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.
April 18th, 2007 at 10:13 am
Well, obviously none of us want criminals or terrorists to be able to buy guns. I think most would agree that instant background checks are a good thing. It’s not a perfect system by any means.
April 18th, 2007 at 10:18 am
Some guy somewhere once posited he’d meet the anti-gunners halfway. He said “While I don’t like it, I’ll accept scrapping exactly half of the gun laws”. Apparently, compromise doesn’t mean the anti-gunners losing anything, only is pro gun people.
I’ll post a real response on my blog and track back here.
April 18th, 2007 at 10:20 am
This is a good discussion to have. I’ll blog my answer shortly.
April 18th, 2007 at 10:51 am
I think the only controls should be:
-keep the background check system as a public service and keep the record keeping requirement for people who sell guns. Allow anyone to sell firearms as long as they retain a record of the sale for 5 years and do a background check.
-allow anyone to make guns and order stuff through the mail as if they were FFL07/SOT2’s. That is, no permission. The only requirement is that someone mark any gun with their personal or corporate identity and place a serial number on the gun.
-change paperwork retention requirements from 20 years to 5. Pretty much any gun that hasnt been involved in a crime more than 2 years after it was last sold is probably not going to be worth tracing. 5 years is generous.
-change prohibited persons law so that only forcible felonies and insanity ajudication are disqualifiers. The time of disqualification should be time served + probation after the completion of sentence. Someone who does a year plus 5 of probation for robbery should lose their firearms rights for an additional 6 years after they complete probation. 12 years is a fairly long time. Anyone who isnt reformed by the end of that time period will likely have reoffended by then anyway, earning additional prohibition time.
-order the ATF to destroy all paperwork that it currently has retained from out of business FFLs
-repeal the NFA. Explosives based weapons (currently explosive DDs) should be regulated as ordinary explosives are. This is actually a very tight regulation and would be more than adequate for preventing most harm. Criminals currently arent stealing high explosvies from construction sites so I dont see why they would start stealing RPGs from people’s gun safes.
Note that this system is an ENHANCEMENT of the current system because it requires private parties to retain sales records. This is a small burden for most people (who rarely sell guns) but it would provide far greater utility for police when they uncover a murder weapon with an intact serial.
April 18th, 2007 at 11:00 am
Done. My trackbacks don’t always work so consider this one “manual”.
April 18th, 2007 at 11:21 am
[…] asks us what gun controls we’re willing to tolerate: So, here’s a fun game for you pro-gun folks: Due to some bizarre set of circumstances, congress […]
April 18th, 2007 at 11:40 am
Uncle asks an interesting question over there. The question is if you and one anti-gunner were given the opportunity to sit down and re-write all of the nations gun laws, where you would compromise? In what areas would you be willing to give a little to get a little?
April 18th, 2007 at 11:41 am
I could live with that, Jim W.
April 18th, 2007 at 12:55 pm
Exiting the bus.
Hope you enjoy your little “game”. It’s sad that playing their game has, once AGAIN, killed so many.
April 18th, 2007 at 1:10 pm
“here” should be “hear”
Good topic for discussion.
I agree a bunch with Jim W.
April 18th, 2007 at 1:44 pm
I’ll take national open and concealed carry. No bans on CCW in schools. Complete deregulation of sound suppressors. No magazine limits, no bans on any semi-auto weapons.
They can regulate machine guns, bazookas and the like. They can ban criminals and mental patients.
Finally, firearm safety should be a required part of every child’s school curriculum.
April 18th, 2007 at 2:19 pm
First of all, Uncle, as much as we did battle yesterday, I wanted to tell you— I like this line of conversation.
I’ll make no secret of it— If there was some way to guarantee we could get them all, my ideal solution would be melting down every gun and making playground equipment out of the metal.
But I know that’s not a realistic possibility. So all I ask for is reasonable gun control.
1. Permanent record of weapons transfers. When I bought my car, not only was the VIN number permanently recorded, but I can’t legally take it out of the driveway without a tag on the back identifying me. If I behave irresponsibly with that car, it makes me easy to track down. There is no reason that there should be less diligence shown over a weapon.
2. Close the gun show/ private transfer loophole. If you’re selling a weapons, you should have to show the same diligence in keeping it out of dangerous hands that a licensed dealer would have to show.
3. Ballistics records. Surely a gun does not leave the manufacturer without a test fire, right? Record the results.
4. 50 caliber. You wouldn’t use it to protect your home. You wouldn’t use it for hunting. Why should it be legal for civilian use?
I’ll blog more later.
April 18th, 2007 at 2:34 pm
But you’re not giving up anything.
As to your points:
1 Okay, this pen is a gun. The paper I’m holding is my license and the paper you’re holding is the registration. Using only these two pieces of paper, explain to me just how you are going to keep me from shooting someone?
2 There is no loophole. Private party transfers are legal. If you wish to regulate those, then say so otherwise you’re using, what was that you said, talking points.
3 Doesn’t work. Too many factors, including changing barrels and, over time, barrels change rendering initial ballistics useless. And any nefarious minded person would just run a file down the barrel.
4 Why shouldn’t it be legal for civilian use? No instances of crime committed with them that I can think of. After all, criminals don’t usually use $8,000 rifles in crimes.
April 18th, 2007 at 2:44 pm
If you want to make owning a gun as easy and accessible as driving a car, then I agree. My Florida license is valid in all 50 states. I don’t need permission to own a high horsepower vehicle, so long as I’m responsible with it. I can drive my car on campus, near a preschool, it church, and to a court.
You should also not sell booze to someone who has had a DUI, matches to pyromaniacs or vehicles without flotation devices to Ted Kennedy. Should we do background checks for those? And how, pray tell, would Joe Citizen know John Doe was a criminal or not? Open everything to everyone? No chance of that getting abused, is there?
Doesn’t work. I’ve already switched out the barrel and firing pin on two of my handguns. Took seconds. Those items are not serialized and would alter the ‘fingerprint’ 100%. Great way to waste money though.
It has never been used in a crime and you want to ban it? Would you be ok with 12.7mm? Are you banning just the .50 or would .477 at 570 grain also be banned? What if (since I reload my own ammunition) I put 3/7000ths of a pound less powder to lower the velocity, would that work?
You wouldn’t drive to work at 180mph, so why should we allow people to have 300hp engines? More people die each year from driving stupid than get killed with any caliber handgun. Hell, more people die each year from shark attacks than getting shot with a .50 cal. So why the worry?
Do you not realize how expensive a .50 is? That each round costs dollars? That if you wanted to kill someone, a 30.06 is easier and cheaper to purchase (including ammo). That if you shoot a .50, people in the next county will know it?
No, I think you just suck up the lies of the Brady campaign and parrot their ignorance. You probably wouldn’t know a .50 AE from a .357 magnum
April 18th, 2007 at 2:50 pm
(sorry hit submit too soon)
You probably wouldn’t know a .50 AE from a .357 magnum much less a 50 BMG from AE, so what makes you confident you could ban the ‘right’ round?
I could own a .577 Tyrannosaur fully loaded and you have nothing to worry about from me. A .22 or 9mm in the hands of a killer, as you have seen, are more lethal.
Do you still think we should ban the .50? Why?
April 18th, 2007 at 2:55 pm
First, Even if you could get them all, you couldn’t keep more from being made. Supposedly, (I can’t see it from work) http://www.thehomegunsmith.com has plans to build a fully automatic grease gun from standard British plumbing parts.
1) You don’t have a constitutional right to drive a car on a public road. (You can drive it on private property without tags or a license)
2) Impractical. There is no way for every individual to have the means/resources to carry out the same kind of background investigation that Wal-Mart can.
3) Useless, Ballistic fingerprints change over time as the barrel wears and can easily be altered simply running sandpaper through the barrel.
4) So would a .49 Caliber be OK? Besides, there are two basic reasons for the 2A: Defense from the individual and defense from tyrranical gov’t (foreign or domestic). Hunting is not relevant. The .50 falls under the defense from gov’t.
April 18th, 2007 at 3:10 pm
1 Okay, this pen is a gun. The paper I’m holding is my license and the paper you’re holding is the registration. Using only these two pieces of paper, explain to me just how you are going to keep me from shooting someone?
Didn’t say it was going to, but nice try. There should be a record of weapons transfers. Period. What are you trying to hide?
2 There is no loophole. Private party transfers are legal. If you wish to regulate those, then say so otherwise you’re using, what was that you said, talking points.
Call it what you like. You can call it sticking your thumb up your backside and whistling “Dixie” for all I care. But there should be a background check. They’re not hard to get, and they keep weapons out of the hands of felons. Is it your contention that this is somehow a bad idea? Is that the side of the issue you want to come down on? Felons’ gun rights advocate?
3 Doesn’t work. Too many factors, including changing barrels and, over time, barrels change rendering initial ballistics useless. And any nefarious minded person would just run a file down the barrel.
Over a span of years, the characteristics of a gun barrel can change— That is certainly true. It could take a 100% match down to a 75% match and help convict someone that’s committed a murder. And your point about changing barrels and even filing is certainly true— But the average killer isn’t a gunsmith. It wouldn’t make criminal convictions in a gun homicide a certainty, but it certainly helps. And law abiding people have nothing to fear from it. Don’t want your ballistics to match a bullet found in a dead body? Don’t shoot anyone.
4 Why shouldn’t it be legal for civilian use? No instances of crime committed with them that I can think of. After all, criminals don’t usually use $8,000 rifles in crimes.
Can you answer the question or not? What is their use? Is your house so big that you need to fire a bullet 2000 meters to protect it?
It’s not an anti-personnel weapon. It’s designed to bring down vehicles. You know, like planes… Motorcades. Over a distance. And even assuming the extraordinarily highball price you ploaced on it, the amount al Qaeda used to finance 9/11 could have bough 25 of them. With the prices I found on the basic 50 cal models, it’s substantially more (Armalite AR-50 at about $2700). I found a gun shop in Indiana where the loony owner rents them out. I posted a YouTube of his commercial talking about it. $10 and a drivers license.
So… Again. What is the legitimate civilian use? What situation can you imagine where that kind of firepower comes in handy?
April 18th, 2007 at 3:19 pm
“50 Caliber” — Which .50 caliber are you talking about? There’s blackpowder .50 caliber. There are handguns in .50 caliber. And then there’s .50 caliber BMG. Which one(s) do you want banned? The performance of each one varies greatly.
Additionally, there are rifles above .50 caliber that are perfectly legal for civilians to own (.600, .700 Nitro Express). Should these, too, be banned?
Either a bullet kills, or it doesn’t*. Whether you get hit by a .50 BMG, .338 Lapua, .30-06, or a shot gun slug** doesn’t matter. You’ll still be dead or at least likely to die. The major difference is the range and training required to master them.
On top of this, the .50 BMG is used for long-range, big game hunting.
*Assuming proper round placement.
**Shotgun slugs are larger than .50 caliber.
April 18th, 2007 at 3:25 pm
If you want to make owning a gun as easy and accessible as driving a car, then I agree.
The only difference in access is that felons can buy cars.
And how, pray tell, would Joe Citizen know John Doe was a criminal or not?
By paying $35 for a background check, the same as if you were renting an apartment out to someone. It’s not that hard. Get a social security number and take a few minutes to run a check.
Doesn’t work. I’ve already switched out the barrel and firing pin on two of my handguns. Took seconds.
Is it your contention that the average street criminal knows just as much about guns as you? The guy who loses his temper and shoots his wife has time to buy a new barrel and replace it before police get his gun? That isn’t logic— It’s a weak excuse.
Hell, more people die each year from shark attacks than getting shot with a .50 cal. So why the worry?
How many would have to die before you see it as a problem? Just give me a number, and I’ll wait until we hit it to try and get you to think rationally again.
What. Is. Their. Legitimate. Purpose?
They’re designed around taking people out from 2000 meters— Well beyond the range you would need to protect your home. They can fire through an engine block— Something that I’m sure would be useful if you were attacked by a rabid engine block.
It’s used more as an anti-vehicle weapon than an anti-personnel weapon. Feel the need to shoot many vehicles, do you?
You probably wouldn’t know a .50 AE from a .357 magnum much less a 50 BMG from AE, so what makes you confident you could ban the ‘right’ round?
If it ever came to pass, I would definitely consult with people that know more about weapons than I do. No one in a position to change things does so without consulting advisers. I don’t think an encyclopedic knowledge of weapons is required to know that there are weapons that could be legitimately used for personal protection and sport, and there are weapons that have no place in either. Do I need to be a filmmaker to know that a movie sucks? Do I have to be a mechanic to know that a Yugo is a piece of junk?
April 18th, 2007 at 3:25 pm
Again, why do you need a 300+ horsepower engine?
You need to learn a little more about firearms before you try making laws about them. My Glock 29 is a 10mm, compact framed handgun. The hexagonal rifling in the barrel makes shooting lead bullets a no no. I can, for less than $200, get a new barrel that will accept lead bullets. That’s not a 75% match, it’s 0%. Ballistics DO NOT WORK. Maybe if you wished a little harder….
On another gun, I had to replace the firing pin so, case matching won’t work either. Besides, that one is a revolver, so the cases don’t get extracted after firing. Kind of sucks the fun out of trying to fingerprint them when they’re not available, eh?
Background checks ARE hard and expensive to get if it’s not something you do on a day to day basis. You don’t have to run a check when you sell your car, and more people die from cars. Why aren’t you bitching about that?
Speaking of facts you are not in possession of, the 50 cal was designed for long range target shooting, not military / bringing down airliners. The military marveled at it’s power and accuracy and decided to use it. To ban it would be like banning Wüsthof knives because somebody killed someone with a hollowed edge santuko.
If you want to bring down an airliner, use a SAM. They’re cheaper and you have a much better chance of actually hitting the thing. Trying to hit a target moving at 500 mph a half mile away with a 1/2″ piece of metal moving at 3000fps is….ummm… pretty much impossible.
So, knowing what you know now, why would you ban something that has never, ever, ever been used in a crime and wouldn’t make sense to do so anyway?
April 18th, 2007 at 3:27 pm
Then what’s the point?
Not hiding anything. right to privacy, and all that.
I’m indifferent on the issue. By and large, criminals don’t get guns from gun shows. And there’s not any way to enforce background checks on private transfers.
Because someone wants one. To shoot at paper with. Good enough answer for me. Name a plane shot down with one. Name a motorcade stopped with one. Name a violent crime committed with one. BTW, 50s are only effective at hitting stationary vehicles.
For someone awful quick to point out that I don’t answer questions, you do it pretty quickly too.
April 18th, 2007 at 3:31 pm
Whoops, I was a little slow on responding before everyone else…
April 18th, 2007 at 3:39 pm
First, Even if you could get them all, you couldn’t keep more from being made. Supposedly, (I can’t see it from work) http://www.thehomegunsmith.com has plans to build a fully automatic grease gun from standard British plumbing parts.
Right. Did you miss the part where I said we can’t stuff the genie back into the bottle? I’ve acknowledged that.
1) You don’t have a constitutional right to drive a car on a public road. (You can drive it on private property without tags or a license)
Following that logic, I don’t have the constitutional right to text message my girlfriend, as the cell phone was even further away from being created at the time of the constitution’s framing than the car was. At the time of the framing, guns were so cumbersome to fire that you easily spent a couple of minutes reloading and powdering between rounds. So do you really want to take the conversation in that direction?
2) Impractical. There is no way for every individual to have the means/resources to carry out the same kind of background investigation that Wal-Mart can.
There is a way. It’s very easy. Anyone who rents property has done it. So has anyone who runs personnel at a business. A guy I know built a massive business out of it. Nothing impractical about it. Factor the cost of the background check into the price of the gun.
3) Useless, Ballistic fingerprints change over time as the barrel wears and can easily be altered simply running sandpaper through the barrel.
Covered. See above. A diminished match is still a match, no matter how many times Law & Order’s fictional attorneys make an 80% match sound weak. It’s not.
4) So would a .49 Caliber be OK? Besides, there are two basic reasons for the 2A: Defense from the individual and defense from tyrranical gov’t (foreign or domestic). Hunting is not relevant. The .50 falls under the defense from gov’t.
Yeah, because everyone knows the government sends tanks to your house for shits and giggles.
I’m no fan of the current White House, but I don’t want them outgunned when they show up to serve a warrant.
April 18th, 2007 at 3:40 pm
Careful, your ignorance is showing. A Glock can be field stripped by a paraplegic taking a nap. The barrel pops out by pulling down on a single switch, taking off the slide, removing the spring and viola! barrel! Or, if I’m lazy, I take 60 grit sandpaper, ram it down the barrel, and viola! 0% match. Or, after shooting lead bullets, I get a decent case of leading and voila! 0% match.
A number? Ok, when more kids die from them than swimming pools, then I will join you. Because, swimming pools, really. What. Is. Their. Legitimate. Purpose? Recreation? You’re willing to send THOUSANDS of kids to their death each year simply because you want to cool off in the summer?
Or, you could arrest the person who did the killing, put them in jail for a long time, and then go swimming with your kids. That’s the best solution, but it has an unfortunate side effect of removing voters who would agree with you.
No you wouldn’t. You would consult with people who would agree with you. I’m very familiar with guns and you’re arguing with me. You cannot produce a single instance of a crime being committed with a 50.
And knowing the difference between 50BMG and 50AE is critical because they are both called 50 cal. You, not knowing the difference, want to ban them both not realizing one is a handgun round. Although {bleep}ing powerful, they have less velocity than the BMG because (a) the case is 1/4 the length and (b) the barrel is in inches, not feet.
No, you don’t need to be a movie director to know a movie sucks. But you do need to be familiar with the movie making process before you start spouting off about what mm film should be banned.
Putz.
April 18th, 2007 at 3:44 pm
Sorry Saysuncle, but I’m not playing. Anything that does not lead to pre 1934 regulation is not good enough.
Oh, and “Freedonian”:
You don’t use a .50 BMG rifle to take on tanks. You use it for shooting at very long distances.
When the feds show up to turn the screws, a smart guerrilla will see to it that they raid an empty house.
April 18th, 2007 at 3:52 pm
Again, why do you need a 300+ horsepower engine?
Did I say somewhere that I did? Now, the 300+ horsepower engine has a legitimate, peaceful purpose for existing— The transport of people and objects from one place to another. What is the legitimate, peaceful use for a 50 cal?
Background checks ARE hard and expensive to get if it’s not something you do on a day to day basis.
Hard and expensive, huh? I know a guy that ran them for $35. I checked around and found a place that does them for $20. Took me about fifteen seconds to find it. Use another excuse. It requires no special knowledge whatsoever. If you can’t manage to run a criminal background check as easy as it is these days, you have no business holding a fiearm, much less trying to sell one.
Speaking of facts you are not in possession of, the 50 cal was designed for long range target shooting, not military / bringing down airliners. The military marveled at it’s power and accuracy and decided to use it. To ban it would be like banning Wüsthof knives because somebody killed someone with a hollowed edge santuko.
Santuko— You’ve got to get within 2000 meters to kill with one of those, right? I don’t recall any cutlery longer than 200 meters, and I can’t imagine what it would be like to try and swing it.
So, knowing what you know now, why would you ban something that has never, ever, ever been used in a crime and wouldn’t make sense to do so anyway?
It makes more sense than trying to protect your home or hunt with it, doesn’t it? Is your house so big that you need that kind of distance?
April 18th, 2007 at 3:52 pm
Freedonian…. learn a bit more about the capabilities and limitations of firearms from someone who understands them before spewing Brady talking points on the matter. There are things you’re saying the 50 caliber is capable of that many standard hunting rounds are quite capable of as well. There’s something particularly special about .50BMG other than it scares people who know nothing about guns. As others have pointed out, there are dozens of other rounds with similar capabilities. The 50BMG just happens to be the one the Brady’s think they have a chance of banning because some of the rifles that fire it look scary.
April 18th, 2007 at 3:53 pm
Why not? Personally, I want the gooberment scared sh!tless to raid my house.
Keeps ’em honest. Won’t do it unless they’ve got a damned good reason to.
April 18th, 2007 at 3:55 pm
err.. previously something=nothing
April 18th, 2007 at 3:59 pm
By paying $35 for a background check, the same as if you were renting an apartment out to someone. It’s not that hard. Get a social security number and take a few minutes to run a check.
Because this type of thinking implies others get to decide what I can do with my private property. Besides, since you appear to lack basic research skills, let me enlighten you.
One, according to DOJ statstics, less than 1% of felons stated they got their guns at gun shows. Most used straw purchases or weapons that were stolen.
Two, private party sales are regulated under the law. Most states require that transfers can only occur between private parties that reside in the same state and both parties are legally bound to state that the receiver is eligible to possess the arm under all Federal, State and local laws. If I sell a gun privately to a criminal, I can be held liable.
From a larger standpoint, the private transfers serve another purpose: It keeps the Government guessing. By not knowing who has what, it makes it a lot harder to find it should said Government ever decide to attempt a confiscation.
And frankly, what I choose to do with my property is none of your business provided I am not breaking the law. “But they’re Guns!” you may cry. And? I can sell you a set of 24 steak knives without a background check that have blades a molecule thick and cut like a scalpel. Pointy things are weapons too.
Is it your contention that the average street criminal knows just as much about guns as you? The guy who loses his temper and shoots his wife has time to buy a new barrel and replace it before police get his gun? That isn’t logic— It’s a weak excuse.
No, it is because ballistic fingerprinting doesn’t work. You contend that a 90% match would be good enough in court (I’ve read your blog). Wrong. That would leave 10% of the same type of arms as possible matches and that doesn’t meet an evidentary standard in most places.
And just with the existing equipment with no swaps, marks change over time. This is not “fingerprinting” in the sense you are perceiving it. The marks do change, unlike human fingerprints. At best, ballistic fingerprinting can be used to narrow a range. It cannot be used like fingerprints or DNA to provide conclusive proof. Even here in Maryland, they’ve admitted their lavish fingerprinting system has been a multi-million dollar waste of money.
It does not work.
How many would have to die before you see it as a problem? Just give me a number, and I’ll wait until we hit it to try and get you to think rationally again.
What. Is. Their. Legitimate. Purpose?
They’re designed around taking people out from 2000 meters— Well beyond the range you would need to protect your home. They can fire through an engine block— Something that I’m sure would be useful if you were attacked by a rabid engine block.
It’s used more as an anti-vehicle weapon than an anti-personnel weapon. Feel the need to shoot many vehicles, do you?
We are thinking rationally. NO ONE has died as the result of a .50 caliber rifle.
As to their purpose, as it has been pointed out, the .50s touted so much today started out as a CIVILIAN long range target rifle! Only later did the military become interested in them.
I got news for you, I can kill you at a range of 2000 meters with lesser rounds. It all depends on the round, the weapon and the shooter. You can’t magically state that no one needs a round that goes that far and create one that is good for 200 meters and then suddenly falls to the ground or stops being lethal.
Do I need a .50? Why do you get to decide ‘need’? If I am not harming anyone, what do you care? If I want to spend $2000 for a CHEAP .50 caliber rifle, spend $2-3 per shot and compete in long range marksmanship competition, so what? You may not see the need but that shouldn’t be your decision to make.
And NOWHERE in the Bills of Rights is there any mention about NEED.
If it ever came to pass, I would definitely consult with people that know more about weapons than I do. No one in a position to change things does so without consulting advisers. I don’t think an encyclopedic knowledge of weapons is required to know that there are weapons that could be legitimately used for personal protection and sport, and there are weapons that have no place in either. Do I need to be a filmmaker to know that a movie sucks? Do I have to be a mechanic to know that a Yugo is a piece of junk?
Why don’t you actually try some research then? The .50 is used for sport, that should satisfy you. The Glock 19 used by the VA Tech shooter is an ok self-defense weapon.
Again, we come back to NEED. The 2nd doesn’t discuss NEED. It is not about hunting or sport. We can have a very involved discussion about all of this and still not get anywhere.
First things first, you need to learn about arms and what you are talking about. Go to a gun show and witness the process first hand! You will be very surprised about how regulated it really is. Go shooting with someone. Learn. Experience. Research. Then make a judgement.
But don’t spout off the things you believe to be true when they are not. That simply shows you are ignorant (which is not a crime) but you are unwilling to fix that by becoming educated. Then you can defend your views accurately. I may disagree with you but at least you won’t come off sounding like a broken record or a tool of the Brady Campaign.
April 18th, 2007 at 3:59 pm
Why not? Personally, I want the gooberment scared to raid my house.
Keeps ’em honest. Won’t do it unless they’ve got a d@mned good reason to.
April 18th, 2007 at 4:08 pm
Then what’s the point?
Well, when investigating a shooting, it would be helpful for police to be able to cross reference a list of suspects with a list of people that have that caliber of weapon, don’t you think? I believe in making a murder investigation as simple for authorities as possible— Let’s get killers off of the streets.
Not hiding anything. right to privacy, and all that.
If I mow someone down with my car, I’m easy to track down. And when it comes to intentional use as weapons, guns outpace cars by a ratio of 10 to 1 in an average year. Why make it harder with a gun?
I’m indifferent on the issue. By and large, criminals don’t get guns from gun shows. And there’s not any way to enforce background checks on private transfers.
Oh, but there is. If you refuse to do a background check and sell a gun to a felon, you should be charged with a felony. 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.
Here’s a chart that breaks down the sources of weapons used in crimes. It’s true that only 2% come from gun shows. Of course, that shakes out to roughly 202 murders in 2005. That’s already more than were killed by explosives, fire, poison, and narcotics combined. Another 2% at flea markets. 6% at “other”, which could reasonably be inferred as private transfers, since all other means were accounted for by another statistic. We’re already accounting for 10% of gun homicide— A thousand deaths a year. How many is too many?
Because someone wants one. To shoot at paper with. Good enough answer for me.
Not for me. My objective is a safer America. In private hands, a 50 caliber does nothing to make America safer and makes it less safe in terms of the damage that can be done in the wrong hands. I’m not trying to take the .357 out of your house here. I want to go after only weapons that have no legitimate defensive purpose.
April 18th, 2007 at 4:12 pm
and
So, were you lying then or are you lying now?
Fortunately, it’s not your decision and the law agrees with me.
April 18th, 2007 at 4:19 pm
Well, when investigating a shooting, it would be helpful for police to be able to cross reference a list of suspects with a list of people that have that caliber of weapon, don’t you think? I believe in making a murder investigation as simple for authorities as possible— Let’s get killers off of the streets.
Ok, so how do you get probable cause for the weapons that do match? You just can’t say “We have 1200 people that own a 9mm pistol in this area, lets go talk to them.”. Because that is exactly what happens with ballistic fingerprinting. Lots of different models of guns fire the same round.
Even if you can narrow it down to a specific twist rate, direction of twist and caliber (ala Law and Order), that still can be a pretty decent number of potential local weapons.
Oh, and by the way, where are you going to get your list of potential suspects? The creation of a gun registry is specifically forbidden at the Federal level and most records are not held by various Police departments. And even if you had a registry, you come back to probable cause. Just because I own a gun that might match doesn’t give you the right to knock on my door and ask to see it.
If I mow someone down with my car, I’m easy to track down. And when it comes to intentional use as weapons, guns outpace cars by a ratio of 10 to 1 in an average year. Why make it harder with a gun?
Ok, what if you steal my car and go mow people down? And take the tags off beforehand? And then drive off? It is going to be hard to trace the car then, isn’t it?
Oh, but there is. If you refuse to do a background check and sell a gun to a felon, you should be charged with a felony. 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.
I AM responsible for who I sell a weapon to in a private sale. See my previous post.
Not for me. My objective is a safer America. In private hands, a 50 caliber does nothing to make America safer and makes it less safe in terms of the damage that can be done in the wrong hands. I’m not trying to take the .357 out of your house here. I want to go after only weapons that have no legitimate defensive purpose.
Hopefully you will never be allowed to make that choice in a position of power.
So, the .50BMG is out. I guess I can keep my Smith and Wesson .500 revolver or my .50AR Desert Eagle semi-auto?
Oh, and I can have my Barrett .416? Better ballistics than the Barrett .50 out to 1000 meters and just as hard-hitting and with similar range. And smaller than a .45ACP too. You should be pleased.
April 18th, 2007 at 4:26 pm
I posted prior to reading your post, but it’s close to your meme…well, in the sense that liberals have a chance to bed down with Karl Rove, now, if they want to…
April 18th, 2007 at 4:40 pm
One, according to DOJ statstics, less than 1% of felons stated they got their guns at gun shows. Most used straw purchases or weapons that were stolen.
Actually, if you’ll check the stats I provided in my last response, you’ll find that the number is 9% on stolen weapons 9% more purchased black market. Ostensibly totalling up to 33% if you assume that guns bought from drug dealers are all stolen, although it’s not out of the question for someone to trade a legitimately owned one away for a fix.
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.
Gun advocates all seem to make this very basic mistake— Assuming that crime is something that just happens on the streets. It happens in homes. A marital dispute can end in gunshots. A family argument. Friends bickering over a poker game. Do you realize how many murder victims are shot with their own guns?
Two, private party sales are regulated under the law. Most states require that transfers can only occur between private parties that reside in the same state and both parties are legally bound to state that the receiver is eligible to possess the arm under all Federal, State and local laws. If I sell a gun privately to a criminal, I can be held liable.
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?
From a larger standpoint, the private transfers serve another purpose: It keeps the Government guessing. By not knowing who has what, it makes it a lot harder to find it should said Government ever decide to attempt a confiscation.
See, the anti-government paranoia worries me as much as crackheads with illegal weapons do. Crackheads don’t organize well, and I can’t remember the last crackhead to blow up a courthouse just to make a point. I can remember someone from the “Wah! They don’t want me to have automatic weapons!” crowd doing it.
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.
And frankly, what I choose to do with my property is none of your business provided I am not breaking the law. “But they’re Guns!” you may cry. And? I can sell you a set of 24 steak knives without a background check that have blades a molecule thick and cut like a scalpel. Pointy things are weapons too.
How close do you have to get to use the pointy things? If you miss your target with a pointy thing, does a child across the street get his face blown off?
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.
By the way— 2005. 10,100 killed with guns. A little over 1900 killed by pointy things.
Do I need a .50? Why do you get to decide ‘need’? If I am not harming anyone, what do you care?
Look, I’m not some mustachio-twirling bad guy that wakes up in the morning thinking “What can I take away from these guys today?” I’m not interested in illegalizing anything that makes sense as a weapon that could be used for self-protection or hunting. I’m interested in keeping the strets from getting any more dangerous rthan they already are. If you (And I’m assuming that you’re a peaceful, law abiding citizen) can get your hands on it, what keeps it out of anyone else’s hands? A third of all gun crimes are committed by stolen guns. How long before a 50 caliber with more distance and power than anyone legitimately needs ends up in the wrong hands?
And NOWHERE in the Bills of Rights is there any mention about NEED.
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.
First things first, you need to learn about arms and what you are talking about. Go to a gun show and witness the process first hand!
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.
Go shooting with someone.
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.
And there are plenty more out there. Over half of gun crimes are committed with legit weapons. Even before that night, I was disturbed by how ridiculously easy they are to obtain. Getting shot at didn’t change my mind.
So go on pretending that I’m stepping on the rights of law abiding citizens by wanting legislation in place that makes it easier to track them down after they’ve committed a crime. I’m sick of hearing from you guys that the only rights the rest of us have are ducking and mopping up blood.
April 18th, 2007 at 4:43 pm
If there was some way to guarantee we could get them all, my ideal solution would be melting down every gun and making playground equipment out of the metal.
For a guy who decried my reading skills yesterday, you certainly don’t have much of your own. I guess it would have been too tough to look at the paragraph IMMEDIATELY BELOW THAT and see “But I know that’s not a realistic possibility. So all I ask for is reasonable gun control.”
April 18th, 2007 at 4:51 pm
But you would if you could right? Your subsequent paragraph does not negate your desire to do so.
April 18th, 2007 at 4:55 pm
Uncle, my comments don’t seem to be getting through. I had some rebuttals to Freedonian that got marked as spam. Can you check those out?
April 18th, 2007 at 4:57 pm
And while we’re talking about insufficient reading skills…
Ok, so how do you get probable cause for the weapons that do match? You just can’t say “We have 1200 people that own a 9mm pistol in this area, lets go talk to them.”
Of course, it was in response to “Well, when investigating a shooting, it would be helpful for police to be able to cross reference a list of suspects with a list of people that have that caliber of weapon, don’t you think? ”
Apparently, the “don’t you think” part has been answered.
Oh, and by the way, where are you going to get your list of potential suspects?
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.
Ok, what if you steal my car and go mow people down? And take the tags off beforehand? And then drive off? It is going to be hard to trace the car then, isn’t it?
Kind of reaching there, are you not?
I AM responsible for who I sell a weapon to in a private sale. See my previous post.
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.
Hopefully you will never be allowed to make that choice in a position of power.
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.
I also don’t make mechanical decisions on my car. I let a guy trained in that field make those decisions for me. He tells me I need an alternator? Let’s get an alternator then. See how easy it is?
April 18th, 2007 at 4:58 pm
But you would if you could right? Your subsequent paragraph does not negate your desire to do so.
Yes it does, considering that I acknowledged that it can’t happen. So I set a more realistic, attainable goal and told you what I wanted to do.
April 18th, 2007 at 4:59 pm
Any more straw men you need me to take a match to, Unc?
April 18th, 2007 at 5:02 pm
Robb, that’s happened to me on some sites too. Usually happens if there are five or more links. Might that be it? If so, just drop them in here as plain text— I can copy and paste.
April 18th, 2007 at 5:06 pm
the can’t does not negate the want.
You referenced a desire for reasonable gun controls. You’ve not listed any. So far, I see pipe dreams and the latest brady talking points, and they’ve each been pretty thoroughly debunked. And you’ve expressed your desire for a total confiscation. Keep tilting at the windmill.
April 18th, 2007 at 5:14 pm
the can’t does not negate the want.
By that logic, I’m on a fast rack to have a three way in a hot tub with Ashley Judd and Scarlet Johansen. I *want* it, so despite my acknowledging it will likely never happen, it must be an impending possibility.
You referenced a desire for reasonable gun controls. You’ve not listed any.
Yes, mean old Freedonian wants people selling guns to make sure they’re not selling them to felons. How awful! How can these self-proclaimed law abiding gun owners ever hope to prove their worth with a shooting iron if the rest of us try to keep guns out of criminal hands?
April 18th, 2007 at 5:17 pm
I have yet to see a strawman argument here. I’ve also yet to see you successfully debunk any argument here. And, like yesterday, you tend to ignore the points that are inconvenient. Conversely, you’re much better behaved and less idiotic today.
That said, the cross-referencing thing didn’t work in MD when the cops (who had the info) went door to door looking for .223 caliber rifles in the wake of the beltway sniper nonsense.
Also, MD’s fingerprinting program has yet to solve one crime. I don’t really care about ballistic fingerprinting from a gun rights perspective one way or the other. My issue is that it doesn’t work.
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.
Felons don’t buy guns from gun dealers.
You’ve also made reference to the average killer not being a gunsmith. Disassembly of a weapon is usually found in the instructions. Removal of a barrel on a handgun is part of that process. Again, you show your ignorance.
Your record of transfer scheme will only be followed by the law-abiding.
the simple fact is that none of your proposals will prevent a gun crime. Nor will they solve any with any acceptable degree of accuracy. They are, what most gun control proposals are, merely one more hurdle for the law-abiding to follow. Criminals, by definition, don’t obey the law.
April 18th, 2007 at 5:19 pm
So, as desirable as that might be (and get pics), do you really want me to point out what is wrong with that ridiculous paragraph?
April 18th, 2007 at 5:23 pm
The most important part of my idea of what gun laws we should have is that they be part of a Constitutional Amendment, which would look something like this:
AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Article 1
The Second Amendment to this Constitution is hereby repealed. (Let’s start with a clean slate.)
Article 2
The sale and possession of firearms shall be regulated in the following manner: …………………………………………………………..
(This, of course, is the really hard part. I will cop out by leaving this part to others for now.)
Article 3
Except as specified in Article 2 of this Amendment, the right of the individual to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed in any manner by any entity.
The results of such an amendment are interesting:
The Brady group and every other gun control organization now has nothing further that they could do; they might as well lock the door and turn off the lights. The same goes for the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action; the NRA will go back to the safety and marksmanship training that they were founded to do.
If there is a multiple shooting, many elected officials and newspaper editorials often say: “This is terrible. We must pass more gun control.” If there is a multiple shooting after this amendment, elected officials and newspaper editorials will have to say: “This is terrible. We must (something other than more gun control).”
I believe that this is the only way you could get most gun owners to agree to much gun control, since it is the only way that guarantees that “reasonable” gun control will not be followed by harsher gun control as has happened almost everywhere else.
For some strange reason (LOL) I cannot seem to get many gun control advocates to agree with my idea.
April 18th, 2007 at 5:31 pm
Freedie, Speaking of strawmen, do you recall all the arguments you were debunking yesterday that weren’t made?
April 18th, 2007 at 5:36 pm
Sorry, folks, but you’re arguing with a guy (Freedonian) who hasn’t the foggiest idea of the subject. Went to his blog (clicked on his name) and found the following:
End gun manufacturer immunity. If my car blows up because of a known manufacturing defect, Ford owes me damages. If a faulty firing pin leads to a tragic accident in any of the states that have given gun makers immunity, nothing happens.
Faulty firing pins don’t lead to a tragic accident. Either firing pins work when you pull the trigger or they don’t and nothing happens. Faulty sears and other parts might lead to an accident but not firing pins, at least not in any gun I ever had.
Force weapons manufacturers to improve the firing pin design on semiautomatic weapons so that they cannot be modified to fully automatic weapons.
Firing pins can not be modified to create a fully automatic weapon. Other parts of the lock are modified to make the weapon fully automatic.
Try pissing into the wind, you will get better results than arguing with someone with no understanding of the subject.