Editorial, The real gun problem in America ..

[spin]

More than two years ago, I wrote a column calling for more restrictions on gun ownership. It was just after the terrible shootings at Virginia Tech.

In response, I received a letter from a person who told me, in no uncertain terms, that I was making much ado about nothing. There wasn't a gun problem in this country, he wrote. Most gun owners are citizens who use weapons responsibly.

He said that the issue was overblown and that liberals were out to ban guns outright. He tossed in the usual line about how criminals will never register guns so why should law-abiding folks have to jump through hoops to get one?

***snip***

Most gun owners are indeed responsible and law-abiding citizens. And it is true that criminals will never abide by any gun laws. The letter writer was correct on both counts.

But even acknowledging these truths, the problem with guns doesn't go away.

***snip***

It bears repeating that the problem of guns in this country is not with responsible gun owners. It is the easy availability of firearms in some parts of this country that is the real issue.

***snip***

What gets lost in the argument is that once purchased, guns cross state lines and too often will get into the hands of people who should not have them.

Attempts at legislating even something as simple as mandatory trigger locks for stored weapons run up against the no-compromise position of gun advocacy groups like the politically powerful National Rifle Organization and the Gun Owners' Action League. They consistently view government as the enemy.

***snip***

The gun manufacturers are also part of the problem. Most have fought measures that would make guns safer. The technology is there to track weapons with the implanting of a microchip similar to the LoJack locator system used to find stolen automobiles. With this GPS-type device, police could more easily find and remove stolen guns from the hands of criminals. But that would be expensive and manufacturers aren't eager to do it. And gun owners see tracking devices as a threat to privacy. emphasis added
http://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100330/OPINION/3300334/-1/rss08

[proteus_lives]

1. The e-mail was right. We don't have a gun problem.

The Earth has a human problem.

They just won't admit that the majority of firearms and owners never involved in any crime.

"The technology is there to track weapons with the implanting of a microchip similar to the LoJack locator system used to find stolen automobiles"

No thank you. As a gun-owner I would never purchase such a weapon or alter my own to include such a feature.

[DissedByBush]

22. Ratio of crime

In the 90s there were about 200 million guns in the US.

There were about 700,000 gun crimes in the US in a year.

That's a 0.3% rate of crime with the devices.

Not bad.

The crime rate of people has to be higher than that.

[jaksavage]

2. It is always a few bad apples

That litter, lie, cheat , steel, speed, kill and otherwise act thoughtlessly.
In an civilized society we have to have and obey laws.
Otherwise it is chaos.

[spin]

4. The roots of gun control are racist ...

and the idea of installing a LoJack type device in all weapons would price them out of the hands of the lower middle class and the poor.

But that's the idea. Got to keep firearms out of the hands of "those people".

Of course, any such device could be removed or zapped without problem.

[Callisto32]

24. Microwaves.....

MMMHMMM.

Maybe we could have some fun with it though. Put up Faraday cages in our houses, so they would just disappear. Then show up again, then disappear.

Bureaucrats can't even get basic filing right half the time. Look up the current GAO test of the energystar program if you don't believe me.

"Disappearing/reappearing" guns would probably make some BATFE paper pusher's head explode. Metaphorically speaking.

Edit: Removed redundant redundancy...

[Quasimodem]

3. Special Laws for 'Special' People

The fact that users of a tool with a non lethal purpose – the automobile – can accept limits put upon ownership, licensing of users, regulations about where and when they may be used or parked, even mandatory insurance coverage against the damage they might do, highlights how unreasonable the users of another tool with only a lethal, or pseudo lethal purpose – the handgun – are concerning having equally reasonable controls put upon guns.

[cowman]

5. You seem to

forget that driving is a privilage whereas the 2nd amend is a right and there are already 20,000 gun laws on the books. Heres a radical idea, let's start enforcing them before passing new laws and restrictions

[Quasimodem]

7. If one takes an historical view

The Constitution did include the right to travel ( http://supreme.justia.com/constitution/amendment-14/96-right-to-travel.html ) just not so precisely spelled out, since, at the time of the framing of the Constitution, little special equipment was required to travel.

I believe one could make a case that the difference between a late 18th century coach or buggy and a modern automobile is analogous to the difference between a late 18th century muzzle-loading rifle or handgun and a modern automatic handgun or an assault rifle.


The special provision in the Constitution for firearms was based on the Founding Fathers’ belief in the efficacy of militias, rather than a regular standing army. This idea was tested during the War of 1812. Despite a ten-to-one American advantage, the British in Canada were able to repulse all attempted invasions, mostly due to bad leadership, poor planning, and a lack of coordination among the American militias. As least, such was the opinion of General Winfield Scott, who took part in several battles, and went on to become the longest serving active duty general in American history, rated by many historians as America's ablest commander of his time.

[DonP]

6. It's about a right - try replacing cars with voting and see how it sounds

I guess you can accept limits put upon voting - like poll taxes, literacy tests, Picture IDs required, complex registration systems.

After all, just because something is a constitutional right doesn't mean there shouldn't be some "reasonable restrictions", right?

There are over 22,000 gun laws now at the local, state and Federal level.

How many more and what kind will it take to solve the "problem" of the lowest violent crime rate in 25 years?

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

9. Cars are MORE like GUNS than you seem to think.

In most states, if I want to own a car or gun no registration or licensing is required.
I can operate such a car (or gun) either on private property or in designated public venues.

There are tests, registrations, and permits requires to use a car or (carry) a gun in public.
Requirements include restrictions on minimum age, intoxicants, type of vehicle (or gun) and a number of other items.

The use of cars (or guns) is under scrutiny and legal actions are codified in local, state, and federal laws. (firearm & traffic laws)
Failure to obey traffic (or gun) ordinances and laws can result in citation, arrest, loss of license or even prison time.

The manner in which I may store my vehicle (or gun), especially on public property, is defined by law.
....

You are failing to realize that gun owners not only put up with similar reasonable (and some unreasonable) laws very much like automobile owners/operators... we do so in spite of the fact that the possession of our property is constitutionally protected. In fact, I would be willing to bet firearm laws/restrictions outnumber automobile laws/restrictions at least 5:1... please excuse us for questioning your zeal to pile more legal crap on top of our right to own firearms. If you don't like guns or desire more authoritarian gun-control, work to repeal the 2A.

[tech9413]

20. Cars are MORE like GUNS than you seem to think.?

Cars are designed for a certain purpose, to transport people or goods from point A to point B. In the process, they may be dangerous to others but that is based on the skill of the operator.

A gun, in whatever form or capacity, is designed to inflict damage on an object at a distance. The intended purpose of the two is vastly different and the regulation of ownership and usage can not be compared.

Comparing the two is a false comparison. I don't own a vehicle to inflict damage but it could be possible. I may not own a gun to inflict damage but that is it's intended purpose. Even if I just target shoot for fun, the tool is designed to inflict damage to something and that should have more restrictive controls than something that may be harmful to others.

[X_Digger]

21. Honest question for you.. Why?

"the tool is designed to inflict damage to something and that should have more restrictive controls than something that may be harmful to others."

Why?

I've asked this question before- http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=292384

And I really didn't get a good answer from someone who takes this position.

[PavePusher]

23. Chainsaws too?

Seriously, if you want to be intellectually consistant...

Except that you are actually being intellectually lazy, squeezing firearms down into a binary either/or set, when such just ain't true. But you knew that, right?

[Callisto32]

26. Two favorite fails of the anti-RKBA set.

False dichotomy and "but guns are just DIFFERENT!"

[GKirk]

18. I'm not sure that I can...

..agree with your implication that guns have a lethal purpose(killing people). Most guns are sold for sporting purposes, hunting and target shooting and not for shooting people. Even those guns sold for self defense are rarely used for that lethal purpose. Sure guns can be used for a lethal purpose, but then so can many different objects.

[Callisto32]

25. You left out an important distinction.

I don't need .gov permission to buy, own, operate, or otherwise interface with an automobile, so long as it is not used on public roadways.

[shedevil69taz]

8. trigger locks are a waste

Even if every one off them is installed and used correctly (which most aren't) most off them take about five min to disassemble with a drill.

I have yet to get an answer from anyone about how putting one on every one of my guns that are already stored in locked gun safes which only me and my wife have keys and/or combinations to make those unloaded firearms any safer than they already are.

So yes I will fight any mandate on requiring trigger locks on my already safely stored firearms.

[spin]

13. Welcome to DU and thanks for your service to your country ...

You make a very valid point.

I do think that properly storing firearms is important and that trigger locks do little to accomplish this unless you have small children in your house.

[AtheistCrusader]

16. Consider your audience. People who think 'the club', secures an automobile.

I mean, there shouldn't even be a market for that. It has to be marketed DIRECTLY TO STUPID PEOPLE.

Yes, it's all sorts of hardened steel, cut proof, bend proof, etc BUT THE STEERING WHEEL ISN'T IS IT?

[GKirk]

19. Mercifully...

...I haven't seen one of those advertised recently.

[jody]

10. We need a microchip in every male so we could quickly catch those who commit rape. n/t

[spin]

12. Microchip everybody and everything! (n/t)

[Remmah2]

28. Sexism?

There are women who rape as well.

School teachers and underage males.

[X_Digger]

11. Interestingly enough..

.. none of the situations that the author outlines would have been helped by anything short of ultra-restrictive laws.

e.g.- "In February, a woman with a history of angry confrontations with neighbors and co-workers obtained a gun and shot and killed three fellow faculty members at an Alabama college."

Now what restriction could one have placed on gun ownership that would have prevented this woman from obtaining a gun? Mental health exams for all prospective buyers? Interviewing the family members of prospective gun owners and requiring their permission to purchase? And what measure would have prevented her, once acquiring a gun, from taking it to work and shooting her colleagues? Requiring all guns be kept in an armory and only shot on premises?

None of which would ever fly in this country.

Masturbatory "what-if"s aside, is anyone willing to give up their rights to this extent to preclude such events? Not me.

[GreenStormCloud]

14. That techology has not yet been developed.

RFIDs (Radio Frequency Identifyication Device) does not have the range that he wishes. They can only be read from a short distance of a few yards, most from only a few inches. He imagines being able to find one from a satellite. That ability is not yet there.

[Euromutt]

17. And when it does, government can accept it before I do

If all this stuff like "smart guns" and microstamping is supposedly no threat to the reliability of the firearm, perfectly affordable, blah blah fishcakes, how come every damn piece of legislation contains exemptions for law enforcement? As far as I'm concerned, government can lead by example.

[Callisto32]

27. Becaues bureaucrats, like guns are "just different."

As far as I can tell, that is really all the further the arguments for this stuff goes.

As far as government leading by example. I think a lot of the problems we have are because we don't think of how organizations other than governments can solve problems. It's the "there oughta' be a law" mentality.

Personally, I think more arms manufacturers should follow Ronnie Barrett's example and refuse to sell arms to state agencies when those governments don't allow it for everyone. That way if the legislature exempts the bureaucrats, it doesn't matter.

Of course, the .gov would probably just build their own arsenals at that point while making it illegal for anybody not the state to manufacture. It would probably be in the name of regulating interstate commerce.

[AtheistCrusader]

15. Looks like the author hasn't learned anything since the VT shootings.

Not a damn thing. Seriously, a lojack in every gun? It's about half the size of a gun already by itself. Where are you going to hide it in a gun that the bad guy can't just disconnect the battery, or drill a hole through it's fiddly bits?

[gorfle]

29. There is no gun problem. There is a criminals with guns problem.

The simple, unavoidable fact is that by only doing background checks on firearms sold through DEALERS does not stop criminals or insane people from buying firearms. Period.

It is like closing the small side door on the barn while leaving the main double doors on the end of the door wide open, and then claiming that everything is fine because you have doors.

The simple fact is that it is trivially easy to buy a firearm in this country without having to go through a background check. In most places in the country you need do nothing more than look in the local Penny Saver and, with cash in hand, you can buy a firearm from a private individual with no background check, and it's all perfectly legal.

We need a firearm permit system that preserves anonymous firearm ownership. An FOID system similar to what Illinois does would work fine, provided that it was an opt-out rather than an opt-in system. Opt-in systems would only have firearm owners opting-in, and so create a government registry of firearm owners, which is unacceptable. But an opt-out system would mean just about everyone would be pre-screened for firearm ownership, unless they happened to opt-out, which would make the government database of FOID holders useless for determining who owns firearms.

Then you simply make it a law that prior to selling any firearm you must record the FOID number of the person you are selling the firearm to, and you must keep a record of that sale for 10 years. Failure to comply results in some penalty, just as Illinois does. Moreover, if it is discovered that a firearm was sold to a person without a valid FOID permit, and that firearm was subsequently used in a crime, I think even stiffer penalties should be involved.

These records of sales, held by private individuals, would be traceable by the police, through due process, and consequently no one in their right mind would sell a legally-acquired firearm to someone without an FOID as it would almost certainly be used for nefarious things, and then when recovered by the police traced back to the last legal owner.

I do not like having to have a permit to show that I am authorized to own firearms. But we must find a way to cut off the supply of firearms to criminals and do it in a way that preserves anonymous firearm ownership.