Ammo For Sale

« « Meanwhile, in gun-free Japan | Home | Speech control » »

Short answers and a fun experiment

What Gun Control Law Would Have Prevented This?

None, really. The fact is that gun control proposals only affect the law-abiding.

What exactly is enough control.

Depends who you ask. For the anti-gun groups, total control is what is needed. For me, just some.

So, here’s a fun game for you pro-gun folks: Due to some bizarre set of circumstances, congress decides that all federal gun laws need to be re-written and revised. You are elected/selected/appointed as the negotiator for pro-gun folks. And there will be one negotiator for the anti-gun folks. All federal laws will be wiped clean and you two will negotiate what the new gun laws will be. There will have to be compromise on both sides. So, what will you concede? And what is nonnegotiable?

Whoever says that their position will merely consist of shall not be infringed, step to the front of the bus and exit please. Because that won’t work. We will have gun laws. As much as I admire your consistency, it’s not feasible. Deal with it.

While we’re at it, let’s hear from the anti-gunners too.

Yeah, I know, not a likely scenario but this national conversation is coming. Post your answers in comments or at your website.

95 Responses to “Short answers and a fun experiment”

  1. Matt Says:

    35% said “friend or family”. Another 15% bought it retail. 2% at gun shows. 4% at pawn shops, which typically try to avoid trading in stolen weapons. I really don’t know if they background check or not, but they should. Another 2% at flea markets. So we’ve got over half of weapons tied to crimes with perfectly legal origins.

    And how many of those “friend or family” or “pawn shop” and “retail” purchases are straw purchases? Digging deeping into these statistics, you’ll find the violent felons who got their guns through legal channels did NOT do so themselves; they had others help them.

    This is a felony. Why aren’t we prosecuting these girlfriends, wives, friends or family? That is the question you should be asking. We should be doing it. We don’t because it isn’t sexy or look like we’re combatting crime on the 5 o’clock news.

    Then you should really save the link I gave you about the $20 background checks. Factor $20 extra into the cost of the gun, and you’re covered. It’s not so hard, is it?

    I’m not disputing its difficulty. I am disputing whether it is legimate to regulate the transfer of private property between individuals. The law says I can sell a gun privately as long as I follow the rules and be responsible for the transaction. I’ve outlined the rules to you.

    The government is not confiscating your weapons. Every NRA member could vanish from the earth tomorrow and it’s still not happening. Even in the nineties when a handful of semiautos were banned, no one did anything to confiscate the ones already out there. So please get over your paranoia, come back to earth, and have a real discussion.

    So if the government never has any intention to confiscate my legally owned property because of shifting winds of political popularity, then they’ll never need to create a registry to begin with. Otherwise, don’t expect compliance.

    Fine, call me paranoid. I respect the ideal that there are LIMITS to the power of the Government. They don’t get to create limits (alas, they do it well) but they do need to be reminded they can only go so far/

    The reason they didn’t suggest a registry or confiscation of banned weapons from 1994-2004 because it would have been political suicide. Not to mention there would have been a low rate of compliance.

    A registry serves no purpose in crimefighting. So we are in agreement.

    Well then, if you want to read the bill of rights strictly, then drop and give me twenty before your five mile run, you well regulated militia member, you. Don’t dawdle too long or you’re on KP duty.

    Believe it or not, Freedonian, I do consider myself a member of the unorganized militia. USC Title 10 Section 311 defines me as such and if I was asked to serve in some capacity, I would do so with my own equipment and arms.

    Just because states choose not to maintain citizen militias much doesn’t make the grounds for civilian possession of arms any less valuable. The core purpose remains even if the militia system is in disrepair.

    The purpose of arms is to maintain freedom. An armed populace can not be enslaved easily. With all the power reaching of the Government (as the Left often sees it and not unoften true), I figure you would be agreement with this idea.

    When our voices are no longer heard, when the politicians choose to not stand for re-election or stand down, when the Court can no longer enforce its decrees and get those charged with upholding the law to do so and when the People are being silenced or unheeded, arms are all we have left to effect change.

    In a just and ideal world, this should never come to pass. I pray it never does.

    Believe me, I will! And you better damn well hope I don’t spot any violations— My digital voice recorder is never outside of easy reaching distance.

    If you hope to bear witness to some shady backroom deal, I predict you will be sorely disappointed. For help, look for the rifles being carried over people’s shoulders with little flag-like signs sticking out of them. Those are the guns being sold privately. Get back to me afterwards and we can discuss your impressions then.

    No thanks. I don’t like guns. I don’t want them. My only firsthand experience with guns was some coward trying to take me out from 100 feet away. His three shots missed— All going into the apartment behind me. Thank god no one was hurt. And when I caught him without his gun, I beat his ass within an inch of his life. The transgression for which this legitimate gun owner thought I deserved to lose my life was dating his ex-girlfriend.

    Thanks for being honest. But your dislike and experiences should not serve as a justification to impose even more draconian restrictions than those that already exist.

    Plus, all the things that you propose may not have prevented your encounter. Ever think about that? A legimate gun owner could have still taken pot shots at you.

    You prosecute the criminal, not his weapon. You don’t send the gun (or knife or bat or…) to jail. You send off the scumbag.

    Would you stop at your “reasonable gun control”? If you got all the controls you wanted and a crime of gun violence still occurred without reason, would you throw up your hands and say “We’ve done all we can! No more laws or restrictions can change this! We have to live with the system we have.”. Because if you do, you will be a rare breed of gun controller.

    Because they never stop. You’ve already stated you’d like to see them melted down. Do you have the integrity to declare that once this balance point of yours is reach, you will stand by it and not try to cross it?

    Um… The same way you would in any other investigation. Youvknow, figure out if victim knew killer (The answer to that is almost overwhelmingly yes). Figure out why someone would kill this person. If the victim was killed with a .45, it’s a good idea to find out who owns a .45 at that point. If they say “sold it”, that would be a good time to bring out the meticulously kept records, would it not?

    In other words… Police work.

    It still does not remove the issue of probable cause. Who has the records (hint: it isn’t the government)? How do the police get access to them? How does a knock on my door just because I have a .45 along with 50 other people not violate my rights to unreasonable search and seizure?

    Do you not see how easily this type of action you propose can be abused? To chip away a little more at the sanctity of your person, home and freedom?

    If you support this type of police work, if there was a rapist in your area, would you volunteer your DNA to help narrow down the list of suspects? Or require every male in a 2 mile radius to submit samples in order to narrow dow the list of suspects?

    If you think I’m reaching, I’m not. Such things have been attempted in other countries and you can believe there are those who would try such things here in the name of “public safety” and “fighting crime”. Only our Bill of Rights stops them.

    I don’t know what state you’re writing from, but many do not require any kind of check when the sale is a private transfer. And there’s no way you can be held legally responsible for failing to do a backgrond check that is not required.

    I am in Maryland and I lived in Virginia. And your wrong. I CAN AND WILL be held legally responsible if I sell a weapon to someone I suspect is not eligible to possess it and fail in my duty to validate that they are a resident of the same state as I. Different states have different rules for different types of guns. Here in Maryland, only non-regulated long guns can be transferred privately. Handguns and “assault weapons” require a background check. Virginia permits private sales of all types of arms.

    You know, this country existed for a very, very long time with unrestricted sales of firearms without issues. The background check you are so enamored with is a very recent invention. And it was put in place as a gun control measure to PREVENT GUN CRIME.

    So, how well did that work out for Virginia Tech? The shooter followed the letter of the law across the board. How did a background check help you here?

    You’re reaching in th wrong direction on this. We can agree to disagree on private firearms sales. For the record, I have done several. I am speaking from more than just theory here.

    If I am, I’ll seek guidance on it. That’s what people in positions of power do. With the possible exception of this White House, most in a position of responsibility seek out people who know something about the subject and get advice from them.

    Would you be honest and fair in that process or would you surround yourself with the people who are giving you the information you are using at the moment?

    I’m not bearing you malice. I’m trying to educate you. But if you are going to allow your bias against guns to blind you to the fact that others hold viewpoints different than your own and try to force your views on me because you feel it is right, what does that say about your objectivity?

    I too am arguing from my own set of biases and views. But you bear the burden of proof that doing more than what we are now will have a genuine impact on safety and crime that far outweighs the personal cost that the law-abiding citizens will suffer as a result.

    If you ban .50 caliber firearms (all types), for example, and require them to be turned in since they have no legitimate purpose, how do you propose to get them? Door to door confiscations? Do lawful owners get properly compensated for the loss of their property (meaning actual gun value plus accessories and ammunition)? Or do they get a “Sorry, these are banned now. Thank you.” or at best, a $200 gift card? How will it be paid for? Do you honestly expect me to submit especially given you have no record that I possess a banned arm in the first place?

    How you view the private ownership of guns tells a lot about your views on the world. Yours frighten me more than a little.

  2. Sebastian Says:

    I’m a little disappointed to see that the crowd that preaches “personal responsibility” on weapons is so unwilling to assume any of that responsibility when it comes to keeping the streets safe.

    Hey, I do my part to keep the streets safe. But if you like, if I ever come across someone holding a knife to your throat on the streets, I’d be happy to keep walking 😉

    Also, this notion that criminals are too stupid to switch or mar the barrel is kind of ridiculous when criminals filing off serial numbers from guns is so commonplace that it, in itself, is a crime in most states. Notice our latest psychopath didn’t have any trouble figuring that one out.

  3. Serr8d Says:

    No matter what ludicrous examples you come up with to try and compare guns to something else, there is simply nothing else to compare them to. Nothing sold legally, anyway. I’m sure you could make a case that C-4 has the potential to kill quite a few people, but I can’t drive two miles and pick that up at a hock shop.

    Freedonia, 43,000 plus souls die every year in auto accidents. We can’t even get the Governor of New Jersey to buckle up, and seatbelt laws are universal, now. What further set of laws can we enact to prevent the criminal, psychotic elements from dictating what rights we law-abiding citizens enjoy? Your arguments seem more reactionary than logical.

    And, how do you know the person who ‘shot’ at you (that’s unbelievable, by the way) had a CCW? Why didn’t you report that incident to the police, and have him arrested? How do you justify taking the law into your own hands, by ‘beating his a$$’ within an inch of his life? You admit you are a lawbreaker; should you be prevented from ever owning a gun? I would say, yes.

    And, the ‘Free’ part of your nick, seems somewhat abused

  4. Matt Says:

    Hey, I do my part to keep the streets safe. But if you like, if I ever come across someone holding a knife to your throat on the streets, I’d be happy to keep walking

    Sebastian,

    You want to know the sad part? You or I would still be likely to come to his defense as the sheepdog. Provided we didn’t have a picture of him beforehand so we would know who to avoid helping. And even then, we probably still would go to his aid, weapon in hand.

    I’d bet he wouldn’t even appreciate it either. At least we would be able to sleep at night knowing we had done the right thing.

  5. #9 Says:

    No thanks. I don’t like guns. I don’t want them. My only firsthand experience with guns was some coward trying to take me out from 100 feet away. His three shots missed— All going into the apartment behind me. Thank god no one was hurt. And when I caught him without his gun, I beat his ass within an inch of his life. The transgression for which this legitimate gun owner thought I deserved to lose my life was dating his ex-girlfriend.

    He was a perfectly legitimate gun owner with a CCW permit. He broke no laws until he committed an act of craven cowardice and tried to take my life from a long distance.

    Freedonian, how much of this is true?

    Tell the complete story. Something doesn’t ring true in the above paragraphs.

  6. Freedonian Says:

    I have yet to see a strawman argument here.

    You mean like insisting that I was trying to ban all weapons? That’s the definition of straw man. None of my arguments have anything to do with that. I’ve acknowledged the impossibility and made it clear that it’s not my goal.

    You are either lying or ignorant. It is a federal crime to knowingly sell a gun to a criminal, even in a private party transaction.

    Knowingly. Key word there. In several states, it’s perfectly fine not to bother checking.

    *At this point, I stepped away from the PC for a half hour or so, so I’ve not seen anything posted in that time.*

    Your record of transfer scheme will only be followed by the law-abiding.

    And provide another charge to file against the non-law-abiding. That’s not such a bad thing. I would like to see the “personal resonsibilty” mantra lived up to with a little self-policing from the pro-gun crowd.

  7. Freedonian Says:

    Freedonian, how much of this is true?

    100%.

    Her name was April, and she had a son that was three at the time. His name was Shane.

    She lived in a second story apartment. I was spending the night over there. We looked up at 3 AM to find him standing over the bed (He had used the fire escape to climb up to the balcony). I jumped up, ready to brain the son of a bitch. He ran out of the apartment.

    I put some pants on. She took a few seconds to try and stop me from going outside. I said “F— that. He isn’t going to bother us anymore.”

    Soon as I walked outside the door, I started looking around to try and figure out where he was. I didn’t spot him immediately. Took a few more steps, and the window exploded behind me. I was only a short distance fom the door, but I didn’t know where he was firing from, so I wasn’t really sure which direction to run.

    I squatted down and spotted him. He was maybe a hundred feet away, standing behind the open door of his car. I started running back towards the door, and another bullet hit the wall behind me. A third hit the door as I opened it.

    He sped away once I got back inside, and I called the police. He was picked up on an ADW charge. It was his first offense, so he got away with time served and probation. A few weeks later, he came into the bar I bounced at (That’s what paid for my first two years of college). He gave me an excuse, and yes, I beat the holy hell out of him. He was a worthless sack of crap that couldn’t get it done without a gun.

    Is that enough detail? It was fourteen years ago, so I don’t have the police reports handy.

  8. Freedonian Says:

    Hey, I do my part to keep the streets safe. But if you like, if I ever come across someone holding a knife to your throat on the streets, I’d be happy to keep walking .

    Fine by me. I can take care of myself. If you’re thinking of shooting at someone close enough to have a knife at my throat, I’d be as worried about your aim, well-meaning though it may be, as his knife.

    Also, this notion that criminals are too stupid to switch or mar the barrel is kind of ridiculous when criminals filing off serial numbers from guns is so commonplace that it, in itself, is a crime in most states. Notice our latest psychopath didn’t have any trouble figuring that one out.

    Yeah, I suspect that a student at a great university probably is a good bit smarter than your average street criminal.

  9. Sebastian Says:

    What state was this in?

  10. Sebastian Says:

    Yeah, I suspect that a student at a great university probably is a good bit smarter than your average street criminal.

    Dude, have you read his play? I have my doubts about that. Plus, as I mentioned, filing off the serial number is common enough practice among criminals to make it a crime in most states.

  11. Freedonian Says:

    Freedonia, 43,000 plus souls die every year in auto accidents.

    This is a tired, tired talking point. Come on, guys… Put some effort into this!

    Accident. As in, a device not meant to be used as a weapon… accidentally killing someone.

    If you want to compare cars being used as weapons, you’ll at least have something valid there. Of course, assuming that every murder classified as “other” in the latest FBI uniform crime report was a vehicular homicide (And I’m being generous there— Surely, there was an electrocution murder or two, right?), then we’re looking at a little over 900. Roughly 9% of the amount of murders that took place with guns and 12% of the murders that were committed with handguns alone.

    And, how do you know the person who ’shot’ at you (that’s unbelievable, by the way) had a CCW?

    Because the police told me when they arrested him.

    How do you justify taking the law into your own hands, by ‘beating his a$$’ within an inch of his life? You admit you are a lawbreaker; should you be prevented from ever owning a gun? I would say, yes.

    Actually, I didn’t. He came looking for me at my place of employment, where I worked as a bouncer. Where he tried to fight me, he had no legal recourse. technically, I could have called the police on him again after beating him, but I let it go and told him we wanted to be left alone.

    So I committed no crime.

  12. Freedonian Says:

    What state was this in?

    Tennessee.

    Dude, have you read his play? I have my doubts about that.

    He is indeed a shitty writer with the emotional maturity of a ten-year-old. Doesn’t make him stupid. A school that good, you’ve either got to be bright, or you’ve got to know how to play a sport. He didn’t look like a football player to me.

    Plus, as I mentioned, filing off the serial number is common enough practice among criminals to make it a crime in most states.

    Yeah. But most murders are not like that. They’re not committed by career criminals. It’s a guy shooting his wife or girlfriend. Almost 60% of murder victims know their killers. These are not crimes where someone plans ahead and files the serial numbers down.

  13. Freedonian Says:

    You want to know the sad part? You or I would still be likely to come to his defense as the sheepdog.

    And I do appreciate that, Matt. Believe me or not, I do. Just know that if you’re the type to do that, you’re not the people I’m trying to keep guns away from.

  14. Serr8d Says:

    This is a tired, tired talking point. Come on, guys… Put some effort into this!

    Accident. As in, a device not meant to be used as a weapon… accidentally killing someone.

    The point was, laws require seat belts. A Governor disrespected a law, and suffered mightily. My question, still, is, what laws do you envision that would properly control miscreants and head cases and not weigh too heavily on my rights as a law-abiding citizen?

    And, if your little bit of bravado occured 14 years ago, in a state that had CCW, then that perp can no longer have a permit. At least you took that crook’s rights away.

    Remember, many people who need a gun for protection don’t go to the gym and work out with their towel-snapping buddies. You might be perfectly capable of taking care of yourself, but what about that 65-year old woman who’s husband’s died and left her alone in a flat, in a bad neighborhood? You, and your cape, might not be there when she need you.

  15. Nashville is Talking » Aboslutists Need Not Apply Says:

    […] Great discussion going on at Say Uncle’s place that many of you might want to get in on: [H]ere’s a fun game for you pro-gun folks: Due to some bizarre set of circumstances, congress decides that all federal gun laws need to be re-written and revised. You are elected/selected/appointed as the negotiator for pro-gun folks. And there will be one negotiator for the anti-gun folks. All federal laws will be wiped clean and you two will negotiate what the new gun laws will be. There will have to be compromise on both sides. So, what will you concede? And what is nonnegotiable? […]

  16. Sebastian Says:

    The standard for know is pretty weak. It doesn’t necessarily mean family. It doesn’t even necessarily mean friend.

    About 75% of murderers already have adult criminal records.

    Oh, and I have to admit I find it odd that the dude had a CCW when TN didn’t pass shall-issue until 1994, which isn’t quite 14 years ago. But maybe TN was like Delaware and Iowa, and did generally issue. I’ll leave it to the folks here who live there to comment on that.

  17. SayUncle Says:

    You mean like insisting that I was trying to ban all weapons?

    No, I asked at which point you were lying based on the premise that you first stated an end and then a means. Not an unreasonable conclusion based on the rest of your comments.

  18. Freedonian Says:

    And how many of those “friend or family” or “pawn shop” and “retail” purchases are straw purchases?

    Hard to say. I know of at least one shady dealer that made at least 900 illegal sales in a seven-year period. To hear him tell it, over a quarter of his inventory was “missing”. Gun advocacy groups were so outraged at his irresponsibility that they put him on the NRA 2005 board of directors.

    This is a felony. Why aren’t we prosecuting these girlfriends, wives, friends or family?

    Far as I’m concerned, we should.

    I’m not disputing its difficulty. I am disputing whether it is legimate to regulate the transfer of private property between individuals. The law says I can sell a gun privately as long as I follow the rules and be responsible for the transaction. I’ve outlined the rules to you.

    I could not sell my car to you as easily as you can sell a gun to me— Without a background check in many states. What could possibly be right about that?

    Fine, call me paranoid.

    It is paranoid. Know what happened to the dealer I talked about that had 900 violations in his store? Nothing. When the state tried to shut down his shop, the Bush DOJ filed an amicus brief on his behalf when Maryland took away his license to sell, saying he could continue as a “private seller”.

    So how hard do you think the government is going to bust ass trying to round up every .38 snubnose?

    Believe it or not, Freedonian, I do consider myself a member of the unorganized militia. USC Title 10 Section 311 defines me as such and if I was asked to serve in some capacity, I would do so with my own equipment and arms.

    Unorganized? As in not “well regulated?

    If you hope to bear witness to some shady backroom deal, I predict you will be sorely disappointed. For help, look for the rifles being carried over people’s shoulders with little flag-like signs sticking out of them. Those are the guns being sold privately. Get back to me afterwards and we can discuss your impressions then.

    Very well. We’ll see.

    Thanks for being honest. But your dislike and experiences should not serve as a justification to impose even more draconian restrictions than those that already exist.

    I don’t know what restrictions exist that could be termed “Draconian”.

    Would you stop at your “reasonable gun control”? If you got all the controls you wanted and a crime of gun violence still occurred without reason, would you throw up your hands and say “We’ve done all we can! No more laws or restrictions can change this! We have to live with the system we have.”. Because if you do, you will be a rare breed of gun controller.

    I have never made, nor will I ever make, a secret of my distaste for firearms. But I genuinely have no interest in leaving Americans incapable of protecting themselves, their homes, and their family.

    In exchange, I ask for responsibility in dispersing weapons. I ask that they be handled responsibly. I ask that all due diligence be taken to make sure they don’t end up in the wrong hands. And yes, there are some guns that I feel have no legitimate self defense purposes. I think law enforcement should be able to serve a legitimate warrant without having to worry about being outgunned.

    But I don’t want anyone’s life to be in jeopardy if an outlaw comes into their homes. Do what you’ve got to do to protect your family. While it’s certainly true that if I could make all guns go away with the wave of my hand, I would do it in a heartbeat— But I know very well that I cannot.

    I also have a strong distaste for hunting, but I do not condemn those who enjoy it, nor do I want to take their rifles.

    My sole interest is in making the streets safe again. After this week, there have been discussions about making sure students can carry guns on campus. Yes, I’m certain it would have stopped this asshole sometiume before the body count hit 32— Just as I’m certain that there would be enough incidents where one or two are killed after a fight to more than make up for that body count.

    It still does not remove the issue of probable cause.

    By virtue of having police not chase their tails running down everyone that has a certain caliber of weapon, probable cause would be established well before checking the list. If the victim was killed by a .38, you would start off with a list of suspects and find out who owns a .38. You wouldn’t just run around randomly checking all households in the metro area with a .38. I’m looking to speed up investigations– Not bog them down hopelessly.

    Here in Maryland, only non-regulated long guns can be transferred privately. Handguns and “assault weapons” require a background check. Virginia permits private sales of all types of arms.

    Which proves my point. Maryland has more responsible gun legislation than Virginia does. Like I said— Some states are more diligent than others.

    Would you be honest and fair in that process or would you surround yourself with the people who are giving you the information you are using at the moment?

    I’m interested in being fair. I don’t think I’ve suggested anything unreasonable. But if someone I know and trust that has more firearms expertise than me (And I’ve never said it was hard to find someone with more firearms expertise than me), I’m willing to listen.

    I will not listen to complete abolitionists, nor will I listen to the “I should be allowed to have a Howitzer in a machine gun nest in my front yard” crowd either. I’m interested in solving problems and preventing unnecessary slaughter.

    If you ban .50 caliber firearms (all types), for example, and require them to be turned in since they have no legitimate purpose, how do you propose to get them? Door to door confiscations?

    Actually, I probably wouldn’t do a confiscation at all. Dealers would be compensated for existing stock at cost, and further sale would be prohibited. As you guys say— There aren’t just a shitload out there, and none have ben used for nefarious purposes so far. But that doesn’t mean that the continued proliferation wouldn’t be a threat.

  19. Freedonian Says:

    And, if your little bit of bravado occured 14 years ago, in a state that had CCW, then that perp can no longer have a permit. At least you took that crook’s rights away.

    Indeed. And the world is safer without a gun in that idiot’s hands.

    Remember, many people who need a gun for protection don’t go to the gym and work out with their towel-snapping buddies. You might be perfectly capable of taking care of yourself, but what about that 65-year old woman who’s husband’s died and left her alone in a flat, in a bad neighborhood? You, and your cape, might not be there when she need you.

    That’s a bit of a straw man, as I have advocated absolutely nothing that would keep a gun out of her wrinkled hands unless she’s a felon.

  20. Freedonian Says:

    The standard for know is pretty weak. It doesn’t necessarily mean family. It doesn’t even necessarily mean friend.

    Actually, it’s pretty specific.

    Check out figure 2.4 on this page. Family is 12.8%. “Other known” is 30.1%, further broken down into wife, husband, son, daughter, etc. in the chart below. 12.9% are confirmed as strangers. The rest are “un known”, as in unsolved.

  21. Freedonian Says:

    No, I asked at which point you were lying based on the premise that you first stated an end and then a means. Not an unreasonable conclusion based on the rest of your comments.

    No, but nice try. Thankfully, most people can read for themselves, so even if they disagree with me on what measures I want to take, they are at least bright enough to realize you just put up a straw man. For I have stated nothing that comes close to a total ban on firearms.

    PS: If Ashley and Scarlett are up for it, I’ll post pictures.

  22. #9 Says:

    A few weeks later, he came into the bar I bounced at (That’s what paid for my first two years of college). He gave me an excuse, and yes, I beat the holy hell out of him. He was a worthless sack of crap that couldn’t get it done without a gun.

    You did not write that he swung first, that he assaulted you and you defended yourself. You wrote, “He gave me an excuse, and yes, I beat the holy hell out of him”.

    Was this man significantly smaller than you? Did he strike you first?

  23. dr mac Says:

    I would permit the anti-gunner to make any laws he wants as long as it has been proven to take guns out of the hands of criminals.

    That should be a short enough list to deal with.

  24. Freedonian Says:

    Was this man significantly smaller than you? Did he strike you first?

    Not significantly smaller. I had, at most, 20 pounds on him. And yes. He just wasn’t that good.

  25. Freedonian Says:

    PS: Technically, he didn’t have to swing first. I was a bouncer. Once he refuses to leave (And he did refuse), I was legally entitled to use appropriate force to make him leave.

  26. SayUncle Says:

    You keep using the term strawman. I do not think it means what you think it means.

    So, you’ve come on the Internets and admitted to assaulting someone? No wonder you don’t trust people with guns, you can’t be trusted yourself. I think that sums it up. And, as sebastian said, TN did not pass shall issue CCW until 1994. I don’t think memphis was keen on sheriff approval before that. Another lie?

  27. SayUncle Says:

    was a bouncer. Once he refuses to leave (And he did refuse), I was legally entitled to use appropriate force to make him leave.

    And the story changes again?

  28. Serr8d Says:

    Ahhh, but there is no answer, yet, to my question: What possible laws do you propose to stifle the criminal and insane elements of society, while not infringing on my rights as a legal, law-abiding citizen to have and hold whatever firearm I can afford?

    And, you mentioned, yet again, hunting. The 2nd Amendment has absolutely nothing, at all, to do with hunting. Hunting is a pastime; the 2nd Amendment is all about an individual’s right to bear arms, for his/her own protection, as well as protection from other sources. Whatever souce might desire to trample rights, in conflict with the laws of the land, which are based on our original documented constitution. It bends, but it won’t break without some resistance.

    (I just posted a new target, from Cho’s between-killings photo shoot…that should make for some good hole-punching…)

  29. #9 Says:

    Once he refuses to leave (And he did refuse), I was legally entitled to use appropriate force to make him leave.

    It is clear you are not a lawyer. Assault is way beyond “appropriate force” and it is chargeable.

    I am having trouble with the 100 feet story. A man who is near the same size and weight as you fires threes shots from 100 feet away from his car with the door open. Why? Why not drive away? There is no way you could have caught him.

    The idea that a CCW holder would break into a home is also far fetched. Especially in 1993/1994. From your story he would be one of the first CCW holders.

    Why would someone risk their CCW? Why risk going to jail? Why risk a breaking and entering charge?

    Something doesn’t add up. Until I see something that does you seem to be the teller of yarns and tall tales.

  30. Matt Says:

    Fredonian,

    We are in agreement on prosecuting those who commit straw purchases and unscrupulous gun dealers.

    I will take one minor issue with the Maryland dealer you refer to. He did not get to sell his inventory off as a private seller. That is against the law. Private individuals are limited as to the number of firearms they can sell from their own collections without having to transfer them through a dealer before they are considered by the BATFE as “engaging in the business of selling firearms”. General consensus in those I’ve spoken to on this issue as part of my research indicates 3-4 guns in a year is acceptable. Admittedly, the longer you go on doing such a thing, the far more likely you are going to draw scrutiny. It is not an act you can do privately forever.

    I could not sell my car to you as easily as you can sell a gun to me— Without a background check in many states. What could possibly be right about that?

    I am not liable under Federal law for anything you do with the car. All you need to do is fill out the title, write a bill of sale and let money exchange hands. That’s it. You don’t need to even have a driver’s license to buy the car. But if I sell a gun to a criminal, I could be held liable for that. The same would not apply in your car scenario.

    It isn’t the ease; it’s the responsibility. The rules for a private firearm sale is far more restrictive than a car sale. I think you are just appalled at the idea that two people can exchange guns amongst themselves and the Government doesn’t need to be involved.

    If you feel a background check is necessary for all private firearms sales, then work to see the law changed to enable that. I promise that I will fight you on that. I have never bought or sold a firearm privately that wasn’t done in accordance with the law. These were from people I knew, we had valid ID for our states and I had a Virginia CCW. The law says I was qualified and allowed to do so. Why should that bother you?

    In exchange, I ask for responsibility in dispersing weapons. I ask that they be handled responsibly. I ask that all due diligence be taken to make sure they don’t end up in the wrong hands. And yes, there are some guns that I feel have no legitimate self defense purposes. I think law enforcement should be able to serve a legitimate warrant without having to worry about being outgunned.

    Nothing on your list will be an improvement in that responsibility over what we have today.

    I will take issue with two areas, one from your blog and one you list here.

    You claim that someone should have to show training in order to get a gun. Who offers the training and who gets to decide what qualifies? Before you answer, consider this carefully: the various programs offered by the NRA are considered the primary standard in this country when it comes to training requirements for States that require it in whatever area they need whether it be for concealed carry or hunting.

    I tell you that so you can be aware of where most of the training in this country for purposes of competency already comes from. Will you argue the NRA gun lobby power as a result?

    But to my point, by demanding training, you are applying a “poll tax” to the exercise of a right by tying conditions to that right that result in denying that right to those who can’t afford the training. We can’t charge a fee to register a voter because it acts as a restriction and discriminates against the poor. Such actions are considered to be Unconstitutional. (I won’t wade into the arena that our existing 20,000 gun laws essentially serve the same purpose).

    The second point is about outgunning police. If I own that hunting rifle, I already outgun them. And do. No pistols or “assault weapons” needed. Unless the police are wearing Class III or higher armor, my hunting round is going to tear right through it. That’s a fact. My lowly 6.5mm hunting rifle is capable of a headshot on a human sized target at 800 meters with an expert level shooter on the trigger. It is easily capable of it at 300 meters with a moderately skilled shooter. Should this hunting rifle be banned too?

    My sole interest is in making the streets safe again. After this week, there have been discussions about making sure students can carry guns on campus. Yes, I’m certain it would have stopped this asshole sometiume before the body count hit 32— Just as I’m certain that there would be enough incidents where one or two are killed after a fight to more than make up for that body count.

    Then we don’t need your restrictions. You acknowledge the solution was to have allowed legal CCW by students. Your follow-up on incidents elsewhere that would exceed the body count saved do not hold water. You need to study the issue of citizen CCW to understand why.

    By virtue of having police not chase their tails running down everyone that has a certain caliber of weapon, probable cause would be established well before checking the list. If the victim was killed by a .38, you would start off with a list of suspects and find out who owns a .38. You wouldn’t just run around randomly checking all households in the metro area with a .38. I’m looking to speed up investigations– Not bog them down hopelessly

    This presumes you have a list of suspects. What if you just have a gun? Is that enough for you? It isn’t for me. It also assumes you have a complete registry for guns AND a gun with a usable serial number. If it is filed off, you’re at square one. Without a complete registry, you can still not get anywhere. And the presence of the registry sends the message that gun owners need to be watched and are considered to be guilty of “something” without having done anything. They are guilty for simply owning guns.

    Which proves my point. Maryland has more responsible gun legislation than Virginia does. Like I said— Some states are more diligent than others.

    And Maryland is still not diligent enough for the gun controllers. They still want more. They will demand more even when they get it. Maryland is the 4th most violent state in the USA. Maryland denies the lawful carry of firearms by the law-abiding, has draconian restrictions on firearms transport and so on. And yet, it does not affect the gun crime here. Virginia has much more lower incidents of gun crime and is much less violent overall. There are correlations here.

    Actually, I probably wouldn’t do a confiscation at all. Dealers would be compensated for existing stock at cost, and further sale would be prohibited. As you guys say— There aren’t just a shitload out there, and none have ben used for nefarious purposes so far. But that doesn’t mean that the continued proliferation wouldn’t be a threat.

    You didn’t answer the question about civilian possession so I will assume they would be grandfathered in.

    Since that is the case and .50s are your target, I am going to assume a .490 caliber weapon with virtually identical performance will be ok with you. If not, then you need to learn a little about ballistics and find out why your arguments are not tenable.

    Finally, on the militia item, USC Title 10 Sec 311 uses the term “unorganized militia”. It is not my term. The “well regulated” phrase refers to discipline, not regulation in the layman’s sense. It is assume if I as a member of the unorganized militia were called, the commanders would instill the necessary discipline in order for us to be effective.

  31. Hemlock Says:

    Just a few quick ones from a long time lurker here.

    Freedonians story stills smells. Sebastians date is right on
    Tennessee CCW. Passed in May 1994 and I think first issued in October 1994.

    Previous to that time you could carry if the sheriff made you an aux deputy, but it wasn’t a CCW.

    ADW???? Where I’m from in Tennessee, shooting at someone would be attempted murder. You didn’t even mention the breaking and entering with an illegal weapon.

    Things were a little more lax in the old days, but if you beat the cr@p out of anybody in 1994, even while bouncing, you would have probably been arrested.

    I would post more guys, but the group here always has the facts covered and always seem to be better informed than Me.

  32. straightarrow Says:

    My compromise would be simple, if you do not care to keep and bear arms, I will not force you as you are free to exercise or not your second amendment guaranteed rights. What you give up is exactly the same thing.

    What could be more fair?

  33. straightarrow Says:

    More people die from HIV every year than guns. No argument. When are we going to require licensing and permits for concealed carry and registration of human genitals. Until then, I am not prepared to believe any of you that falsely claim you care about the lives of your fellow man.

    I have never defended myself with my penis. I have defended myself with my gun. Neither of them have ever taken a life. But I would have lost mine without the gun, and the other has created a lot of life, with help of course. Alas, it was unregistered and of large caliber.

    You register yours first. Then we can talk compromise.

  34. existingthing Says:

    *exits the bus*

  35. Nomen Nescio Says:

    I could not sell my car to you as easily as you can sell a gun to me— Without a background check in many states.

    which states in this union demand you run a background check on somebody who wants to buy your car ?

  36. Sebastian-PGP Says:

    Hard to say. I know of at least one shady dealer that made at least 900 illegal sales in a seven-year period. To hear him tell it, over a quarter of his inventory was “missing”. Gun advocacy groups were so outraged at his irresponsibility that they put him on the NRA 2005 board of directors

    Freedonian, you’re a wealth of misinformation

    Abrams didn’t make illegal sales, he failed to keep adequate records. If the BATF had any evidence of him actually selling to people he shouldn’t have, he’d have been in handcuffs quickly.

    What actually got him in trouble was poor record keeping; there are forms that you have to keep multiple copies of, and for some firearms there are multiple forms.

    Every time BATF finds him missing a copy of a document he’s supposed to have four copies of but only has three…it’s added to the number. Every time he crosses a T when he should have dotted an I…it’s added to the number. To my knowledge he’s never been shown to have sold a firearm to a prohibited person. I’d like to see you demonstrate otherwise.

    An anecdote: back in 2003 my Glock broke. I sent it back to Glock USA, while living in VA for a couple months. After a couple months I moved back to MD. In the meantime…Glock finished the repair on my gun and asked where to ship it. I told them to ship it to Abrams’ shop as that’s where I’d originally bought it. When my Glock arrived at his shop, he noticed that the address info for where it was shipped to Glock from was my VA address (not my MD address).

    While living in VA, technically I should have gotten a VA drivers license, but didn’t.

    Abrams broke my balls about it pretty damn hard. Even though I’d only lived in VA for a couple months…he pointed out that I’d broken the law by not x-ferring my drivers license. My Glock had been shipped to Glock USA from a VA gun dealer…and in the time it took to get fixed (a couple months), it was returned to a MD gun dealer (where, BTW, I had to undergo another 7 day waiting period to get my own property back).

    Use your brain, shithead–if he was going to break my balls about my drivers license, what makes you think Abrams actually sold 900 firearms he shouldn’t have?

    Gimme a fuckin break.

  37. Sebastian-PGP Says:

    which states in this union demand you run a background check on somebody who wants to buy your car ?

    Was wondering that myself. Freedonian is amazingly brazen in his mendacity.

    Uncle–are you tolerating his stupid antics for a reason? I must admit…I’m pretty tolerant of trolls on my site too…but there’s a limit. This guy will probably argue the sky is red in a minute.

  38. SayUncle » Inside the mind of an anti-gunner Says:

    […] once asked why this site has no trolls. Well, I’m happy to report we do. See comments here and here. Not the sharpest knife in the drawer. His blog is here, if you want to have a laugh. […]

  39. jj Says:

    Freedonian: “Just know that if you’re the type to do that, you’re not the people I’m trying to keep guns away from.”

    Excuse me for not trusting you.

    It’s just that every other piece of unConstitutional gun-control law, to date, has ONLY affected our “type”, a.k.a. the law abiding.

    Criminals continue to find the tools they need to do whatever damage they want. And, because of following all of your past idiotic gun-control laws, now violent criminals are free to attack unarmed civilians. When victims are unarmed it matters little if criminals choose to use a handgun to kill a couple dozen or a box-cutter to kill a couple of thousand.

    When laws you support hindered the victims ability to remain armed,
    the blood
    falls
    on
    you.

  40. jj Says:

    In saying that, all NRA members contributed to an organization that helped insure the innocent dead at VT remained unarmed.

    You might need to go wash your hands again, and again, and again.

  41. SayUncle » Thought Experiment Responses Says:

    […] are some responses to my little thought experiment that I proposed here. Quite a few folks said Sorry, unc, I ain’t playing because I’m one of those shall not […]

  42. t3rrible Says:

    I would permit the anti-gunner to make any laws he wants as long as it has been proven to take guns out of the hands of criminals.

    ex-fucking-zactly.

    Show me where anything freedomwriter has mentioned will stop the criminally insane or just the average bad guy from plying his craft and I will kiss his ass. I would gladly give up every gun I own, and a hobby I hold dear, if it could be guaranteed to get every one. Since that is a non-starter, it holds that I must use every means at my disposal to protect me and mine and possibly a few others. To do otherwise is foolish.

    This whole discussion is a moot point. Any reasonable person understands that only the law abiding follow the laws, hell it is in the name for pete’s sake. Criminals by definition are breaking the law and will continue to do so no matter what freedomwriter does or wants or thinks or whatever. His reasoning that it will add another charge is an exercise in futility since if we prosecuted the existing laws even partially, prison terms would be in decades not single years. So there must first be a sea-change in the prosecutorial system of this country and then, and only then, will gun laws be of any deterrent.

    Until then, I will continue to protect those I hold dear with whatever the best means available to me up to and including a 50 caliber rifle if I so choose. I will also silently protect those around me on a daily basis. Even those who would deprive me of that very right.

  43. SayUncle » Another thought experiment response Says:

    […] response to my question here on what gun controls pro-gunners could live with, Armed Canuck has a lengthy (as in grab a drink) […]

  44. SayUncle » Another thought experiment response Says:

    […] at West, by God comes another response to my little thought experiment on gun laws (see my post here for background). A taste: Take away BATFE’s ability to capriciously write policy. Or, heck, […]

  45. SayUncle » Late Entry Says:

    […] six months ago, I asked: Due to some bizarre set of circumstances, congress decides that all federal gun laws need to be […]