Thinking about buying a gun?

[cabinetman]

They ought to license certain clothing that goes along with the punks when they do armed robbery, like parkas with hoods, and ski masks.
.

[RayintheUK]

We in the UK lost our right to have correctly-licensed hand guns in our homes following Dunblane. This punitive legislation has clearly had no effect whatsoever on the rate, incidence and location of handgun crime, but there are obviously those who believe that the Firearms Act permits were not control enough.

I can still own a handgun if I wish, but I can only keep it at a gun club range and only ever use it there.

Ray.

[ironhat]

They ought to license certain clothing that goes along with the punks when they do armed robbery, like parkas with hoods, and ski masks.
.

Oh maaaann, that'a my formal attire - and go-to-meeting clothes!

[gsmittle]

As written I can't see how it would pass. Maybe... maybe not... but my bet is against it.

The broo-ha-ha over what's going to happen to rights to own such products -- and the response of those on both sides of the issue, but primarily the hoarders -- reminds me a lot of how some folks were just absolutely sure that the very day of the inauguration all kind of bad things would come to pass.

And... so far? I can't see that most our day-to-day has changed much. Details here and there, of course, but most of America is still fat and warm and dry and the blood of innocents has not yet flooded the country up to our doorsteps.

My call? Give it time. When the fanatics come to realize that the product in question hasn't been outlawed and the Revolution won't be coming tomorrow or next month or next year, demand will peter out, stock will be ramp up again, the market price will settle and the sensible among us will be able to return to hunting, targeting, plinking and continuing to protect ourselves when necessary.

You, sir, are a voice of reason! Like most crises, cooler heads will hopefully prevail. I think a lot of people forget that government is designed with lots of friction, which at the best of times allows folks time to think.

Personally, I doubt the bill as written would pass a constitutionality test.

Just my $0.02 worth…

g.

[jackellis]

I own a hunting rifle. Not sure where the ammunition is at the moment but I can tell you Rudolph provided us with a conversation piece and lots of meals. My brother gave me a handgun at one point that I left unloaded and eventually gave back. LOML and I had decided a long time ago that with both of us traveling and often arriving home late, having guns by our bed would make us a bigger threat to one another than an armed intruder would, especially in our very safe neighborhood. We'll have the rifle when we move to Lake Tahoe, and we won't be getting a handgun.

I'm fine with people owning rifles, handguns and shotguns. I'd be fine with a requirement for registration, just like we have to register vehicles. I'm not so thrilled with the idea that ordinary folks can own automatic weapons and other arms that are more suitable for warfare than for sport or self-defense. If licenses and permits aren't required for these more exotic weapons, I think they should be. The fact that drivers and vehicles and pilots have to be licensed doesn't have a materially adverse impact on our ability to use vehicles and airplanes in a way that's reasonably safe. I don't see why licensing firearms and their owners would be any different. Of course, the licensing requirements are worthless unless they are accompanied by enforcement.

I suppose at some point I should look up the statistics and find out how the rate of homicides caused by firearms correlates to licensing and permitting requirements around the world.

Just my $.02

[TheBoiler]

We in the UK lost our right to have correctly-licensed hand guns in our homes following Dunblane. This punitive legislation has clearly had no effect whatsoever on the rate, incidence and location of handgun crime, but there are obviously those who believe that the Firearms Act permits were not control enough.

I can still own a handgun if I wish, but I can only keep it at a gun club range and only ever use it there.

Ray.

I used to live near Hungerford....

Everytime I go into Wal Mart (ASDA) I have to go and look at the gun counter, still slightly unreal.

[shoottx]

By way of disclaimer, I am an Endowment Member of the NRA. I am not unbiased in this discussion. I hope I have not misquoted, but have used the comments for constructive discussion.

I'm not so thrilled with the idea that ordinary folks can own automatic weapons and other arms that are more suitable for warfare than for sport or self-defense. If licenses and permits aren't required for these more exotic weapons, I think they should be.

Any Individual that wants to own a fully automatic weapon must have a class III BATF License. And only 25 states allow personal ownership of fully automatic weapons. Oh and by the way since 1934, there appear to have been at least two homicides committed with legally owned automatic weapons.

Beyond fully automatic, the definition of this group, weapons and other arms that are more suitable for warfare than for sport or self-defense is very nebulous.

The fact that drivers and vehicles and pilots have to be licensed doesn't have a materially adverse impact on our ability to use vehicles and airplanes in a way that's reasonably safe. I don't see why licensing firearms and their owners would be any different.

Only one small distinction here, the right to own guns is guaranteed in the 2nd amendment of the Constitution, flying and or driving are not accorded the same rights.

Of course, the licensing requirements are worthless unless they are accompanied by enforcement.

There are already thousands of gun laws on the books that are not being enforced, and even where they are enforced they do not stop criminal behavior. Criminals have already broken the law when they buy, borrow or steel a gun. Adding additional laws will not stop that behavior.

I suppose at some point I should look up the statistics and find out how the rate of homicides caused by firearms correlates to licensing and permitting requirements around the world.

Some other Data

In 1996, Britain banned handguns. The ban was so tight that even shooters training for the Olympics were forced to travel to other countries to practice. In the six years since the ban, gun crimes have risen by an astounding 40%. Britain now leads the U.S. by a wide margin in robberies and aggravated assaults. Although murder and rape rates are still lower than in the U.S., the difference is shrinking quickly. Dave Rogers, vice chairman of the Metropolitan Police Federation, said that despite the ban, "the underground supply of guns does not seem to have dried up at all."

Australia also passed severe gun restrictions in 1996, banning most guns and making it a crime to use a gun defensively. In the subsequent four years, armed robberies rose by 51%, unarmed robberies by 37%, assaults by 24%, and kidnappings by 43%. While murders fell by 3%, manslaughter rose by 16%.

And both Britain and Australia have been thought to be ideal places for gun control because they are surrounded by water, making gun smuggling relatively difficult. By contrast smuggling is much easier on the Continent or within the U.S.

Gun-control advocates frequently ignore another inconvenient fact: Many countries with high homicide rates have gun bans. It is hard to think of a much more draconian police state than the former Soviet Union, with a ban on guns that dated back to the communist revolution. Yet newly released data show that from 1976 to 1985 the U.S.S.R.'s homicide rate was between 21% and 41% higher than that of the U.S.

I am willing to provide mor information if yo wish or entertain additional discussions on or offline.

[Bruce Cohen]

OK,

Let's outlaw all handguns and "assault" type weapons.




But make hand grenade and flamethrower ownership mandatory.

Bruce

[Shep]

My wife and I are going to be getting a .357 soon for home/general defense. We live in a safe suburb, but feel it's a good move. If this country goes to **** quickly, rioting can break out at any time and any place. I don't think this is going to happen soon, and I trust my neighbors; however, in the event that the world gets crazy, I don't want to be kicking myself for not buying one sooner. My wife and I plan for everything. The last piece to that puzzle is a hand gun.

[430752]

Only one small distinction here, the right to own guns is guaranteed in the 2nd amendment of the Constitution, flying and or driving are not accorded the same rights.

Well. wait a minute. That's debatable, and not by some malarky stretch either. I'm not in favor or against private gun ownership since I can't personally resolve the harm of guns against the potential need one day to engage in revolution against the government. Could be that 30,896 deaths per year by guns for 100 or 200 years or more is easily worth the need one day to overthrow the government like our forefathers did. And I'll admit my family owns a gun, a circa 1760's Brown Bess stolen from some dead (hopefully slow and painful ) RedCoat by an ancestor in the NH milita who fought in that Revolution and passed down through generations. So, I dunno, I'll abstain. But such a blanket comment should be noted by pointing out that it isn't so clear.

The Second Amendment reads:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

There is much debate whether that means each and every man and woman had the right to individually bear arms (the current state of the law) or that the people have the right to establish a militia, which bears arms (the losing side of the debate). No, we're not gonna debate it here either, just to recognize the debate. And yes, those old geezers after the Revolution sure could have written it better, like the word "and" sure would have resovled it, or the word "through" equally resolving it the other way. As it is, take out the stuff between the commas, and you get " a well regulated militia the right of people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed". What does that mean? Who knows, but it has been interpreted by courts to favor private gun ownership.

Is that the end of it? I dunno, cuz there was a time when the Constitution was read to deny the Franchise to anyone but white male landowners, or that discrimination was allowed, or the slavery okay. I'm not saying the current interpretation is right or wrong, just saying that you can't say with certainty what the second amendment says and that current judicial decisions could be just as wrong as the Supreme Court's decision in Dred Scott v Sanford.

Now, by the way, if guns were so important, why didn't it make it into the first cut? Why an Amendment, and why the Second? Again, you think those old dead guys could've given better direction! So, just keep your powder dry the guns safe from kids, thieves and malcontents.

[JR]

Now, by the way, if guns were so important, why didn't it make it into the first cut? Why an Amendment, and why the Second? .

Well, a lot of good stuff didn't make it into the first cut. This only diminishes your otherwise well-articulated argument.

JR

[bruce hylton]

At the round table in the coffee shop this morning, a shortage of reloading powder was noted at most of the sporting goods stores in my area of Washington State. Gun control may not be an issue for long.

[cwsmith]

The 2nd amendment might also be interpreted by any of us and our friends to establish a neighborhood "militia" that is formed for the protection of the neighborhood. What is the answer to one's interpretation of "well regulated"? Does that mean that if we, as a neighborhood "militia", establish rules and ranks that regulate our command structure and our training and "call to duty" muster that we are thereby "well regulated" and can now arm ourselves in any manner we so deem as necessary for the protection of our neighborhoods? Does "well regulated" mean "self regulation" by our militia organizationi or does it mean "regulation by the government (local, state, or federal). In the face of British regulation of the colonies, I would ascertain that "well-regulated" does not mean "government regulation", since the British was the supreme government at that time.

Methinks that in such activity in today's world might well find our present government agencies, highly interested in us as possible members of an internal terrorist cell.

I have no personal opinion with this question, but like "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" there can certainly be argument.

CWS

[JR]

What is the answer to one's interpretation of "well regulated"? Does that mean that if we, as a neighborhood "militia", establish rules and ranks that regulate our command structure and our training and "call to duty" muster that we are thereby "well regulated" and can now arm ourselves in any manner we so deem as necessary for the protection of our neighborhoods? Does "well regulated" mean "self regulation" by our militia organizationi or does it mean "regulation by the government (local, state, or federal). In the face of British regulation of the colonies, I would ascertain that "well-regulated" does not mean "government regulation", since the British was the supreme government at that time.

Hmm, interesting question.

In the context of the revolutionary times, it should be noted that the Continental Army was constituted and funded by the Continental Congress. They took great pains to provide an aura of legitimacy to the endeavor. This was meant to contrast with the Lexington/Concord uprising, which would seem to have scared many people who were otherwise disposed to assert the rights of the colonies. The Massacheusets rebels were thought by many to be undisciplined hot-heads, even though their cause was just.

These facts may provide the clues as to why the 2nd ammendment language was left vague. The uprising was reckless and could have ended in disaster for those involved and, if it had failed, might have prevented the formation of the American union. OTOH, without the passionate conviction of the Patriots the revolution might never have got off the ground.

The framers of the Constitution were very savvy, in addition to being brilliant theorists. Where agreement was easy to reach they wrote specific laws that last to this day. Where agreement was less easy to reach, they defered to the Bill of Rights. Where they were divided, they managed to agree on an outline defining freedom, while leaving for later generations the specific resolution (slavery/states' rights issues comes to mind here).

JR

[LCHIEN]

Hmm, interesting question.

In the context of the revolutionary times, it should be noted that the Continental Army was constituted and funded by the Continental Congress. They took great pains to provide an aura of legitimacy to the endeavor. This was meant to contrast with the Lexington/Concord uprising, which would seem to have scared many people who were otherwise disposed to assert the rights of the colonies. The Massacheusets rebels were thought by many to be undisciplined hot-heads, even though their cause was just.

These facts may provide the clues as to why the 2nd ammendment language was left vague. The uprising was reckless and could have ended in disaster for those involved and, if it had failed, might have prevented the formation of the American union. OTOH, without the passionate conviction of the Patriots the revolution might never have got off the ground.

The framers of the Constitution were very savvy, in addition to being brilliant theorists. Where agreement was easy to reach they wrote specific laws that last to this day. Where agreement was less easy to reach, they defered to the Bill of Rights. Where they were divided, they managed to agree on an outline defining freedom, while leaving for later generations the specific resolution (slavery/states' rights issues comes to mind here).

JR

I agree with JR here, although perhaps in modern democracies controversial laws with very specific wording is hard to come by. When sides disagree, the wording is often softened and made ambigusous so that both sides can seem to have gotten some wiggle room. That means that final interpretation is often left to juries and or judges in the court system.

As for guns, we have plenty of laws, more laws won't fix things nearly as much as enforcing the ones we have.
For example - its illegal to rob someone. Its illegal to use a gun in the commision of a crime, it's illegal to shoot someone while commiting a crime and its illegal to kill someone. Do you think additional charges for possession of a gun (if this is made illegal, too) while not doing these things is going to deter someone who's going to do them or has already done them?


I'm not wild about a large number of guns out in the public and certainly not enthused about the prospect of everyone going about daily lives armed with deadly weapons but the status quo is OK with me if we can keep kids and or adults from taking weapons to school or public places and shooting other people and also prevent crimes committed with guns with REAL sentences and guaranteed jail time. And punish those who leave guns where unsupervised kids can get at them. Most gun owners don't commit crimes.