Gun/antigun thread

[GollyMrScience]

I once again raise the point that you do not need registration to create de facto gun bans.
When you have a license to own something or use something you have the ownership or use of that item only by the good will of the licensing body. It is then possible to create a gun ban within any group, class or individual by taking away or suspending their license.
If you no longer have a license to own a gun then any gun in your possession is illegal and you are a criminal. The bravado that some might apply saying the Government will never get their guns does not negate the fact that the Government can make your guns useless to use unless in open revolt or similar illegal use.
In Canada we have some estimates that less than half of the gun owners actually registered their firearms and got a license. Many of us that actively use our guns did not take that option but we are now keeping our guns at the good grace of our Government.
The rest who ignored the decree and have taken their chances by not registering their gopher guns. Many have found they can no longer dare use their gun openly and have discovered the Government has indeed accomplished a gun ban without taking the guns. Even so, many have chosen to hide their guns rather than give them up.
Hence the popular joke here about a neighbor leaning over the fence and asking:
Hey why are you dumping oil on your garden?
The reply:
So my guns don't rust.

That has been shortened into a kind of underground code phrase by many who have chosen to stash guns with covert reference to that by saying "I've been oiling my garden".
Meanwhile we have gang bangers shooting up downtown Toronto while farmers live in fear of a knock at the door by the RCMP.
I therefore humbly submit that with this as precedence gun owners elsewhere ar a bit leary about licensing and where it can lead. Therefore any viable licensing system must address that concern or is doomed to fail.

[Leisureguy]

People vote. Unreasonable restrictions on licenses would bring a voter backlash, at least in this country. The NRA already has considerable power over many politicians, which shows how the vote has power.

[Joe Lerch]

you do not need registration to create de facto gun bans.

That certainly is true. An oppressive government can just as easily ban guns when there are no licenses as when there are licenses.

The only difference is that the licensing scheme gives them a shorter list of people where they can start looking. The government could also pass a law that having a license gives them probable cause for searching you home. I'm not saying any of this would be Constitutional. These are just arguments that could be made against licensing. So, licensing is not entirely without risk, but neither is law enforcement.

[MOSES]

Valid concern. However, I bet most of those countries also don't have a 4th Amendment. I don't see that kind of search ever passing muster.

Most democracies have some requirement of probable cause. Besides I don't see an outright violation of the 4th amendment if Congress provided that a license to use a weapon was probable cause that you might have one. That would have to be tested.

Of course you are right that probable cause is generally required, although I believe the standard is sometimes more flexible, which is what I was getting at. And, yes, it would have to be tested. But of course Congress saying it is probable cause doesn't mean the federal courts would agree. And on this one, I personally think they would find a lack. Has the potential to get votes from both the conservatives on the court who are concerned about the 2nd Amendment issues, and the more liberal justices who are more concerned about the 4th Amendment. But you really never know.

-Mo

[MOSES]

I disagree. I oppose the death penalty, btw, and agree in that context. But what you say would suggest that even police should not shoot someone even to save lives. No? I doubt you do mean that, but how not? At any rate, if someone is a serious, and illegal threat to the lives of family members, I think it is perfectly acceptable for a sane and intelligent person to decide it is appropriate for them to die. Likewise, if someone decides to go on a shooting rampage, I think is is appropriate for someone with a concealed weapon to decide they need to die, when it is clearly necessary to save other innocent lives, or their own.

-Mo

I don't think that's a decision for any individual. However, he may decide that his life or that of someone else is in danger and that he needs to use deadly force to prevent serious harm or a killing. That's not the same as deciding that someone needs to die and killing them (premeditation). Althought the result may be the same, a jury would have to make very different findings of fact in the two circumstances.

Ok. Maybe I wasn't clear. You expressed what I was getting at more clearly.

-Mo

[honkdonker]

I don't know if any of you have faced this situation. I have encountered burglars in my house in the middle of the night. They are all bravado and so on. However, as soon as they see my gun, they changed quite drastically. If they would have pulled a gun, I would have shot them. Why else have a gun? Call it bravado if you wish, but I would have hated to think what may have happened if I did not have that gun when I encountered them.

Gun should be licensed. Psychological test for ownership? That is a red herring in my view. We don't need that kind of big brotherism, do we? Who decides what the test will be, some gunner hater from a big city? A gun lover from a rural way of life? No, as soon as you start doing that, you really start to cause problems. What's next? Finding out the ethnic grouping that causes the most crime and then ban them from owning a gun? I sympathize, but it just aint gonna work.

[sysiphus]

I don't know if any of you have faced this situation. I have encountered burglars in my house in the middle of the night. They are all bravado and so on. However, as soon as they see my gun, they changed quite drastically.

It has been said that the scariest sound in the dark is the sound of a shell being racked into the chamber of a 12ga.
Guns, can at times provide a psychological advantage when the other party isn't aware of its presence. Tactical advantage not withstanding.

[Joe Lerch]

Gun should be licensed. Psychological test for ownership? That is a red herring in my view. We don't need that kind of big brotherism, do we? Who decides what the test will be, some gunner hater from a big city? A gun lover from a rural way of life? No, as soon as you start doing that, you really start to cause problems. What's next? Finding out the ethnic grouping that causes the most crime and then ban them from owning a gun? I sympathize, but it just aint gonna work.

It's not quite a red herring. It's one of the biggest problems we have. That guy at VA Thech should never have been allowed to carry a gun in public, certainly not a concealed one. The first order of business is to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally unbalanced. It wouldn't take a lot to filter out guys like that one. And it means strict enforcement againt sellers and manufacturers who bend the rules. That has to be unprofitable for them.

Since medical records tend to be protected, you need to have some kind of test. Just asking tha applicant wouldn't do it. The test could be quite objective, and it could be approved by the NRA. There could also be a basic skills test approved or even created by the NRA. It's one of the greatest things they could do for the promotion of safe gun ownership.

Your scenario is emotionally appealing, but very shortsighted. A more common scenario is where someone is shot (maybe in their own home) by someone they know well, or accidentally, or even by mishandling a gun, such as by a child.

A shotgun is pretty easy to use as a threat, but a more common scenario is the person who pulls a handgun on an armed burglar and stands there with his hand shaking, because he really has no training. He can be overpowered or even shot by a criminal with only a little experience. This scenario and all the accidental shootings demand that anyone who owns a gun and intends to use it should have some training. At least enough to have the confidence to hold and use the weapon properly.

[MOSES]

It's not quite a red herring. It's one of the biggest problems we have. That guy at VA Thech should never have been allowed to carry a gun in public, certainly not a concealed one. The first order of business is to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally unbalanced. It wouldn't take a lot to filter out guys like that one. And it means strict enforcement againt sellers and manufacturers who bend the rules. That has to be unprofitable for them.

Actually, under existing rules, that individual should not have been able to buy a gun. It was really a record keeping/communication issue. He had been evaluated by a competent professional as a danger to himself, after being taken into custody. The problem is that because he was then released on a promise to undertake outpatient care (another issue - he did not, and there was no mechanism to track that). Under existing VA laws, that would make him fail the background check to buy a gun. The only problem is that because he was released, rather than committed to inpatient care, there was not a mechanism to transmit the record to the background check system. Hence, he was overlooked. I have not followed, but I am sure the VA legislature is scrambling to correct this. It is not the seller who was responsible, and stiffer rules against him wouldn't have helped. He ran the check as he was supposed to, and undoubtedly would have refused to sell if it had come up negative. But due to a bug in the system, basically, it did not.

-Mo

[Joe Lerch]

It's not quite a red herring. It's one of the biggest problems we have. That guy at VA Thech should never have been allowed to carry a gun in public, certainly not a concealed one. The first order of business is to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally unbalanced. It wouldn't take a lot to filter out guys like that one. And it means strict enforcement againt sellers and manufacturers who bend the rules. That has to be unprofitable for them.

Actually, under existing rules, that individual should not have been able to buy a gun. It was really a record keeping/communication issue. He had been evaluated by a competent professional as a danger to himself, after being taken into custody. The problem is that because he was then released on a promise to undertake outpatient care (another issue - he did not, and there was no mechanism to track that). Under existing VA laws, that would make him fail the background check to buy a gun. The only problem is that because he was released, rather than committed to inpatient care, there was not a mechanism to transmit the record to the background check system. Hence, he was overlooked. I have not followed, but I am sure the VA legislature is scrambling to correct this. It is not the seller who was responsible, and stiffer rules against him wouldn't have helped. He ran the check as he was supposed to, and undoubtedly would have refused to sell if it had come up negative. But due to a bug in the system, basically, it did not.

-Mo

But a brief examination by a professional would have revealed the problem. I'm proposing that such examination be done, either at an agency or by a private doctor. In either case the patient would be required to give the doctor to search all medical records (without revealing anything). THe doctor could then do a full evaluation and certify yes or no.

[MOSES]

But a brief examination by a professional would have revealed the problem. I'm proposing that such examination be done, either at an agency or by a private doctor. In either case the patient would be required to give the doctor to search all medical records (without revealing anything). THe doctor could then do a full evaluation and certify yes or no.

So you are suggesting a brief psychological evaluation at the time of getting a license to purchase guns? Just making clear I understand. Interesting idea. Maybe not a bad one. Can't decide what I think of it.

-Mo

[minderasr]

An interesting article I came across today (sent to me by a friend).

http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/read ... Num=185167

[Joe Lerch]

But a brief examination by a professional would have revealed the problem. I'm proposing that such examination be done, either at an agency or by a private doctor. In either case the patient would be required to give the doctor to search all medical records (without revealing anything). THe doctor could then do a full evaluation and certify yes or no.

So you are suggesting a brief psychological evaluation at the time of getting a license to purchase guns? Just making clear I understand. Interesting idea. Maybe not a bad one. Can't decide what I think of it.

-Mo

It would be a requirement to get a license. It doesn't have to be at any particular time, but you must pass it before you get a license. I think you would need a separate appointment with a professional. It's like what happens in a trial. You release all medical records to him (only), and he would make an evaluation. He would have prof responsibility to you and liability to the state. Your record would contain only his certification and a form report. WIthout a certification you couldn't get the license.

It could be a simple form examination approved by a national psychological board. If you got the NRA to approve it, they would become associated with quality control, not just a promotional organization. It's kind of like a labor union taking on responsibility to regulate quality in addition to protecting workers.

[Joe Lerch]

An interesting article I came across today (sent to me by a friend).

http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/read ... Num=185167

What, exactly, does your picture show?

The article demonstrates what I was talking about. If she had a pistol and didn't know how to use it, she probably would have missed and been shot to death on the spot. To me the key point is that she was competent handling the weapon and comfortable using it. That's why I believe in licensing and requiring a competency test to protect the user and innocents around him.

[slcsteve]

An interesting article I came across today (sent to me by a friend).

http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/read ... Num=185167

Perhaps it also shows that there may be more than just a few 'urban legends' appearing from time to time.

If you read the total replies to the story, there is bit of doubt as to the authenticity of the story.

[Leisureguy]

Snopes certainly thinks it's an urban legend.

[honkdonker]

Gun should be licensed. Psychological test for ownership? That is a red herring in my view. We don't need that kind of big brotherism, do we? Who decides what the test will be, some gunner hater from a big city? A gun lover from a rural way of life? No, as soon as you start doing that, you really start to cause problems. What's next? Finding out the ethnic grouping that causes the most crime and then ban them from owning a gun? I sympathize, but it just aint gonna work.

Your scenario is emotionally appealing, but very shortsighted. A more common scenario is where someone is shot (maybe in their own home) by someone they know well, or accidentally, or even by mishandling a gun, such as by a child.

A shotgun is pretty easy to use as a threat, but a more common scenario is the person who pulls a handgun on an armed burglar and stands there with his hand shaking, because he really has no training. Have you ever heard of buck fever? Talk to the millions of people, many well experienced, who shake like heck when they have a buck in the sights. All the training in the world doens't prevent shaking. Just ask the hunters of the cops who have had to pull guns and have shook.

He can be overpowered or even shot by a criminal with only a little experience. This scenario and all the accidental shootings demand that anyone who owns a gun and intends to use it should have some training. At least enough to have the confidence to hold and use the weapon properly.

Huh? Shortsighted? Please explain. What do you mean a more common scenario? I am relating a personal incident here. How you see that is short sighted is beyond me.

I don't disagree with the training scenario.

Joe, while your thoughts are laudable, re: psychological testing, don't you think it is just a wee bit simplistic to think that a form can identify the people you are trying to rule out. The human mind is a complex thing. To think a form, even if approved by the NRA! is going to prevent gun violence, is naive, in my view.

Sure, anyone can come up with a form designed by all of the best experts, but to think it is going to do what you propose it will is just, well, silly.

It isn't Joe Gunowner who is the problem. It is Joe Criminal.

Do something about the culture of violence on TV, music, movies, etc, and you will see less murders.

I submit that before the advent of violence glorification of the US culture, gun murders, per capita, were much lower. Does anyone have any stats for that? It would be interesting.

[GollyMrScience]

Just a point here. While it is often said that most shootings occur between two people who are known to one another what is often excluded in the description is that the majority of violence of this type is between two or more CRIMINALS who know each other.
While the husband or wife who finish an argument with a gun,or a child having a gun accident or stopping crazy people from getting guns are all important the people using guns to kill each other the most are people with known felony histories who should by law already be excluded from owning guns. They are notoriously poor sports about filling in forms or complying with gun laws. They are also not hampered by any of the well intentioned rules put in place that the law abiding folks obey.
Right now in Canada we are facing an arms race of sorts as criminals who used to carry a knife are escalating their armament because their competition is. The usual Government response is to apply ever more laws on the law abiding while the bad guys carry on business as usual.

[honkdonker]

Just a point here. While it is often said that most shootings occur between two people who are known to one another what is often excluded in the description is that the majority of violence of this type is between two or more CRIMINALS who know each other.
While the husband or wife who finish an argument with a gun,or a child having a gun accident or stopping crazy people from getting guns are all important the people using guns to kill each other the most are people with known felony histories who should by law already be excluded from owning guns. They are notoriously poor sports about filling in forms or complying with gun laws. They are also not hampered by any of the well intentioned rules put in place that the law abiding folks obey.
Right now in Canada we are facing an arms race of sorts as criminals who used to carry a knife are escalating their armament because their competition is. The usual Government response is to apply ever more laws on the law abiding while the bad guys carry on business as usual.

well put, golly. government is afraid/unable to do anything substantive about the bad guys. all the laws in the world are not gonna stop the bad guys. history proves this.

the fact of the matter in America is that a gun culture society fosters gun violence. that is not a critiscism, but a fact. if people want guns, and even if they want them with any sort of means test, there are going to be bad guys using them. heck, bad guys always use good things for bad purposes.

prime example is dynamite and mr. nobel, its inventor. he was so dismayed that a false report of his death in a newspaper said something to effect that dr. death is dead, that he created the nobel peace prize, etc from his wealth.

bottom line is, as long as america has untold billions of guns, the cat is out of the bag. it is too late to solve the problem to any satisfaction short of confiscation which i certainly don't advocate. who needs another civil war.

you can't cure the symptoms until you get rid of the cause. in this case, as unpalatable as it might be, or as emotional as one might feel about the issue, you are only ever going to treat the symptoms if guns are so freely available. the same can be said about drugs, porn, vehicles or whatever.

again, liberty and freedom are NOT free. there is a cost. people want the freedom, and of course do not want the cost. can't have it both ways.

[MOSES]

Just a point here. While it is often said that most shootings occur between two people who are known to one another what is often excluded in the description is that the majority of violence of this type is between two or more CRIMINALS who know each other.
While the husband or wife who finish an argument with a gun,or a child having a gun accident or stopping crazy people from getting guns are all important the people using guns to kill each other the most are people with known felony histories who should by law already be excluded from owning guns. They are notoriously poor sports about filling in forms or complying with gun laws. They are also not hampered by any of the well intentioned rules put in place that the law abiding folks obey.
Right now in Canada we are facing an arms race of sorts as criminals who used to carry a knife are escalating their armament because their competition is. The usual Government response is to apply ever more laws on the law abiding while the bad guys carry on business as usual.

I agree that this is a very serious problem, and a very legitimate point.

-Mo