Liberals, support or reject a de facto ban on handgun ownership?

[The Fallen Serpent]

Feel free to elaborate. I chose No, with major exceptions. Those exceptions would be for certain classes and states.

Violent criminals, major mental illness, discharging under the influence, high security locations, registered Republicans (j/king, that falls under the second class ;) )

[r0ast_p0tat0es]

The Minister of Police, in reply to a Democratic Alliance (DA) parliamentary question has confirmed that 2 603 firearms have been lost or stolen by the South African Police Service over the last year. This means that a total of 13 438 have been lost over the last five years. The outcome of this is that Police negligence is actively fuelling crime and at the same time, the Police Service is spending enormous sums replacing firearms - money that could be spent elsewhere in fighting crime. An example of this is the tender put out in January of this year to purchase 4 000 new SAPS pistols at a cost of R16 million.

Link (http://www.politicsweb.co.za/politicsweb/view/politicsweb/en/page71654?oid=179282&sn=Detail)

I support the abolition of the state apparatus entirely.

[The Fallen Serpent]

I should have stated explicitly I meant US liberals. Still, the foreign opinion is still worth noting. I am not exactly sure where your response places you in regards to personal ownership. It is a common enough stance in the US to want to disarm government entities such as police but not in restricting free market sale and distribution to private citizens and organizations.

[Spindrift]

I should have stated explicitly I meant US liberals. Still, the foreign opinion is still worth noting. I am not exactly sure where your response places you in regards to personal ownership. It is a common enough stance in the US to want to disarm government entities such as police but not in restricting free market sale and distribution to private citizens and organizations.

It's "common"? Where? I have never run into anybody who advocates that, perhaps I'm in the wrong place.

Why is this poll just for liberals?
Since this will not be a scientific poll, putting qualifications on who you want to respond is pointless. In no way will you be able to draw any valid conclusions about liberals and their attitudes towards handguns.

[The Fallen Serpent]

I'm attempting an informal sampling of what the US liberal idea on handguns bans are. This is one of the major partisan quibbles so I was more concerned with personal positions rather than Party Platforms. I know it is not scientific and will not do anything other than inform my curiosity with the caveat that such polls are easily manipulated.

Also, I did not just say common. I said common enough. It means common enough to be noticed, not necessarily widespread or endemic. I hear it oftentimes among both liberals and conservatives in Pacific Northwest. It usually stems from feelings that government organizations are inherently abusive, or at least when they are authortarian, whereas private individuals are more responsible. Sort of an exaggeration of the pro-gun anti-military meme.

EDIT: For clarification, pro-gun anti-interventionist-military meme.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Invalid poll - there are no humans on Planet X

[The Fallen Serpent]

Invalid poll - there are no humans on Planet X

The poll does not claim that humans are on Planet X, only that hangun ownerhsip of humans is banned there. On earth we enjoy banning non-present situations and objects as well. Why are you a planetist?

[Spindrift]

I'm attempting an informal sampling of what the US liberal idea on handguns bans are. This is one of the major partisan quibbles so I was more concerned with personal positions rather than Party Platforms. I know it is not scientific and will not do anything other than inform my curiosity with the caveat that such polls are easily manipulated.

Also, I did not just say common. I said common enough. It means common enough to be noticed, not necessarily widespread or endemic. I hear it oftentimes among both liberals and conservatives in Pacific Northwest. It usually stems from feelings that government organizations are inherently abusive, or at least when they are authortarian, whereas private individuals are more responsible. Sort of an exaggeration of the pro-gun anti-military meme.

EDIT: For clarification, pro-gun anti-interventionist-military meme.

Whether you call it "common" or "common enough", it's unknown in my personal experience, but that could just be the circles I socialize in. In local papers I've seen everything from pro-gun raves, anti-gun raves, raves against light polution harming birds, someone writing a diatribe about calling children 'kids' and all kinds of fringe things. I've just don't ever recall anyone calling for disarming the police while allowing private citizens to keep guns and I think I'd remember such a dumb idea. I don't doubt that someone like that exists but I wonder how common 'common enough' (or whatever you call it) is.

[The Fallen Serpent]

A quick google search turns up these hits.

http://thesop.org/story/usa/2009/08/06/can-we-disarm-the-police.php

http://unreasonable.org/features/2000-03-08-disarm.php3

http://www.louisbeam.com/guncont.htm

http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/index.php/t-87089.html

http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/12-21-2005-84528.asp

Hell, an even older one:

During the first two decades following the ratification of the Second Amendment, public opposition to standing armies, among Anti-Federalists and Federalists alike, persisted and manifested itself locally as a general reluctance to create a professional armed police force, instead relying on county sheriffs, constables and night watchmen to enforce local ordinances.[72] Though sometimes compensated, often these positions were unpaid—held as a matter of civic duty. In these early decades, law enforcement officers were rarely armed with firearms, using clubs as their sole defensive weapon.[72] In serious emergencies, a posse comitatus, militia company, or group of vigilantes assumed law enforcement duties; these individuals were more likely than the local sheriff to be armed with firearms. Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution #The_militia_in_the_decades_following_the_ratifica tion_of_the_Second_Amendment

Its out there. I understand how the sentiment has not been noticed by a lot of people. Maybe I have only noticed it because 2nd amendment discussions are a common political discussion in my circles. Your mileage may vary.

[Trakar]

Feel free to elaborate. I chose No, with major exceptions. Those exceptions would be for certain classes and states.

Violent criminals, major mental illness, discharging under the influence, high security locations, registered Republicans (j/king, that falls under the second class ;) )

These exceptions make the term "ban" nonsensical.

What you are advocating is hangun restriction and control.

On the basis of this I chose "Reject unambiguously," any ban on handguns, though I generally support and agree with some restrictions and limitations. Of course, I generally consider myself a progressive, so my considerations probably aren't applicable to liberals who I disagree with on many if not most issues.

[JoeTheJuggler]

It's a bit of a "straw man poll" so to speak.

I don't think even the most ardent gun control advocates are in favor of a blanket banning of ownership of all handguns.

[Trakar]

Whether you call it "common" or "common enough", it's unknown in my personal experience, but that could just be the circles I socialize in. In local papers I've seen everything from pro-gun raves, anti-gun raves, raves against light polution harming birds, someone writing a diatribe about calling children 'kids' and all kinds of fringe things. I've just don't ever recall anyone calling for disarming the police while allowing private citizens to keep guns and I think I'd remember such a dumb idea. I don't doubt that someone like that exists but I wonder how common 'common enough' (or whatever you call it) is.

It is actually a fairly common set of positions, especially in the large metropolitan areas of the NE and West Coast (SD-Sea). Not huge amounts of support, but common enough. In general, it isn't about completely disarming cops, its about de-escalating confrontational situations of beat/patrol officers by giving them non-lethal options and training and restricting the open carry of firearms to select units. This isn't to say that police officers would be totally disarmed, merely that most patrol and regular beat/neighborhood officers won't be walking, biking or driving around with a firearm strapped to their hip. Most of the types of people advocating this aren't anti-gun (or even anti-handgun) and many fully and strongly support "second amendment" rights and responsibilities, they just advocate the Andy Taylor model of policing as opposed to the Barney Fife model which seems predominant in many departments. The way the poster phrases it seems awkward in that you rarely hear those two elements of their beliefs connected together like that.

[GreNME]

It's a bit of a "straw man poll" so to speak.

That's an understatement.

[Dancing David]

Liberals are not cookie cutter people, most support registration of handguns. Some munipalities support handgun bans, however there is no absoulte stance.

[Dancing David]

A quick google search turns up these hits.

http://thesop.org/story/usa/2009/08/06/can-we-disarm-the-police.php

http://unreasonable.org/features/2000-03-08-disarm.php3

http://www.louisbeam.com/guncont.htm

http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/index.php/t-87089.html

http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/12-21-2005-84528.asp

Hell, an even older one:

During the first two decades following the ratification of the Second Amendment, public opposition to standing armies, among Anti-Federalists and Federalists alike, persisted and manifested itself locally as a general reluctance to create a professional armed police force, instead relying on county sheriffs, constables and night watchmen to enforce local ordinances.[72] Though sometimes compensated, often these positions were unpaid—held as a matter of civic duty. In these early decades, law enforcement officers were rarely armed with firearms, using clubs as their sole defensive weapon.[72] In serious emergencies, a posse comitatus, militia company, or group of vigilantes assumed law enforcement duties; these individuals were more likely than the local sheriff to be armed with firearms. Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution #The_militia_in_the_decades_following_the_ratifica tion_of_the_Second_Amendment

Its out there. I understand how the sentiment has not been noticed by a lot of people. Maybe I have only noticed it because 2nd amendment discussions are a common political discussion in my circles. Your mileage may vary.

That would be occasional not common.

[Spindrift]

A quick google search turns up these hits.

http://thesop.org/story/usa/2009/08/06/can-we-disarm-the-police.php

http://unreasonable.org/features/2000-03-08-disarm.php3

http://www.louisbeam.com/guncont.htm

http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/index.php/t-87089.html

http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/12-21-2005-84528.asp

Hell, an even older one:

During the first two decades following the ratification of the Second Amendment, public opposition to standing armies, among Anti-Federalists and Federalists alike, persisted and manifested itself locally as a general reluctance to create a professional armed police force, instead relying on county sheriffs, constables and night watchmen to enforce local ordinances.[72] Though sometimes compensated, often these positions were unpaid—held as a matter of civic duty. In these early decades, law enforcement officers were rarely armed with firearms, using clubs as their sole defensive weapon.[72] In serious emergencies, a posse comitatus, militia company, or group of vigilantes assumed law enforcement duties; these individuals were more likely than the local sheriff to be armed with firearms. Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution #The_militia_in_the_decades_following_the_ratifica tion_of_the_Second_Amendment

Its out there. I understand how the sentiment has not been noticed by a lot of people. Maybe I have only noticed it because 2nd amendment discussions are a common political discussion in my circles. Your mileage may vary.
Like I said, I don't doubt that there are people who espouse this view but a google search returning hits doesn't mean it's common. You can search almost anything and get hits for the most arcane beliefs.

[Spindrift]

It is actually a fairly common set of positions, especially in the large metropolitan areas of the NE and West Coast (SD-Sea). Not huge amounts of support, but common enough. In general, it isn't about completely disarming cops, its about de-escalating confrontational situations of beat/patrol officers by giving them non-lethal options and training and restricting the open carry of firearms to select units. This isn't to say that police officers would be totally disarmed, merely that most patrol and regular beat/neighborhood officers won't be walking, biking or driving around with a firearm strapped to their hip. Most of the types of people advocating this aren't anti-gun (or even anti-handgun) and many fully and strongly support "second amendment" rights and responsibilities, they just advocate the Andy Taylor model of policing as opposed to the Barney Fife model which seems predominant in many departments. The way the poster phrases it seems awkward in that you rarely hear those two elements of their beliefs connected together like that.

I live in the Northeast, Metro NYC and haven't heard that either, maybe I'm just not attuned to it. What you describe is very different from what Serpent described. I would hardly describe that as disarming police.

[Trakar]

I live in the Northeast, Metro NYC and haven't heard that either, maybe I'm just not attuned to it.

Quite possibly and reasonably. I wouldn't call the opinions prevelant across the broad spectrum of society. Likewise, I'm certain that background, experiences, etc., have a great deal to do with shaping our perceptions of the world around us. Nothing inherently negative or positive about that, it's just what it is.

What you describe is very different from what Serpent described. I would hardly describe that as disarming police.

Well, I started out arguing over the terms he used in his survey. I tried to interpret his words in a way that made sense, and I have heard the arguments I described, several times over the last 40+ years, sometimes from the Right, sometimes from the left (with a bit different focus and framing - but at least as close to what I said as FS's statement). My own considerations run in different directions, but I have heard the arguments and feel my interpretation to be the most neutrally accurate varient, but I could be mistaken.

[Dorian Gray]

Feel free to elaborate. I chose No, with major exceptions. Those exceptions would be for certain classes and states.

Violent criminals, major mental illness, discharging under the influence, high security locations, registered Republicans (j/king, that falls under the second class ;) )It would appear that "no" isn't one of your choices. So, what is your actual choice, based on the actual question you asked and the actual responses you put forth to choose from?

[leftysergeant]

My only requirement for a law-abiding, sane citizen would be mandatory training in law and safety and periodic qualification fire. All firearms should be covered by a transferrable title the same way automobiles are, for the same reason.

No felons, lunatics, addicts, wife beaters or kiddy-fiddlers need apply.

...registered Republicans...

Not a bad idea. Based on the radio talk show hosts they quote and with whom they seem to identify, they probably do fall into one of the controlled groups.

[Spindrift]

I tried to interpret his words in a way that made sense,

That could be the problem.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

It's a bit of a "straw man poll" so to speak.

I don't think even the most ardent gun control advocates are in favor of a blanket banning of ownership of all handguns.

There are some fringe nuts who do. Just like there are fringe nuts on the right who think they should be allowed to own tanks or nuclear weapons.

[Rolfe]

Here's why we banned handguns in my country (http://www.iansa.org/campaigns_events/dunblane_memorial.htm).

If you value sport and macho posturing above children's lives, we beg to differ.

Rolfe.

[The Fallen Serpent]

Liberals are not cookie cutter people, most support registration of handguns. Some munipalities support handgun bans, however there is no absoulte stance.I know that. I am a liberal. I was curious about the opinions of other liberals in comparison to what people usually say about liberals.

That's an understatement.
I thought it would be obvious that informal polls on here are not intended to be strongly scientific policy forming polls. It was more to hear othe peoples opinions.

That would be occasional not common.

Like I said, I don't doubt that there are people who espouse this view but a google search returning hits doesn't mean it's common. You can search almost anything and get hits for the most arcane beliefs.

I apologize for using what appears to be a very localized term, common enough. I explained it earlier but apparently people are still hung up on it.

I live in the Northeast, Metro NYC and haven't heard that either, maybe I'm just not attuned to it. What you describe is very different from what Serpent described. I would hardly describe that as disarming police. What he described would accurately describe some of the sentiment. Some of the links I posted echo that.

It would appear that "no" isn't one of your choices. So, what is your actual choice, based on the actual question you asked and the actual responses you put forth to choose from?The question was reject or support. I feel an option of reject was more fitting to the form of the question than no since I did not ask yes or no.

That could be the problem.Yes. Do not ask the OP to explain for clarity, just rip on him.

There are some fringe nuts who do. Just like there are fringe nuts on the right who think they should be allowed to own tanks or nuclear weapons.
Quite a few variants of fringe nut philosopies.

[Trakar]

If you value sport and macho posturing above children's lives, we beg to differ.

Rolfe.

How do you define the logical fallacy of false dichotomy?

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Why "de facto"?

[Bob Blaylock]

It's a bit of a "straw man poll" so to speak.

I don't think even the most ardent gun control advocates are in favor of a blanket banning of ownership of all handguns.


Senator Dianne Feinstein, admitting that the fraudulent 1994 “assault weapon” ban that she had authored really wouldn't make much difference, said the following:“If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them—Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in—I would have done it.”

[Bob Blaylock]

Here's why we banned handguns in my country (http://www.iansa.org/campaigns_events/dunblane_memorial.htm).

If you value sport and macho posturing above children's lives, we beg to differ.


There's a very, very, very good reason why my ancestors kicked your countrymen out of our country more than two centuries ago.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Senator Dianne Feinstein, admitting that the fraudulent 1994 “assault weapon” ban that she had authored really wouldn't make much difference, said the following:“If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them—Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in—I would have done it.”

An outright ban on what? Assault weapons? All guns? Sounds like hyperbole or possibly rhetoric meant to woo a certain group of voters than a serious position on gun control. Perhaps you have a link that would put this quotation into context? (At least something that lets us know the antecedent to the pronoun "them".)

At any rate, it's still a strawman position. It's an easily defeated extreme version of pro gun control positions and is not at all typical.

[dtugg]

How exactly is "ban handguns" a strawman position? There are clearly plenty of people who believe we should do exactly that. For evidence, see the Chicago and DC handgun bans.

[Trakar]

Quite a few variants of fringe nut philosopies.


LOL, variations in nut fringe!
(my inner miscreant slips out when I get tired)
And thar be the problem; too much worry about the props and not enough focus on the nuts,...come to think of it, that might apply to a lot of issues!

[Bob Blaylock]

Senator Dianne Feinstein, admitting that the fraudulent 1994 “assault weapon” ban that she had authored really wouldn't make much difference, said the following:“If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them—Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in—I would have done it.”
An outright ban on what? Assault weapons? All guns? Sounds like hyperbole or possibly rhetoric meant to woo a certain group of voters than a serious position on gun control. Perhaps you have a link that would put this quotation into context? (At least something that lets us know the antecedent to the pronoun "them".)


I remembered seeing the Sixty Minutes segment back in 1994, when she said this. I remembered the “Mister and Mrs. America, turn them in” quote well enough to Google for it, and was very disappointed at the dearth of usable hits. I was hoping to find something to clearly document what exactly she said, and in what context. Alas, the best I can do is my own memory. This was in an interview in which she was speaking of the fraudulent “assault weapon” ban that she had just authored. By my memory, she basically admitted that there was nothing special about the “assault weapons” that she had dishonestly singled out, and that what she really wanted was a complete ban on all privately-owned firearms—handguns and long guns—with confiscation of all existing such firearms, “Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in”. She knew she couldn't get the votes for that, and that even if such a law was passed, the courts would likely strike it down. The fraudulent “assault weapon” ban represented the closest that she thought she'd be able to pass, so that's what she wrote.

[Rolfe]

There's a very, very, very good reason why my ancestors kicked your countrymen out of our country more than two centuries ago.


Yes, and so far as I know it had nothing to do with people retaining the right to carry handguns.

So we don't do that here now, and haven't for many years, and somehow, life goes on. In fact, more lives go on than would go on otherwise, apparently. And while a few people might like to rescind the ban, in general it has overwhelming public support.

I was merely pointing out the cultural divide illustrated by this post.

I don't think even the most ardent gun control advocates are in favor of a blanket banning of ownership of all handguns.


It may seem unthinkable to you guys, but it's perfectly normal lots of places, and people like it like that.

Rolfe.

[Bob Blaylock]

There's a very, very, very good reason why my ancestors kicked your countrymen out of our country more than two centuries ago.

Yes, and so far as I know it had nothing to do with people retaining the right to carry handguns.


Actually, it had a lot to do with your ancestors trying to take my ancestors' guns away from us.


So we don't do that here now, and haven't for many years, and somehow, life goes on. In fact, more lives go on than would go on otherwise, apparently. And while a few people might like to rescind the ban, in general it has overwhelming public support.

I was merely pointing out the cultural divide illustrated by this post.


Yes. Your ancestors chose to live under a tyrant. My ancestors chose otherwise. My ancestors had to kick your ancestors' asses out of our country to enforce our choice. More than two centuries later, it is still clear the difference that this has made.

[Dancing David]

There's a very, very, very good reason why my ancestors kicked your countrymen out of our country more than two centuries ago.

And it shows your view of US history is about as accurate as your former claim (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5983463&postcount=35) of the evil gubermint confiscating weapons in California and New Jersey.

The US revolution was started by British aristos who felt they weren't treated like aristos and also those who wanted out of banking debts.

[Dancing David]

Actually, it had a lot to do with your ancestors trying to take my ancestors' guns away from us.

Oh that is great, oh Google-Fu Master, where the heck did you learn that made up myth? What documentation could you ever produce to support it!

That is NOT one of the reasons that the US revolution started!

Yes. Your ancestors chose to live under a tyrant. My ancestors chose otherwise. My ancestors had to kick your ancestors' asses out of our country to enforce our choice. More than two centuries later, it is still clear the difference that this has made.

Again your impression of why the US revolution started is clouded by american grade school rhetoric, it has much more to do with aristos feeling they were not treated like the other aristos. And makes as much sense as saying James Madison wanted to end the slave trade to support the freedom of slaves.

[dafydd]

Actually, it had a lot to do with your ancestors trying to take my ancestors' guns away from us.





Yes. Your ancestors chose to live under a tyrant. My ancestors chose otherwise. My ancestors had to kick your ancestors' asses out of our country to enforce our choice. More than two centuries later, it is still clear the difference that this has made.

It wasn't as simple as that.
http://quicksilverscreen.com/watch?video=42604

[dafydd]

And it shows your view of US history is about as accurate as your former claim (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5983463&postcount=35) of the evil gubermint confiscating weapons in California and New Jersey.

The US revolution was started by British aristos who felt they weren't treated like aristos and also those who wanted out of banking debts.

Very true.Watch the videos in the link I posted above.

[Upchurch]

The OP is too open ended for a multiple choice question.

[Rolfe]

Actually, it had a lot to do with your ancestors trying to take my ancestors' guns away from us.


:dl:

I see this has already been corrected.

Yes. Your ancestors chose to live under a tyrant. My ancestors chose otherwise. My ancestors had to kick your ancestors' asses out of our country to enforce our choice. More than two centuries later, it is still clear the difference that this has made.


:dl: again.

The main difference seems to be that every time a discussion on the poor state of healthcare in the USA points out the lower life expectancy in the USA, this is blamed on the much higher incidence of death due to firearms!

Rolfe.

[thaiboxerken]

I couldn't reallly care either way. Guns are fun to shoot with at the range. But I certainly don't love my gun like many of the NRA types do. It's not an emotional investment for me.

[Jekyll's Guest]

There's a very, very, very good reason why my ancestors kicked your countrymen out of our country more than two centuries ago.

I guarantee the reason was nothing like what you think it was.

[Jekyll's Guest]

Again your impression of why the US revolution started is clouded by american grade school rhetoric, it has much more to do with aristos feeling they were not treated like the other aristos. And makes as much sense as saying James Madison wanted to end the slave trade to support the freedom of slaves.

DING DING DING! We have a winner.

The American Revolution was about a lot of rich Americans making themselves richer by stirring up popular sentiment and getting a rebellion going.

You can argue all you wish about the end result, a new beacon of liberty in the world or whatnot, but the revolution was based on quite a bit of fabrication and mob incitement.

Hell, George Washington was an aristocrat, and they wanted to make him King of America!

[R.Mackey]

The US revolution was started by British aristos who felt they weren't treated like aristos and also those who wanted out of banking debts.

The American Revolution was about a lot of rich Americans making themselves richer by stirring up popular sentiment and getting a rebellion going.

This is one of the dumbest conspiracy theories I have ever seen.

The descent into Revolution took ten years. Those who started the Revolution figured it could last twenty years. The Revolution bankrupted the Colonies. The signers of the Declaration of Independence figured they would end up on the gallows together.

Heck of a business plan those geniuses must have had, isn't it? :boggled:

Regarding the OP, which is more sensible if a bit odd, I'm a moderate liberal and I don't support a de facto ban. Not everyone is able to defend themselves with a rifle. Technology does not create crime, nor is crime with handguns out of control in this country. Whittling away one of our fundamental rights to handle a problem minor in comparison to numerous others that face us is not something I will ever support.

[Jekyll's Guest]

This is one of the dumbest conspiracy theories I have ever seen.

You must go around JREF with your eyes closed.

The descent into Revolution took ten years. Those who started the Revolution figured it could last twenty years.

Long term investment.

The Revolution bankrupted the Colonies.

Which then recovered and prospered, with the cash flowing in to purely American pockets.

The signers of the Declaration of Independence figured they would end up on the gallows together.

More like fleeing to France and exile, it's the peons who would have swung.

Heck of a business plan those geniuses must have had, isn't it? :boggled:

Stir up popular sentiment and roll the dice. Financially speaking, no different to putting money in high risk stocks or betting in a casino.

I'm a moderate liberal and I don't support a de facto ban.

Maybe you're less Liberal than you self-identify? Such terms are very vague and murky, maybe you're quite right leaning but live amongst very right wing types?

Liberal in the bible belt, for instance, is a long way from East Coast Liberal.


I don't think anything Dancing David or myself put forward are very CT. In fact they're quite established facts. They merely clash with jingoistic school texts.

The Patriot was not a documentary.

[JoeTheJuggler]

It may seem unthinkable to you guys, but it's perfectly normal lots of places, and people like it like that.

You're right, of course. My point is that it isn't something that will ever happen in the U.S., and even the most ardent gun control advocates here aren't seriously pushing for a blanket ban on all handguns, so this poll really doesn't capture anything significant about the liberal position on this debate.

I'm curious, though, with a blanket handgun ban as in the UK, does that mean no law enforcement officers own or carry them? (As much as I am in favor of regulating the manufacture, sale and ownership of guns, I abhor the idea of armed police and disarmed citizenry. I guess that's just my Merkin upbringing!) Does it apply to antiques and collectibles?

[R.Mackey]

You must go around JREF with your eyes closed.

Au contraire. I cut my teeth in the 9/11 subforum. This nearly parallels it in stupidity.

Long term investment.

At a time when the average male life expectancy in peacetime was 47 years?? Even today businesses don't think that far ahead.

Which then recovered and prospered, with the cash flowing in to purely American pockets.

There was no expectation of that at the time whatsoever. On April 20, 1775, the towns of Lexington and Concord emptied, and the honored dead were buried in unmarked, concealed graves. They thought the British were going to respond in force, burn their towns to the ground, and kill everyone they could find. The Revolution was not entered as part of a sound business plan. I repeat, this is a mindless conspiracy theory.

I can go on at length if a more knowledgeable challenger than yourself should appear. Bottom line is you know nothing of history. Fortunately, this situation can be remedied -- there are numerous good books on the subject. And I've never even seen "The Patriot."

Maybe you're less Liberal than you self-identify? Such terms are very vague and murky, maybe you're quite right leaning but live amongst very right wing types?

Liberal in the bible belt, for instance, is a long way from East Coast Liberal.

Ad Hominem as well as No True Scotsman. I live in Southern California. I'm registered Green. I'm a confirmed atheist. I voted for Obama and support about 90% of what he's doing. And I will fight tooth and nail against loss of our basic civil rights. Nice try, but you fail completely.

[thaiboxerken]

Does Luthor carry a hand-gun?

[Trakar]

I couldn't reallly care either way. Guns are fun to shoot with at the range. But I certainly don't love my gun like many of the NRA types do. It's not an emotional investment for me.

I do have some guns that are predominantly range-use target plinkers and a few that have been collected because of their unique appeal, but I also have a range of rifles and shotguns that are used for hunting (dove to moose) and several handguns that are primarily for self defense (mostly for potential bear encounters when I'm out hunting for smaller game). So beyond issues of private predilection, hobby and "preparing for the revolution," there are at least some utilitarian reasons for having firearms.

[Trakar]

...Regarding the OP, which is more sensible if a bit odd, I'm a moderate liberal and I don't support a de facto ban. Not everyone is able to defend themselves with a rifle. Technology does not create crime, nor is crime with handguns out of control in this country. Whittling away one of our fundamental rights to handle a problem minor in comparison to numerous others that face us is not something I will ever support.

Exactly!!

Forget the props, focus on the nuts!

[Jekyll's Guest]

Au contraire. I cut my teeth in the 9/11 subforum. This nearly parallels it in stupidity.

An actual Ad Hominen, as opposed to my polite premise, which you called an Ad Hom.

At a time when the average male life expectancy in peacetime was 47 years?? Even today businesses don't think that far ahead.

No Father has ever tried to set up a family legacy, ever.

There was no expectation of that at the time whatsoever. On April 20, 1775, the towns of Lexington and Concord emptied, and the honored dead were buried in unmarked, concealed graves. They thought the British were going to respond in force, burn their towns to the ground, and kill everyone they could find. The Revolution was not entered as part of a sound business plan. I repeat, this is a mindless conspiracy theory.

No, phrases like "the British killing anyone they could find" is the mindless CT. The British as proto-SS Stormtroopers is part of the pap American kids get fed in school. Don't bother cherry picking atrocities either, like they were commonplace or unique to the 'baddies'.

I can go on at length if a more knowledgeable challenger than yourself should appear.

Ad Hom 2.

Bottom line is you know nothing of history.

Ad Hom 3.

Ad Hominem as well as No True Scotsman. I live in Southern California. I'm registered Green. I'm a confirmed atheist. I voted for Obama and support about 90% of what he's doing. And I will fight tooth and nail against loss of our basic civil rights. Nice try, but you fail completely.

I could only have 'failed' if I'd proposed that you were not Liberal. What I did was questioned your level of Liberalism. Maybe you're generally Liberal, but Ultra Right Wing conservative about certain subjects? Completely possible, you're a person, not a drone.

You seem to get very aggressive when questioned or disagreed with.

[R.Mackey]

An actual Ad Hominen, as opposed to my polite premise, which you called an Ad Hom.

Your incompetence is not limited to history. Let me explain Ad Hom to you:

"Your argument is wrong because you're not a real Liberal" is an Ad Hominem. That's you.

"Your argument reminds me of those I've seen in 9/11 CT Forum" is not an Ad Hominem. This isn't my basis for calling your argument wrong.

No Father has ever tried to set up a family legacy, ever.

Non Sequitur.

No, phrases like "the British killing anyone they could find" is the mindless CT. The British as proto-SS Stormtroopers is part of the pap American kids get fed in school. Don't bother cherry picking atrocities either, like they were commonplace or unique to the 'baddies'.

Excuse me? Google "Menotomy" before speaking to me again. Read John Adams's memoirs on what he saw riding along Battle Road. Those townsfolk weren't evacuating because of "pap American kids get fed in school."

I could only have 'failed' if I'd proposed that you were not Liberal. What I did was questioned your level of Liberalism.

:dl:

I'll invite you to find someone more knowledgeable to take your place in the discussion. You're not responsive to your own gaffes of history.

[Jekyll's Guest]

I have nothing to reply that wouldn't be personal, so I will merely wish you a good day.

Anyone else wanting to smash their head against your wall must be a masochist.

This is where you crow how you've beaten me with your excellent debating skills and driven me off. Enjoy your well won victory. :USA:

[thaiboxerken]

You seem to get very aggressive when questioned or disagreed with.

Many gun proponents are emotionally attached to their firearms. Keep this in mind.

[Jekyll's Guest]

Many gun proponents are emotionally attached to their firearms. Keep this in mind.

Yet he's the first poster, anywhere on JREF (and I'm including CT and paranormal here) who has actually driven me off with his behavior. Quite impressive.

Good luck man, with any luck you've read the exact same books as he has, so you might get a word in edgewise.

Peace out everyone! :)

[R.Mackey]

If you're so easily frightened, it's no wonder you fear firearms so much. :D

Anyone interested in learning about the American Revolution, instead of parroting their own misconceptions, I'll be glad to make some recommendations. But it's off-topic here.

[Jekyll's Guest]

As terrifying as your debating skillz are, I think I'll just ignore you to ease my terror, rather than actually running.

I got half way to the fire escape when I had a second wind of bravery. :m1helmet:

[thaiboxerken]

If you're so easily frightened, it's no wonder you fear firearms so much. :D

Because owning firearms shows that you're a REAL man.:rolleyes:

[Jekyll's Guest]

Because owning firearms shows that you're a REAL man.:rolleyes:

Ask the Punisher (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EljaGpogiws).

[R.Mackey]

:clap: Now that's ad Hominem. I see you understand it after all. Well done!

[Jekyll's Guest]

You're funny :D

I've decided to find you cute whatever you say.

[Rolfe]

You're right, of course. My point is that it isn't something that will ever happen in the U.S., and even the most ardent gun control advocates here aren't seriously pushing for a blanket ban on all handguns, so this poll really doesn't capture anything significant about the liberal position on this debate.


There are a lot of places where people simply don't get it, what it is with Americans and guns. A lot of headscratching and incomprehension.

I'm curious, though, with a blanket handgun ban as in the UK, does that mean no law enforcement officers own or carry them? (As much as I am in favor of regulating the manufacture, sale and ownership of guns, I abhor the idea of armed police and disarmed citizenry. I guess that's just my Merkin upbringing!) Does it apply to antiques and collectibles?


The vast majority of police do not carry guns. There are armed response units that can be called on if needed, but the only place you're likely to see a routinely armed cop is at an airport.

There was a dreadful incident just last week, our third gun rampage like, ever, and details emerging suggest that unarmed police who followed the gunman for a short distance might have been able to stop him if they'd had guns (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cumbria/10257836.stm). The nearest armed police (at a nuclear power station) were about ten miles away. However, this is still an extraordinarily rare occurrence, and it's unlikely to lead to any change in arming the police as far as I can see.

Antique and collectible guns are also subject to firearms licensing. People have been caught out by having "grandfather's old service revolver" under the bed. I don't know the details because it's not something I've ever been interested in. I think genuine antiques have to be made non-operational, and non-antiques? Why would anyone be collecting lethal weapons as if they were china ornaments?

Rolfe.

[Trakar]

There are a lot of places where people simply don't get it, what it is with Americans and guns. A lot of headscratching and incomprehension.

...Why would anyone be collecting lethal weapons as if they were china ornaments?

why would anyone collect china ornaments?

[Rolfe]

I don't know, but it seems harmless enough.

Rolfe.

[The Painter]

Hell, George Washington was an aristocrat, and they wanted to make him King of America!

And he refused. Not like the royal parasites you have. By the way are you going to give the queen the raise she is asking for? It's so hard to live on 8 million pounds/year.

You claim our knowledge our revolution is tainted by our schools. Maybe. Don't you think your's is also tainted to your country's perceptive?

[Jekyll's Guest]

And he refused.

Indeed. The fact that it was offered is the point though.

Not like the royal parasites you have.

Well I live in America, but I make no secret of the fact I'm sorry no French Guillotines made it across the channel.

By the way are you going to give the queen the raise she is asking for? It's so hard to live on 8 million pounds/year.

It may shock you, but the further you get from London, the less people tend to like the royals. In fact where I grew up there was near universal anti-royal sentiment.

You claim our knowledge our revolution is tainted by our schools. Maybe. Don't you think your's is also tainted to your country's perceptive?

We had a period of INCREDIBLY stupid and near-sighted British leaders who practically begged the American colonies to revolt, which they promptly did.

We sent over troops, and the whole thing became an ugly mess as the French jumped in for the chance to hurt us, and both sides did nasty brutish stuff (as often happens in war).

British schools actually teach a quite pro-American syllabus regarding the War of Independence. Modern British textbooks are very much "British Empire was bad mmm-kkaayy".

[KingMerv00]

There's a very, very, very good reason why my ancestors kicked your countrymen out of our country more than two centuries ago.

The French? No wait. The Atlantic Ocean made intervention difficult?

[Jekyll's Guest]

The French? No wait. The Atlantic Ocean made intervention difficult?

Careful about questioning the plucky farmers trouncing a mighty empire myth. These are not friendly waters.

(Yes, the plucky farmers did do a great job, I know :) )

[JoeTheJuggler]

The main difference seems to be that every time a discussion on the poor state of healthcare in the USA points out the lower life expectancy in the USA, this is blamed on the much higher incidence of death due to firearms!

Yeah--definitely an argument of . . . expedience!

My biggest complaint about the way the gun debate usually goes is that it quickly gets caught up in questions of crime and "good guys" and "bad guys". I don't think places without guns have higher rates of crime than places with a lot of guns--just fewer gun deaths. And this notion that we can somehow distinguish between good guys and bad guys a priori is baffling.

On top of that, in the U.S. (where gun deaths are what? two orders of magnitude higher than in the U.K.?) slightly more than half are suicides. That is, the biggest chunk of gun deaths do not involve criminals or "bad guys" at all.

At any rate, I don't think this poll sheds any light on liberals' positions on the gun debate. For that matter, what does a "de facto ban" mean in this context? If it's a ban, it's de jure, isn't it? What could result in a de facto ban--that we could support or reject-- that isn't actually a legal ban?

[JoeTheJuggler]

Careful about questioning the plucky farmers trouncing a mighty empire myth. These are not friendly waters.


And don't even question whether or not they were all Christians acting on Christian principles!

[Jekyll's Guest]

And don't even question whether or not they were all Christians acting on Christian principles!

Well all the GOOD founding fathers were christian. Not like the ones who only took part for selfish reasons, as you can have no morals without a religious foundation. :D

[Nogbad]

I should have stated explicitly I meant US liberals. Still, the foreign opinion is still worth noting. I am not exactly sure where your response places you in regards to personal ownership. It is a common enough stance in the US to want to disarm government entities such as police but not in restricting free market sale and distribution to private citizens and organizations.

Sorry - I voted for a ban but we have one anyone so it was more a vote for the status quo.

[Rolfe]

I didn't vote because it didn't seem fair. I'm just interested in observing these bizarre mindsets where such a ban is deemed to be completely unrealistic. I'm sure they're right, but that's actually the bizarre part.

Rolfe.

[BenBurch]

I think we should allow handguns, but not for the mentally-ill, mentally-handicapped, convicted felons, and sex-offenders whether felons or not.

I think any handgun should have a safety with a positive detent.

I think dum-dums, AP rounds, and similar more-lethal ammunition should remain banned.

I also think we should not allow machine pistols.

[Jekyll's Guest]

and sex-offenders whether felons or not.

How are you a sex offender if you're not a felon?

Also, so if you got caught urinating in an alley you should be banned from having a handgun?

[fuelair]

I am definitely a liberal - voted for Dem's in every functional election or abstained (twice) (where the Dem was an idiot or evil), support Soc.Sec, pro-abortion, pro-rights, anti-censorship (even the feces that flow and splotch the ground out of Shrub, Cheney, Limbaugh, Beck, Coulter, (this could go on a while)'s mouths and raise the terrible stench of radical RIGHTeousness) and very much pro-weapon - including guns.

[BenBurch]

How are you a sex offender if you're not a felon?

Also, so if you got caught urinating in an alley you should be banned from having a handgun?

I was trying to not miss any.

[dtugg]

I think dum-dums, AP rounds, and similar more-lethal ammunition should remain banned.

Better to have bullets that fly through people, walls, ect? There is a reason that virtually every police department in the USA and everyone else who owns a handgun for self defense loads with JHP ammo.

I also think we should not allow machine pistols.

Machine guns, while not illegal at the federal level, are limited to units produced before 1986. They are also very expensive. An Uzi, for example, might cost you $10,000. As such, these weapons are not likely to be used by criminals. In fact, I don't think I have ever heard of anybody using a legal submachine gun to commit a crime.

[BenBurch]

We're talking what should be, not what is. Not excluding machine pistols would assume that you could then make and acquire them. And if you did have a large legal market for them, they would be less than a G-note.

[dtugg]

We're talking what should be, not what is. Not excluding machine pistols would assume that you could then make and acquire them. And if you did have a large legal market for them, they would be less than a G-note.

So the status quo is OK?

And do you agree that banning expanding bullets would be stupid?

[daredelvis]

As a gun owner, I wouldn't mind registration as part of that whole, "well regulated militia" thing. I'm not too worried about Obama, or the Zionist Occupation government, or whatever coming after my guns. Besides, my 22 cal target pistol and my single action 44 mag Javelina frightener wouldn't be much help against any member of the U.S. armed forces.

Daredelvis

[Miss_Kitt]

I should have stated explicitly I meant US liberals. Still, the foreign opinion is still worth noting. I am not exactly sure where your response places you in regards to personal ownership. It is a common enough stance in the US to want to disarm government entities such as police but not in restricting free market sale and distribution to private citizens and organizations. bolding added

Fallen Serpent -- Where in the world did you get that idea? I have found that generally the same folks who favor disarming private citizens favor disarming police, and those who want carry laws also want the police to have the right to use force early on to keep innocent 3rd parties safe.

I suppose there might be some nutjob 'gundamentalists' who favor disarming the police and arming the citizens to the teeth, but that is neither a majority nor even a common stance in my experience. In fact, you will find that people argue that it is the increasing limits on the police's ability to use deadly force that necessitates citizens having guns for self-defense. When a guy with a history of armed robbery can post his bail and be out 6 hours later to go after the person who called the cops on him, carrying a weapon looks much less paranoid.

Americans have a right enshrined in the Constitution to "keep and bear arms" and that is generally interpreted to mean, including handguns. Thus even when a municipality or a state wishes to restrict the right to carry, the law must be strictly limited to pass constitutional challenge in court. Until and unless there is enough support in the US to pass an amendment altering the 2nd Amendment--and that takes a lot of votes in most states in the Union--there are going to be guns loose in society.

It is worth noting, however, that plans restricting certain kinds of weapons--fully automatic rifles, certain calibres and types of ammunition--have been found to be Constitutional. If the argument can reasonably made that the only function of the type of weapon (or ammo) is to attack and not defend, and/or to hit large numbers of people instead of a single (or few) intruder(s) to a home or business, then it's restrictable.

[Miss_Kitt]

About possible ways of restricting accidental gun deaths, or drunken shootings, or 'road rage' incidents: What about having guns dealt with much like automobiles? That is, if you want to use them purely on your own property there is not much regulation, but if you intend to take it out in public where you can endanger others, you have to have insurance and annual licensing?


I have often thought that some form of mandatory liability insurance would deal with a lot of gun issues very efficiently. It would move the determination of what is, and what is not, an effect safety measure out of the hands of vote-seeking politicians and into the hands of the insurance industry--which cares only about what works and not how it appears to a voting bloc in some jurisdiction. If the actuaries say it improves results (ie, lowers claims) then they'll give a price-break for it; otherwise, they won't.

I also liked the suggestion by an earlier poster (possibly leftysergeant?) that guns should have transferrable titles like cars do. Again, this is a mechanism for making sure that people who own guns take steps to keep them safely stored and don't just lend them to anybody.

And, like cars, I think that certain health issues should render someone unfit to be licensed for a firearm, as a public safety issue.

This from someone who is often considered a 'right wing' by other Seattlites.

Just my thoughts, MK

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Statistically, I don't buy there being a big difference in either direction for gun bans.

I do know that the illegal trade is already big, and would probably grow larger.

I can understand wanting a gun to protect oneself, especially when it takes ten minutes for the cops to come and your kid goes to gang-filled school. Don't know how well it works out, but I understand.

As for the red coats, I have little interest in the "defending our freedoms" argument. Mostly because I'll have run away long before then :p .

[Trakar]

I don't know, but it seems harmless enough.

Rolfe.

In the case of most antique/show guns, the same is true. If misused, they can be hazardous, but in general they are simply a collection of crafted/manufactured mechanical tools.

[Jekyll's Guest]

In the case of most antique/show guns, the same is true. If misused, they can be hazardous, but in general they are simply a collection of crafted/manufactured mechanical tools.

If you're going to wheel out the hackneyed old 'guns are just a tool' bit I'll be forced to use 'tools have multiple functions, guns are just for killing' line, and dear Odin, nobody wants that.

[Trakar]

I think we should allow handguns, but not for the mentally-ill, mentally-handicapped, convicted felons, and sex-offenders whether felons or not.

I think any handgun should have a safety with a positive detent.

I think dum-dums, AP rounds, and similar more-lethal ammunition should remain banned.

I also think we should not allow machine pistols.

I like the formatting!

I think that all citizens, with the exception of those deemed mentally or physically unable to comply, should be issued a handgun, a rifle and a limited volume of ammunition for those weapons, as well as being trained in their use and maintenance and required to qualify with those weapons every few years, all as a part of a universal and manditory civic service program.

I don't really see any need to regulate guns or gun ownership, though gun crime penalties can and probably should be dramatically enhanced to deal with the purposeful misuse of these weapons in the commission of crimes.

But that's just my personal opinion.

[Trakar]

If you're going to wheel out the hackneyed old 'guns are just a tool' bit I'll be forced to use 'tools have multiple functions, guns are just for killing' line, and dear Odin, nobody wants that.

Note the distinction "antique/show" guns aren't "just for killing," they are for collecting and display (for the most part, some collections feature only functional weapons with available commercial ammunition, in those cases I could easily entertain and agree with arguments that these aren't actually antique/show collections, but weapons caches).

A gun is a tool, whose (for the most part, there are exceptions) primary appropriate function is killing. Killing is only a crime when it is not attended with the proper legal sanctions.

Gun crimes are the problem not guns, go after the criminals, don't try to turn people into criminals by outlawing the tool instead of the criminal misuse of the tool.

[thaiboxerken]

I wonder if we could regulate the manufacturers of the guns and ammo so that they would have to keep track of where every weapon they made is or sold to. Nah.. won't happen, they'd lose too much of their black market shares.

[Rolfe]

non-antiques? Why would anyone be collecting lethal weapons as if they were china ornaments?


In the case of most antique/show guns, the same is true. If misused, they can be hazardous, but in general they are simply a collection of crafted/manufactured mechanical tools.


Antiques, of course I understand. I was questioning the rationale for collecting non-antique examples of lethal weapons.

Rolfe.

[dtugg]

I wonder if we could regulate the manufacturers of the guns and ammo so that they would have to keep track of where every weapon they made is or sold to. Nah.. won't happen, they'd lose too much of their black market shares.

Actually, every gun sold in the US is required to be imprinted with a serial number and every dealer is required to to keep paperwork of who they sold it to (and I assume the manufacturers have to keep similar records).

As for ammo, what is the point?

[BenBurch]

So the status quo is OK?

And do you agree that banning expanding bullets would be stupid?

No, I would ban all grandfathered machine pistols too. Period. The general public just should not have fully-automatic weapons.

On hollow point ammo I am divided, I have seen the exit wounds made. Up close. You talk about bystanders, but the shooting I saw was a bystander hit directly, not a secondary hit after passing through the intended target or a wall. I think that sort of danger is much smaller than the danger of being near the target of a shooter who has bad aim.

[thaiboxerken]

Actually, every gun sold in the US is required to be imprinted with a serial number and every dealer is required to to keep paperwork of who they sold it to (and I assume the manufacturers have to keep similar records).

As for ammo, what is the point?

I mean every gun sold by USA gun companies, even to foreign sources.

[lisan23]

I'm a liberal. I also own my own .22 Makarov handgun and .223 Savage rifle. I don't hunt, I don't need my firearms to protect my family, it's a hobby. I like to go shooting, I like to shoot at targets. It's an excellent stress reliever and I enjoy it. I'm a responsible gun owner, as is my husband. I think the only restriction on handgun ownership (besides the ones already in place) is a mental health background check for obvious reasons.

As for regulating the manufacturer's of ammo, how would you intend to enforce those regulations for those who reload their own ammo? We does this on Sunday afternoons for our .223's. (My husband has his own .223 as well.) You do know that people can build their own guns as well, right? My husband built his .223.

[Trakar]

Antiques, of course I understand. I was questioning the rationale for collecting non-antique examples of lethal weapons.

Rolfe.

(a lot depends upon the definition one uses for "antique.")

Forgetting for the moment, individuals who possess less than 5 firearms (for the moment defining a "collection" as 5 or more firearms). Some actually have legal and legitimate uses for a variety of killing tools (hunters who pursue a variety of game in a variety of ways), some consider shooting a sport, and even range and sport-shooters generally possess a range of equipment in the pursuit of their hobby, and slipped in amongst these are the legitimate private dealers, grey-level "collector-enthusiasts" and the border-line dealers whose actions and intentions are probably more illegal than legal and whose firearm interests are generally tied to various fringe and sometimes extremist groups.

At least that's what I see, I don't believe I've left anyone out.

[dtugg]

No, I would ban all grandfathered machine pistols too. Period. The general public just should not have fully-automatic weapons.

Surely you can show that problems are caused by legal automatic weapons?

On hollow point ammo I am divided, I have seen the exit wounds made. Up close. You talk about bystanders, but the shooting I saw was a bystander hit directly, not a secondary hit after passing through the intended target or a wall. I think that sort of danger is much smaller than the danger of being near the target of a shooter who has bad aim.

And those people would be shot either way.

[Jekyll's Guest]

Surely you can show that problems are caused by legal automatic weapons?

Just to check, you do realize that only some guns are smuggled in to the country for criminals, right?

The rest are stolen from collectors or bought up legally by fronts or various scams.

The idea that there is a complete disconnect between legal weapons and criminals is false.

The more guns there are out there, the easier it is for criminals to get their hands on them.

The whole 'we need to be able to buy guns, because the criminals get guns illegally" argument completely ignores the fact that those guns help arm the criminals too.


This isn't an argument against legal firearms per se, just a comment on what is, imo, a logical fallacy.

[dtugg]

Just to check, you do realize that only some guns are smuggled in to the country for criminals, right?

The rest are stolen from collectors or bought up legally by fronts or various scams.

The idea that there is a complete disconnect between legal weapons and criminals is false.

The more guns there are out there, the easier it is for criminals to get their hands on them.

The whole 'we need to be able to buy guns, because the criminals get guns illegally" argument completely ignores the fact that those guns help arm the criminals too.


You do realize that legal automatic weapons are rare and very expensive (several thousand dollars), correct? If a criminal wants an automatic weapon it is much easier to buy one that was illegally smuggled into the country or illegally converted from semi-automatic. Name one time that a criminal has used an automatic weapon that was once legal.

This isn't an argument against legal firearms per se, just a comment on what is, imo, a logical fallacy.

If so, you can name the fallacy. Right?

[Jekyll's Guest]

Name one time that a criminal has used an automatic weapon that was once legal.

http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/austin/courts/entries/2009/11/17/man_on_trial_in_assault_rifle.html

http://www.dailyevergreen.com/story/22652

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcfullau.html

[dtugg]

http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/austin/courts/entries/2009/11/17/man_on_trial_in_assault_rifle.html

No evidence it was automatic or legal.

http://www.dailyevergreen.com/story/22652

OK, you got one. Now got any evidence it is a statistically significant problem?

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcfullau.html

Since 1934, there appear to have been at least two homicides committed with legally owned automatic weapons.

Thanks for proving my point.

[Rolfe]

(a lot depends upon the definition one uses for "antique.")

Forgetting for the moment, individuals who possess less than 5 firearms (for the moment defining a "collection" as 5 or more firearms). Some actually have legal and legitimate uses for a variety of killing tools (hunters who pursue a variety of game in a variety of ways), some consider shooting a sport, and even range and sport-shooters generally possess a range of equipment in the pursuit of their hobby, and slipped in amongst these are the legitimate private dealers, grey-level "collector-enthusiasts" and the border-line dealers whose actions and intentions are probably more illegal than legal and whose firearm interests are generally tied to various fringe and sometimes extremist groups.

At least that's what I see, I don't believe I've left anyone out.


These are all people actually using the guns though. When you mentioned "collectors" before, I was imaginnig people simply collecting the things, like cigarette cards or stamps. People do that with antique guns, which seems quite reasonable as a subset of antique collecting.

However, if you are only talking about people with a number of non-antique guns which they actually use (either to fire, or as stock-in-trade) then there's no contradiction.

Rolfe.

[Cobalt]

...You do know that people can build their own guns as well, right? My husband built his .223.

That sounds like an interesting project! Also, welcome!

[Upchurch]

I consider myself mostly moderate with a few social issues that I lean strongly liberal on.

I still don't understand what a "de facto" ban is supposed to mean from the OP, but I am against a broad ban. I do think weapon and/or owner licensing is more than a reasonable precaution. I think denying that licensing and, thus, some gun ownership is unavoidable and probably the right thing to do. There are just some people who should not have legal access to firearms.

[Ladewig]

If you're going to wheel out the hackneyed old 'guns are just a tool' bit I'll be forced to use 'tools have multiple functions, guns are just for killing' line, and dear Odin, nobody wants that.

Do bows and arrows fall into the same category: they are just for killing?

[BenBurch]

Surely you can show that problems are caused by legal automatic weapons?


Because of their expense and rarity, no. But when a problem does happen, and it will, will the low number of problems have justified the carnage?

In the 1920s, they were a considerable problem for law enforcement, hence why they became restricted.

[thaiboxerken]

Do bows and arrows fall into the same category: they are just for killing?

I can't think of any other practical use for them. Target practice is practicing to use the weapon to kill more effectively.

[Trakar]

These are all people actually using the guns though. When you mentioned "collectors" before, I was imaginnig people simply collecting the things, like cigarette cards or stamps. People do that with antique guns, which seems quite reasonable as a subset of antique collecting.

However, if you are only talking about people with a number of non-antique guns which they actually use (either to fire, or as stock-in-trade) then there's no contradiction.

Rolfe.

You seemed to be using the term in two different manners, I sought to explain both usages, if you were just speaking of true antique/show gun collections then there is no need for the latter (5 or more) explanation. I apologize if I misunderstood your original words and intentions.

At first I was only speaking about limited functionality collection weapons, then you seemed to be asking about functional weapons and speaking to people who had "collections" of these fully functional and often modern, state-of-the-art weapons, which I addressed with the latter commentary.

I think we may have reached a confusion cross point, perhaps it is time for some general clarification.

[BenBurch]

I can't think of any other practical use for them. Target practice is practicing to use the weapon to kill more effectively.

I've used a bow to shoot a pilot line, so they do have other uses.

[BadBoy]

Here's why we banned handguns in my country (http://www.iansa.org/campaigns_events/dunblane_memorial.htm).

If you value sport and macho posturing above children's lives, we beg to differ.

Rolfe.
Thanks Rolf,

I was begining to question my own sanity.

I try to stay clear of this issue nowdays on this forum because I get slammed for suggesting that handgun ownership is bonkers.

[Trakar]

Because of their expense and rarity, no. But when a problem does happen, and it will, will the low number of problems have justified the carnage?

In the 1920s, they were a considerable problem for law enforcement, hence why they became restricted.

And you find there to be problems with these restrictions (which pretty much define the difference between legal and illegal automatic firearms), in what way? What do you see wrong with the current automatic firearms restrictions that would be better addressed by an outright ban on the legal sale or possession of such weapons?

[thaiboxerken]

I've used a bow to shoot a pilot line, so they do have other uses.

And a handgun can be used as a hammer.

[Trakar]

And a handgun can be used as a hammer.

Boy that was tricky! First time I've had a response I was answering shift between hitting the quote button and popping up the response box!

as to "Killing the pilot line"

nah, sounds like he just winged it. (was winging it - making do with on hand equipment to accomplish a task)

as to the handgun as a hammer, nah, regardless of the misuses or secondary uses (competitive sport shooting), the primary overall general purpose of firearms in general is killing animals (human or otherwise), but as I stated earlier, there are legitimate and legal, reasons and situations that involve killing. Firearms, properly and efficiently utilized, provide one of the most sure, humane and effective ways of accomplishing this task.

[BadBoy]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom

A Home Office study published in 2007 reported that gun crime in England & Wales remains a relatively rare event. Firearms (including air weapons) were used in 21,521 recorded crimes. It said that injury caused during a firearm offence was rare with less than 3% resulting in a serious or fatal injury.[27]

The number of homicides committed with firearms has remained between a range of 49 and 97 in the 8 years to 2006. There were 2 fatal shootings of police officers in England and Wales in this period and 107 non-fatal shootings - an average of 9.7 per year over the same period.[28]

In 2005/6 the police in England and Wales reported 50 gun homicides, a rate of 0.1 illegal gun deaths per 100,000 of population. Only 6.6% of homicides involved the use of a firearm.[28]

By way of international comparison, in 2004 the police in the United States reported 9,326 gun homicides.[29] The overall homicide rates per 100,000 (regardless of weapon type) reported by the United Nations for 1999 were 4.55 for the U.S. and 1.45 in England and Wales.[30] The homicide rate in England and Wales at the end of the 1990s was below the EU average, but the rates in Northern Ireland and Scotland were above the EU average.[31]


I was surprised that US was so much lower than I expected, per capita. I do find it interesting also that Canada has high gun ownership though gunf crime is very small.

Why is it higher in the US. I seem to remember Michael Moore asking that question and not really coming to any proper conclusions. Are guns regulated better in Canada.

The thought of going out boozing on a Saturday night in a midsize UK town with a full handgun ownership legalized doesnt bear thinking about. It would be a mess. The UK public (I believe) are not less violent then in the US and possibly more so, which is why I think keeping them banned would be the sensible thing over here.

[Giz]

Just to think in terms of practicalities… what makes sense for the UK may not make sense for the USA.

The UK is a relatively small, urban country with no tradition of widespred gun ownership and with little large dangerous fauna. Heck there probably aren't even that many black market handguns in the UK (for all the stories of "you can buy one down the pub for a tenner" that get trotted out). So a ban does not (a) impact most of the population and (b) not leave a large pool of armed criminals next to unarmed householders and (c) not leave hikers at the mercy of bears, wolves, mountain lions etc.

On the other hand, the USA has a huge amount of handguns in circulation (hundreds of millions if I remember correctly), widespread criminal gun ownership, a lot of wilderness with some large predators. Plus a tradition of widespread responsible gun ownership amongst law abiding citizenry. The (a) (b) and (c) that applied in the UK don't hold up so well in the USA.

[dtugg]

Just to think in terms of practicalities… what makes sense for the UK may not make sense for the USA.

The UK is a relatively small, urban country with no tradition of widespred gun ownership and with little large dangerous fauna. Heck there probably aren't even that many black market handguns in the UK (for all the stories of "you can buy one down the pub for a tenner" that get trotted out). So a ban does not (a) impact most of the population and (b) not leave a large pool of armed criminals next to unarmed householders and (c) not leave hikers at the mercy of bears, wolves, mountain lions etc.

On the other hand, the USA has a huge amount of handguns in circulation (hundreds of millions if I remember correctly), widespread criminal gun ownership, a lot of wilderness with some large predators. Plus a tradition of widespread responsible gun ownership amongst law abiding citizenry. The (a) (b) and (c) that applied in the UK don't hold up so well in the USA.


Very well said. Also keep in mind that the federal government does not require handguns to be registered nor do most state governments. Because of this, a ban would be pretty much impossible to enforce; they simply have no idea where the guns are. Many otherwise law-abiding citizens would surely ignore the law.

[Trakar]

... The UK public (I believe) are not less violent then in the US and possibly more so, which is why I think keeping them banned would be the sensible thing over here.

Not sure that this is accurate, but it may well be that there would be this problem if private firearm ownership restrictions were removed or greatly reduced in the UK, but this may be do as much to not having a previously established gun culture as it is to any degree of innate violence or issues of self-control. Anecdotally, I've witnessed several fist-fights/wrestling-bouts where one (or both) men had a handgun strapped onto their bodies and there was never even a hint that either man even thought about drawing their weapon (even the one on the short end of the "debate"). I'm not saying that such is a perfect system that completely eliminates the misuse and criminal use of firearms, but it makes a difference, in people integrated into such a culture. Firearms are serious, and dangerous tools, they are always treated as loaded, never point one at something you don't intend to shoot, if it isn't target practice or marksmanship competition don't shoot at anything you don't intend to kill, and don't kill anything that isn't trying to kill you, or that you don't intend to eat.

It is the hunting-shooting/firearm culture that tends to teach responsible firearm usage and promote adherence to such basic understandings and principles.

[Ladewig]

I've used a bow to shoot a pilot line, so they do have other uses.

I've seen a gun used to shoot a pilot line

But rather than get caught up in the finer points of analogies, let's focus on the matter at hand. I am having a hard time understanding why target shooting cannot be an end in and of itself. I think it is very hard to look at the shape and design of a .22 competition pistol and conclude that it's primary purpose to kill.

[Jekyll's Guest]

Name one time that a criminal has used an automatic weapon that was once legal.

OK, you got one. Now got any evidence it is a statistically significant problem?

:rolleyes:

[Jekyll's Guest]

Do bows and arrows fall into the same category: they are just for killing?

They're technologically obsolete.

I can get killed by a bow or an Arquebus, but a Renfester would be capable of a lot less death and destruction than someone with an Uzi...unless they start with the poetry.

[dtugg]

:rolleyes:

I'll take that as an admission that you cannot.

[Trakar]

I've seen a gun used to shoot a pilot line

But rather than get caught up in the finer points of analogies, let's focus on the matter at hand. I am having a hard time understanding why target shooting cannot be an end in and of itself. I think it is very hard to look at the shape and design of a .22 competition pistol and conclude that it's primary purpose to kill.

Oh, it certainly can be, especially when we look at the sub-niche of specialty design target punch firearms, (and you might include most air-rifles -bb/pellet- in this category, though even some of these have varmit plinking as a primary design consideration) but in the overall category of firearms, the primary design function is to kill animals.

[Jekyll's Guest]

I'll take that as an admission that you cannot.

You were ridiculously ballsy enough to lay out a challenge like "Name one time that a criminal has used an automatic weapon that was once legal", then as soon as I do you shrug and add your new 'challenge'.

Is this like Super Mario Bros? I unlock a new level every time I reach the end of an evidence quest?

:brk:

[dtugg]

You were ridiculously ballsy enough to lay out a challenge like "Name one time that a criminal has used an automatic weapon that was once legal", then as soon as I do you shrug and add your new 'challenge'.

Is this like Super Mario Bros? I unlock a new level every time I reach the end of an evidence quest?

:brk:

Actually on further investigation, it seems as there are conflicting reports. Some say it was automatic, some say it was semi-automatic. The latter seems much more likely to me. Anybody can walk into any gun store and buy a semi-automatic AK47 for a few hundred bucks. But a fully automatic one will be hard to find and likely cost at least $10,000.

Anyway, are you still under the delusion that legal automatic weapons are a problem?

[ZirconBlue]

Here's why we banned handguns in my country (http://www.iansa.org/campaigns_events/dunblane_memorial.htm).

If you value sport and macho posturing above children's lives, we beg to differ.

Rolfe.

Really? I expected better from you than a "won't someone please think of the children?!" argument.

[ZirconBlue]

I'll take that as an admission that you cannot.

You did sorta move the goal posts on him, there.

[Jekyll's Guest]

Actually on further investigation, it seems as there are conflicting reports. Some say it was automatic, some say it was semi-automatic. The latter seems much more likely to me. Anybody can walk into any gun store and buy a semi-automatic AK47 for a few hundred bucks. But a fully automatic one will be hard to find and likely cost at least $10,000.

Anyway, are you still under the delusion that legal automatic weapons are a problem?

I will answer your questions, but first you must travel to the castle of Mortblad the enchanter, through the forest of Screels, over the mountain of G'nak. There you will find a crystal dream upon a cushion of elf tears.

Retrieve it for me, and the real quest shall begin!

[Rolfe]

Really? I expected better from you than a "won't someone please think of the children?!" argument.


I hope that was tongue in cheek! It's the best argument there is.

Rolfe.

[BenBurch]

...

nah, sounds like he just winged it. (was winging it - making do with on hand equipment to accomplish a task)

...

No! This bow was sold for this very purpose; Shooting pilot lines across plenums for pulling cable. They also make dart guns for this, but a bow has better range.

[Piggy]

Why is this poll limited to liberals?

I can't play with you guys?

[ZirconBlue]

I hope that was tongue in cheek! It's the best argument there is.

No, it's an appeal to emotion, not a rational argument. (One often trotted out by the "Family Values" crowd.) Plus, it was something of a false dichotomy.

[BenBurch]

And you find there to be problems with these restrictions (which pretty much define the difference between legal and illegal automatic firearms), in what way? What do you see wrong with the current automatic firearms restrictions that would be better addressed by an outright ban on the legal sale or possession of such weapons?

Because they do get into illegal hands through theft, and if they were outright banned, there would be no source for them.

I can't see a civic good in anybody other than a military arms manufacturer having private possession of such weapons.

[DJW]

Because they do get into illegal hands through theft, and if they were outright banned, there would be no source for them.

snip

I'm sorry Ben, but do you really believe that? Perhaps you meant it would be more difficult and expensive to acquire?

[dtugg]

Because they do get into illegal hands through theft, and if they were outright banned, there would be no source for them.

I can't see a civic good in anybody other than a military arms manufacturer having private possession of such weapons.

Evidence that a significant amount of legally owned automatic weapons make into the hands of criminals via theft?

Oh, and I it you believe it is impossible for automatic weapons to be smuggled into the county? Or for semi-automatic weapons to be converted to fully automatic?

[Trakar]

No! This bow was sold for this very purpose; Shooting pilot lines across plenums for pulling cable. They also make dart guns for this, but a bow has better range.

Makes sense, rather like using .22 cartridges to mount concrete anchors, either could be misused to kill, but they are definitely designed with another primary function and intent.

[Trakar]

Because they do get into illegal hands through theft, and if they were outright banned, there would be no source for them.

I can't see a civic good in anybody other than a military arms manufacturer having private possession of such weapons.

Except for basement gunshops across the nation not to mention all the international sources that still find their way onto the US grey and black markets,...do you think bans would make the black market bigger or smaller?

I see no civic good in restrictions on individual rights and freedoms that create more potential problems than they resolve.

[BadBoy]

No, it's an appeal to emotion, not a rational argument. (One often trotted out by the "Family Values" crowd.) Plus, it was something of a false dichotomy.
http://www.benbest.com/lifeext/murder.html#world

In 2006 in the United States homicide was the second leading cause of death for infants. Homicide with a firearm was the second leading cause of persons between the ages of 10 and 24, the third leading cause of death for persons between ages 25 and 34 and the fourth leading cause of death for persons between ages 5 and 9 or between ages 35 and 44.

Also;chart showing leading causes of death in US by age (http://www.cdc.gov/injury/Images/LC-Charts/10lc%20-%20Violence%20Related%202006-7_6_09-a.pdf)

I am surprsed its not higher. However to suggest it doesnt affect children doesnt pan out. Its not about appealing to emotion, its about protecting the most vunerable in society. I beieve the state has a responsibility to ensure its citizens are safe.

I think I would be willing to accept that homicide by guns in the US is generally higher than in most of western Europe because there are more guns around. But its doesnt explain why homicide rates are higher for any reason generally.

Perhaps it IS because its easier to kill someone with a gun nonpremeditated ? As I said previously, I wouldnt want to go out on a saturday night in a normal UK suburban town if hand gun ownership was as high as it is in the states. It would be like the wild west.

[BadBoy]

Its noted that Traffic MV accidents are higher in most cases. But before I get the "well, maybe we should ban cars aswell" sarcastic comment:

1. Cars are not made to kill people and infact huge increases in safety performance have been implemented by manufacturers over the last 30-40 years which have dramatically improved safety, inside and outside the car.

2. National and Local governments (in the UK at least) are continuously trying to improve road safety in terms road improvement schemes (central barriers, traffic calming, speed cameras, speed limits lowered).

I would bet more is done in the US to reduce road traffic deaths than the implementation of gun controls to reduce gun related crime. However, admittedly that’s just a hunch.

[Trakar]

http://www.benbest.com/lifeext/murder.html#world



Also;chart showing leading causes of death in US by age (http://www.cdc.gov/injury/Images/LC-Charts/10lc%20-%20Violence%20Related%202006-7_6_09-a.pdf)

I am surprsed its not higher. However to suggest it doesnt affect children doesnt pan out. Its not about appealing to emotion, its about protecting the most vunerable in society. I beieve the state has a responsibility to ensure its citizens are safe.

I think I would be willing to accept that homicide by guns in the US is generally higher than in most of western Europe because there are more guns around. But its doesnt explain why homicide rates are higher for any reason generally.

Perhaps it IS because its easier to kill someone with a gun nonpremeditated ? As I said previously, I wouldnt want to go out on a saturday night in a normal UK suburban town if hand gun ownership was as high as it is in the states. It would be like the wild west.

Most US firearm related deaths are suicides.

beyond this we find many considered opinions.

"Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide?" - http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf (http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf)

CONCLUSION
This Article has reviewed a significant amount of evidence
from a wide variety of international sources. Each individual
portion of evidence is subject to cavil—at the very least the
general objection that the persuasiveness of social scientific
evidence cannot remotely approach the persuasiveness of
conclusions in the physical sciences. Nevertheless, the burden
of proof rests on the proponents of the more guns equal
more death and fewer guns equal less death mantra, especially
since they argue public policy ought to be based on
that mantra. To bear that burden would at the very least
require showing that a large number of nations with more
guns have more death and that nations that have imposed
stringent gun controls have achieved substantial reductions
in criminal violence (or suicide). But those correlations are
not observed when a large number of nations are compared
across the world.

[BenBurch]

I'm sorry Ben, but do you really believe that? Perhaps you meant it would be more difficult and expensive to acquire?

Well, you can always break into a National Guard armory, I suppose. Certainly more difficult and expensive than almost any criminal would bother with.

[lisan23]

Ok, I'm a newbie so I can't post links. But per capita rates show that several European nations which allow firearms have lower murder rates than the UK. In order for the assumption that allowing firearms means a higher murder rate or an increase in childrens deaths due to homicide is not factually accurate. In order for this to be true then almost all nations that allow firearms (and are politically stable) should have higher murder rates than nations that don't. But that's not the case.

Also, to blame an object just seems so silly to me. Do you blame the spoon for making people fat? Then why blame a gun for killing someone? Without a person behind that firearm it wouldn't kill someone. If the gun made it easier to kill people, then why do countries like Germany and Switzerland (where guns are legal) have lower murder rates per capita than the UK?

I do think of the children, I have 2. Bottom line is that responsibility for these types of things fall on the parents and unfortunately there are stupid parents. Not just with guns though. The government can do all it can to make roads more safe and car manufacturer's can do all they want to make cars more safe, but if you have a reckless or clueless parent then that's not going to make much of a difference, now is it? You can't blame objects. Just a couple months ago there was a child around 4 years old that was thrown from a car and died from that accident. It wasn't a horrible accident, but her parents put her in a car seat that wasn't appropriate for her size. Do you blame the carseat, or do you blame the parents for not putting the child in the right carseat?

[ZirconBlue]

However to suggest it doesnt affect children doesnt pan out.

Who suggested any such thing?


Its not about appealing to emotion, its about protecting the most vunerable in society.

"If you value sport and macho posturing above children's lives, we beg to differ," is entirely an appeal to emotion (as well as a blatant insult to anyone who is not in support of such a ban). If you want to argue that handguns should be banned to saves the lives of children, then you need to present data that demonstrates this (as you have attempted to do in your post), and, probably, show any risks/costs associated with such a ban.


I beieve the state has a responsibility to ensure its citizens are safe.

How far are you willing to take that, though? We could all be plugged into machines a la The Matrix in sterile cocoons to keep us "safe", but I don't think there are many that would support that proposal. For every effort to improve the safety of the citizenry, we need to

A) validate that the proposed effort will actually increase safety, and
2) do a cost/benefit analysis to verify the feasibility of the proposal.

As I said previously, I wouldnt want to go out on a saturday night in a normal UK suburban town if hand gun ownership was as high as it is in the states. It would be like the wild west.

Is your impression that a Saturday night in a normal US suburban town is like the wild west? If so, then I think you've let your fears run away with you. If not, I wonder why you think your fellow UKoGBaNIans are more violent than we are?

[JoeTheJuggler]

Evidence that a significant amount of legally owned automatic weapons make into the hands of criminals via theft?


Don't virtually all the guns we're talking about start out as "legal" ones? Or even "legally owned"--presumably the first owner is the manufacturer.

It's not like bathtub gin. I don't think home-made guns are a substantial contribution to the number of guns in the U.S.

Or am I missing something?

[JoeTheJuggler]

Ok, I'm a newbie so I can't post links. But per capita rates show that several European nations which allow firearms have lower murder rates than the UK. In order for the assumption that allowing firearms means a higher murder rate or an increase in childrens deaths due to homicide is not factually accurate. In order for this to be true then almost all nations that allow firearms (and are politically stable) should have higher murder rates than nations that don't. But that's not the case.
You can put up a non-functioning link (the word "dot" in place of a dot, for example), or PM it to me, and I'll post it.

Also, to blame an object just seems so silly to me. Do you blame the spoon for making people fat?
I don't think that's a very fair or honest characterization of the position of people who advocate restrictions on guns.

By the same logic, you could argue against any safety regulations on power tools, cars, and so on. After all, left alone, those things are pretty harmless. I don't think there are many auto accidents that don't involve a driver!

And it definitely would argue against the "war on drugs". To my knowledge, no drug actually initiates drug use. Yet we recognize some substances as being harmful and dangerous--so much so that we tightly control (or even ban) people's access to them.

[Jekyll's Guest]

Don't virtually all the guns we're talking about start out as "legal" ones? Or even "legally owned"--presumably the first owner is the manufacturer.

It's not like bathtub gin. I don't think people home-made guns are a substantial contribution to the number of guns in the U.S.

Or am I missing something?

Well, obviously, if some crack head couldn't buy a pistol (stolen from someone's house) from a trunk of a car for $50 he'd just pay $500 dollars to have one smuggled in to the country illegally.

It would have zero affect on the ability of every two bit thug to get a piece if he wanted one.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Well, obviously, if some crack head couldn't buy a pistol (stolen from someone's house) from a trunk of a car for $50 he'd just pay $500 dollars to have one smuggled in to the country illegally.

It would have zero affect [sic] on the ability of every two bit thug to get a piece if he wanted one.

I may not be a great mathematician, but the difference between a gun avaialbe for $50 and one for $500 doesn't seem to me to be "zero effect". I think that would be a huge effect--particularly on "two bit thugs" who would be priced right out of the market.

But getting back to the point dtugg and BenBurch were discussing--don't all these guns start off as legally owned guns? Even those that entered the country illegally probably mostly started off as legally-manufactured (and legally owned) guns somewhere.

(As a bit of an aside, I think the U.S. is still by far the leading arms exporter in the world--by a wide margin. I know this holds up for military arms, but I'd be surprised if it weren't also true of the kinds of guns being discussed here. I'll happily admit I'm wrong if someone shows that I am.)

[dtugg]

Well, you can always break into a National Guard armory, I suppose. Certainly more difficult and expensive than almost any criminal would bother with.

And they couldn't be smuggled into the country or converted from semi-auto to full auto?

[dtugg]

Don't virtually all the guns we're talking about start out as "legal" ones? Or even "legally owned"--presumably the first owner is the manufacturer.

It's not like bathtub gin. I don't think home-made guns are a substantial contribution to the number of guns in the U.S.

Or am I missing something?

I dunno, I guess if you want to get pedantic you can say that. But (1) These guns cannot be manufactured for civilian use in the US, and haven't since 1986. (2) The US government does not have jurisdiction over the whole world.

So when I am talking about "legal" automatic weapons I am talking about ones manufactured and registered with the ATF before 1987. These weapons are rare and very expensive. As such they are not used by criminals. And there is no rational reason to ban them.

[dtugg]

And it definitely would argue against the "war on drugs". To my knowledge, no drug actually initiates drug use. Yet we recognize some substances as being harmful and dangerous--so much so that we tightly control (or even ban) people's access to them.

I think the war on drugs is an outrageous waste of resources, lives, and liberty and causes far more harm than it prevents.

[Jekyll's Guest]

I may not be a great mathematician, but the difference between a gun avaialbe for $50 and one for $500 doesn't seem to me to be "zero effect". I think that would be a huge effect--particularly on "two bit thugs" who would be priced right out of the market.

Should I wear a special hat or something when I'm laying on the sarcasm to make a point?

:th:

[JoeTheJuggler]

Should I wear a special hat or something when I'm laying on the sarcasm to make a point?

:th:
Yes--wave a sign or something.

That occurred to me, but it's so hard to tell.

[JoeTheJuggler]

I dunno, I guess if you want to get pedantic you can say that.

What's pedantic about it? I think Ben B's point is perfectly valid. I don't think he's arguing in favor of a total ban, but virtually all guns start out as guns that are legally owned. Even if you only banned the guns manufactured in the U.S. (and continued to try to intercept illegal imports), you'd make illegal guns extremely less available. (See Jekyll's Guest's sarcastic point.)

[dtugg]

Did you read the rest of my post?

[Dancing David]

This is one of the dumbest conspiracy theories I have ever seen.

The descent into Revolution took ten years. Those who started the Revolution figured it could last twenty years. The Revolution bankrupted the Colonies. The signers of the Declaration of Independence figured they would end up on the gallows together.

.

I said 'some' wanted out of banking debt.

The reasons are multiple, the main being economic suppression of the colonies, like laying ship keels and the like.

But yes the aristos did not feel the got the due respect they wanted.

My reference was to Blaylock, he might has well have said that James Madison fought the importation of slaves because he was against slavery.

[Dancing David]

How are you a sex offender if you're not a felon?

Also, so if you got caught urinating in an alley you should be banned from having a handgun?

Sexual misdemeanor and some states you get on the list if you get charged.

[R.Mackey]

I said 'some' wanted out of banking debt.

The reasons are multiple, the main being economic suppression of the colonies, like laying ship keels and the like.

But yes the aristos did not feel the got the due respect they wanted.

My reference was to Blaylock, he might has well have said that James Madison fought the importation of slaves because he was against slavery.

The aristos in fact were not getting the respect they wanted, but then neither was anybody else. The "economic suppression" was an important factor, yes, but it cannot be the main one -- it was a punishment for resisting their crackdowns on civil rights (including the right of trade). Had the Colonists not resisted, there never would have been any economic warfare. And the very last straw was not economic, it was the Powder Alarms, culminating in the raid on Concord.

If you go down a list of the Founding Fathers, you come up with hardly any whose debt load was improved, or at any time likely to improve, due to the Revolution. Many, in fact, sold off land to cover debts before the Revolution, only to watch their now liquid assets become radically devalued...

Also, were it all about forgiveness of debt, then why didn't they accept the very heavy bribes they were offered? General Gage, like some posters in this thread, mistakenly assumed it was all about a jilted aristocracy rather than a true popular uprising, and reacted accordingly -- aiming to bring the wealthy back into the fold while shocking the working classes into line -- which is why he lost. The only one who fell for it, and thus the only individual who plausibly fomented Revolution just to improve his personal finances, was Dr. Benjamin Church, who turned and spied for Gage with great effectiveness for several years.

I think the troublemakers in this thread are referring to the Newburgh Conspiracy, incorrectly associating it with the Revolution as a whole. In this episode, nearly at the end of the Revolution, several Continental Army officers advocatied overthrow of the Continental Congress to secure years of unpaid salary. General Washington put this matter to rest with his splendid Newburgh Address, and it never happened. Yet even if it had, this would have been a revolt against Congress, not the Revolution against King George and England.

Anyway, to get back to the OP, I think the poll is fairly conclusive. Quite a few liberals still support preservation of our basic rights, even when those rights scare people. I agree.

[Dancing David]

The aristos in fact were not getting the respect they wanted, but then neither was anybody else. The "economic suppression" was an important factor, yes, but it cannot be the main one -- it was a punishment for resisting their crackdowns on civil rights (including the right of trade). Had the Colonists not resisted, there never would have been any economic warfare. And the very last straw was not economic, it was the Powder Alarms, culminating in the raid on Concord.

certainly but I believe the economics were the main driving force, the tight controls on all sorts of things, the british monopoly contracts, many many reasons.


If you go down a list of the Founding Fathers, you come up with hardly any whose debt load was improved, or at any time likely to improve, due to the Revolution. Many, in fact, sold off land to cover debts before the Revolution, only to watch their now liquid assets become radically devalued...

Anticipating benefits and receiving benefit are two things.


Also, were it all about forgiveness of debt,

did I say all?

then why didn't they accept the very heavy bribes they were offered? General Gage, like some posters in this thread, mistakenly assumed it was all about a jilted aristocracy rather than a true popular uprising, and reacted accordingly -- aiming to bring the wealthy back into the fold while shocking the working classes into line -- which is why he lost. The only one who fell for it, and thus the only individual who plausibly fomented Revolution just to improve his personal finances, was Dr. Benjamin Church, who turned and spied for Gage with great effectiveness for several years.

I think the troublemakers in this thread are referring to the Newburgh Conspiracy, incorrectly associating it with the Revolution as a whole. In this episode, nearly at the end of the Revolution, several Continental Army officers advocatied overthrow of the Continental Congress to secure years of unpaid salary. General Washington put this matter to rest with his splendid Newburgh Address, and it never happened. Yet even if it had, this would have been a revolt against Congress, not the Revolution against King George and England.

Anyway, to get back to the OP, I think the poll is fairly conclusive. Quite a few liberals still support preservation of our basic rights, even when those rights scare people. I agree.

I support the right to bear arms, I like shooting but have given up any firearms to please my wife. My favorite weapon belongs to a friend ,an M-3 Garand, all Springfield parts.

I feel that registration of all firearms and tracking would be a good thing. Just as we track all cars. I personally dislike the current system, but that is a personal opinion. I do not feel the government should seize weapons or anything like that.

However I do not agree with people who believe in unlimited access to fire arms, I believe that all weapons should be registered and tracked. And that is you are caught dealing weapons off the table that there should be severe penalties. I personally find the COTUS a remarkable document and fascinating history.

[R.Mackey]

certainly but I believe the economics were the main driving force, the tight controls on all sorts of things, the british monopoly contracts, many many reasons.

They are difficult to separate, this is true.

Perhaps the most crystalline example is the Tea Act, and the Boston Tea Party. The riot was not about taxation, no matter what our modern-day Tea Party would have you believe. After all, as the British calculated, the price of tea would actually go down, new taxes and all. Instead, the Colonists agitated because their boycott on East India Tea was out of conscience, not high prices, and they didn't like being told what they had to purchase. In Boston, the governor escalated this by closing the harbor -- an economic blockade -- until the tea was disposed. Hence, Hancock and his merry band disposed of it. ;)

Anticipating benefits and receiving benefit are two things.
Correct. But there's no evidence that they anticipated benefit, either. At least benefits that they individually would live to see. Whomever survived the Revolution might someday prosper, but it was unlikely to be them or their relatives.

Did I say all?
No, you didn't.

I support the right to bear arms, I like shooting but have given up any firearms to please my wife. My favorite weapon belongs to a friend ,an M-3 Garand, all Springfield parts.

I feel that registration of all firearms and tracking would be a good thing. Just as we track all cars. I personally dislike the current system, but that is a personal opinion. I do not feel the government should seize weapons or anything like that.

However I do not agree with people who believe in unlimited access to fire arms, I believe that all weapons should be registered and tracked. And that is you are caught dealing weapons off the table that there should be severe penalties. I personally find the COTUS a remarkable document and fascinating history.

I think we largely have agreement here. I also voted "with exceptions." The only problem with tracking is that the "List" of owners can be, and in two limited examples has been, used against legal owners in the future. What we do in California (Roberti-Roos "Assault Weapons" excepted, also family legacies) seems a reasonable compromise to me -- any transfer has to go through a registered and licensed dealer, and that transfer is checked against Department of Justice to make sure the recipient is legally eligible. In theory, no "List" is ever created, but this method has the same effectiveness.

One can always buy and sell under the table, for which penalties are severe, but that's true of any proposed monitoring system short of putting RFID chips in the weapons themselves and pretending they can't be removed...

I also recently picked up an M1 Garand (a Korean-war era HRA). Kinship!

[Thunder]

I support a ban on ALL handguns, with only very few exceptions. I also support the confiscation of all handguns that are currently out there..except from owners that meet the exceptions

Who do I think should be allowed to own handguns? Folks who can prove a real safety concern, like gun dealers, folks who have restraining orders, etc etc.

On the flip side, I think the ease of purchasing and owning long guns...should be streamlined. Everyone over the age of 18 who has not been convicted of a felony and is not a danger to themselves or the public, should be able to buy a gun.

In exchange for banning most handguns and confiscating most existing hand guns, I would support overturning all regulations on long gun ownerships in major cities such as NY and DC.

[dtugg]

I support a ban on ALL handguns, with only very few exceptions. I also support the confiscation of all handguns that are currently out there..except from owners that meet the exceptions

Who do I think should be allowed to own handguns? Folks who can prove a real safety concern, like gun dealers, folks who have restraining orders, etc etc.

Thankfully SCOTUS disagrees with you. Anyway, good luck confiscating my handguns. The government has no idea that I have them.

On the flip side, I think the ease of purchasing and owning long guns...should be streamlined. Everyone over the age of 18 who has not been convicted of a felony and is not a danger to themselves or the public, should be able to buy a gun.

In exchange for banning most handguns and confiscating most existing hand guns, I would support overturning all regulations on long gun ownerships in major cities such as NY and DC.

That's how it already is in most states.

[Ranb]

I support a ban on ALL handguns, with only very few exceptions. I also support the confiscation of all handguns that are currently out there..except from owners that meet the exceptions

What about hunting handguns?

http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u320/ranb40/firearms/contender22lr.jpg

Single shot, a bit bulky; accurate in the right hands though. Does not require hearing protection.

Ranb