Gun Control, what is reasonable?

[Eagle732]

Maybe not. I have some weapons here that have doubled in value since I purchased them. From a financial perspective firearms are one of the better investments. Only gold and silver, which has a highly inflated value in my opinion, has had a better record of return.

 

All weapons should be secured in a responsible fashion. We don't know yet if or how these weapons were secured. Certainly common sense would dictate that if a person is living in your household who is unstable then extra precautions should be taken. Unfortunately mom paid with her life for that mistake.

[SSScout]

 

Well, the advertising connections are working well, Lots of "support the 2nd amendment" and "body armor" and "shooting instruction" ads, but nary a llama ad in the bunch.

[packsaddle]

I'm getting cookware (pots and pans) and camping gear. What am I doing wrong?

[Twocubdad]

So maybe Scouting.com is not the best place to get this info, but coming up with reasonable (and I'll add effective) solutions to gun violence it the key. I've re-read the thread, start to finish, to make sure I haven't missed anything. Two things surprised me: one, that there are special bullets for killing zombies and, two, out of 80 posts, E61 is the only one who actually suggested possible limits on guns/ammunition. Gold star for you, E!

 

I am not a "gun guy." I own two guns. One is a 1914 S&W cowboy-style six shooter my grandfather left to me and the other is a cheap muzzle-loader I literally found in a trash can. So bare with me as I sort through this from a fairly uneducated point of view.

 

Seems to me there are XX issues here;

 

1) Type of firearm. This is basically the "assault weapon" debate. I would think having a ban on assault weapons in place for 10 years would have provided pretty good data. I'd like to see it. Of course we'll never see it from either the Huff Post nor the NRA

 

I read the post/link here which gave the now-expired federal definition of assault weapon. Seemed like a lot of smoke to me. Most things which defined assault weapon really went to the appearance of the guns, not function. My take was the law really only banned guns which were bad-ass looking. I guess if I'm Special Forces and looking to storm an insurgent safe house, some of those features are important. Otherwise, it's just the macho appeal of having an AR or UZI knock-off. (Maybe that's part of the video game argument.) On the other hand, one feature of an actual assault weapon is it's compact size and things like folding stocks. Again, if you're storming a 747 that's probably important. I'll allow the size also makes concealment easy, which could be a factor in civilian shootings. I've never actually held an AR-15, but they seem to be pretty dang big guns. If Lanza could carried an AR into Sandy Hook Elementary hidden under his coat, it makes me wonder if size matters. But I was surprised to learn he never fired the two 9mms he had.

 

But the biggie, that which makes a difference is full auto vs. semi auto vs. single-action which leads to....

 

2) Rate of Fire. Full-auto has been heavily controlled since the 30s. And even my grandfather's 1914 revolver is technically semi-automatic -- everytime I pull the trigger, it fires. Granted, its not as smooth and fast as a modern 9mm, but it still shoots everytime. Maybe there is an argument to be made to ban everything but single-action, bolt action or single shot guns. Based on my exhaustive review of the History Channel over the years, that would seem to be most firearms designed after 1880 or so. There you have a pretty good argument for reasonableness. If someone can make a technical

 

If I'm buying a gun for self defense, I don't think the muzzle loader I pulled out of the trash is it. Even the professionals of the day could only get off two shots a minute (again, History Channel). One of my gun-totin' buddies says it is possible that he could be killed with his own gun, but he'll be beaten to death with it. The bad guys may take it from him, but the clip will be empty. That seems like a reasonable approach. I you're protecting yourself or family and make the decision to use deadly force, YOU USE DEADLY FORCE. That means as much lead down range as possible.

 

If someone can offer a technical argument for some mid-ground on semi-automatic weapons, I'd love to hear it.

 

3) Volume of Fire3) The magazine debate. Limiting magazine size seems like a reasonable thing, I just don't know how effective it would be. Is there a big difference between one 100-round mag and six or eight 15-round mags. If I'm in Mogadishu, yeah. But it doesn't seem like the time it takes to drop a clip will really make a difference in these civilian mass shootings. The real issue here is....

 

Availability of Ammunition4) Unless you're really preparing for the next war, stockpiling 10,000 rounds of ammo does seem nuts -- we'll no more nuts than preparing for the next war, but that's another thread. So how do you control that? You make it illegal to transport more than XX rounds? Who does that stop, besides my ASM who organized the troop shooting sports weekend in the fall and bought $600+ worth of ammo? Do we institute a psudoephedrine-style registry? Since ammo lasts years, what stops somone from buying their limit and saving it over time? Does ATF get to randomly search my house for my cache? Do shooters have to collect their brass and swap it out?

 

This is an area where there could be a reasonable/effective solution, but I've not heard one.

 

Lastly, Access5) Our state has a law under which gun owners can be charged if they leave a firearm accessible to a minor. I can see expanding this, to cover any firearm subsequently used in the commission of a crime. I your legal gun is stolen, you're responsible for it. If I'm facing criminal charges or multi-million-dollar liability if my guns are stolen, I'm probably going to make dang sure they'rea secure -- or get rid of them if they're not important enough to me to go to the trouble/expense of locking them up. I agree with whoever posted (not surprisingly, I think it was Beavah) that the NRA should be appalled that firearms are being used by criminals. If that Lapierre guy (whatever his name is) had two brain cells to rub together, the NRA would be all over something like this. EVERY responsible gun owner should be doing this.

 

I don't really know what the "gun show" exemption, but if folks are using it to get around in-place laws, it needs to be fixed. On the other hand, if I want to sell grandpa's revolver to someone, I don't think that's any business of the government.

 

I don't know how you put into place any sort of mental health check on gun purchases. Do we now create a national mental status database? Okay, if you've ever been legally committed your name should come up on the list. But who get's on the list? Being a danger to yourself or others is a pretty high bar. Anyone with a bout of depression? According to the CDC, anti-depressants are tne most frequently presecribed medication among folks 18-44. Heck, age aside, I've probably got five kids in the troop I don't think are stable enough to own a gun -- triple that if you include too stupid.

 

Again, I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. Truth be told, I've written this as much to think through it myself as anything. If anyone has knowledge or insight here I'd like to hear it. Yeah, I get the Second Amendment argument and I'm not unsympathetic -- I actually kinda agree -- so I'm not really looking for a political discussion one way or the other. But if anyone has CONCRETE, REASONABLE AND EFFECTIVE IDEAS, I'd like to hear a real debate. But spare me the zombie apocalypse stuff.

[Eagle732]

4. We use to have to sign for ammo. Buy a box of .22s, show your license and sign the book. That was years ago, I don't know why they stopped, probably because signing a book really didn't do anything. It's tough to trace ammo.

 

5. If you want to talk about securing your guns in a reasonable manor then yea, I'm all for that but define reasonable. If someone breaks into my house are my guns secured if I had my doors locked? How about if they're locked with the trigger lock that's by law included with every gun sold? Or what if I'm away on vacation and someone brings a cutting torch into my house and burns a hole in the side of my safe were my guns secure enough? I have a buddy who had a safe the size of a refrigerator wheel out of his house in broad daylight, is he responsible? According to you yes. Basically that's a de facto gun ban since no one would accept the liability. I don't think that's gonna fly. Locking them up from kids under 16 is already the law in this state.

 

As far as mental illness is concerned if someone has been diagnosed with mental illness then they currently are prohibited. How about the guy who suffered from depression 10 years ago because but has no problems today, do we deny him? Heck we let criminal get their records expunged and buy guns today. Certainly none of us (even the NRA) wants an unstable person having access to firearms but you also have to deal with medical privacy issues. The NRA endorses a national registry of people who would be denied due to mental illness but the devil is in the details. How do you register people and protect their rights. I don't think any of us believe that you should loose all your rights just because you're sick.

 

Maybe we could look at enforcing current laws, seems like the 5 year mandatory gun crime is the first thing to get tossed during a prosecution.

 

And as far as the NRA not caring about criminals getting guns they have a long history of working with lawmakers for laws as long as they don't restrict the rights of Americans to own firearms. The NRA supported instant background checks as an example. Also it wasn't the NRA that sent thousands of guns to Mexico while telling Americans that we were the ones fueling Mexico's drug wars was it?. "If there's one gun that's going from the U.S. to Mexico, we're against it and they should prosecute it," Mr. LaPierre said. "They have plenty of laws to do that."

 

The last thing I want is for someone to be hurt of killed by a gun. I know first hand what it's like to loose an immediate family member to gun violence. But I'm not willing to give up my right to defend my family.

[Twocubdad]

Reasonable reply, 732, thank you.

 

4 -- seems to me one of those regulations the honest people follow and the criminals ignore. So someone takes out a whole subway train, then what? We can go back and say, "yeah, they bought that much ammo alright." Unless someone is on the other end of the computer looking at your purchases then knocking on your door when you buy too much, this seems like a cart-after-the-horse solution. Again, someone 'splain to me what I'm missing.

 

5 -- what is the standard of care now for securing a gun from a 16 year old? That may be a good starting point. Off hand, I'd say locking your front door but leaving the gun on the kitchen table isn't secure. Having your gun in a safe which was cut open with a torch was. I think the details here are solvable.

 

Thanks! Oh, and Merry Christmas.

[Beavah]

Yah, lots of issues to dig into once we get past "I'm goin' to fight all restrictions."

 

Securin' your firearms should be to ensure no easy access, not proof against a determined burglar. That's pretty straightforward to solve.

 

In order to fly a small plane, I have to renew a medical certificate every three years. They look at medications and a variety of other stuff. No medical, no flyin'. On antidepressants? Probably no flyin', though there are procedures for deeper review.

 

I also have to demonstrate full proficiency every 2 years, or more often if I want to do stuff that's a bit more than just recreational fair-weather flyin'.

 

Despite all that, da U.S. has the da most free, open, and accessible aviation community in da world. Far and away more liberty than Europe or anywhere else.

 

Seems like we could work out somethin' similar that was reasonable, with graduated licensure and requirements. Simple recreational stuff like hunting or target shootin' with appropriate equipment would be straightforward, like recreational flying. Wantin' to carry for personal defense or defense of others would require more training and a higher level of current proficiency and mental fitness. Semi-auto rifles with high capacity magazines and other such stuff that's close to modern infantry gear would require another level.

 

Da focus would be on fitness and proficiency, eh? Not on regulation.

 

NRA might like it because it would increase their revenue from education courses, and it might have da salubrious effect of makin' 'em focus even more on training and responsibility and good practices.

 

Beavah

 

[Brewmeister]

Beavah opines: And by and large none of 'em are suggesting all guns be confiscated and destroyed

 

Wow, that's a fib about as big as claiming that all the Columbine killers used were pistols and shotguns...

 

It is the stated end game of many who are proposing gun restrictions to do just that, for all practical purposes. They are not the "nutters" (to borrow your terminology), but people who put forth lots of seemingly well reasoned but selective arguments about how the second amendment is a quaint relic of a bygone era applying only to hunting or militia or muskets.

 

That is the difference between discussions around the second amendment and others. When we discuss proposals for restrictions on first amendment rights such as not yelling fire in a crowded theater, nobody suggests the first amendment needs to overturned, or should be construed in a way other than that which presupposes a guarantee of individual liberty.

 

We have already accepted restrictions on the second amendment. The end game of those proposing new restrictions on the second amendment should be carefully evaluated before we give up a right that we will not easily get back, if at all.

[Eagle732]

The NRA is a non-profit, just like BSA.

 

Who provides certification to BSA range officers?

[vol_scouter]

So the problem is that gun control does not work. In fact, there exists a roughly negative correlation. That does not mean that to reduce crime that we should arm everyone. However, the Harvard Law Review is clear that gun control does not decrease homicide, suicide, or violent crime. The reasonable laws would be to address mental health issues that are associated with violence.

 

 

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

[FScouter]

It's been said that the "end game" for some proposing gun restrictions is to confiscate and destroy all guns, or to dismantle the second amendment. It's been stated any number of times, always by the gun lobby and folks advocating free guns. Never have I ever heard any proposal by anyone to actually work towards that end. Is there any organized group, or any national committee, or any political faction working on this? Or any opinion papers or speechs or any evidence at all to support the claim of an "end game"?

 

Yes, there's a ton of "internet quotes" to be found on the gun discussion forums and gun enthusiast web sites, but like the stuff on Snopes, the context is twisted, enhanced, or diminished, or there's no source, and never more than a quick sound bite, and not much to suggest it's anything more than all made up.

[vol_scouter]

Beavah,

 

You make the point that there should be restrictions, licensing, etc. That does not seem to be a prudent course to me. Consider that you pilot's license example is applied then to other fundamental rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. So some people say crazy, offensive, and hurtful things in public. So everyone should have to submit to a views test every two year's to get a license to express oneself in open forums. Taking away guaranteed constitutional rights is a very dangerous idea.

When the left wanted to empty the state psychiatric hospitals across the country because it set people free, the right saw it as a cost saving measure. It was a win for everybody except the mentally ill who were put on the street to live under bridges, beg, and be paranoid.It released dysfunctional people, some of whom are dangerous, into society.

If my guns are locked up and unloaded, they are of no value in the event of a break-in in the middle of the night. Don't steal people's rights in an attempt to gain security were it has been shown NOT TO WORK! (See previous posted article).

[perdidochas]

The only people that are at all inconvenienced or stopped by gun control regulations are the law-abiding. Mexico has very stringent gun control laws. It doesn't even slow down the narco-traffickers from being armed. The problem that seems to be concerning most people these days re: guns is the crazed gunman. That is a mental health issue, not a crime issue. The problem is that, due to civil liberties and economics reasons, we have decided that mentally ill people should be in the community as much as possible. This is why we have the homeless people mumbling to themselves, and why it is so hard to commit very ill people into mental hospitals.

[Beavah]

Consider that you pilot's license example is applied then to other fundamental rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights.

 

Remember da 9th, eh, there are a lot of unenumerated but still fundamental rights. All of da rights of da Bill of Rights are subject to restrictions of one form or another, when da right impinges on da rights of others or presents a hazard to society. There's merit to havin' a well-regulated civil air structure, just as there's merit to havin' a well-regulated militia. It enhances my freedom as a pilot if I'm less likely to be tryin' to dodge some inexperienced, unsafe nitwit on final approach.

 

As for da rest, you're a pretty intelligent fellow, vol_scouter. You're not honestly tryin' to pass off that Kates & Mauser piece as legitimate and well constructed social science research, are yeh? They lost me at unpublished data from da lawless period in Russia. Besides, da notion of "banning" all guns is just a canard. Da question is what makes for a reasonable and well-regulated structure that respects and enhances everyone's freedom.

 

Beavah

 

[Twocubdad]

There is a distinction between fundamental rights enumerated in the Constitution and priviledges granted by the states and federal government. Flying a plane, driving a car, and working as a lawyer or general contractor are priviledges subject to basically any control the legislatures or Congress see fit.

 

Fundamental Rights have a higher status. There are no licensure requirements for starting a church, printing a newspaper or voting. Limitations on civil rights must meet a high standard and, as a practical matter, are subject to careful review by the courts. Voter ID laws have been a big topic for debate of late. If I have to show an ID to get on an airplane should there be at least the same -- or even greater standard -- to vote? I think the best argument against voter ID law is voting is a fundamental, constitutional right, flying isn't. (Although it's clearly more complicated than this.)

 

Of course that doesn't mean there are no limits on fundamental rights, just a much higher bar for enacting limits. And there are tons of exceptions. I can list a half-dozen off the top of my head and I sure a flat-tailed rodent with a law degree can list even more. A quick one: Most ministers are licesed by the state. But I'll suggest they are not licensed to preach the Gospel, rather through their entanglement with the state to carry out the governmental function of performing marriages. (And personally, if I were called to be a minister, the libertarian/curmudgeon in me would refuse to be licensed by the state.)

 

So where's the break point? When I get appointed to the Supreme Court (and I'm sure Da Beav will aready be Chief Justice by that time), fundamental rights, including gun ownership, should be universally available to all citizens until an individual demonstrates a reason the should have that right taken away. Think "innocent until proven guilty". Think voting rights. Everyone gets to vote until they are conficted of a felony or declared mentally incompetent. Having a bad day and getting your political opinions from Fox News doesn't disenfranchise you.