If you support gun control, do you support tighter control of...

[Left in IL]

…any other products that can be misused such as:

Fertilizer (which can make bombs)
Spraypaint (which is now illegal to buy in Chicago)
Gasoline
Knives
Pepper spray
Tasers
Matches or lighters
Pesticides
Paintball guns

This isn’t a “trick” question, I am just curious if those who support gun control feel the same way about other items.

[Politicub]

1. It is a trick question

or you wouldn't be asking it. Ha!

You'll like this metaphor -- "like shooting fish in a barrell"

[Left in IL]

6. It's not a trick question,

I really want to know if it is just this one item (guns.) Or if those in favor of gun control are also in favor of limiting access to other dangerous / damage causing items.

[7th_Sephiroth]

2. the only gun controll i support is trigger locks for "non home defense

weapons" all of the above besides the paintball guns have usefull purposes outside of blowing someones head off so they shouldent be regulated much more than confirmation of quantity

[lwrachel]

3. good point, left

Don't want gun control!

[Racenut20]

4. Guns are fine. Ban the bullets. That is what kills children.

[Left in IL]

9. Ammunition is the key

Firearms are very simple to manufacture, and could be done in any machine shop in a few hours.

Ammo would be a litte harder to produce.

[Buster43]

38. Wanna bet?

With my RCBS 650 reloading machine, I can crank out a thousand rounds of .44 magnum in a couple of hours. I even cast my own bullets. Brass can be had for half a penny per unit.

I have preset removable heads for my machine so its easy to switch between calibers. Currently I reload for .45-70, .45LC, .357 magnum, .348 Winchester, .44-40, .475 Linebaugh, .500 S&W magnum, .375 Winchester, .308, 7.62 NATO, and I have a special reloading machine to reload my .50 BMG Barrett.

[LostInAnomie]

5. Nope

All of those other things take a lot more effort to fatally harm someone with then a gun, even a knife. We could debate what could used to harm someone all day but guns are made for the express purpose of killing or destroying something.

[Left in IL]

7. I've always thought of guns like lawyers

They can be used for good or bad, for offence or defense, and the threat of their use is usually enough to get results.

But I do see your point, firearms can be used to kill quickly.

[billbuckhead]

8. 26 posts and already such deep questions?

Guns are one of the few devices designed specifically to kill people. Well. there's electric chair, guilottines and gas chambers.

[Left in IL]

11. But sometime it's ok to kill people.....

Like when someone breaks into your house and tries to kidnap your child, or rape you, or kill you, and you are physically unable to stop them with lesser means.

If you talk to the actual designers at the firearms manufactures, they truly feel they are creating defensive tools.

And I know some feel it is NEVER ok to take anothers life, which I can respect, but I don't think they should impose that view on others.

[billbuckhead]

16. Actually societies do impose it's view on others. it's called laws

Guns in the home are more likely to kill freindlies than those evil home invaders. Hope your gun doesn't end up killing someone you love.

[Billy Ruffian]

24. You might be referring to the Kellerman study

Which was terribly, terribly flawed.

You're also leaving out the condition that a defensive gun used doesn't require that an attacker be killed.

[Wickerman]

31. Or, perhaps the Webster analysis of Lott's work

or the Hemenway or Black and Negin, etc.

[Left in IL]

25. Not likely

There are over 300 million firearms in the US and about 1300 accidental deaths per year. So the odds of an individual firearm doing the killing is 4.33333E-06 in any given year. So if everyone in my family lived to be 100 and lived for 1000 lifetimes, they would still likely live to be 100 in year 1001 without an accidental death due to firearms.

[Left in IL]

26. Why would I want to kill a home invader?

I would never WANT to kill anyone.

If I did HAVE to kill someone, it would be because there was no other way to save my own life or that of a family member.


There seems to be a misunderstanding by some (not you necessarily) that people who want to own guns want to shoot someone.

This is certainly not the case for me and hopefully not for any gun owner.

I also learned first aid and have a nice first aid kit, but I don't hope somebody gets hurt so I can use it.

[Name removed]

71. Deleted message

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

[MrSandman]

59. And of course cigarettes...

Wouldn't a moratorium on the sale of manufactured cigarettes reduce the number of smokers (allow the sale of tobacco and papers)? Maybe we can register adult cigarette addicts and require anyone seeking tobacco to demonstrate a need.

Last I read, in WV, smoking costs $1.8 billion in health care and occupational costs. One in five residents will die from tobacco related illness in 2005. 28.4% of WV residents are addicted to cigarretes.

Oh wait, that would alienate over 28% of the voters. Can't afford to stretch those principle of public health too far.

It can be considered that the public health costs are part of the cost of freedom.
or
Maybe the state is unable to regulate behavior on that scale as demonstrated by WoD or prohibition.

But that has nothing to do with firearms; or, are the principle similar?

[NorthernSpy]

12. not so!

All of those other things take a lot more effort to fatally harm someone with then a gun, even a knife.

Consider the case of the Happy Land social club in New York City. A guy who was angry with his grilfriend decided to retaliate against her for breaking up with him. But he didn't use a gun. Instead, he went and bought a jug of gasoline.

He threw the gas inside the club's entrance, and then he threw a match in after it.

Eighty-seven people died in the fire.

If Julio Gonzalez had been armed with a gun, he might well have killed several people, but surely not eighty-seven. Fire -- not firearms -- is the deadliest ordinary instrument of murder; the materials used for starting fires are readily available to anyone, and it takes little skill or effort to start even a truly catastrophic blaze.

http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/mass/happyland/index_1.html?sect=8

[iverglas]

15. okay, and the point is ...?

Gasoline can be used to kill people, effectively and efficiently and at little risk to the user.

Firearms can be used to kill people, effectively and efficiently and at low risk to the user. (Of course, firearms can, and certainly are, also used to facilitate the commission of crimes, effectively and efficiently and at low risk to the user. Gasoline?)

Access to firearms is/should be strictly regulated.
Therefore access to gasoline is/should be strictly regulated.

Is that what you're saying?

Somehow, I doubt it. I'd suspect that you are saying:

Access to gasoline is not / should not be strictly regulated.
Therefore access to firearms is not / should not be strictly regulated.

But that only works if we restrict our premises to the ones stated above. And oddly enough, those premises just aren't a complete statement of the kinds of facts that are generally considered when determining a question like whether/how to regulate access to something.

You bring up the question of the number of people who can be harmed/killed in one instance of use. There really are quite a number of other questions that need to be asked ... and there might even be more or less universal agreement on some of them.

If Julio Gonzalez had been armed with a gun, he might well have killed several people, but surely not eighty-seven.

Uh huh. And we could probably come up with eight-seven instances in the US of people who killed one person with a firearm, who, if armed with gasoline in the same situation, would not have killed anyone at all.

[NorthernSpy]

23. behold the Point!

My point is that the contention that it is more difficult to kill with the items listed in the original post than with firearms is not necessarily true, and the Happy Land case is the example that I gave to illustrate that.

People who live in societies where gun ownership is restricted by law may well be more likely to use relatively less effective weapons, such as knives, in committing homicide. That is often -- and reasonably -- supposed, especially by those who favor stricter gun control.

What is less commonly noted is that some other methods of death and destruction -- such as fire and toxic/corrosive substances -- may also be more likely to be employed as a consequence of firearms restrictions (and with results even more gruesome than those following from gun use).

I'd suspect that you are saying:

Access to gasoline is not / should not be strictly regulated.
Therefore access to firearms is not / should not be strictly regulated.

Well, this conclusion wasn't actually in my remarks, and if it had been, I don't think I'd have arrived at it in quite the way you seem to expect. I was making an observation, not recommending policy.


(fixed typo)

[iverglas]

36. don't be using it for self-defence!

It wouldn't poke an eye out. ;)

My point is that the contention that it is more difficult to kill with the items listed in the original post than with firearms is not necessarily true, and the Happy Land case is the example that I gave to illustrate that.

Uh huh. But if we construed the original statement:

All of those other things take a lot more effort to fatally harm someone with then a gun, even a knife.

as including the implied qualifier "... to fatally harm someone in most circumstances in which someone wishes, and has the opportunity, to fatally harm someone", which I submit it is eminently reasonable to do, it is not an untrue statement.

Large numbers of people killed with firearms -- I'd venture to say a large majority -- are not in crowded buildings from which they will be unable to escape in the event of fire or in buildings that the homicidal individual wishes to burn down (e.g. his/her own home).

If we don't qualify the statement that way, then your response -- "Not so!" -- is, well, perhaps not false, but not particularly useful. The unqualified statement may be not true in certain circumstances, making it, granted, untrue as a universal statement, but it is hardly meaningful to advance one exception to a general rule, which is what the statement really was a statement of, as disproving the general rule.

People who live in societies where gun ownership is restricted by law may well be more likely to use relatively less effective weapons, such as knives, in committing homicide. That is often -- and reasonably -- supposed, especially by those who favor stricter gun control.

I'm confused. I thought it was often posited by those who oppose stricter gun control. Ah, perhaps I see -- it is the "less effective" element that is pointed to by gun control advocates, who, I submit, are merely accepting the hypothesis for the purpose of argument. *If* the substitution effect occurs, then the death rate would be lower.

The fact that Canada's non-firearms homicide rate is just over half the US's rate, while Canada's handgun homicide rate is (as I recall) 1/15th the US's rate, seems to belie the substitution-effect hypothesis as a universal statement, and even as a statement of a general rule. Or, perhaps, it confirms the hypothesis, assuming the substitution effect occurs, that mortality is lower. (I think this itself would be belied by the lower rate of offences like attempted murder, causing bodily harm, wounding, and the like.)

Lacking crystal balls and time machines as we do, it is nigh impossible to make comparisons based on differences / changes in legislation and

- state conclusions from longitudinal data relating to a specific jurisdictions, because of the host of other changing variables in play and their multiple interactions (age composition of the population, economic well-being of the population and the levels of gang/organized crime activities being examples of those variables); or

- state conclusions from horizontal comparisons between jurisdictions, because of the host of other variables with different values between jurisdictions (e.g. the ones suggested above).

What is less commonly noted is that some other methods of death and destruction -- such as fire and toxic/corrosive substances -- may also be more likely to be employed as a consequence of firearms restrictions (and with results even more gruesome than those following from gun use).

That's an hypothesis, but I'm not aware of any evidence of the kind that would be needed to support it.

Well, this conclusion wasn't actually in my remarks, and if it had been, I don't think I'd have arrived at it in quite the way you seem to expect. I was making an observation, not recommending policy.

True, but I was asking what the point was, and then surmising.

Since it seems to have been that the statement made in the post in question was not a universal truth, and mine is that it isn't really reasonable to construe it as having been intended as a universally true statement, we seem to have achieved a zero sum.

If we were to address it as a statement of a general rule, we might have some more useful things to say about it. ;)

[fat free goodness]

62. Canada USA

RE: “The fact that Canada's non-firearms homicide rate is just over half the US's rate, while Canada's handgun homicide rate is (as I recall) 1/15th the US's rate, seems to belie the substitution-effect hypothesis as a universal statement, and even as a statement of a general rule.”
This does not follow.

It may be that Canada’s violent crime rate is different from the US crime rate for any of a number of cultural reasons having nothing to do with number of firearms. I am simply stating the obvious here: I believe the rest of your post indicates you recognize the impossibility of trying to compare different cultures and draw such conclusions.

I suggest a better test would be to take a large population having firearms, depriving them of the arms, and seeing what effect this has on the violent crime rate. You might think this is not practical, but I believe this has been done in Australia, and to a lesser extent, Great Britain.

The result was a significant increase in violent crime, including homicide.

We can argue the mechanisms all day, but the fact that removing guns from the population was followed by an increase in violent crime does not support the idea that guns encourage violence.

On a personal level, I have used a gun in self-defense. I captured a burglar, without firing a shot. I surprised him in the kitchen. He was a large man, armed with a pry bar, and turned towards me drawing it back as a weapon before realizing I was holding a shotgun. I am quite certain that I, at least, am safer with a gun in the house than not.

[iverglas]

64. check those stats

I suggest a better test would be to take a
large population having firearms, depriving
them of the arms, and seeing what effect this
has on the violent crime rate. You might think
this is not practical, but I believe this has
been done in Australia, and to a lesser extent,
Great Britain.

The result was a significant increase in violent
crime, including homicide.

(Of course, your first problem is your use of the word "result". I believe you might mean something like "concurrent event", surely.)

I'd suggest that you are ignoring a number of things, including:

- characteristics of crime reporting over time (obviously not in respect of homicides, but e.g. in respect of burglaries);
- the actual significance of any increases recorded, particularly in respect of homicides;
- the long-term numbers (you seem to be a tad out of date on some of them);
- the absence of any demonstrable or even rational connection between firearms and/or firearms laws and (some of) the actual crimes in question.

Then you might want to look at the figures for armed robbery in Canada, for instance. Since further restrictions were imposed on, in particular, possession of handguns, armed robbery numbers have plummeted in Canada. Am I positing causation? Maybe, but that's neither here nor there. I have evidence of correlation that is contrary to yours.

RE: The fact that Canada's non-firearms homicide rate
is just over half the US's rate, while Canada's handgun
homicide rate is (as I recall) 1/15th the US's rate,
seems to belie the substitution-effect hypothesis as
a universal statement, and even as a statement of a
general rule.
This does not follow.

Yes it does indeed.

I didn't say that lack of access to handguns caused a lower overall homicide rate.

But there's just no reason other than lack of access to handguns for the handgun homicide rate to be so much lower in Canada than in the US. Yes, Canada has lower rates of gang-related and organized-crime-related violence than the US, the kind of crime and violence for which handguns are the instrument of choice, but that kind of crime and violence is certainly present. And handguns are used in many instances in the US by criminals and "law-abiding gun owners" to commit crimes or kill people, so the difference between the two countries cannot be attributed to gang and organized crime activities alone.

When handgun homicide figures are considered together with the recent figures for armed robbery, there can be little doubt that lack of access to handguns has led to an actual reduction in crimes/killings. Other differences between the US and Canada plainly account for some of the differences in firearms crime and homicide figures, but the simple absence of so many handgun crimes/killings in Canada, i.e. the much lower proportion of crimes/killings committed with handguns while the overall rates remain much lower as well, really does suggest that the substitution effect is quite weak.


We can argue the mechanisms all day, but the fact
that removing guns from the population was followed
by an increase in violent crime does not support the
idea that guns encourage violence.

Well, if the purpose of removing guns from the population was to reduce violence, you'd have a point.

As has been pointed out in this forum over and over and over again, that was not the purpose of the laws in question. The purpose was to deter "law-abiding gun owners" from killing people, by denying them access to the firearms with which to do it.

Your point would be about as sharp if you had said that the fact that removing guns from the population was followed by a rise in sea level caused by global warming did not support the idea that guns encourage the wise use of fossil fuels. Nobody said it did.


I am quite certain that I, at least, am safer with a gun in the house than not.

And as I've said before: me, me, me.

[Crunchy Frog]

10. I think they should be regulated in roughly

the same way that cars are. Alot of the things mentioned in the post are not deadly in the same way that guns are. I have pepper spray, I don't think I'm capable of killing anybody with it.

Others, such as gasoline and matches, while being potentially deadly, have alot of other uses, and are not particularly effective at killing people. Otherwise, why get a gun when you can defend yourself just as effectively by keeping a book of matches and some gasoline in the house? <sarcasm>

Anyway, alot of those things are regulated, more or less in keeping with how potentially dangerous they are.

Gee, I've never posted in this forum before. I'm looking foreward to getting flamed. :)

[iverglas]

13. ... if only it was an intelligent question

"If you support gun control, do you support tighter control of...
…any other products that can be misused such as:

It may not have been a trick question, but it was a dumb one.

Let us say, more accurately, it was a loaded one.

It is loaded with this premise:

You support gun control because guns can be misused.

Oops. That's not why I support gun control. Anybody else? Hands up now.

Okay, let's be charitable. Let's say that the premise was meant to be:

You support gun control because guns can be misused to kill people, injure people and commit crimes.

Well, that would still be wrong.

Let's start over, with a correct premise:

I support firearms control because firearms commonly are used to kill people and injure people, whether intentionally or accidentally, and whether the people are the intended targets or not, and to commit crimes, and because legitimate uses of firearms are not affected by the firearms control I support, and because such controls are workable and can be expected to have a beneficial effect.

Whew, okay now. So let's ask the correct question:

If you support gun control, do you support tighter control of...
…any other products that are commonly used to kill people and injure people, whether intentionally or accidentally, and whether the people are the intended targets or not, and to commit crimes, the legitimate uses of which would not be affected by those controls, which would be workable and could be expected to have a beneficial effect?

Yup. I do.

I support all the laws governing the use of motor vehicles that we now have, and possibly even more. I support the requirement that drivers be licensed, and that ownership and transfers of motor vehicles be registered, that drivers/vehicles be insured, that drivers not drive while impaired, and that owners of motor vehicles be prohibited from allowing them to be driven by unlicensed/uninsured drivers or drivers who are impaired. I support laws that permit owners of property to prohibit motor vehicles from being driven on their property -- and I would certainly object to anyone being able to successfully sue a property owner because s/he was forced to walk if s/he wished to voluntarily enter that property and then wasn't protected by a couple of tons of steel, and was unable to make a fast enough getaway, when someone illegally drove onto the property and ran them down. And I support laws that require that drivers on public roads and property obey a host of laws governing how they drive. I support laws that prohibit drivers convicted of driving while impaired from driving, and permit them to be required to install breathalyzers on their ignitions when they are permitted to do so again. I support laws that allow the forfeiture of motor vehicles used in ways or for purposes seriously contrary to the public interest.

And I would certainly support any law prohibiting the use of Klingon technology to install cloaking devices on motor vehicles, thus enabling their drivers to move around in them wherever they liked, and run over pedestrians or engage in games of chicken, all unseen.

I am aware of the technological difficulties of further regulating certain fertilizer components, and the fact that such regulations would certainly impact very negatively on food production. Life isn't perfect, and nobody actually suggested that we could make it that way. There are risks that cannot be averted, and there are risks that cannot be averted otherwise than by a price that is generally regarded as higher than the price of the risk materializing, particularly when there is low probability of it materializing, or materializing frequently.

Some things are just too obvious. I mean, am I proposing that fences be installed at the edges of all cliffs over 10 feet tall in the world, lest someone fall or be pushed, or jump in a fit of treatable adolescent depression, from the top? Nope, not doing that, either.

I guess pretty much the same could be said of gasoline, knives, matches and lighters and (some) pesticides (certainly there are other pesticides that should be, and are, banned or difficult to obtain). The risk of the harm materializing is far lower, on a per-item or per-contact basis, than in the case of firearms -- and the harm is more easily averted in other ways than in the case of firearms.

Tasers and pepper spray are tightly controlled where I'm at -- in fact, they're prohibited weapons, I believe. And that's fine with me.

Paintball guns? I dunno; are lots of people being killed or injured, intentionally or unintentionally, by them? Lots of them being used to facilitate crimes? Many suicidal adolescents choosing this method of death?

But spraypaint?

Hmm, that must be like the monkey father, the Prince of Wales, the bald man and the pot of glue. (You know: one's a hairy parent, one's the heir apparent, and one has no hair apparent. Oh, the pot of glue? That's where you get stuck.)

I have no idea why spraypaint cannot legally be sold in Chicago. The property damage, perhaps. I dunno, but I'll bet that a determined vandal could still buy it in, oh, Moline, or even someplace closer. Should spraypaint be banned in Moline to protect property in Chicago? Well, spraypaint should really be banned just because it's a prime example of obscene resource-wasting, environment-degrading packaging. (However did the world get along before the spraypaint can was invented?) And if it becomes common to use spraypaint to cause personal injury or facilitate crimes, then it would be no great loss, in my ever so humble opinion.

[Left in IL]

14. So what firearms controls do you support

that don't affect legitimate uses?

[iverglas]

17. git yrself a gold star

and do the work. I get really tired of doing it. I've made no bones of what firearms controls I support in the many months I've posted here, and actually you should be able to find what you need just in the last couple of days' worth of posts.

Heck, you could probably even extrapolate fairly accurately, from the post to which you responded, what the answer to your question is likely to be.

And then I'm sure you'll be wanting to tell me how licensing of users, and registration of firearms ownership and transfers, and a requirement that firearms be stored safely and securely, affect legitimate uses of firearms, f'r instance. Or maybe why, in a society that chooses not to live at risk of its members being shot, the carrying of firearms in public would be a "legitimate use".

Over to you.

[Left in IL]

18. ok how about a yes or no question.

do you consider self defense a legitimate use of firearms?

[iverglas]

19. sure

I also consider protection of property a legitimate use of alligators. (I mean, as long as the alligators are fed and groomed and exercised properly.)

Nonetheless, I am of the considered opinion that people should not be permitted to stock the moat around their bungalows with alligators. Or surround their bungalows with barbed wire, legitimate though the use of barbed wire to protect property may be. Even if we had a crystal ball to tell us that no one would ever be eaten by Joe's alligators, or slice his/her jugular vein on Jane's barbed wire.

We have no such crystal ball, of course, so the point is moot; we have no way of knowing whether Joe's alligators will eat anyone, or Jane's barbed wire will perforate someone's jugular, no matter how responsible and law-abiding and well-trained in the use of alligators and barbed wire they might be, and how loudly they protest their virtue.

But you see, you never answered my question.

And then I'm sure you'll be wanting to tell me ... why, in a society that chooses not to live at risk of its members being shot, the carrying of firearms in public would be a "legitimate use".

Anyone who is so afraid that s/he will need to defend him/herself with a firearm if s/he ventures out into the agora is quite free to stay home, doncha think?

The fact that there is a "legitimate use" for something does not mean that society is not entitled to place conditions on that use.

And the fact that there is a one in a million chance that a firearm may be used (which is different from needed) for self-defence does not mean that society is not entitled to prohibit people from carting one around in public.

You seem to be referring to my rephrasing of the incorrect unstated premise in your question:

I support firearms control because firearms commonly are used to kill people and injure people, whether intentionally or accidentally, and whether the people are the intended targets or not, and to commit crimes, and because legitimate uses of firearms are not affected by the firearms control I support, and because such controls are workable and can be expected to have a beneficial effect.

and you may indeed have caught me in one of my decennial slips of the tongue, brought on, I submit, by the contortion and compression of a complex set of ideas that I was engaged in.

Had I been even more verbose, in the interests of being more accurate, I would have said, as I always do:

... and because legitimate uses of firearms are not unjustifiably interfered with by the firearms control I support ...

That is the actual question, you see, when the talk turns to interferences in the exercise of rights and freedoms: whether they are justified.

And there is a whole enormous body of law around that question, with which I am quite sure you are fluently conversant, else you would not be engaging in a discussion of it. Which is, of course, what you're doing.

[Left in IL]

20. Wow

that was one heck of a yes.

I type so slow it would take me an hour to write that much.

but you lost me in the part where you said:

"The fact that there is a "legitimate use" for something does not mean that society is not entitled to place conditions on that use."

My next question was going to be if self defense it a "legitimate use" why do you not support self defense in public?

And if I may be so bold, you answer some how said that society can limit my "legitimate use" in the name of public safety.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

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

[TX-RAT]

32. She is not concerned about individual rights?

Just because she takes a stance against certain weapons, and CCWs? I suspect she's done far more to protect individual rights, than you have.
(She's Canadian)
And thats a explanation for what?

[iverglas]

33. ooooo

"She is not concerned about individual rights"

You'd better be prepared to back that one up. If you aren't, you know what it is. And you know that it just takes one demonstrated fact to disprove your statement, and prove what it is.

The good of the many outweigh individual rights.

I assume you're speaking for yourself, given the lack of quotation marks or attribution for your statement. I don't happen to agree with this opinion, as an unqualified statement, but your beliefs are up to you.

She's canadian.

Yeah. From the land where women exercise (individual) reproductive rights unimpeded, gay men and lesbians exercise (individual) social, political and economic rights unimpeded, persons convicted of offences exercise (individual) democratic rights unimpeded ... and everybody's vote gets counted ...

And your mother wears army boots, I guess.

[Left in IL]

34. Were only tallking about firearms here...

...and from what I have read, Iverglas does not consider carrying firearms in public a right.

It doesn't help the discussion to make blanket statements about others opinions.

[TX-RAT]

37. Iverglas does not consider carrying firearms in public a right.

Neither do I.

[Left in IL]

21. to answer your question...

I myself am not afraid I WILL need to defend myself with a firearm, I am in fact fairly confident I won't need to protect myself with a firearm....Today. And who knows what tomorrow may bring.

But I did have a friend who was threated by an ex-husband, and only had a piece of paper for protection. She wanted to get a handgun, but in IL it takes 6-8 weeks to get a firearms card, and then a 3 day wait to pickup the gun. Luckly for her, her ex went to prison for some other stuff. I could have loaned her one, but that would have been a felony.

And the poor unarmed bouncers in Ohio who got shot trying to protect a musician sure could have used a firearm for self defense.

[Left in IL]

30. Interfering with legitimate use of firearms

Here is where I must disagree with you.

If self defense is a legitimate use of firearms then it should not be restricted.

In general, the use of dynamite ir restricted, but it is avaliable for purchase with a permit if you have a legitimate use, such as mining, demolition, or stump removal.

This is the same with chemicals, they are restricted unless you have a legitimate use.

Why would you restrict the legitimate use of anything.

I guess I tend to side with freedom over restrictions, even if it is a dangerous freedom.

[jody]

22. I support collecting DNA from every male to use as evidence in rapes. n/t

[Kire]

27. females, too n/t

[jody]

28. Perhaps, but DNA, i.e. registering one's penis", is a perfect analogy

to registering one's firearm.
:evilgrin:

[iverglas]

35. sure it is

to those who equate their penises and firearms. But here I thought it was frowned on hereabouts to do that ...

[Krinkov]

68. and of course..

women with guns must have penis envy :P

[sierrajim]

41. YOU ARE A VERY SCARY PERSON

That idea smacks me in the face as something ADOLF HITLER would embrace for other obvious reasons. You apparently really hate an open and free society.

[jody]

57. And so does registering firearms. n/t

[Donald Ian Rankin]

39. Some.

I think there should be (and are) restrictions on knives, pepper spray and tasers, (and also on peticides, although for completely different reasons).

But none of these things kill anything like as many people as guns do, and they nearly all have more legitimate uses.

If there is ever a spate of spray-paint related murders, then I will support tighter restrictions on it. Till then, I'll stick with opposing guns, which actually do kill large numbers of people.

[sierrajim]

40. Even on this board the only gun-control alot of us support is hitting your

target.

Quote from (Donald Ian Rankin)
If there is ever a spate of spray-paint related murders, then I will support tighter restrictions on it. Till then, I'll stick with opposing guns, which actually do kill large numbers of people.

And on another note I never have and I'll bet you have not either seen an inanimate object do harm to anyone let alone kill you see it is already illegal to kill,for the mentally unstable and the underage to buy and in most places possess a firearm.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

43. I think your objection is just semantic.

Tighter gun controls would mean many fewer people would be shot.

I think that making it harder for people who want to own guns for legitimate reasons to do so would be a reasonable price to pay for this.

Tighter controls on spray-paint would not mean that many fewer people would be sprayed to death.

I think that making it harder for people who want to own spray-paint for legitimate reasons to do so would be a reasonable price to pay for this.

The difference between guns killing people and people killing people with guns is not relevant.

[Billy Ruffian]

44. Assuming your ideas would help

Tighter gun controls would mean many fewer people would be shot.

I think that making it harder for people who want to own guns for legitimate reasons to do so would be a reasonable price to pay for this.


What would you propose that would make it harder to own firearms? How would this reduce the criminal use of firearms?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

45. I'm not an expert on the subject,

But if I remember rightly, in the UK it is illegal to own most rapid firing weapons, and handguns have to be kept locked up in licensed gun clubs, and tightly monitored, although it is legal to own shotguns for hunting. Carrying a concealed weapon is also a criminal offence. I don't know anything about gun licensing laws, I'm ashamed to say, but I get the impression that ours are about on a par with those enforced in the more stringent states, and seem to be about right.

This seems like a reasonable state of affairs - we have some gun crime, but not anything like as much as the US, and hunting is still possible, and carrying a gun for "self defence" is neither possible nor necessary.

In summary, I think I support:

:- Shotguns and similar permitted but tightly licensed.
:- Light pistols allowed in gun clubs but not to be taken out.
:- Other types of gun not allowed at all.
:- No carrying of guns in public places.

[benEzra]

46. That would never fly over here...

and the party that tried it would be committing political suicide. We actually have a lot of gun control here in the U.S. (far more than many non-gun-owners realize), and law-abiding gun owners are mostly OK with things as they now stand. HOWEVER, trying to ban nonhunting guns has cost the Democratic party the House, the Senate, and two presidencies since 1994, since in the U.S. four out of five gun owners are nonhunters.

The primary reason law-abiding people own guns over on our side of the pond is for defensive purposes, not hunting. And we gun owners definitely consider it a freedom issue, as some would-be gun confiscators found out the hard way on April 19, 1775 (while we were still under the Crown, FWIW).

[Donald Ian Rankin]

47. Sadly,

I think you're right - trying to enforce stricter gun control laws at a federal level in the US would cost far more political capital than it would be worth.

That doesn't mean it wouldn't be a good thing if it could be achieved, though.

It's undoubtedly a freedom issue, as you say - so is any legislation forbidding a given behaviour. The question is whether the harm done by restricting the freedom to own guns is outweighed by the good done by reducing the number of shootings, and I think that it would be.

Most people in Europe agree with me. Sadly, most Americans don't.

[benEzra]

48. The issue can still be addressed...

it's just that we have to get down to the root causes of crime, rather than band-aid solutions. Law-abiding gun owners (who are armed to the teeth by your standards) very rarely commit violent crimes; most of our crimes are committed by career criminals (mostly rather young) connected in some way to the drug trade, for example. Some of our states with very "lax" gun laws by your standards, such as Vermont (where any law-abiding citizen can carry a handgun concealed without a permit) has a homicide rate comparable with that of Europe, and some jurisdictions with gun laws far more strict than those of Europe (Washington, D.C., for example, where possession of a functioning firearm in the home is absolutely prohibited) have extremely high homicide rates. Also, European nations with very free gun access (Switzerland, Finland) have homicide rates comparable to the rest of Europe. So that doesn't seem to be the factor.

Our aggregate non-firearm homicide rate is also far higher than yours, even though access to non-firearm weapons is comparable between the U.S. and Europe. Also, our homicide rate has been falling for many years even as rates of gun ownership have increased, while the homicide rate in the UK (for example) is increasing even as gun access is being reduced. So it's not a linear correlation by any means.

Some good questions to ask might be, why does Europe seem to socialize young people into adult roles and responsibilities better than the U.S., and how can that be addressed? How about gang issues, drug-control issues (which are a disaster over here), and so on?

Just some thoughts.

FWIW, I own a civilian AK-47 lookalike and a http://www.swfirearms.vista.com/store/index.php3?cat=293499&sw_activeTab=1">9mm handgun, and have never so much as participated in a fistfight (I am 34), nor would I ever even think of causing harm to an innocent person. Our average violent criminal, on the other hand, grows up in a home without lawfully owned guns, has never even owned an airgun, can't legally touch a gun or a single round of ammunition, can't legally go to a shooting range, and can't legally carry a weapon. Yet he feels no compuction about shooting someone over an insult, or knifing someone to rob them of $20. There's something more going on here than gun access, and identifying and addressing THAT is the real solution to reducing crime rates, IMO. And I suspect that goes for Europe as well...

[Donald Ian Rankin]

49. Oh, the solution is relatively simple, I think

The reason that you have more violent and drug-related crime than most European nations is that you have a much wider income gap, so there are lots of people who feel excluded from society, I suspect. Poverty itself doesn't automatically lead to crime, but poverty in a rich society probably does, I think. For as long as you have that, I suspect you'll have relatively high crime rates.

That said, I think reducing gun access would help, too - I suspect that nearly all illegal guns were once legal guns that have been stolen or resold illegally, and that reducing the number of legal guns would reduce the number of illegal ones.

I suspect that you get less useful information from comparing gun-crime statistics on a nationwide level than you get if you compare them neighbourhood by neighbourhood - cities with cities, country with country, rich and poor districts, and so forth. For example, gun crime is, I believe, far more common in urban areas, so if Vermont were relatively rural (is it?) I would expect it to have low gun crime regardless of how many guns it has.

Yes, restricting guns is a "band-aid" solution to the problem of violent crime - it will never eradicate it completely. But I think it would help quite a lot.

[left15]

50. only a very small percentage of guns are used in crimes

Something like 0.2% and with 300,000,000 guns in the country, you would have to collect a lot of guns from law-abiding citizens (leaving them less defended) before you would see a dent in gun crime.

Also, the courts have ruled you can not ask a felon to turn over a gun, as it would be self incrimination.

[Billy Ruffian]

51. I think it is actually on purchase

Some court has held that it was not a crime for a felon to lie on the Form 4473 when buying a gun, since *that* would be self-incrimination.

If the police have a warrant, and find a gun in the possession of a felon, then they have a crime they can send to the DA for prosecution.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

52. Yes, but I guess

that while that 0.2% figure would not stay constant if you reduced hte number of guns, it would not increase anything like as fast as the number of guns dropped. You probably wouldn't stop one crime for every 500 guns you collected, but you might well stop 0.8 or so (OK, I admit it, I'm guessing wildly, but you se my point).

300,000,000 is more guns that there are people in America. Do you really have it that bad?

[benEzra]

53. Actually, the guns in criminal hands

would be among the LAST ones to go. If a person doesn't obey the law prohibiting murder, I doubt he'll turn in a gun just because the law orders him to. (It's illegal for him to touch a gun under current law, and we see how well that has worked.)

Diacetyl morphine has been prohibited in this country for 86 years now, and the laws and enforcement against possession, manufacture, and importation are harsh enough to push the boundaries of what is acceptable in a free society. Yet in any major city in the United States, diacetyl morphine is easier to obtain than prescription foot powder, if someone doesn't care that it's illegal.

And unlike diamorphine, guns are not consumable items. A single gun and one box of ammunition would last a typical violent criminal his entire career.

I own a rifle that is one hundred years old. It is still as functional as the day it was made, and there is no reason it should not be functional a thousand years from now if it is stored properly. I have ammunition for it dating from the early 1950's, and it still works flawlessly.

If guns were outlawed tomorrow, and 280,000,000 were turned in (wishful thinking even if gun possession were a capital offense, BTW), the remaining 20,000,000 would be sufficient to arm every criminal who really wanted one for the next five hundred years. The street price would go up, increasing the incentive to "divert" them from police armories or smuggle in military weapons from other countries. In the end the only ones disarmed would be those of us who choose to obey the law...

[CO Liberal]

42. I'm Beginning to Think....

...that IQ tests before gun purchases might be a good idea.

[Billy Ruffian]

54. A serious counter proposal to IQ tests before gun purchases

I can think of problems with an IQ test before gun purchases.

1) What level of IQ would be required?
2) An IQ test takes several hours to administer, and needs a trained psychologist to administer it.
3) Having an IQ that is above some limit is no guarantee that the purchaser knows anything about firearms.

Instead, how about a gun safety course/test before purchase? Such a course could be offered in the school system, or commercially. The tests could be administered by a law enforcement agency, or commercially.

A system could be developed where a gun enthusiast could get an ID card that would let him walk in and buy what he wanted without taking another test. For the occasional or single purchaser, take the test or course at the point of purchase.

I've just touched the high points of an idea ... many details would have to be worked out, but it's a start.

[Wickerman]

55. Which IQ test do you refer?

I am unfamiliar with any off the shelf IQ tests that take several hours to administer.

test and measurements guy, seven years in psychometric test development - 5 in IQ. :hi:

BTW, I have posted often on the lack of standardization in training requirements for CCW holders. Would love to see some standard measure developed for gun safety. I think your idea sounds pretty decent.

[Billy Ruffian]

60. I'll have to dig a bit to find the name

but we had some testing done for our son, to get the school system to provide resources for him. WISC-R? That took several hours.

Still, the administration of an IQ test is going to take longer than administration of a firearms safety test.

Here in NC, the training requirement is standard throughout the state. Every CCW instructor must have his training plan approved by a state agency.

[Wickerman]

61. anything longer than 1 hour on the WISC, WISC-R or III

would be a non-standard administration. In that case, they were looking for something more than an IQ or did it incorrectly. Chances are, they administered a battery of tests, the main one being the WISC-R and the whole process took awhile.

[Billy Ruffian]

63. That's certainly possible

it was a number of years ago, and I don't remember exactly how long it took.

I'd agree with your guess, multiple tests.

I would not think it likely that the WISC-R was administered incorrectly, since the person that did the test was the head of the department at the local university.

Getting back to the idea of IQ tests for gun ownership/purchasing, I still don't think it's a good idea.

I think a better objective test would be a certain score on a firearms safety test.

You could even have a graduated license, where holders of the top level license could purchase and carry anywhere, any time.

[left15]

56. Good plan

Why should someone with a below average IQ be able to defend themselves?

In fact there should be an IQ test before you are allowed to vote, or become parents.

[jody]

58. I agree and an IQ of 120 or higher to vote. n/t

[shleonny]

65. well the thing is guns aren't regulated like other consumer products

Guns kill or injure more than 90,000 Americans each year. Yet, guns are virtually the only consumer product not regulated for health and safety.

Congress has given regulatory authority to federal agencies to assure that almost all consumer products in America are safe. For example, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) regulates the safety of nearly 15,000 consumer products used in or around the home. But no federal agency has the power to ensure that guns manufactured and sold are safe.

Past efforts to regulate guns for health and safety were defeated by America's pro-gun lobby. When the CPSC was created in 1972, the gun lobby pressured Congress to specifically exempt guns and ammunition from its jurisdiction. Other efforts to regulate the sale of ammunition in 1981 were also defeated.

More than 30 years ago, the United States made prevention of deaths from motor vehicles injuries a national priority. As a result, the death rate from motor vehicle crashes was cut nearly in half. An estimated quarter of a million deaths have been prevented. We can and must do the same thing with guns.

http://www.regulateguns.org/

Guns kill alot more people than any of those items, and all of those items are alreay regulated atleast to some degree. I don't if tasers are but at $400 a pop I wouldn't guess there would be much abuse.

[benEzra]

66. Guns are regulated FAR more stringently...

..than most other consumer products.

Buying a teddy bear from an unlicenced dealer is not a felony. Teddy bear dealers are not required to do background checks. Adding a bow to your teddy bear's neck is not a felony. Bringing a teddy bear within 1000 feet of any school property is not a felony. Carrying a teddy bear on your person is not a felony. Leaving a teddy bear within a child's reach is not a felony. And accidental violations of teddy bear regulations are not considered deadly-serious "send in the SWAT team" felonies. Please read the provisions of the National Firearms Act, the Gun Control Act of 1968, and your state's firearms regulations. I think you may be pleasantly surprised as to how much guns are ALREADY regulated, not to mention the tort environment (which is particularly hostile to guns).

Do you know why Congress removed firearms from the jurisdiction of the Consumer Product Safety Commission? Because several CPSC leaders had decided that there was no such thing as a safe handgun, and were preparing to prohibit their future manufacture. In a way, they have a point. Guns are weapons; weapons are DESIGNED to be unsafe to whomever or whatever they are used against.

The number of people killed by mechanically defective guns each year, you could probably count on one hand. It is the MISUSE of guns--mostly by those committing suicide, then by criminals, and (rarely) by careless individuals--that results in those deaths and injuries.

If authority were granted to the DOJ or CPSC tomorrow to regulate gun design, can you guarantee they wouldn't try to ban handguns below a certain size, or above a certain kinetic energy threshold, or holding more than 10 rounds? Or that they wouldn't ban rifles with protruding handgrips or nontraditional appearance? The organizations pushing to grant the executive branch the authority to issue sweeping new gun regulations on an arbitrary basis are the same organizations advocating draconian restrictions on nonhunting-style guns, and they know precisely what they are doing.

In fact, the site you linked to (www.regulateguns.org) >>SAYS<< that the power to institute arbitrary bans on whole classes of guns is a primary intent of the proposed legislation:

Under the bill, the Department could restrict the availability of specific firearms, classes of firearms and firearm products to prevent unreasonable risk of injury to the general public. The bill would also allow emergency action to protect the public from “imminently hazardous” firearm products. Rather than being limited to just monitoring firearm use in crime, the Department could finally do something to diminish it. This legislation would also provide the Department of Justice with the authority to tighten existing restrictions on certain firearms—-such as the assault weapons ban—-without the need for Congressional action.

To specifically reduce homicides, Justice could: set minimum size standards for all handguns...

restrict the availability of certain types of guns and ammunition most commonly used in homicides like “junk guns” and “pocket rockets;" further restrict the availability of new “sporterized” assault weapons; more stringently regulate large-capacity ammunition magazines; restrict the availability—-or prevent the introduction onto the civilian market—-of firearms that pose a serious threat to public safety... ban specific models or classes of firearms which are determined to present an “unreasonable risk” to public safety

Those aren't "safety standards." That is the whole prohibitionist agenda--the banning of nonhunting-style guns.




BTW, if you don't thing guns are already regulated so heavily that you almost need to be a lawyer to own one without accidentally committing a felony, here are some minor technical violations that are Federal felonies, and will get you SERIOUS prison time if you commit them and get caught:

--Putting a a black plastic stock on a Ruger 7.62x39mm self-loading rifle is OK, but putting a black plastic stock on an SKS 7.62x39mm self-loading rifle may be a felony. (18 USC 922, paragraph r, assembly of a rifle that would be prohibited from importation in that configuration.) Putting a receiver-cover scope mount on the same rifle is OK if the rifle was manufactured in 1954, but may be a felony if the rifle was manufactured in 1956.

--Putting an ergonomic pistol-grip stock on a self-loading rifle is OK by Federal law. Putting a screw-on recoil reducer on the muzzle of a self-loading rifle is OK. Putting both on the same rifle was a felony between Sept. 13th, 1994 and Sept. 13th, 2004. (Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994.)

--If you have an unloaded, trigger-locked hunting rifle in a locked case in the back seat of your car, driving on a public road within 1/5 mile of any property owned by a school is a felony, even if that road is the only route that leads to the property where you hunt, UNLESS you have a state-issued permit to carry a handgun (yes, a handgun). (Gun Free School Zones Act.)

--Giving your son a family-heirloom hunting rifle as a present for graduating from medical school is a felony if he does not reside in the same state you do, UNLESS you first transfer the gun to a Federal Firearms Licensee and your son fills out a Federal Form 4473 and undergoes a NCIS background check. (Gun Control Act of 1968, as amended.)

--If you get a divorce in a state that issues routine temporary restraining orders to both parties as a safety precaution, and you and your spouse both own firearms, you both commit felonies UNLESS you temporarily transfer possession of your firearms to someone else until the divorce is complete.

--If there is a firearm in your house and you take one of your spouse's prescription allergy pills during a sneezing fit, you have committed a federal felony, with a mandatory five-year sentence (drug crime while in possession of a firearm).

--You own a SAR-1 7.62x39mm self-loading rifle, and the trigger pull is rough. Replacing the trigger group with a trigger group stamped "made in U.S.A." is legal. Replacing the trigger group with an identical trigger group stamped "made in Poland" would be a felony. (18 USC 922, paragraph r, violation of the parts count rule.)


Do you see why so many of us gun owners study gun laws so closely? :)

[shleonny]

67. no one regulates the firearm industry

and that is a fact, the only recourse is litigation, and the gun loby has tried to remove that.

[benEzra]

69. No, the BATF regulates firearms...

they just can't arbitrarily ban guns based on some administrator's personal whims. Or mandate that firearms conform to a certain aesthetic. A "problem" the prohibitionists seek to remedy by the legislation you reference.

However, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and >>FIREARMS<< is not a figment of gun owners' collective imagination. It is a regulatory agency of the executive branch tasked with administering Federal regulations regarding >>firearms<<. It's just that the regulations have to be within the scope of that authorized by Congress--what a quaint concept.

Did you happen to go back and read what regulateguns.org is actually trying to DO?

Did you even read my post, or just reply to the title?

[CO Liberal]

70. All Those Other Items Have Other Uses

Guns have only one use - to kill, or to put holes in targets in order to allow people to practice killing.

[Name removed]

72. Deleted message

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

[New Earth]

73. this doesn't really answer your question

but i'm more concerned about gun safety - doing everything possible to make sure children don't find the guns in the house or try to play with them or anything....you really can't stop criminals from getting guns, they will get them somehow - that's why they're called criminals.