House Votes To Repeal D.C. Gun Control Laws.

It was a time when the most devastating weapon available was a smooth bore cannon. So for any potential dictator, a populace in which every adult male was armed was a serious check on tyranny. And that was the reason for the amendment.

As you can see by the way the seige of Fajulla went, small arms are no longer much of a check on a modern military.

But the Founders intended the Constitution to change and grow as needed. The 2nd Amendment has come to mean something else in our time, the right of all people to keep and bear arms, even if they aren't part of a militia.

And that's the way it should be.

 

Not so any more, we have had several hand in's of Guns, and these rates have scince dropped. Sure you can get a gun on the black market if you wish, just dont get caught doing it or be in possesion of it or you will be dealt with.

Contrary to belief though, you may certainley have a gun in Australia if you wish to. It is your right to have one if you so desire it. What we have are some laws relating to control of these. Automatic and semi automatic weapons that can be made automatic are banned outright. All people must have a license to own a gun, and in order to get one you do a course for ten weeks, one night a week to prove that you know how to look after it safely and carry out maintence on it. Just this alone makes a huge cut in accidental injury by ensuring that people can look after these things.

People that have a mental illness or criminal history may not own a gun for obvious reasons

I am not suggesting that people should not be able to own guns, yet at the same time, if someone is mental, what is the point of allowing them to have a gun so they can go and cause tragedy's? What is the point of allowing people to arm themselves with Sniper able guns in order to carry out random killings. No doubt that control can never stop all crime or all situations, yet it certainley does cut those things down. If it saves one life, it is more than worth it.

 

I find it rather interesting that people want freedom more than safety. Would these same people advocate copies of the "Anarchist's Handbook" being passed out to school children? If a person wished to do this, he would be free to do that, would he not? Would freedom be more important than safety here?

As far as the laws in Australia, I am all for it. Your freedom is not infringed if you as a gun owner are required to take a ten-week gun course, are required to register and and all firearms, and are even required to register the buying of ammunition. Personally, I'd like to see a 400% tax on firearms - we'd be able to pay for education, and there would be fewer firearms in the hands of people. (And no one's freedoms would be taken away in this instance!)

The more hoops, the better, I say. If someone wants to drive, in Florida, he or she is required to take a drug and alcohol class, pass a physical test, a written text, and actually drive to prove that he or she is worthy of receiving a license. Let's do the same (and then some) for anyone who wants to own and fire a gun. For those who choose not to, but are found with a gun, let us treat them as someone who is found illegally possessing crack cocaine.

Just my thoughts. (BTW, my dad has over 300 guns, including automatic assault rifles, so I've grown up in a culture of guns.)

 

Is having a driver's license a constitutionally protected right? Apples and oranges.

Background checks are the way to go. People with violent criminal pasts should no more be allowed to own a gun than terrorists. Also, keep in mind that only those with convictions for felonies are disallowed from owning a gun. The Constitution allows limits to our freedom in such cases. Just as much so as it allows us to lock-up people and take away their freedom when they commit crimes.

If every state had the gun laws of Texas, plus background checks at gun shows, I believe we would see the violent crimes' rate fall. If I'm not mistaken, Texas has more gunowners per capita than any other state. Anyone have any figures to back me up?

I like Archie Bunker's idea for defending against terrorists. When you get on an airplane they should hand everyone a gun. When you get off they can take them back up again. If everyone's armed, then terrorists would think twice about trying to hijack the plane.

 

How do the requirements to go through owning and operating a gun in anyway impair a person's constitutionally protected right?

By that same argument, why should a felon not be allowed to have a gun? Are you not taking away their constitutional right to do so? What about the right of terrorists to own guns? If the Constitution limits certain freedoms, why not have the requirements that I have listed above?

 

In the same way that requiring a poll tax or a 'literacy test' for blacks was an impairment to their/our constitutional right to vote.

We don't have a 'right' to drive. We do, however, have a right to own guns.

The Supreme Court interpreted long ago that right's could be suspended when we put in jeopardy the safety of others. My simply owning a gun does not put anyone in jeopardy. My robbing a bank with a gun demostrates that my owning a gun has and will put other people in jeopardy.

It's the same way that a convicted murderer who walks the streets puts other people in jeopardy. That's why we put them in prison, cutting off his right to freedom.

We all have rights to be used within the confines of the law. We we don't excecise those rights properly, we run the risk of forfeiting some of them.

When everyone in the country who owns a gun goes out and commits a violent crime using their weapon, then I'll be all for the 'no guns' law, but until then, those of us who abide by the laws still have a right to keep and bear arms.

We only punish those who break the law, not everyone who could conceivably could break the law.


It would be like having your house illegally searched everyday because, technically, you could be hiding evidence against you of some kind. Since you're for suspending Amendment 2, would you also be for suspending Amendment 4 in order to catch a terrorist? If the government could search the home of everyone in the country, they would almost certainly uncover some plot against America, or at least get a whacko off of the streets. Would that be okay?

When we start giving up all of our freedoms in order to be 'safe', we cease to be a Republic/Democracy and become a Communist or Dictatorial government where there are no freedoms, and where we live in relative peace against all enemies, except of course the tyrannical government that we have made.

No, I don't think we'll be going for that and I think there are enough Americans who want to continue freedom in this country who will back me up on that.

 

I'm not requiring that a person be able to read to own guns. I'm requiring a safety course and registration. Huge difference.

Within the mandates of the law. If the law is made where a person must do X, Y, and Z to vote, then so be it. Even to vote, a person must get a voter registration card, and I believe even be signed up for selective service.

Says you.

And registration and a ten-week safety course will ensure that to a point. An ounce of prevention is worth a ton of cure.

But if we were able to rehibilitate him before he killed someone, wouldn't that be even better?

And Americans have shown by their staggeringly high rate of homocides, gun violence, and gun accidents that we as a whole are not exercising those rights.

What about 50% who own guns committing a crime? Will that be acceptable to you?

How is requiring registration of guns and ammunition and a mandatory 10-week class "punishment?"

Slippery slope argument - a logical fallacy. I'm not advocating the suspension of Amendment 2 - I'm saying that we should make it very hard to own a gun. Not impossible. Just hard - those who truly want guns would go through the hoops to get one.

Another slippery slope. That's used way too often in the pro-gun and NRA rhetoric.

I'd rather not be shot, thanks. Making restrictions on owning and firing guns does not mean that we are giving up on freedom, and the burden of proof is on you to show that it does mean that.

 

I will back you up Bro JR. Most people that support the gun are from TX anyways. I believe my block has about 70-80% gun owners. =o)

Speaking of gun shows, the last one I went to was at the George R and wasn't very good. I miss the astrohall shows that were connected to the antique shows. Those were huge and you could make a whole day of it. Background checks would be a good thing.

azwyld
<*}}}><

 

Scottemerson,

Would you agree that honorable service in the U.S. military should exempt citizens from having to take any kind of gun safety course in order to legally own and carry a gun?

 

If gun safety is something that is taught during boot camp, then I would agree that an honorable discharge would allow an exemption for such a course, but NOT the registration. Even ex-military men and women can commit violent crimes, no matter how honorably they served in uniform.

 

So do you believe that ex-military personnel are more prone to violence than the average non-military citizen? And how would registration help reduce violent crime?

 

From what I've been able to find, the rate of violence is lower (although the sexual assault rate is higher) for those who have been in the military, however, just because one has been in the military does not preclude them from ever committing a violent gun crime.

In a 2001 article, "Relationship between licensing, registration, and other gun sales laws and the source state of crime guns" written by Webster, Vernick, and Hepburn in the journal Injury Prevention, the data is examined carefully, and registration actually limited criminals from purchasing guns to use in crimes. Licensing and registrations did a pretty good job at keeping guns out of criminals and juveniles hands. It also helps law enforcement track down the used weapon and the person who fired it a great deal.

From the article: "Permit-to-purchase licensing systems require prospective gun purchasers to have direct contact with law enforcement or judicial authorities that scrutinize purchase applications, and some allow these agencies broad discretion to disapprove applications. Some licensing laws require applicants to be fingerprinted and allow officials weeks or even months to conduct extensive background checks. Mandatory registration makes it easier to trace guns used in crime to their last known legal owner, and to investigate possible illegal transfers. In combination, these laws have the potential to significantly restrict gun acquisition by high risk individuals through stricter eligibility criteria, safeguards against falsified applications, and increased legal risks and costs associated with illegal gun transfers to proscribed individuals."

One of the conclusions of the article is that, "Understanding the benefits of restrictive firearm sales laws can help policymakers to make informed legislative choices. Our findings suggest that comprehensive gun sales regulations that include permit-to-purchase licensing and registration can affect the availability of guns to criminals. Conversely, the absence of these regulations may increase the availability of guns to criminals in nearby states."

One can only hope that the entire nation chooses to make licensing and registration of all firearms (even the ones already owned) mandatory.

 

Scott,

Have you personally known anyone in the following categories?

1. Someone who was accidentally killed while mishandling a firearm?
2. Someone who was accidentally killed while someone else was mishandling a firearm?
3. Someone who was murdered with a firearm?
4. Someone who killed another human with a firearm?
5. Someone who defended their life or the lives of others with a firearm?
6. Someone who has had a firearm stolen?

My point is that most of us know of more cases in category six than in any other category. If all states required gun registration and licensing tomorrow - criminals would still have access to guns from their most common source - Stealing them.

With the wide proliferation of firearms in this country, mandatory registration of all purchased firearms and previously owned firearms would have little effect on crime and simply put more of an administrative burden on already strapped law-enforcement agencies as well as place more of a financial burden on honest gun owners.

Mandatory registration of previously owned firearms also makes criminals out of gun owners who refuse to register, forget to register, or even forget that Grandpa's squirrel gun or Great Grandpa's Civil War Pistol is still up in the attic.

Let's put the blame of gun crime where it belongs - on Criminals and let's strengthen the way the courts deal with gun crimes. In cities and states where Prosecutors and Judges have low tolerance of gun crime - statistics show that gun crimes decrease significantly.

 

Scott,

As far as fingerprinting ex-military personnel who purchase guns - those prints are already on file with the Feds.

I personally resent the fact that there are those in this country who were willing for me to be trained in the use of deadly force in the military and sent to Viet Nam for a year of duty in a combat zone and still require that I jump through legal hoops and Pay to be registered and licensed to own and use a firearm on my own farm.

I was trusted to carry a fully automatic assault weapon along with hand gernades and other weapons of deadly force and now am not trusted enough to carry a .22 rimfire rifle in the woods to shoot squirrels?

Scott, as the Democrats learned this year in November, there are some issues that people in the USA will not waver on. More Gun Control Laws fall in that category.

 

No. Yes. Yes. Yes. No. No.

Then immediately the crime would be reported and you still have the benefit of being able to identify the gun that has been used for a crime. I would question that the most common source of weapon that is used in violent crime comes from guns that are stolen, and I would request proof for such an assertion.

Not at all. If people don't want to pay the financial burden, they are more than welcome to turn them in to have them destroyed. We could do a lot at reducing the number of guns in America that way. The same statement was made in Canada before they cracked down on guns, and yet Canada was able to make it a reality, even though they had more people per-capita who owned at least one gun. Their crime rate plummeted, and people were still allowed to hold guns. So, I don't buy that argument as it has been successfully done before.

So? What is your point? This argument can be made of virtually any new law that has ever been passed.

I'd be interested to see your statistics for that, and how they adjust for the current gun licensing and registration laws - or am I supposed to take your word for it? Why focus on merely what happens after the homocide instead of working to prevent them from happening in the first place?

So? If an ex-military person wants to work with children in a government program, they must be fingerprinted again. If it is something they want, they will be willing to spend a few minutes to get fingerprinted again.

I don't. You have to jump through "legal hoops" to buy a house, to drive a car, even to but a cellular phone. Neither a house nor a cellular phone can kill someone. A firearm can.

I trust you to carry it. I just want it on record that you have one, what kind of gun it is, and be able to search you out if it is ever used in a violent crime.

Sure, because gun control was such a big factor in the exit polls that went around.

Here are some real facts about public support for gun control (from T.W. Smith's "National Gun Policy Survey of the National Opinion Research Center" [2000])

89.6% are in favor of tamper-resistant serial numbers on guns.
82.0% believe that a police permit must be needed before a gun may be purchased.
80.7% believe that there should be a mandatory background check and 5-day waiting period for gun purchases.
80.0% say that there should be a mandatory registration of handguns.
79.9% believe that a person should be 21 before being able to buy a handfun.
78.6% believe that a background check must be give for private sales of guns
73.4% believe that handgun ammunition should be restricted as handguns themselves.
71.4% would be willing to pay $25 in takes to reduce gun injuries (that would pay for the registration campaign!)
69.8% favors keeping guns from criminals, even if that makes it harder for law-abiding citizens to obtain guns.
66.6% would ban high-capacity ammunition magazines.
61.3% favor registration of rifles and shotguns.
55.6% favor only allowing certain people, such as policemen, to carry concealed weapons.
And a majority (65.7%) agree with me that handgun ownders should be licensed by the government and complete mandatory training.

So the area of public opinion is on my side, not the side of the gun-owners.

 

Then why is your side not winning any elections or passing any legislation?

You simply don't have the votes.

 

Here's a starting place to read.

The Failed Experiment

 

And here are survey results which counter your survey results.

What American Voters Believe About
Firearm Owners` Rights And Hunting

The highly respected research firm Zogby International has conducted the first installment of its 2004 Zogby Values Poll, surveying 1,200 voters nationwide on issues that included firearms and hunting issues. Working with the Tower Center for Political Studies at Southern Methodist University and the O`Leary Report, Zogby`s questions interestingly examine differences in thinking between people living in the states that voted for George Bush in 2000 (Red states) and Al Gore (Blue states).

Voters were asked: "Do you agree or disagree that American firearm manufacturers who sell a legal product that is not defective should be allowed to be sued if a criminal uses their products in a crime?"

Voters in both Red and Blue states strongly oppose such lawsuits—74% of the former and 72% of the latter. In fact, a majority in every demographic group opposed the lawsuits; the most strongly opposed, at 83%, were current members of the military and their families.

The survey also examined how Americans feel about Right-to-Carry laws, with the pollster asking: "Currently 36 states have laws that allow residents to qualify for a permit to carry a firearm to protect themselves if they pass a background check, if they participate in firearms training and pay a fee to cover administrative costs. Do you feel this is a good law or a bad law?"

Voters overwhelming favor these self-protection laws by a margin of 79% to 18%. Right-to-Carry drew better than 70% support in every demographic group, with even non-gun owners indicating their backing by 73% to 23%.

The survey also asked: "Which of the following two statements regarding gun control comes closer to your own opinion? Statement A: There needs to be new and tougher gun control legislation to help in the fight against gun crime; Statement B: There are enough laws on the books. What is needed is better enforcement of current laws regarding gun control."

By a better than two-to-one margin—66% to 31%—voters nationwide agreed with Statement B. Only self-identified liberals called for more laws, by a 53% to 44% margin. Moderates solidly favored better enforcement, 62% to 34%.

Voters were asked: "Do you agree the NRA is right to fight gun control on both the federal and state levels?" NRA`s support stood at 64%, with a party affiliation breakdown showed Democrats siding with NRA 54% to 42% and Republicans 73% to 22%.

Voters were also asked about hunting: "Which of the follow statements comes closer to your opinion? Statement A: Killing wild animals for food or sport is an American tradition and an essential part of wildlife management. Statement B: Hunting is a cruel sport and should be outlawed." Statement A was chosesn by of 92% of gun owners and 73% of non-gun owners.

The survey also addressed wildlife overpopulation, asking: "Some states in America are being overrun with growing populations of deer, bear, or wolves. When this happens, which of the following do you feel is the best option to take? 1) The state should lengthen hunting seasons; 2) Non-lethal methods of control should be used; 3) People should learn to live with wildlife."

Lengthening hunting seasons was the overwhelming response, chosen by 61% of the voters, while only 18% said use non-lethal methods, and 16% opted for coexistence.

The entire 2004 Zogby Values Poll can be found at www.olearyreport.com.

Posted: 1/16/2004

(I have permission to post this article in toto.)

 

The Failed Experiment has several data problems.

On page nine, we read, "To the extent that stolen guns are involved in criminal violence, one needs to examing thefts from military or police armories as well as individuals. A sizeable proportion of the gun stock in Canada is in the hands of the authorities and these guns are stored in large armories that are not always as well guarded as they should be. It is extremely difficult to estimate how many thefts take place annually from official armories, as statistics are unavailable. Nevertheless, one can speculate that firearms stolen from the police or military probably account for an important percentage of guns used in crime." Probably? Speculate? That's not real science - that's conjecture, plain and simple.

The paper is also contradicted from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, which show that gun homicide is down 9% from last year. Interesting that the paper doesn't mention that...

Other interesting statements - In America 63% of murders are done with guns, in other countries, between 9 - 31% are done with guns. Suicide rates show similar results.

Even the article mentions that one of the main reasons why gun violence isn't affected in England is due to the problem with fully having all guns registered, so that's somewhat of a red herring.

The information that is presented as far as Australia goes against much of what the Australia Bureau of Statistics reports, and I wonder why the disparity is there.

In other words, there are too many conjectures, speculations, and bias for a person to reasonably take this article seriously. Go through and see how many times the author says, "may" without specific data that shows causation.

All of this continues to beg the question - why are Americans so much more homocidal than other nations?

http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/[email protected]/0/76c8926bd8a12e1fca2568a9001393f2?OpenDocument

"The offence categories with the largest number of victims recorded by Australian police during 2002 were other theft (679,460), unlawful entry with intent (394,374) and assault (159,548). The number of victims decreased between 2001 and 2002 across most offence categories (see graph below). This was particularly the case for offences involving the taking of property. Victims of robbery decreased by 21%-with armed robbery reducing by 30%, motor vehicle theft decreased by 19%, unlawful entry with intent decreased by 9% and other theft decreased by 3%. Other offence categories to record a decrease included homicide and related offences (9%), kidnapping/abduction (9%) and blackmail/extortion (3%)."


One of the graphs on the top of page 11 makes it appear that the rate of English homicide rates is higher than American rates. However, the England numbers are 12 per 1,000,000 people, while the American numbers are 8 per 100,000. That's blatant misrepresentation. The paper itself on the surface appears to be a serious study, but it's quite clear that the author has a specific point to pursue.