristics that constitutes a homicide. Overall the total crime rate of the United States is similar to that of other highly developed countries. Some types of reported property crime in the U.S. survey as lower than in Germany or Canada, yet the homicide rate in the United States is substantially higher."
Emphasis mine.

With the exception of Russia, the USA has the highest murder rate in the industrialized world.

[gejohnston]

64. learn something new every day

Detroit, Baltimore, and DC are in the UK. But they are pretty pictures.

My favorite part is that instead of actually finding a controlled statistical comparison, you just show some colorful pictures. I guess "apples to apples" to you means picking the lowest crime regions in the US and comparing them to the highest crime regions in the UK.

[iverglas]

70. yeah, Canada, the UK, France ... we're all just whitebread

Crime rates in the US must be evaluated and adjusted to account for our diversity of geography and demographics. As you can see below, many regions in the US are on par with the UK, Canada, France and Scotland.

Yes ... there's just no diversity of geography and demographics here in Canada ... Canada doesn't actually have twice as high a proportion of population born outside the country as the US does, for instance (roughly 20% vs. 10%) ... or a more urbanized population than the US ...


http://www.sustreport.org/signals/canpop_urb.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States

As of August 15, 2011, the United States has a total resident population of 311,968,000, making it the third most populous country in the world. It is a very urbanized population, with 82% residing in cities and suburbs as of 2008 (the worldwide urban rate is 50.5%).

... diversity isn't the keyword of the Canadian identity, and our geography, well, from sea to sea to sea to the US border, it's just one big same old same old.

And us other countries, we don't have social exclusion problems associated with race/ethnicity or migration status, or huge and growing income disparities, an actual important factor in crime rates; nah, it's just the US has all them. And we certainly don't have organized crime or street gangs, noooo.

Of course, it does have to be agreed that most of the rest of us don't have the history of systemic, institutionalized racism that you have, and yes, that is a difference, as is the historically and current greater income disparity south of the border. But to explain a homicide rate that is a multiple of the rest of us? Hmm.

Me, I wonder whether the fact that the US is awash in firearms and that the lethality of firearms assaults is greater than the lethality of other types of assaults might just play a role.

Sigh.


and sigh ...

However, it is your inability grasp the concept of objectively valid legal principles, which reveal the influence that your emotions have on your decision making process.

I love that one, "objectively valid legal principles". Somehow, I missed them in all my nearly 40 years of law school, teaching law, and practising and researching the stuff. Google finds that phrase for me though, heh heh:

http://books.google.ca/books?id=ZYP2udA1T1gC&pg=PA221&lpg=PA221&dq=%22objectively+valid+legal+principles%22&source=bl&ots=cTmxXJd5Rk&sig=g_GWr5grnotLw7cC3Hn7XPegFf0&hl=en&ei=OWlITpuCHoaIsQLLr8GSCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22objectively%20valid%20legal%20principles%22&f=false

Law, institution, and legal politics: fundamental problems of legal theory ...
By Ota Weinberger

(pp. 220-1) We may regard practical reason as the structure of action-related argumentations and we may present it in a theory of practical thinking; to consider practical reason as a reservoir of objective values, right ought <sic?>, objectively valid legal principles of a material nature is an absurdity.

Unfortunately, that makes no more sense to me than what you said ...

Pardon me, google does find me another example:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4956692&mesg_id=4956914

Laws that prohibit the theft and destruction of property are objectively valid; thus, these people are nothing more than common criminals.

... which would be you, talking about the London rioters ...

So can we put you down as a "libertarian"?

:rofl:

Yikes, I guessed right despite myself. Google offered up some more.

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/constitution.html

A complex legal system, based on objectively valid principles, is required to make a society free and to keep it free—a system that does not depend on the motives, the moral character or the intentions of any given official, a system that leaves no opportunity, no legal loophole for the development of tyranny.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Atypical Liberal]

95. On diversity

Of course, it does have to be agreed that most of the rest of us don't have the history of systemic, institutionalized racism that you have, and yes, that is a difference, as is the historically and current greater income disparity south of the border. But to explain a homicide rate that is a multiple of the rest of us? Hmm.

I can't explain precisely why the situation is what it is here, but it is undeniable that we have an African-American crime problem here in the United States, as the data above shows.

Just like when I showed the crime statistic map for NYC last week. If you are Caucasian or Asian, and especially if you are female, NYC is quite safe. But the majority of the crimes, and victims, are African-American.

I have no doubt that this all stems from a century or more of oppression, followed by decades of oppression, from which African-Americans are still struggling to free themselves. All of this probably results in fewer opportunities available to African-Americans, which probably results in more turning to crime. No doubt income disparity also plays a part.

The bottom line is 150 years after the Civil War African-Americans are still not fully integrated into American society. It is one of the reasons why I support Affirmative Action. Although it is a reverse-discrimination, I feel it is a necessary one, as it should have the effect of "priming the pump"; That is, getting African-Americans integrated into upwardly-mobile positions in society. Not only is this good for its own sake, but more importantly, it shows the children of African-Americans that there is a place for them in society and gives them quality role models to emulate.

But we are not there yet by a long shot.

[iverglas]

101. and no disagreement here

-- affirmative action and the rest. Collective reparations to assist in present and future development are also worth considering ... things like massive investment in schools ...

The question is: when there is a society that suffers from huge disparities between racial/ethnic groups, huge income disparities, huge wealth disparities, huge disparities in educational and employment opportunities, development levels of communities, housing standards -- all of which are indicators of crime levels -- and in fact huge disparities in crime victimization levels ... why make sure there are as many firearms in that mix as humanly possible?

[Atypical Liberal]

102. Because no matter what other ills a society may have, people have the right to self-defense tools.

The question is: when there is a society that suffers from huge disparities between racial/ethnic groups, huge income disparities, huge wealth disparities, huge disparities in educational and employment opportunities, development levels of communities, housing standards -- all of which are indicators of crime levels -- and in fact huge disparities in crime victimization levels ... why make sure there are as many firearms in that mix as humanly possible?

Simply, because no matter what other ills a society may have, all people deserve the right to tools to defend themselves from violent assault and oppression.

Crime is not a valid excuse to deprive people of firearms.

[iverglas]

107. "self-defence tools"

:eyes:

What you actually mean is: weapons.

When I want a pen, I don't actually go into Staples and ask them where I can find their "writing tools". They'd think I was nuts ... or had an agenda of some kind ...


Crime is not a valid excuse to deprive people of firearms.

Haha, "excuse". And yet when self-defence is called (100% correctly) an excuse for using force against another person, just wait for the brouhaha to begin.

The public interest in individual and public safety is a legitimate reason for doing a whole lot of things. Regulating firearms possession is one of them.

[Atypical Liberal]

126. No, what I actually mean is: firearms.

What you actually mean is: weapons.

When I want a pen, I don't actually go into Staples and ask them where I can find their "writing tools". They'd think I was nuts ... or had an agenda of some kind ...

No, what I actually mean is "firearms", which was obvious in the context of the second of only two sentences in my statement.

Haha, "excuse".

Yes, excuse. Crime is not a valid excuse to deprive law-abiding people of firearms.

And yet when self-defence is called (100% correctly) an excuse for using force against another person, just wait for the brouhaha to begin.

Self-defense is a valid excuse to use force against another person.

The public interest in individual and public safety is a legitimate reason for doing a whole lot of things. Regulating firearms possession is one of them.

Again, it is not legitimate to penalize law-abiding people's right to keep and bear arms in the interest of anyone's safety that is threatened by the actions of criminals using firearms.

[iverglas]

134. do people here ever proofread?

Again, it is not legitimate to penalize law-abiding people's right to keep and bear arms in the interest of anyone's safety that is threatened by the actions of criminals using firearms.


C'mon.

Penalize somebody's right? I can't even figure out what that means, let alone respond to it.

If a thought can only be expressed in this kind of murkey sludge of words, it isn't worth expressing.

The problem you have here is that you're trying to put something completely meaningless into words.

Nobody is "penalized" when rules are made. People are only "penalized" when they break the rule and a penalty is imposed on them as a consequence.

This is a basic concept that firearms control opponents seem never to have grasped, and need to.

Nobody's out to get you or your guns.

Rules and policies made for legitimate reasons, to protect or advance legitimate public interests, are not evidence of some sort of vendetta against anybody, including firearms afficionados.


And then of course there's that "law-abiding" bit. For the life of me, I have never figured out why the non-law-abiding should be, er, penalized by denying them the most effective tool for protecting their own lives and stuff against bad people. Makes no sense to me at all.

[beevul]

90. He isnt doing that.

"As opposed to using quotes from George Washington and Patrick Henry as a reason to ignore the 30,000 people who die from gun violence every year."

He isnt doing that.

And even if he was, it would be more honest that counting suicides as gun violence.


Answer me this:

Who owns your life?

Is it you?

Is it 100 % ?


Come on give it a try.

[iverglas]

97. other questions

Who owns your life?

Let's not talk about "you" for a minute. (And let's ignore that bizarre property-oriented notion of "owning" one's life.)

Let's talk about ...

children and adolescents who commit suicide
people with mental health problems who commit suicide
and
people who kill other people and then commit suicide

In the first two instances, the question is easy: why don't you give a shit?

The third instance raises a question more like ... oh, well, the same question will do.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12040257

A newspaper surveillance study of homicide-suicide in the United States.

The objective of this study was to identify the number and subtypes of homicide-suicides in the United States by age group and state over a 3-year period from 1997 through 1999. A total of 673 homicide-suicides, including 674 perpetrators and 779 victims, were identified from Internet searches of 191 national newspapers, and they were classified according to a modified Hanzlick-Koponen typology. One quarter of the homicide-suicides were perpetrated by persons 55 years or older, and 77% were spousal/consortial, higher than the 57% observed in the younger age group; 11% of the older homicide-suicides were familial, compared with 16% in the younger age group. Whereas only 3% of older homicide-suicides were infanticide/pedicide, 16% of the younger homicide-suicides involved parents killing their children. Forty-five states, including the District of Columbia, reported a homicide-suicide during the 3-year period, and they occurred most frequently in Florida (163), California (98), Texas (36), and New York (35). Newspaper surveillance is useful to identify where homicide-suicides are occurring most frequently, but they are underestimates of the true prevalence. However, the number of incidents detected is large enough that the cases detected may be a fairly representative sample.

Old data: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20813473

Homicide-suicide in the United States, 1968-1975.

This paper describes for the first time the epidemiology of homicide-suicide events in the whole of the United States using archival data. From 1968 to 1975, there were 2215 homicide-suicide events out of 123,467 homicides. The mean rate of homicide-suicide events was 0.134 per 100,000 per year. The murderers in these events differ from the typical murderer and the typical suicide in socio-demographic characteristics. Details of the characteristics of this population may be valuable for understanding the circumstances of homicide-suicide events and planning preventive measures.

http://jiv.sagepub.com/content/25/5/877.abstract

Homicide-Suicide in Durban, South Africa

... A firearm was used in 87% of the homicides and 80% of the suicides. The individuals involved in homicide-suicides in Durban are similar to homicide-suicide perpetrators and victims in industrialized countries. The fact that homicide-suicides in South Africa, as in most countries, involve almost exclusively men killing female intimates confirms the importance of examining and challenging social norms enabling male violence against women.

http://www.baylor.edu/content/services/document.php/28830.pdf

Overview of Homicide-Suicide

Homicide-suicides are human tragedies in which a perpetrator, usually a man, kills one or more victims, usually a wife or intimate, and then commits suicide within minutes or hours. Almost all occur in the context of the family and while they may involve children, most involve only one victim. The most common form, occurring in 80% to 90% of cases, is spousal/consortial homicide-suicide ... .

An estimated 1,000 to 1,500 homicide-suicides occur in the United States each year, a mortality comparable to meningitis, viral hepatitis or pulmonary tuberculosis (Marzuk et al., 1992).

Although homicide-suicides are relatively rare compared to homicides and suicides, they have a dramatic, enduring impact on surviving family members and the communities in which they occur.

Reports of the annual rates for homicide-suicide have been remarkably constant in the United States and other countries, ranging from 0.2 per 100,000 person-years to 0.3 per 100,000 person-years (Coid, 1983; Milroy, 1995). A few investigators have reported higher incidence rates: 0.46 per 100,000 in Fulton County, Ga., for 1988 to 1991 (Hanzlick and Koponen, 1994), and 0.38 per 100,000 in central Virginia for 1990 to 1994 (Hannah et al., 1998).

Homicide-suicides, reported in terms of the percentage of total homicides, vary regionally in the United States from 1% to 20%, but average 5%. The percentages have been reported to vary from 3% to 60% in other countries (Marzuk et al., 1992). In Canada, the only country with a national surveillance system for homicide-suicide, Gillespie and colleagues (1998) reported that about 10% of homicide offenders committed suicide. The variation in homicide-suicide rates is related to homicide rates, i.e., the higher the homicide rate in a region, the lower the percentage of homicide-suicides (Coid, 1983).

http://hsx.sagepub.com/content/2/1/46.abstract (Gillespie)

Suicide Following Homicide in Canada

Sucide following homicide is fairly rare. Even more rare are studies of this event that use national data. In Canada, where national data are available, homicide offenders commit suicide in about 10% of the cases. Following Henry and Short, we hypothesize that the probability of suicide following homicide increases when the offender has close social ties to the victim and/or to society. We use data on all homicides committed in Canada by male offenders between 1961 and 1983 to explore this issue. Our results show that the closer the tie between the offender and the victim, the higher the probability that the offender will commit suicide. Furthermore, the probability of suicide increases with the offender's age and education, is higher when the offender uses a gun, and is higher when the victim is female.

http://hsx.sagepub.com/content/13/4/339.abstract

Intimate Partner Homicide by Presence or Absence of a Self-Destructive Act

Intimate partner homicide is not only the most common type of domestic homicide, but is also most prevalent in homicides followed by a self-destructive act (e.g., suicide or a suicide attempt). To date, very few studies have addressed this unique circumstance of intimate partner homicide, particularly in comparison to intimate partner homicides that are not followed by a self-destructive act. One possible reason for this lack of research might be that many consider homicide and suicide discrete phenomena, therefore devaluing the similarities that might exist between them. The “Currents of Lethal Violence” analogy describes homicide and suicide as two currents in a stream of lethal violence. We propose that intimate partner homicide followed by a self-destructive act mixes these currents. This study aims to assess the differences among intimate partner homicide perpetrators who did and did not commit a self-destructive act following the homicide. Descriptive and bivariate analyses of predictive variables were obtained from the records of 341 male intimate partner homicide perpetrators held at a Dutch forensic observation hospital between 1980 and 2006, of which 44 committed a self-destructive act following the offense. Perpetrators that attempted suicide were more likely to have a diagnosis of depressive illness and to have threatened suicide prior to the offense. Perpetrators in this group showed evidence of far-reaching dependency on the victim and a fear of abandonment. Further research into this area is necessary to elucidate this issue.

But what the hell, we don't need to concern ourselves with suicides.

Not even where the victim is a child, not even where the victim has a psychiatric or emotional disorder, not even where the "victim" is in fact the perpetrator of a homicide ... not even when it appears that the perpetrators of homicide-suicide tend to have characteristics similar to people who commit suicide, suggesting that suicidal intentions are a risk factor for the person's family members and particularly female intimate partner.

Me, I think that the person being so fucking flippant about the whole thing needs to ask themself who "owns" the life of the people murdered by people who then committed suicide.

And then get a little more honest about some of what those suicide by firearms figures are actually covering up: children and adolescents who needed help, people with mental health problems who needed help, and murder victims.

But what the hell. Who cares?

[SteveM]

123. Well, you have at least posed the challenge for yourself:

"I'm advocating crafting gun policy in such a way that it reduces the amount of violence and death."

This is precisely where gun-controllers/banners have been check-mated: "Crafting policy." It is not the power of the NRA, nor the power of many times the numbers in the NRA to merely stop this or that legislation. It is the inconvenient truth that most of the proposals put forward by controller/banners have not been shown to be effective, and often cannot be linked in any meaningful manner to the purported ills society experiences. Waiting periods, maximum numbers of firearms purchased within a given time, registration, "may issue" rules, bans of "ugly" semi-auto rifles as opposed to "old" and "quaint" semi-auto rifles used in hunting, magazine capacities, etc., etc. All this is scooping up stuff and throwing it against the wall, not with the hope that anything sticks, but with the hope that gun-control/prohibition will be resuscitated and carry on toward some ill-defined culture of civility. It's like trying to create a "new man" by passing a bunch of laws.

The objective of the activist gun-controllers still operating is prohibition. I can't think of a moral crusade parading as public policy that is more corrupt, expensive, ineffective and counter-productive than prohibitionism.

[iverglas]

135. ah, inconvenient truths

Like the ones that show the amazing correlation between the decline in so many forms of crime and violence -- like spousal firearms homicide, firearms robbery, etc. etc. -- in Canada, direcly parallel to firearms control measures implemented here.

Like the ones that show the amazingly lower rates of homicide in countries with similar forms of firearms control, as compared to the US with essentially none.

Yes, inconveinent indeed, just not for firearms control advocates.


The objective of the activist gun-controllers still operating is prohibition. I can't think of a moral crusade parading as public policy that is more corrupt, expensive, ineffective and counter-productive than prohibitionism.

And I can't think of a much less civil bit of discourse than that.

[tortoise1956]

77. If you don't like the constitution, change it

I agree that there is a lot of violence in the US associated with guns. I also understand that quite a few people want to change that through gun control. However, the Constitution as it is written does not allow the type of actions that you want.

The correct answer is to amend the Constitution to bring about the changes. Simply ignoring the second amendment is a dangerous precedent. After all, if one civil right can be degraded in that fashion, what stops the courts, government, etc., from following the same course with the others?

Before anyone beings up Strawman, I present some examples of this occurring right now - TSA and the Patriot Act. We're talking violations of the First and Fourth amendments, as a starter.

[DanTex]

91. Or, just wait until the number of wingnuts on SCOTUS drops down to 4...

I'm not sure if you are aware of this, but all 4 non-right-wingers on the Supreme Court disagree with your interpretation of the second amendment. You like to accuse others of "simply ignoring" 2A, but in fact it is you who are "simple ignoring" the part about the militia.

If you want to side with the wingnuts on the court, that's fine. But I suggest you at least read the dissenting opinions of Stevens and Breyer, before making statements like "the Constitution as it is written does not allow the type of actions that you want."

And even if you do side with the wingnuts, at least read the Scalia opinion. Because even he concedes that 2A is not absolute, and that certain restrictions are justifiable. Yes, the outright ban of handguns in DC was overruled, but milder provisions like, say, registration of guns, would almost certainly be OK, even under the wingnut interpretation of 2A.

The fact of the matter is that, the provisions of the constitution must be interpreted in the context of modern society, and weighed against other concerns. The bill of rights is not a suicide pact, as somebody once said, and thus the fact that there is a huge amount of gun violence in the US is in fact relevant to the debate about how far 2A extends. The US has a homicide rate of about 5 per 100k, whereas the average of other wealthy nations is somewhere in the range of 1.0 to 1.5 per 100k. That's a huge difference, and if you look at gun crimes specifically the contrast is even more stark. And there is no reasonable interpretation of 2A that requires us to endure this absurd and tragic amount of gun violence.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

124. You may want to recheck that....

All 9 justices agreed that the 2nd protects an individual right. Every single one of them. Want to try again?

[DanTex]

131. Don't know much about the Supreme Court, now do we?

And your reading comprehension is not very strong either. I'll try and type more slowly for you.

I was making the point that only the right-wingers on the court found a right to own a gun for self defense. The Stevens dissent clearly states that RKBA is about state militias, not self defense:

Neither the text of the Amendment nor the arguments advanced by its proponents evidenced the slightest interest in limiting any legislature’s authority to regulate private civilian uses of firearms. Specifically, there is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution.

Then there's the Breyer opinion, that states that even if 2A did recognize a right to self-defense, the public safety interest would still justify the DC handgun ban. Which means that 2A is not at all incompatible with fairly stringent gun control laws.

Which is exactly what I said in my last post.

Sorry buddy. Not your day fact-wise. That's what happens when you only read the NRA press releases, but you don't actually read the opinions.

[SteveM]

127. Strawman. No one is "'simply irnoring' the part about the militia..."

The so-called "militia clause," popularized by Laurence Tribe in the 60s, has been and is shown to be the federal government's interest in the over-riding operative clause in the Second: "The people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Why is the federal government interested? Because it is charged with calling forth the militia in the Articles. That is its only interest, and it is limited. The rest of the Amendment clearly lays out the government's duty with regards to the right to keep and bear arms: See to it that this pre-existing right is not infringed.

BTW, Tribe, long a go-to scholar for restricting the Second, has come around to recognizing that the Second is an individual right.

Oddly, perhaps to you, the realm of regulation falls to the states, but even here, no state shall abridge the "immunities and privileges" of citizens of the United States (14A, 1868). This was the Amendment upon which the Civil Rights Movement, and the era of strengthened criminal procedures, relied in order to keep states from restricting the rights of minorities and the accused. No right in the Constitution is "absolute," but any law passed must meet the privileges and immunities clause of the 14th.

As to modernity, we don't rely upon printing presses (freedom of press), warm bodies in a room (right to assembly), talking on a soapbox (speech). All these rights have undergone massive expansion if for no other reason than the explosion of communication technology; similarly, firearms are not limited to flint-locks.

You assert that our gun laws are associated/cause high gun-crime rates: Show this, and show how your laws will change things.

[DanTex]

132. There's this guy named John Paul Stevens...

Let me quote him for you:

The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a “collective right” or an “individual right.” Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals. But a conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us anything about the scope of that right.

Guns are used to hunt, for self-defense, to commit crimes, for sporting activities, and to perform military duties. The Second Amendment plainly does not protect the right to use a gun to rob a bank; it is equally clear that it does encompass the right to use weapons for certain military purposes. Whether it also protects the right to possess and use guns for nonmilitary purposes like hunting and personal self-defense is the question presented by this case. The text of the Amendment, its history, and our decision in United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 (1939) , provide a clear answer to that question.

The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the right of the people of each of the several States to maintain a well-regulated militia. It was a response to concerns raised during the ratification of the Constitution that the power of Congress to disarm the state militias and create a national standing army posed an intolerable threat to the sovereignty of the several States. Neither the text of the Amendment nor the arguments advanced by its proponents evidenced the slightest interest in limiting any legislature’s authority to regulate private civilian uses of firearms. Specifically, there is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZD.html

The real "straw man" is the idea that just because 2A represents an individual right, then "the Constitution as it is written does not allow the type of actions that you want" (the words of the poster I was responding to). This is totally false. It's true that all 9 justices found an individual right, but also very clearly, the four non-right-wingers (wouldn't exactly call them liberals) all agreed that the RKBA does not protect "the right to possess and use guns for nonmilitary purposes like hunting and personal self-defense". This is a much weaker protection that what Scalia found, and the DC gun ban easily passes.

Beyond that there's the Breyer dissent, which states that even if you specifically accept that RKBA is for self-defense, the DC gun ban is still OK because of the public safety concern. Even this opinion gives plenty of constitutional cover for some pretty restrictive gun control laws.

Now, I understand that the wingnuts control the court, and so the Scalia opinion holds. But my point is still valid. Unless you accept the right-wing interpretation of 2A from Heller, gun control laws on the level of DC are indeed constitutional. And I'm happy with that, because I don't find a need for anything stricter than the DC law.

In fact, as I also pointed out, even if we go with Scalia, things like, say, licensing/registration would very likely still be considered constitutional. And although municipal handgun bans would obviously not, it looks like some pretty strict local laws (e.g. NYC) are still going to survive.

In conclusion, the whole idea that "2A means no gun control" is totally false if you accept the non-right-winger opinions on Heller, and mostly false even if you go with Scalia.

[SteveM]

133. "2A means no gun control" is not part of my text, is it?...

As for Stevens' remarks, I agree with a number of them, including that there is no absolute right. But his interpretation of the "militia clause" as he has explained it is flawed. Clearly, this clause was for the interest in the federal government's powers to call forth a militia. As an individual right, that right must be protected with the same level of scrutiny of any other right. You don't use expressions like "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," then acknowledge that infringement can take place on numerous other grounds not specified. Why does Stevens look for evidence that the right was for something other than hunting, self-defense or any non-military use? Does he look for such evidence in fleshing out free speech, assembly? Economy of language isn't merely for literary purposes. Despite his tip of the hat to the Heller not being about a "communal right," Stevens' flaw is trying to make the "militia clause" do double duty; maybe the NYT and WaPo still play that grammatical game, but few other scholars do. The Second, like the other Amendments, is not communal. He should follow his own advice.

The notion of "public safety" has reared its head for any number of restrictions proffered by states to quash the right to assembly, speech, redress, etc. It is quite transparent that the Second can be savaged by any passing fancy of "public safety."
Which is precisely what D.C. did.

I think the militia clause has given cover for many, including Stevens, to actually challenge the notion of self-defense. We'll never know if the framers wanted to write a right to self-defense into the Constitution; In the event, they didn't have to. They gave a pretty unfettered right to "The People," and it is not diminished by the rather secondary notion that the federal government expressed its limited interest in protecting that right, not making it conditional.

I would also point out that D.C.'s laws were clinically -- almost luridly -- designed to render anyone from using a firearm in self-defense. This is the crux of the matter for gun controllers/prohibitionists: Eliminating self-defense by use of firearms.

BTW, Miller was decided even though Miller was dead. Further, SCOTUS ruled Miller's shotgun not suitable for military use because of its short-barrel; a mistake considering such weapons were used in WWI as "trench guns." The most important thing about Miller was that the decision was based on nothing presented by Miller's attorney: He was a no-show.

You should read the debate surrounding the adoption of the 14th.

[DanTex]

155. So we are back to ignoring the militia clause.

I figured we'd find ourselves back here. Contrary to your assertion, the court has "fleshed out" things like freedom of speech. Just to give one example, they have repeatedly found that commercial speech is significantly less protected than political speech. Of course, that might be more controversial than 2A, because the constitution doesn't actually specify that 1A is designed to protect political speech. With 2A, it says very explicitly right in the text exactly what the intent is, and it takes some real ideological blindness to ignore the "preamble" and insist on a broad interpretation of the RKBA.

Also, it's not just Stevens, it's every justice on the court who is not a right-wing loon. Which brings us back to the original point -- there are zero non-right-wingers on the court that interpret the second amendment in a way that poses a barrier to relatively strict gun control measures. As with many other things going on in todays political world, our disastrously gun laws would not be the way they are if not for the hard-right. It's got nothing to do with the constitution, really.

And the crux of the matter for gun control advocates is to reduce gun violence (obviously). To say they want to eliminate self-defense is childish -- I could just as easily claim that the pro-gun crowd is in favor of seeing people get shot. But that's not true (actually, given some of the recent OPs here, who knows...). What is true is that their ideological rigidity is standing in the way of striking a reasonable balance between self defense and reducing gun crime, and as a consequence, many thousands of lives are lost every year.

[iverglas]

98. if you don't understand constitutional law, read up

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Not even your Famous Founding Fathers imagined that the prohibition on abridging the freedom of speech or of the press meant that Congress could not prohibit and punish perjury or inciting a riot, just for starters. I certainly don't think they envisioned the publication and distribution of Hustler magazine being legal. They really didn't mean what they said at all, eh?

But they also didn't foresee radio-television broadcasting, and the decision to require that broadcasters have licences and that the licences be subject to conditions. One could go on.

Is that "ignoring" the first amendment to your constitution?

All rights are subject to legitimate limitations on their exercise. All.

The "correct answer" isn't to wave a constitution around and say "look look look", it is to examine any proposed limitation on the exercise of a right and argue the case for why it is or is not a legitimate limitation, according to the standards that apply to that determination.

To say that the standards that apply must not take into consideration contemporary social conditions would be to say that a large number of today's periodicals and video productions must be banned and their producers prosecuted if they don't comply, since the founding fathers would very definitely not have permitted such pornographic things in their day.

[tortoise1956]

146. I have studied the constitution,

But I am by no means an expert. I'll try to respond to your points. Please keep in mind that I'm currently medicated (Lortabs - the dentist removed a tooth today).

The founding fathers recognized that "Speech" also included the written word. I believe (my opinion only) that they would consider radio, television, etc., to be a form of speech. As far as regulation of perjury, inciting a riot, etc., I haven't found anything so far in the historical record, one way or the other. However, regulation of the right to free speech has mainly dealt with speech that was part of, or directly contributed to, illegal acts. (Not really happy with this definition, but all I can think of right now). I agree that the founders would be very unhappy with Hustler...

The second amendment was based in no small part on the right of self-defense. This was considered to be a natural right, and was recognized as such in the British Bill of Rights (1689) and by Blackstone in 1765 in "Commentaries on the Laws of England":

5. The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute . . . and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.

Both of these sources recognized limitations on this right, which leads me to believe that the founders would probably be comfortable with some limitation of the Second Amendment. However, the poster appears to favor limitations that would effectively remove this right completely (i.e. the D.C. gun ban).

Finally, in my opinion, taking into account contemporary social conditions is dangerous. Society is constantly evolving, sometimes for the good, sometimes not. An example of a good change would be the reversal of the Dredd Scott decision, which was influenced by the contemporary social conditions of the day. Thankfully, that decision is no longer valid. A not-so-good change would be the current public aversion to real immigration reform, due in large part to misinformation publicly spouted over and over until it is assumed to be fact.

The amendment process was deliberately crafted to be difficult. The super-majority ratification requirement is designed to insure that any changes are truly the will of the people as a whole. Of course, that has not always been the case (The 18th amendment, prohibition).

Ok, I have done my best to answer your post. I await your response. Be gentle, please - after all, I do have a genuine medically induced impairment!

P.S. Some questions:
1. Is there a main source that the original Constitution of Canada is based on - English common law for example?
2. I have read a little about the Canada Charter of Right and Freedoms. It appears to be similar to our Bill of Rights in many ways, and even more extensive as far as what are identified as rights. Would that be an accurate description?

[Atypical Liberal]

93. That's great if crime is all you are interested in.

But in 2011, these silly arguments are largely confined to the right-wing in the United States. The rest of the civilized world has pretty much come to understand that you need to control gun ownership in order to avoid the massive amount of gun violence we see in this country. And they've been largely successful -- no other wealthy nation has anywhere near the level of gun violence that we do.

And that is fine, if crime is all you are interested in.

I happen to also believe that people deserve the right to have the tools to defend themselves from violence and oppression. I'm not willing to sacrifice that right just to prevent a few people from committing crimes with firearms.

Without firearms, every single victim of violent crime has only three options: Flee if they are fast enough, submit if they are tough enough, or engage in a physical contest of strength with their attackers if they are strong enough.

Firearms also provide the means for armed revolution should it ever be necessary. People who think this will never be necessary believe that their currently benign governments will forever be so. People who think this is impossible need to study history.

Firearms also provide the ability to defend life and property during times of chaos and social upheaval, like the recent riots in the UK.

People who live in countries where firearms have been banned certainly do enjoy lower firearm crime rates. But that comes at a cost. I'd rather deal with criminals who use firearms rather than not have any myself.

[DanTex]

105. So we disagree.

To me, the thousands of people who are hurt or killed every year due to gun violence are the bottom line. These are actual innocent lives, and I'm not willing to sacrifice so many innocent lives for what I consider to be dogmatic and hyperbolic concerns about "rights", "tyranny", "armed revolution" and so on.

It's not an anti-gun or pro-gun thing, really. Overall, a crime that is prevented or made less lethal because a potential criminal did not have a gun is basically worth the same amount as a crime prevented or made less lethal because the victim was able to use a gun in self-defense. If it were the case that more guns meant there would be less crime victims, then I would be all for it. I'm anti-crime and pro-public safety, which turns out to mean that I favor stronger gun control than currently exists in the US.

As far as the civil rights issue, I do not believe that owning a gun for self defense is a basic human right. The problem I have is that permissive gun laws create a society with more lethal criminals, and one could argue that living in a society with less violent criminals is also a "right". Now, the staunch gun-rights advocates might claim that this is silly -- there's no "right to safety". But I disagree -- one could just as easily claim that the "right" to own a gun is silly, and that in a modern civilized society public safety is a "right", just as you could argue that things like food, shelter, healthcare, and so on are rights.

You'll notice the I'm using the phrase "one could argue" a lot -- since we're talking about political philosophy here rather than hard science, there's no precise way to determine what actually constitutes a basic civil right. In fact, although you and I probably disagree on the correct interpretation of the second amendment, and what the framers intended it to mean, even if 2A did read "all citizens have the right to own and carry any kind of firearm at any time for any reason", that still wouldn't mean it's a basic civil right. Conversely, even if there were no second amendment, that wouldn't mean that owning a gun is not a civil right. That's because the constitution is just a legal document, and while it is the final word on what the US legal system considers to be fundamental rights, it does not carry the same absolute authority in the general philosophical sense.

In the end, my opinion is that both the "right" to own a gun for self-defense, and the "right" to live in a safer society both fall in a different category than, say, freedom of speech. I think there needs to be a balance between the two, and that dogmatic insistence that one of these is a "right" and the other is not is not the correct way to achieve that balance. Instead, I think the guiding principle should be more practical -- minimizing the amount of suffering and death due to gun violence.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

122. The thousands of people who are hurt...

are irrelevant to the exercise of a right.

The fact that someone may misuse something to commit a crime does not justify the suppression of the rights of everyone else.

If you want to only view the numbers, you need to consider the opposite number of how many people protect themselves and others using a weapon. It far outweighs the criminal misuse.

You may also want to be a little intellectually honest and disregard suicides as the existence of a gun has zero effect on suicide rates. It is merely a method. That someone blew out the back of their head or jumped off a building is irrelevant. The tool was not motivation for the problem.

You can believe that the right to own a gun and the "right" to live in a safer society are different than the freedom of speech, and your belief would even be half right. The "right" to live in a safer society does not, and cannot ever exist, whereas the other two do.

You see - what YOU consider safe, another may consider dangerous and in either case, guaranteeing safety will absolutely curtail rights.

Life is dangerous my friend. I'm sorry you don't like that, but facts are facts.

If, and that's a huge "if", the human condition ever changes to the degree that self defense is completely unnecessary, then and only then will you even have a remotely valid argument for doing away with arms. Until that time though, you're pretty much shit out of luck.

[DanTex]

130. A bit crass. I'd suggest a little more nuance and a little less bravado.

For example, you simply assert that the right to own or carry a gun "exists" and the right to safety does not without even attempting a justification. This, of course, is just thoughtless and smallminded dogmatism.

Your inability to articulate any rationale for this childishly extremist position is not particularly surprising, though, in light of the fact that essentially every verifiable claim you have made in that post is positively false. Regarding defensive gun uses, the statistics are clear -- criminal gun uses outnumber defensive uses by a large factor. In fact, there is pretty much no scientific evidence that carrying or owning a gun actually provides much safety benefit at all. Most of the studies have actually found that the opposite is true -- for various reasons carrying or owning a gun puts an individual at greater risk. You don't seem to be familiar with the science, so I'll help you out a bit. Here is a decent recent overview of what scientists have found regarding gun violence.
http://ajl.sagepub.com/content/early/2011/02/01/1559827610396294.full.pdf+html

You also have clearly misunderstand the nature of suicide. It is often an impulsive rather than a carefully planned event, and the presence of a loaded gun makes it much easier to carry out the act. Moreover, gunshots are an especially lethal method of suicide. This is why many studies have found that a gun in the home results in substantially higher suicide rates. You'll find some references in that survey, if you are interested.


Life is indeed dangerous. But it is less dangerous in other wealthy nations, which have homicide rates generally about 4 times smaller than the US. They seem to have found a much better balance between the competing values of self defense and public safety.

[SteveM]

128. I note that Mussolini and Hitler enacted some tough gun-control laws.

[iverglas]

142. I note that you're about as well-informed

as a two-year old.

Tell us about Hitler's gun laws, will you?

I'll disregard the obvious flaw in your post, here.

But I think Hitler liked dogs, too ...

[akvo]

165. So easy to throw out some snide comment

I'd like to hear you state the "obvious" flaw. Please inform us how past experience with gun laws is not relevent, particularly when state imposed gun laws led to disaster. I'm waiting to hear your expertise on Post-WW1 Europe.

[iverglas]

167. is that a fan club application I see?

So easy to throw out some snide comment

Actually, it's best to wait for somebody to make a totally unsubstantiated wild allegation about something, and then throw out the snide comment. That way it has a target.

If you want a lesson in history, go ask the person who made the nonsense comment in question. The onus lies there. Just a little lesson you may want to learn, in case a quiz is instituted for fan club membership.

[akvo]

164. I agree with you except for this....

"People who live in countries where firearms have been banned certainly do enjoy lower firearm crime rates."

Not true, particularly if you look at homicide separately from suicide. Its homicide that I am afraid of, not some guy that goes in his room and blows his brains out. The suicide is not a threat to me, he isn't going to stick a gun in my face or break into my house or do a drive by or go to the fast food place and execute everyone or go to an island retreat and muder 80+ people or stroll around a university killing unarmed students.

There is Israel, Switzerland, and Finland, minimal gun laws and almost required gun ownership, yet very low homicide rates.

Colombia, Estonia, El Salvador, Mexico, Brazil, Philipines, Paraguay, Russia, Puerto Rico, Ukraine, Venezuela, all have much higher homicide rates than the US, and have stricter gun control laws or make it impossible through regulations to own a firearm. Notice most of these countries are also hell holes, ruled by a dictator or drug boss or warlord, and are very violent.

How about the US in 1900, no gun laws at all, plenty of guns around, and the homicide rate was about 15% of what it is today.

Or the fact that US gun laws have been easing over the past 20 years, there are more guns available than ever before, and the gun crime rates are dropping significantly.

[SteveM]

120. Some problems here...

"The rest of the civilized world has pretty much come to understand that you need to control gun ownership in order to avoid the massive amount of gun violence we see in this country. And they've been largely successful -- no other wealthy nation has anywhere near the level of gun violence that we do."

Leaving aside for now your definition of "civilized," I would point out that many of the countries in Europe which placed many restrictions on firearms already had a history of low crime rates; they didn't need to be "...largely successful." Reminds me of the saying about fancy schools: Harvard graduates the best because they only accept the best.

The best thing about "American Exceptionalism" is how exceptional one can be in bandying about the term. I assume you do not see the U.S. as being much different from other places. But we do have a long history of self-defense using arms, as well as a constitutional charge to maintain and call out, if need be, the militia. And we do have a system of states with considerable autonomy. And a written constitution. I, too, use logic and reason, and when it comes to politics, I will employ using the constitution. (I don't really know what you mean by "fundamentalism.")

"If you look at the data, the US clearly has the worst gun policy in the industrialized world. But if you forget the facts and just toss around patriotic slogans, then things are great."

Well, being bereft of data in your thread, I cannot see where our "gun policy" is all that problematic, given our country's rather "exceptional" (though not exclusive) bent toward violence. Though you would probably disagree, most pro-2A posters don't "...just toss around patriotic slogans," and are quick to point out when things aren't "great." They usually confine themselves to that data you mention as well as the appropriateness of legislation in meeting social needs and conforming to the Constitution.

If you have a different view as to how the Constitution should be involved, let us know.

[DanTex]

148. We are actually not a uniquely violent people.

This is a common myth circulated by the pro-gun crowd, but if you compare overall violent crime rates with other wealthy countries you find this is not the case. It's only when you look at gun crimes and homicide that we are way off the charts. The reason for this is that guns make crime much more lethal -- most homicides don't start off as homicides, they occur as escalations from arguments or from other less lethal crimes.

By constitutional fundamentalism, I'm referring to the tendency of Bachmann-style zealots to cite the founding fathers and the constitution ceaselessly and mindlessly, rather than rationally examining today's state of affairs. I think it's a fitting way to describe quoting Patrick Henry and insisting on a rigid misreading of the second amendment in order to avoid facing the reality that tens of thousands of Americans lose their lives to gun violence each year.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

121. The point is still valid...

and if you don't like the individual having his right to be armed protected by the Constitution, by all means, get started on a movement to repeal the 2nd, 9th and 10th Amendments.

Good luck with that.

[Euromutt]

156. "Post hoc ergo propter hoc" much?

The rest of the civilized world has pretty much come to understand that you need to control gun ownership in order to avoid the massive amount of gun violence we see in this country.

Actually, the United States is damn near unique among wealthy countries in having adopted gun laws aimed at criminal use of firearms. Most western European countries restricted private ownership in the wake of the revolutions in Russia and Germany and the ending of the first world war, fearful that the rather large numbers of young men re-entering civilian life after having been trained to use violence in the service of the state might, egged on by--gasp!--Bolsheviks, use that training to overthrow the state.

One exception was Weimar Germany, which banned private firearms ownership entirely to comply with the Treaty of Versailles. Which didn't stop the Communists and the Nazis from holding running gun battles on the streets of most major cities throughout the 1920s.

And they've been largely successful -- no other wealthy nation has anywhere near the level of gun violence that we do.

Those other countries didn't have "anywhere near the level of gun violence that we do" before they adopted those gun control measures either. Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

[iverglas]

63. I can see you need some facts to go with that logic

And I'm just the helpful type to help.

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndbog.html

A start, there, anyhow.


1. The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference they deserve a place of honor with all that is good. ~ George Washington
(You quote only a fragment of the entire passage attributed to old GW.)

Ah yes.

This quotation, sometimes called the "liberty teeth" quote, appears nowhere in Washington's papers or speeches, and contains several historical anachronisms: ...

This is a false quote ...

Another source:

http://fakehistory.wordpress.com/2011/01/25/madison-and-the-advantage-of-being-armed/

2. Americans the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust their people with arms. ~ John Adams
(Come on, that isn't even a sentence.)

You have quoted somebody's paraphrase of what Adams said. Not very good form, I'm afraid.


How is anyone to believe anything you say, with an early track record like this?


Now, about this one:

They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~ Benjamin Franklin

There actually is no definitive version of that one, but I do applaud you for not omitting the "essential" and "little temporary" as so many choose to do.

My question on this one is:

Who decides that your liberty to possess/tote whatever guns you take a fancy to is "essential" while the safety of millions of other people, which is jeopardized by unrestricted access to firearms by anyone else who takes a fancy, is "little" and "temporary"? Do you really think that Franklin was talking about your whim vs. someone else's life and limb?

Maybe you do, maybe you do. Maybe you actually care as little about what your gaggle of old dead rich white men said as I do. But hey, at least if I were going to quote them, I'd do them the courtesy of doing so accurately.

[friendly_iconoclast]

66. And where might this "unrestricted access to firearms by anyone else..." be found?

Another call for Prohibition 3.0, eh?

[Name removed]

72. Deleted message

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

[iverglas]

136. oh dear, whose pearls got clutched?

And where might this "unrestricted access to firearms by anyone else..." be found?
Posted by friendly_iconoclast
Another call for Prohibition 3.0, eh?

Was this even meant to make sense? Perhaps those are two unrelated, er, thoughts.

What I said was:

Who decides that your liberty to possess/tote whatever guns you take a fancy to is "essential" while the safety of millions of other people, which is jeopardized by unrestricted access to firearms by anyone else who takes a fancy, is "little" and "temporary"?

And what I said next was pretty obviously a statement that you know precisely where that is (and that I can't think why you would pretend otherwise, since pretending otherwise does not flatter you).

Because you know as well as I do that the "gun control" in existence in the USofA does not prevent anyone from acquiring a firearm, and in particular from acquiring firearms, the tool of choice for criminals and murderers.

Hence access to firearms in the US is plainly unrestricted.

All clear now?

[PavePusher]

138. If we do it harder, faster, deeper and longer...

we'll all be satisfied.

We've just never done enough of it to get it right.

[Hoopla Phil]

12. How about another option. Go back prior to the 86 ban?

I'd go for that or option 1.

[Kurska]

18. 1, I want to be able to run my background check online and buy my guns through amazon. n/t

[-..__...]

19. Sighhh....

Ohhh... what the hell. Put me down for #8... Somalian style gun control laws; it would be nice to be able to pick-up a track mounted, quad 20mm

anti-aircraft gun at a local yard sale and not have to fuss about any paperwork.

[MicaelS]

21. I'd go for 2.5

(a) Repeal the 1986 machine gun ban, but keep the NFA in force.
(b) All transfers have to go through NICS. Change the NICS so those that don't have an FFL and want to do a private transfer can do so for a nominal fee, say $5.

[PavePusher]

26. Sorry, no fee, thanks.

If it's good for everyone, then everyone can pay for it via tax dollars.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

40. I am bout where you are...somewhere between 2 & 3

[The Green Manalishi]

24. 1

[gejohnston]

28. I would go with

post 24 but NICS for free (or even pay the seller to use it as an incentive) and amend NFA to deregulate suppressors like Finland, France, and New Zealand

[X_Digger]

29. I'd say 3, but a uniform leveling across the states

And I'd probably roll back the interstate restrictions, so that a resident can buy from dealers across state lines (rather than the patchwork of contiguity-restricted sales some states allow.)

[Taverner]

47. That's my thought too...and allow for more CCWs

CCWs aren't the problem

Crimes committed by CCW holders are usually very low, especially since once you commit a crime, you lose your CCW

I vacillate on the idea of a national gun registry - for obvious reasons

[X_Digger]

73. While I generally trust our current administration..

My crystal ball is on the fritz when it comes to future ones.

One additional change I'd make is remove suppressors and SBRs from the list of NFA items. Suppressors are sold over the counter in many places. We can thank Hollywood for the myth that suppressors are 'silencers'.

[NewMoonTherian]

36. Given the choices, I choose #1.

If I could tweek things a little, I'd choose current laws(NICS, licensed CCW, etc.) but I'd eliminate the NFA and Hughes amendment, allowing auto's and SBR's to be purchased with a NICS check.

[S_B_Jackson]

37. 2.5) Post-1968 (US): NFA of 1934 and GCA of 1968

Get rid of the Hughes Amendment. No need for a renewed AWB, or a limitation on the capacity of magazines.

Stringent enforcement of gun laws; especially the prosecution to the full extent of the law of felons attempting to purchase, or in possession of firearms laws, as well as those who straw-purchase for them.

Passage of enhancement penalties for the use of a firearm to commit any crime....20 years mandatory for the use of a firearm without possibility of parole or "good time" + whatever sentence is associated with the crime that was committed. No concurrent sentencing for the gun charges - time served must be consecutive.

[RSillsbee]

43. Guess I'm teh evil

1

[Upton]

44. 1

[Starboard Tack]

54. Number 5

Fudd style, buy anywhere, no control for ownership. No toting in urban gun-free zones.

[iverglas]

55. (6)

For the world. Unfortunately, Canada is still lagging behind in a few ways.

(Interesting that you don't offer the Canadian approach as a choice ... I know, I know, we're invisible up here under all that August snow ...)

[Abin Sur]

60. I was trying to keep the number of choices relatively small

And my understanding (please correct me if I'm wrong) is that Canada is fairly close to #4.

[iverglas]

65. can't really say about California

but Canada is close to the UK except that

- social/demographic differences make long arm possession more widespread (more isolated, rural, etc. population; aboriginal groups with constitutional/treaty hunting rights; tourism in some areas dependent on hunting ...), this being what I have no problem with in principle

- handguns and restricted semi-automatic rifles are available to sports shooters and "collectors", this being what I have a problem with for several reasons

Essentially, at least at present, anyone who wants to possess must have the appropriate permit, all firearms possessed and all transfers must be registered (subject to the current Conservative Party federal cabinet fiat providing an amnesty for non-registrants of long arms, which obviously I oppose).

Universal licensing
Universal registration
Stringent safe/secure storage regulations, with meaningful oversight/enforcement

are the essential and inseparable components of effective firearms control if anyone genuinely wants to interfere in the ability of people who should not have firearms to lay hands on them, and especially on their firearms of choice, i.e. handguns and certain semi-automatic rifles.

[Abin Sur]

69. Why did you put "collectors" in quotes?

From context, I assume that you think that many or most of those declaring themselves to be gun collectors in Canada are not in fact so. Why would this be the case? Using myself as an example, I have a Curio & Relic Federal Firearms License which allows me to bypass the time, paperwork, and expense of going through a dealer when I purchase a firearm which is at least 50 years old. I can also have it shipped directly to my home. I have dozens of handguns and rifles which in my collection which fall under this category.

Is this not similar to the designation of "collector" in Canada?

[iverglas]

75. here's one reason why

I have to give you a secondary source because the original article in the Toronto Star seems not to be available, and it is a good one on this person. I offer this source for no other reason than that you can read the entire article there:

http://forums.blueline.ca/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=24202&start=150

Jan. 7, 2006. 10:23 AM
STAFF REPORTERS-Canadian Press

ORLANDO, FLA.—Dozens of high-powered weapons that have flooded Toronto streets were stolen from a well-known gun collector and firearms instructor who kept his dangerous stash in a subsidized housing apartment in Scarborough.

... Hargreaves' stolen cache raises serious issues around the screening of gun collectors, and the licensing and storage of guns in Canada. The federal government gave him a storage license to keep weapons in a housing complex in an area known for gang activity.

... One of the guns taken from the apartment was used last September in one of the worst bloodbaths in the history of Toronto — a triple murder near the end of the Summer of the Gun, in a year marked by the worst gun violence the city has seen. Today, the collector, Mike Hargreaves, is a fugitive from Canadian justice, living in a modest, two-storey stucco home a few kilometres from Disney World. Many of the 32 to 35 guns stolen from his Toronto apartment (machine guns, Glock handguns and assault rifles) are still on the streets.

... A decade ago, Hargreaves rented unit 1707 at 31 Gilder Dr. — a massive apartment complex run by the Toronto Community Housing Corp. To qualify for an apartment, a person typically has a very low — or no — income (often the person is on welfare). Hargreaves, whose gun consulting office was in Mississauga, used the Gilder Dr. apartment as his "storage facility."

... Where have the other guns gone? There are suspicions they have been used in a number of shootings. ... (details follow)

This piece of shit is the poster boy for what's wrong with the "collector" category in the present Canadian scheme. But he is by no means the only "collector" whose arsenal has gone missing in the last few years, and been used for similar purposes.

"Collectors" here have to demonstrate some minor knowledge of their subject matter and then are allowed to own handguns and semi-automatic rifles that are not available to people with ordinary firearms permits. This makes them major targets for theft by gangs in particular, and plainly they are too often unable or unwilling to keep their arsenals out of those hands.

Those firearms are also available to people who qualify as sports shooters by taking out memberships in gun clubs. People like Kimveer Gill, who attempted to commit a mass murder with his restricted semi-automatic rifle at a college in Montreal but only managed to kill one person, and the common or garden variety creep who took his handgun to town (highly illegal and contrary to the terms of his permit) and killed a passing pedestrian when he shot at a nightclub bouncer who had annoyed him.

There's no reason for either "collectors" or genuine sports shooters to possess restricted firearms at their own premises. Own them, fine, and arrange for storage at some suitable premises.

[Abin Sur]

78. I still don't see why you're using quotes

Even if my firearms were strewn about the house (they're not, other than a Mossberg 590 for home defense), I would still be a collector...albeit one who has take a foolish risk. As to the gentleman (Hargreaves) in question, I read the article and I'm puzzled as to you characterization of him as a "piece of shit". As per the story:

To store his arsenal, Hargreaves brought in a monstrous safe. It was so heavy, movers had to take off the 500-pound door so the elevator could carry it to the 17th floor.

Working for two days, thieves used sledgehammers and blowtorches to blast open the 1,700-pound, concrete-and-steel Brinks safe.

Assuming this to be true, he could hardly have stored his guns more securely at this residence. The only people in the story I would describe as "pieces of shit" would be the thieves.

Blame the criminals involved in a theft, not the victim.

BTW, do you know the eventual resolution regarding the charges? Did he ever return to Canada?

[friendly_iconoclast]

83. It's even more interesting than that. From the link given:

..Every gun was registered, he says, and properly stored. He had all the proper licences and police inspected the apartment, armed with a motion-detector alarm, annually...

..."I had a permit to purchase rifles and shotguns," the burly grandfather of four says matter-of-factly. "All the guns in there were training guns. There was nothing for sale, they were training guns and personal firearms."

"There's no rule that you have to be there every minute, you don't have to live there, you don't have to sleep there, you have to have a licence on the wall," Hargreaves says....

...In addition to helping police forces, Hargreaves' resume shows that he has testified as an expert witness on behalf of the defence in Toronto court cases numerous times. He suspects that is one reason the police have charged him — they don't like that he used his knowledge of guns for people charged with gun-related offences....

Looks like a case of "If your guns are stolen, ipso facto you didn't have them properly secured-no matter what steps you took to do so, or whatever extremes the thieves went to in order to get at them"

[iverglas]

86. very cute

"I had a permit to purchase rifles and shotguns," the burly grandfather of four says matter-of-factly. "All the guns in there were training guns. ..."

Quite the sin of omission. Rifles and shotguns ... AND ...

They included numerous RESTRICTED firearms -- handguns and semi-automatic rifles that are NOT available to people who do not have collector/sports shooter permits. I don't care what he called them.

There are very few places for criminals to get those weapons in Canada. Theft and smuggling are the initial sources, with internal trafficking after that.

Someone with his c.v. was well aware of that. He absolutely knew that "collections" of handguns and semi-automatic rifles were prizes that criminals would and do go to great lengths to acquire.

He suspects that is one reason the police have charged him — they don't like that he used his knowledge of guns for people charged with gun-related offences....

Yes, the unsubstantiated self-serving statements of this kind of person are exactly the evidence I know I like.


Looks like a case of "If your guns are stolen, ipso facto you didn't have them properly secured-no matter what steps you took to do so, or whatever extremes the thieves went to in order to get at them"

Yeah, pretty much; I don't really have a problem with that. Nobody forces anybody to own guns; if they don't want to be responsible and accountable for them, they can get rid of them or just not bother acquiring them.

When you own a fucking arsenal like this one did, of things that you absolutely know attract very very bad people, people with resources and motivation, not just yer average junkie/burglar, you do whatever needs to be done to keep them out of those hands.

Leaving them unattended in a housing project in a high-crime, gang-ridden urban area, nope, doesn't make the grade.

[friendly_iconoclast]

88. According to you, "there is no such thing as secure storage"

In an earlier discussion of this very case:

"And that pretty much just goes to show that there is just no such thing as secure storage."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x119761#119783

Which brings up a question: Why haven't the shooting victim's survivors taken action against the Toronto cops
for approving Hargreaves' "inadequate" security arrangements?

[iverglas]

89. do you have some source

for the authority given to the Toronto police to approve or disapprove firearms storage arrangements?

Quick answer: they don't have any authority to approve anything. They have authority to inspect for compliance with the regulations.

You may be reading this paragraph in the news report:

Every gun was registered, he says, and properly stored. He had all the proper licences and police inspected the apartment, armed with a motion-detector alarm, annually.

The legislation in question, granting the power of inspection, is here:
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/F-11.6/page-26.html#h-39

Storage requirements are set out in the regulations:
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-98-209/index.html

For example (apparently he had prohibited firearms):

STORAGE OF PROHIBITED FIREARMS

7. An individual may store a prohibited firearm only if

(a) it is unloaded;

(b) it is

(i) rendered inoperable by means of a secure locking device and stored in a container, receptacle or room that is kept securely locked and that is constructed so that it cannot readily be broken open or into, and, if the prohibited firearm is an automatic firearm that has a removable bolt or bolt-carrier, the bolt or bolt-carrier is removed and stored in a room that is different from the room in which the automatic firearm is stored, that is kept securely locked and that is constructed so that it cannot readily be broken open or into, or

(ii) stored in a vault, safe or room that has been specifically constructed or modified for the secure storage of prohibited firearms and that is kept securely locked; and

(c) it is not readily accessible to ammunition, unless the ammunition is stored, together with or separately from the firearm, in

(i) a container or receptacle that is kept securely locked and that is constructed so that it cannot readily be broken open or into, or

(ii) a vault, safe or room that has been specifically constructed or modified for the secure storage of prohibited firearms and that is kept securely locked.

Dandy.

Do all that (if he did) in a vacant unmonitored apartment and it really just hardly matters, does it?

Cabinet seems to have failed to foresee the Mike Hargreaves case. Since Cabinet can't foresee every wild and woolly case that might arise, it needs to do better than those regulations.

Exactly what did go wrong with that "motion detector alarm", I wonder.

[iverglas]

84. there's been much discussion of him here over the years

An easy search would find it.

He was allocated a social housing unit at a time when he presumably met the income requirements. I say "presumably" because there's no actual evidence of that available. He had an arsenal worth $40,000 at the time of the theft, by his statement. If he was actually on social assistance, there are limits on assets that may be retained, and a $30-40,000 firearms collection would not be exempt from liquidation if declared.

Maybe he was paying market rent at the time of the theft, if he had diligently submitted an accurate income statement every year as residents of social housing in subsidized units are required to do, and his income exceeded the threshold. (My mum is one, in a senior cits' building, so I'm very familiar with the process.) Since he owned property in Florida, I fail to see how his income could possibly not been over the line for subsidy.

Paying market rent for an apartment in downtown Toronto to use for storing an arsenal ... well, maybe that would still be cheaper than paying for actual secure storage, I don't know. I just sincerely doubt that he was paying market rent.

In any event, social housing complexes in Ontario are not made available to anyone for storage, of firearms or anything else. They are made available as rental housing: to house people. If he was not living in the unit, he was not entitled to it. Period. In a housing market where people wait years for subsidized units and there are families on the street, the housing corporation really does not rent out units as storage. It was not a "residence", so you needn't try to call it that. It was a storage unit.

So one way or numerous ways, his tenancy was fraudulent. He was occupying a desperately needed housing unit, a public asset that he was not entitled to use for his private non-housing purposes, as nothing but storage for his little hobby.

His little hobby amounted to building up and possessing a cache of valuable items that would cause huge risk to the public in the wrong hands and that everyone with a brain knows are focal points for theft. Weapons that facilitate crimes, facilitate drug trafficking, and kill people -- all of which is precisely what they ended up doing. The onus was on him and him alone to prevent that happening. Leaving the things in a completely unsupervised location in a place well known to have crime problems and a large gang presence, no matter how thick the walls on his vault, was unacceptable behaviour. It was not safe and it was not secure -- very obviously.

And I blame him 100% for his behaviour. He was the victim of a theft, for which he was underinsured. Hard bananas, nobody else's problem. The real victims were the people and communities against whom the crimes committed with his guns were committed, and he was the one who put those guns in play.

As far as I can determine he has never returned to Canada. What a man.

[Atypical Liberal]

96. licensing, registration, safes.

Universal licensing
Universal registration
Stringent safe/secure storage regulations, with meaningful oversight/enforcement

I'm OK with universal licensing, so long as it is an opt-out and not an opt-in system, to insure anonymous firearm ownership is preserved.

I will never support registration, as this gives the government a list of firearm owners, and undermines the intent of the second amendment.

Just about all new firearms ship with a free lock, or are internally lockable. But even if you require them to be stored in a particular manner, the law is basically unenforceable, as no one knows about improper storage until something bad happens. At that point, punishment is pretty insignificant for the owner, and they risk being sued into destitution anyway.

[iverglas]

99. eh?

I'm OK with universal licensing, so long as it is an opt-out and not an opt-in system, to insure anonymous firearm ownership is preserved.

I have no idea what that means. I might assume that it means what has been discussed here at great length in the past: that people not eligible to posess firearms, according to current standards in the US, be identified somehow ... and this of course just takes us back into the morass of the huge and totally unjustified invasion of the privacy of individuals who have no interest whatsoever in acquiring firearms, but whose medical records will be entered into and retained in a database in no way related to their medical or any other interests.

Licensing is a way of reducing the risk of firearms being possessed by people who should not have them. There are a whole lot more such people than merely "felons" and individuals who have been committed or judged incompetent. It is an imperfect system, as are most human endeavours, but it reduces risks ... for example, of abusive men acquiring firearms, of people at risk of suicide (and thus possibly also of committing homicide) acquiring firearms, of never-convicted organized crime / gang members or other criminally involved persons aquiring firearms, etc.

I will never support registration, as this gives the government a list of firearm owners, and undermines the intent of the second amendment.

Yeah, blah blah. Whichever argument suits at the moment, eh? It's for self-defence, it's for collective defence, it's for self-defence ... your sister, your mother ...

But even if you require them to be stored in a particular manner, the law is basically unenforceable, as no one knows about improper storage until something bad happens. At that point, punishment is pretty insignificant for the owner, and they risk being sued into destitution anyway.

The second point first: why not repeal laws against homicide? Surely offenders could just be sued into destitution.

On the first point ... yeah, that's right. Such laws are never accompanied by massive public education/information campaigns, incentives to comply, enforcement action where no harm has occurred ...

Why just look at impaired driving, and how nothing like that has ever been done, and there have been no effects anyhow.

Drunk drivers are never charged unless somebody has been killed; why not just ignore any instances of unsafe/insecure storage that come to public attention if nobody has been killed? There are no public service announcements in the media, there are no programs aimed at youth and young drivers to deter drunk driving, there is no public shaming associated with drunk driving, there are no designated-driver and leave-your-keys initiatives in public/private sector partnerships. And drunk driving rates (and the harm associated) just haven't changed an iota as a result.

People with something to lose and no actual reason to break the law tend to obey the law, given the opportunity to reflect and a few incentives to obey and disincentives to disobey.

[Atypical Liberal]

103. licensing, registration, safes...

I have no idea what that means. I might assume that it means what has been discussed here at great length in the past: that people not eligible to posess firearms, according to current standards in the US, be identified somehow ... and this of course just takes us back into the morass of the huge and totally unjustified invasion of the privacy of individuals who have no interest whatsoever in acquiring firearms, but whose medical records will be entered into and retained in a database in no way related to their medical or any other interests.

That is correct. In the United States, the way we determine who is eligible to own firearms is by checking them against a list of people known not to be eligible to own firearms.

It is simple and effective.

Yes, this means that people who have been adjudicated mentally incompetent or who have been involuntarily committed to a mental institution have that information recorded in a government database.

But this is a far lesser evil than the privacy invasion of keeping a list of all firearm owners.

At the end of the day, someone's privacy is going to be invaded. I'd rather it be the mentally unstable people.

Licensing is a way of reducing the risk of firearms being possessed by people who should not have them. There are a whole lot more such people than merely "felons" and individuals who have been committed or judged incompetent. It is an imperfect system, as are most human endeavours, but it reduces risks ... for example, of abusive men acquiring firearms, of people at risk of suicide (and thus possibly also of committing homicide) acquiring firearms, of never-convicted organized crime / gang members or other criminally involved persons aquiring firearms, etc.

I am open to discussing other metrics by which people can be judged as being ineligible to own firearms. NICS can then be used to keep a record of everyone disqualified by those metrics.

Yeah, blah blah. Whichever argument suits at the moment, eh? It's for self-defence, it's for collective defence, it's for self-defence ... your sister, your mother ...

I have no idea what you are attempting to say here.

The second point first: why not repeal laws against homicide? Surely offenders could just be sued into destitution.

For one, people who commit murder are likely to have extensive prior criminal histories, and thus are likely to continue to be criminals. Society has an interest in putting such people in prison.

This is probably not true for someone who just doesn't lock their firearm up.

Drunk drivers are never charged unless somebody has been killed; why not just ignore any instances of unsafe/insecure storage that come to public attention if nobody has been killed? There are no public service announcements in the media, there are no programs aimed at youth and young drivers to deter drunk driving, there is no public shaming associated with drunk driving, there are no designated-driver and leave-your-keys initiatives in public/private sector partnerships. And drunk driving rates (and the harm associated) just haven't changed an iota as a result.

It's a lot harder to hide drunk driving than improper firearm storage. People have reduced drunk driving because there is a high probability of getting caught and when you do, the consequences are severe. Even if you made the consequences of improper firearm storage severe, there is a low probability of being caught, and even if you are, there are going to be other consequences that will be far more severe than whatever the law throws at you.

That said, I have no problem with public service announcements in the media urging people to properly store their firearms.

People with something to lose and no actual reason to break the law tend to obey the law, given the opportunity to reflect and a few incentives to obey and disincentives to disobey.

I agree 100%. I'm just saying that if the loss of your child and the possibility of being sued into oblivion by your child's friend's parents is not a sufficient incentive to lock up your firearm, no additional law will be compelling.

[iverglas]

108. snork

Yes, this means that people who have been adjudicated mentally incompetent or who have been involuntarily committed to a mental institution have that information recorded in a government database.

But this is a far lesser evil than the privacy invasion of keeping a list of all firearm owners.

At the end of the day, someone's privacy is going to be invaded. I'd rather it be the mentally unstable people.

You're all right, Jack.

I'd rather it be the people who make a choice, myself.

You choose to acquire firearms, you comply with the conditions. Don't want to comply with the conditions, don't acquire firearms. Pretty simple.

People do not choose to be mentally ill or incompetent. If I said: if you don't want your personal data to be entered and retained in a database, don't lose your mind or your wits, I'd look pretty stupid and nasty. Perhaps that isn't what you're saying.

You just don't give a crap because it doesn't affect you, too blatantly obviously.

Whichever argument suits at the moment, eh? It's for self-defence, it's for collective defence, it's for self-defence ... your sister, your mother ...
I have no idea what you are attempting to say here.

Sure you do ... unless in your attempts to confound your enemy you have managed to confound yourself.

The second point first: why not repeal laws against homicide? Surely offenders could just be sued into destitution.
For one, people who commit murder are likely to have extensive prior criminal histories, and thus are likely to continue to be criminals. Society has an interest in putting such people in prison.
This is probably not true for someone who just doesn't lock their firearm up.

Sez you. It actually isn't true of numerous people who commit murder, in fact.

I'm not seeing any reason that someone who doesn't lock their firearms up would ever bother doing so, absent the threat inherent in laws ... making them likely to continue to present a risk to the public.

It's a lot harder to hide drunk driving than improper firearm storage. People have reduced drunk driving because there is a high probability of getting caught and when you do, the consequences are severe. Even if you made the consequences of improper firearm storage severe, there is a low probability of being caught, and even if you are, there are going to be other consequences that will be far more severe than whatever the law throws at you.

Indeed. The certainty of punishment is, in general, a far greater deterrent than the potential severity of any punishment. This is why the other incentives/disincentives I discussed are important in many situations.

You insist that the only situation in which people who do not comply with storage rules get caught is when a tragedy occurs. This simply isn't so; one quick example is when a kid is found with a firearm, say in a schoolyard, and no actual harm is done. It also simply does not displace the initial non-compliance. I don't care whether the person who gets killed, if someone does, is the non-complier's kid. Do we decline to prosecute drunk drivers if the person they kill is their kid? Are kids chattel?

Let's remember that we are talking about the "law-abiding". People who tend to comply with laws. The existence of a regulatory law is itself an incentive for compliance among such people.

[Atypical Liberal]

125. Exactly right.

I'd rather it be the people who make a choice, myself.

You choose to acquire firearms, you comply with the conditions. Don't want to comply with the conditions, don't acquire firearms. Pretty simple.

You just don't give a crap because it doesn't affect you, too blatantly obviously.

That is exactly right. I'm not going to compromise the privacy of tens of millions of law-abiding firearm owners, which would directly undermine the second amendment of our Constitution, for the sake of mentally ill people.

If someone gets to have their privacy compromised on this issue, I'll choose the mentally ill people.

Like it or not, that is the way the United States NICS system works.

We test for firearm ownership eligibility by checking against a list of people known to be ineligible. That means that the government keeps a list of those people who are ineligible, thus compromising their privacy. We also compromise their second amendment right. Tough taters for them.

People do not choose to be mentally ill or incompetent. If I said: if you don't want your personal data to be entered and retained in a database, don't lose your mind or your wits, I'd look pretty stupid and nasty. Perhaps that isn't what you're saying.

Of course people don't choose to be mentally ill or incompetent. I just have no problem with our government keeping track of such people for the purposes of stopping them from owning firearms.

Sure you do ... unless in your attempts to confound your enemy you have managed to confound yourself.

No, I really have no idea what sisters and mothers or whatever has to do with self-defense or defending someone else.

Sez you. It actually isn't true of numerous people who commit murder, in fact.

But it is true for the majority of them. Probably 80% or better, in fact, as I've cited before.

I'm not seeing any reason that someone who doesn't lock their firearms up would ever bother doing so, absent the threat inherent in laws ... making them likely to continue to present a risk to the public.

Oh come on. As I've said numerous times, I lock up my firearms because I don't want to be that guy who's kid dies from getting a hold of daddy's gun and kills himself or his sibling or a friend. And there are no laws where I live compelling me to do so. Not to mention that there are lots of people who lock them up simply to protect valuable items from theft.

I lock up my firearms because the risk of personal and financial loss is devastating. But then, I'm one of those people who believes in being prepared for the worst. You seem to think it's ridiculous.

You insist that the only situation in which people who do not comply with storage rules get caught is when a tragedy occurs. This simply isn't so; one quick example is when a kid is found with a firearm, say in a schoolyard, and no actual harm is done. It also simply does not displace the initial non-compliance. I don't care whether the person who gets killed, if someone does, is the non-complier's kid. Do we decline to prosecute drunk drivers if the person they kill is their kid? Are kids chattel?

Good point.

Let's remember that we are talking about the "law-abiding". People who tend to comply with laws. The existence of a regulatory law is itself an incentive for compliance among such people.

But remember we are also talking about people who think that what they do inside their own homes is generally their own business.

[Name removed]

158. Deleted message

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

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

62. Personally, Iike modern restrictions... minus the 1986 Hughes Amendment.

for example, the instant background check is an excellent tool.

The restriction in most typical states (Ohio, vermont, florida, etc...) are perfectly acceptable in my opinion.

[GreenStormCloud]

67. Need more options.

Mostly current law with these changes.

National concealed carry license on a shall-issue basis with requirements similar to those of most states. If you get that Federal license then you could carry anywhere at all, all states and territories, with no restrictions of any kind.

Re-open the full-auto registery. Allow for the manufacture of full auto for civilians, but with the same rules as in 1985.

Open Carry allowed for those who have CCW permits.

[LAGC]

79. Option 8: Move to Montana and be free of all silly Federal restrictions.

http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/04/30/montana-fires-a-warning-shot-over-states%E2%80%99-rights/

[Abin Sur]

81. It's on my short list of states to go to if I were to move.

[LAGC]

85. Same here, for many reasons:

Beautiful country.

No regressive sales tax. (Just slightly higher property and income tax, make the rich pay their fair share.)

Medical marijuana.

Legalized gambling. (Unlike here in conservative Idaho.)

Less restrictive draconian laws in general.

I'm making a road-trip/vacation up through there next week, gonna hit up Yellowstone and Glacier National Parks as I make a big loop through the mountainous western part of the state, see if I can't find my future home.

[ileus]

87. 1

[Fred Engels]

94. A 3 inch group at 100 yards would satisfy me

:D

[Tuesday Afternoon]

104. gawd, yes

frame it and hang it, I would. :D

[We_Have_A_Problem]

106. I'd go with...

#1 - back to pre-1934 levels. It worked just fine for the first 150 years or so - especially since the whole point of the 1934 NFA was to affect organized crime which pretty much went away with the repeal of the 18th Amendment....

[SteveM]

110. Not to be picky, but it is hard to support some of this...

I support very few restrictions on firearms (other than the NICS test), but prior to 1934, New York had already enacted the hugely restrictive Sullivan Laws on a tide of anti-Italian immigrant sentiment, and many Jim Crow laws existed in the South. Though you confine the laws to "(US)," there were very real restrictions at the state level which had not (as with virtually all civil rights legislation until the 60s) not passed 14th Amendment muster.

I can live with the restrictions placed on full-auto firearms, though acts "grandfathering" what could be sold should be lifted.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

119. I believe the OP...

...was referring to the federal level.

The Sullivan Act was a state thing, and would obviously be negated today.

[SteveM]

129. Yeah, I see that, but I was thinking historically...

and history was not confined to U.S. Law. In any case I would call for repeal of the Hughes Amendment -- just an attempt to ban guns by wearing them out.

[hack89]

113. Less - lets not complicate things. nt

[iverglas]

137. maybe we can simplify this

1. Do you support the Democratic Party's position on firearms control?
2. If not, do you vote for Democratic Party candidates?

'Cause there's just a whooole lot of posts in this thread stating positions that are waaaay off anything that has coincided with any Democratic Party position in the last several decades, and they just piqued my curiosity.

[PavePusher]

139. Ah, a litmus test for True Democrats!

Surely one would not be so crass as to imply that the Holy Party could ever take a stance that was bigotted, mean-spirited and plain wrong...

[iverglas]

140. ah, a misrepresentation!

It was two simple questions, really.

No litmus test.

1. Do you support the Democratic Party's position on firearms control?
2. If not, do you vote for Democratic Party candidates?

How could "do you vote for Democratic Party candidates" be a litmus test for True Democrats?

Actually, now that you mention it ... I guess it's kind of the one and only one, isn't it?

So where's your problem?

Can't read / don't like what you read so have to pretend it was something else / ______ (fill in the blank because I've run out of ideas)

[PavePusher]

149. Slip-sliding away....

"Can't read / don't like what you read so have to pretend it was something else / __<I like strawberry Jello.>____ (fill in the blank because I've run out of ideas)

[akvo]

163. Sure sounds like a DU litmus test to me too.

Sure sounds like a DU litmus test to me too. Stray too far from the "proper" attitude here and people start screaming "intruder!". Be different and you are liable to be thrown from the herd.

There are plenty of Democrats that are pro-second amendment, and plenty of Democrats in DC that vote against gun control.

[iverglas]

168. oddly enough, there actually is a DU litmus test

It's called "the rules". Read 'em?

Stray too far from the "proper" attitude here and people start screaming "intruder!"

Hahahahahahahahahaha.

Stray too far from the herd in this particular place and you are likely to be called authoritarian, gun-grabber, liberty-hater, authoritarian, authoritarian, ... and oh yeah, authoritarian ... criminal-lover, and oh, well, I could go on, but you probably have macros for them.

Am I to be the object of all your devotions, or do you have other hobbies?

[Philippine expat]

141. Number 1 here

I want a legal sawed off double barrel for home defense

[Abin Sur]

145. You may be interested in this

Coming out later this year, a very compact shotgun: The Kel-Tec KSG.



With a round in the chamber, it can fire 15(!) times without reloading...and it's 3 inches shorter than an M4 Carbine with the stock retracted!

I certainly plan on getting one in the next few months.

[PavePusher]

150. Someone will be along shortly to declaim how you are contributing...

to appeals to "baser instincts" or some such crapola.

I do like efficient, well designed and thoughtful tools. Is that a "baser instinct"?

[friendly_iconoclast]

151. Yes, it is. Good gun owners embrace mortification of the(ir own) flesh

Ergonomic design is evil, and so is practicing in a realistic manner.

[PavePusher]

153. I should probably glue thorns to the stocks and hand-grips of all my guns...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8V_6M4lmgY

[Philippine expat]

154. Thanks for the info

will definitely investigate

[We_Have_A_Problem]

162. Great design...

...just a little disconcerting that it is made by Kel-Tec

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

166. As several others have said "2.5" for me.

Full auto manufacture and sale okay; no sales through the mail.