Proof That Gun Control and Gun Bans Work

[handjive]

FlyNavy, glad to see we agree on some things for a change

Licensing, once again, punishes the law abiding. Criminals aren't going to get licensed. All you're doing is infringing on the rights of those who have done nothing unlawful. And once again, please stop using the car analogy. [highlight]You have absolutely no right to own and drive a car.[/highlight]

Although I have to disagree on this one. How is obtaining a license punishing anyone? Forget the legal issues of gun ownership, I would feel a lot better if more gun owners took *some* kind of course to make us a bit safer. Some of the folks at the gun range scare me because of their lack of knowledge or skill in using a gun. These are the idiots who shoot themselves or others while cleaning their guns.

Regarding the car analogy: In this instance, it is used in regards to the "proof I can use this thing safely" factor and not in the "right to have" factor. You are right, we don't have a constitutional right to drive a car (thank goodness). However, we do have a constitutional right to vote, and we are required to register for that.

Compromise is what will get guns banned.

Uh-oh, you are falling into the trap of the NRA "all-or-nothing" mantra. Compromise doesn't mean give in. I expect the anti-gun lobby to compromise too! (hopefully a little more than the pro-gun folks).

 

[handjive]

Oh yeah, one thing I wanted to make clear: I do not support the registration of each and every firearm. When I talk about licenses, I'm reffering to an individual license (just like my concealed weapons permit). One that would be renewed every so often. If you commit a crime, then your license is revoked permanently or for a pre-determined period.

 

[A4sForever]

..... When I talk about licenses, I'm reffering to an individual license ......One that would be renewed every so often. If you commit a crime, then your license is revoked permanently or for a pre-determined period.

No way .... you don't "license" your rights ... unless you want them to be subject to "UN"licensing. Did I just say "UN"?? No pun intended ..... In some jurisdictions your "license" will get revoked just by being accused of an infraction or by having a restraining order issued against you.

 

[handjive]

So as it stands right now (in most of the states I've lived in), you need to apply for a concealed weapon permit. All you have to show is that you have taken a gun safety course (or received equivalent training) and that you have no criminal record.

Do you oppose this system for concealed permits? It seems perfectly logical to me, and I don't see any problems incorporating it or something similar to it for regular gun ownership. We could do away with the waiting period and mandatory background check for dealers. All that would be taken care of with the license. Then, all we have to do is show our license, make the purchase and go home!

Convicted felony criminals should not be allowed to own a firearm, period. I absolutely think that some rights should be UN-licensed for those deserving of such treatment. We restrict all kinds of rights of criminals, why is this any different?

Some people worry about us having to defend ourselves against an oppressive government (one of our founding fathers intentions with #2), but if it really came down to that today, licenses wouldn't matter anyway. We would all be running around shooting at those trying to enforce the corrupt govt laws anyway, no?

 

[Fly Navy]

Protesting liscenses exist, do they not? Nobody gets a liscense to write a letter or make a post here, and nobody liscenses a pocket knife. But organized protests and firearms, I believe, are registered. Maybe the analogy is poor; it does apply to both the First and Second.

Protesting licenses exist because a large protest will completely disrupt the way of life for a city/town. You don't need a license to walk around with a sign protesting. Your large protest may also require police protection.

And no, firearms are not registered. Not in most states. Only in a few select "occupied territories" as we like to say.

Yes, it is hard to understand. How do you keep a criminal from buying legal guns if legal ones are not liscensed (and therefore force them to buy illegal ones)? Aren't liscenses what ensure that most guns are "legal" and force criminals to use illegal guns, thereby protecting most owners? Also (and this is where it gets sticky and potential corruption comes in; i.e. profiling/suspecting because someone owns a gun), if someone legally buys a gun, and is suspected suspected of a crime and needs to be brought in, wouldn't it be nice for the cops to know what they might be up against if said party became hostile (something they would know through liscensing?)?

How do you keep a criminal from buying a legal gun? Easy, enforce the current laws. You go through a background check everytime you buy a gun from a dealer. If they're a badguy, they don't get it. Private sales right now don't have a background check, but the seller is legally responsible for making sure the person is not a felon.

The concept of a legal gun is artificial as well. It's just a tool. It's the act or person that is illegal. And no, I don't want that "nice fuzzy feeling" of knowing what I"m up against. And, like we've said, it's not the licensed owners (in your system) that would be committing the crimes. It's the bad guys who you have no clue about. You're still assuming that criminals would license themselves and then you could track them, etc. That's not how it would work. You'd only license law abiding citizens... and well, they're not going to be committing very many crimes.

I'm not fighting you; I promise! You are exactly right; I don't understand, and am terribly ignorant (read: growing up in Southern California with anti-gun family... and silently not agreeing...).

Get out as soon as possible. Your brain will only rot more! Believe me! I grew up in Massachusetts, it's just as bad. We DO license up there, and your license can be revoked or denied for ANY reason they deem acceptable.

 

[A4sForever]

So as it stands right now (in most of the states I've lived in), you need to apply for a concealed weapon permit ..... Do you oppose this system for concealed permits? It seems perfectly logical to me

I'm a reasonable person. So on the face of it ... no I shouldn't oppose licensing. Aye, but there's the rub.

I am also a law-abiding citizen. I do not commit crimes. I would put myself physically at risk to protect you -- were you to find yourself in extremis .... so should I be licensed to do that on your behalf ??

Criminals have no compunction nor any inclination to "get licensed". So why, in God's name, would you want me (law-abiding) or yourself, for example, to be licensed??? It defies all logic ... from a pure, rational perspective.

We're not gonna' agree on this. I am licensed because I HAVE to be .... you, because you WANT to be ..... there's the difference -- just go with it.

 

[Fly Navy]

FlyNavy, glad to see we agree on some things for a change

What is this world coming to?!

Although I have to disagree on this one. How is obtaining a license punishing anyone? Forget the legal issues of gun ownership, I would feel a lot better if more gun owners took *some* kind of course to make us a bit safer. Some of the folks at the gun range scare me because of their lack of knowledge or skill in using a gun. These are the idiots who shoot themselves or others while cleaning their guns.

So promote gun safety. Offer more classes, not just through the NRA. You know marksmanship training used to be mandatory? That's how the ODCMP came about. Teddy Roosevelt was smart implementing that. Unfortunately, the gradual decline towards fear and PC has taken that away. Believe it or not, many problems that arise with firearms stem from lack of training and education. Just like most problems in the world.

However, we do have a constitutional right to vote, and we are required to register for that.

So that they may actually count your vote. Bit different...

Uh-oh, you are falling into the trap of the NRA "all-or-nothing" mantra. Compromise doesn't mean give in. I expect the anti-gun lobby to compromise too! (hopefully a little more than the pro-gun folks).

Crap, I didn't join the NRA until a few weeks ago and I've been a gun owner since I was 21. We are taught from a young age that you should always find the middle ground. This works in a hunky dory world or an unimportant issue. But sometimes it is not the route to go. Extreme case: Would you find middle ground with the Nazis? No. Less extreme case: Would you find middle ground with someone trying to restrict your right to free speech? No. Why find a middle ground with those who want to strip your right to Arms?

 

[Fly Navy]

Do you oppose this system for concealed permits? It seems perfectly logical to me, and I don't see any problems incorporating it or something similar to it for regular gun ownership. We could do away with the waiting period and mandatory background check for dealers. All that would be taken care of with the license. Then, all we have to do is show our license, make the purchase and go home!

Or the current system of no waiting period (in most states) and instant background check (which is flawed, but works). Your version involves the government having the power to strip your right whenever it wants.... the current only involves a background check.

Convicted felony criminals should not be allowed to own a firearm, period. I absolutely think that some rights should be UN-licensed for those deserving of such treatment. We restrict all kinds of rights of criminals, why is this any different?

Already works this way, and there is no licensing. Again, what would licensing accomplish for you that isn't already accomplished with a free system?

 

[eddie]

And no, firearms are not registered. Not in most states. Only in a few select "occupied territories" as we like to say.

Like you said, biggest problem is education (or shameful lack thereof in my case, anyway). Liscensing sounds stupid if background checks are in place. How about just mandatory safety certification?

You'd only license law abiding citizens... and well, they're not going to be committing very many crimes.

But they will commit some (with guns). This will always be the lynch-pin in an "anti-gunner" argument. "Better safe than sorry; therefore ban/liscense/restrict/whatever..." I don't know what the best way to argue against that is.

 

[handjive]

Criminals have no compunction nor any inclination to "get licensed". So why, in God's name, would you want me (law-abiding) or yourself, for example, to be licensed??? It defies all logic ... from a pure, rational perspective.

OK, so maybe my point isn't getting across as clearly as I want it to. I would only support licensing as part of a bigger plan to put the smack-down on criminals that use guns. My goal is to have licensing have little to no effect on us law-abiding folks and cause a lot of heartache for the bad guys. I'm willing to sacrifice a little of my convenience to help crack down on criminals.

The license does the exact same thing an instant background check does, with the added bonus of some gun safety/education requirements. The real benefit is that cops can confiscate guns or arrest people who are carrying a gun without a license.

You'd only license law abiding citizens... and well, they're not going to be committing very many crimes.

That's the whole idea! The license differentiates the law abiding people from the criminals.

Everyone seems concerned about the license giving the government the ability to strip away your personal right to own a firearm. They can do that now, can't they? Commit a felony and your forfeit that right. Plus, who is to say that there won't be a law proposed tomorrow to take away that right, or to ban that gun you already own? Licensing won't change any of that. I think it will make it easier to prosecute and punish criminals that use guns though.

*side note*
Here's another thing that bugs me about this issue. I 100% support our right to bear arms, but it is not the most important thing in my world. There are far more important issues that I would consider fundamental to our well-being. It blows my mind that people will vote for one person or another based solely on this one issue. I know people who would vote for someone who they disagree with on every issue but gun control. I like to own guns, but if I moved to (or was stationed in) a country that did not allow them, I could still find purpose in my life. :icon_smil

So while I would not find common ground with nazis, I do think there is reasonable common ground on gun rights.

 

[feddoc]

OK, so maybe my point isn't getting across as clearly as I want it to. I would only support licensing as part of a bigger plan to put the smack-down on criminals that use guns. My goal is to have licensing have little to no effect on us law-abiding folks and cause a lot of heartache for the bad guys. I'm willing to sacrifice a little of my convenience to help crack down on criminals.

I am not too sure that you understand that criminals won't abide by the law...they will laugh at your headache suggestion. Licensing is more than 'a littly of my convenience' it is de facto registration.


The license does the exact same thing an instant background check does, with the added bonus of some gun safety/education requirements. Not really. An instant background check tells all that you are (or are not) a criminal. The real benefit is that cops can confiscate guns or arrest people who are carrying a gun without a license.They can do that anyway.




That's the whole idea! The license differentiates the law abiding people from the criminals.
ERRRR, that is not the 'whole idea!'.




Everyone seems concerned about the license giving the government the ability to strip away your personal right to own a firearm. They can do that now, can't they? Commit a felony and your forfeit that right. Plus, who is to say that there won't be a law proposed tomorrow to take away that right, or to ban that gun you already own? Licensing won't change any of that. I think it will make it easier to prosecute and punish criminals that use guns though. There are already over 22,000 gun laws in effect today. What makes you think that THIS ONE LAW will make such a huge differenct? Crooks won't care about another law and it won't make them easier to catch.

*side note*
Here's another thing that bugs me about this issue. I 100% support our right to bear arms, but it is not the most important thing in my world. There are far more important issues that I would consider fundamental to our well-being. It blows my mind that people will vote for one person or another based solely on this one issue. I know people who would vote for someone who they disagree with on every issue but gun control. I like to own guns, but if I moved to (or was stationed in) a country that did not allow them, I could still find purpose in my life. :icon_smil

So while I would not find common ground with nazis, I do think there is reasonable common ground on gun rights.

Maybe for you; for me there is no compromise.

 

[Fly Navy]

OK, so maybe my point isn't getting across as clearly as I want it to. I would only support licensing as part of a bigger plan to put the smack-down on criminals that use guns. My goal is to have licensing have little to no effect on us law-abiding folks and cause a lot of heartache for the bad guys. I'm willing to sacrifice a little of my convenience to help crack down on criminals.

You're obviously a sensible and balanced person. You have no interest in taking away gun rights from the law abiding. That being said... many people are. For example, in my home state of Massachusetts, new laws were enacted in 1998 and later to put restrictions on how firearms are owned and purchased and carried in the state. Not only was it highly restrictive AND subjective (MA is a May-Issue state, not Shall-Issue... that license is required to purchase, own, and in some cases carry a firearm), but it was uncovered later that the DA and his cronies were aiming for a gradual decline into a comprehensive gun ban and confiscation. This was uncovered about 3-4 years ago. Of course, nothing came of it... because MA is so wildly anti-gun it's not even funny. Only about 100,000 legal gun owners in the state... I was one of them.

The license does the exact same thing an instant background check does, with the added bonus of some gun safety/education requirements. The real benefit is that cops can confiscate guns or arrest people who are carrying a gun without a license.

I don't need a safety certificate to have a gun in my house. How about education in the schools? You know this was common place many years ago right? I know the NRA has a acclaimed program for teaching young kids how to treat firearms with respect. Remove the mystery, and things improve.

And you can already be arrested for carrying concealed without a license. We don't need more laws.

That's the whole idea! The license differentiates the law abiding people from the criminals.

And then the government changes and decides it doesn't want to give licenses out. Happened in my state.

Everyone seems concerned about the license giving the government the ability to strip away your personal right to own a firearm. They can do that now, can't they? Commit a felony and your forfeit that right. Plus, who is to say that there won't be a law proposed tomorrow to take away that right, or to ban that gun you already own? Licensing won't change any of that. I think it will make it easier to prosecute and punish criminals that use guns though.

Laws are continuously proposed to remove our rights. However, it's our relatively free system and the Constitution that helps push it away. A license is an easy way for the government to deny you of your rights if they see fit. Happens all the time in a few of the states in this Union already. Why does Feinstein have a license to carry concealed in a state that's next to impossible to get said license? Why is she that much more important? Why does Steven Tyler (who is a good dude) have a license to carry in New York City, which is pretty much impossible to get a license unless you know someone? Why is he that much more valuable? That's where licensing leads to.

*side note*
Here's another thing that bugs me about this issue. I 100% support our right to bear arms, but it is not the most important thing in my world. There are far more important issues that I would consider fundamental to our well-being. It blows my mind that people will vote for one person or another based solely on this one issue. I know people who would vote for someone who they disagree with on every issue but gun control. I like to own guns, but if I moved to (or was stationed in) a country that did not allow them, I could still find purpose in my life. :icon_smil

Well, it's not just the 2nd Ammendment that does that. Many people are 1 issue voters. That's just wrong and ignorant in most cases.

 

[handjive]

I am not too sure that you understand that criminals won't abide by the law...they will laugh at your headache suggestion.

That's the whole idea! The license differentiates the law abiding people from the criminals.
ERRRR, that is not the 'whole idea!'.

You are missing my point entirely. I am counting on the criminals not abiding by the law. I'm just offering an easier way for us to prosecute criminals that use guns. And that is the whole idea of my plan (not gun laws in general).

Maybe for you; for me there is no compromise.

That's fine. I just find it hard to understand why this is such a core issue for so many folks. It's not a defining characteristic for me, so I'll be signing off from this debate after this post.

FlyNavy, I realize my "idea" isn't an end-all solution. I feel that the larger problem with guns in this country is enforcement of the laws already in place. I just think there needs to be some new ideas put on the table instead of the same old stubborn stances from both sides.

Regarding your comment on gun education in schools: I find it funny how schools are afraid to go near anything with the word gun in it. I went to high school in Miami and our county was one of the only one's in the country not allowed to have a marksmanship team (with air rifles!). It's like sex ed. If we never mention the subject then kids will never know, right?! Stupid is as stupid does...

Oh yeah, and thanks for the "sensible and balanced" comment. I might use that as my avatar title And I would bestow that same title on you as well.

 

[metro]

More than likely, and since the criminal is already breaking a/many law(s), why would the fact that guns are illegal keep him from using one? He's already shown disregard for law, so why would one more stop him? The common sense on this issue is so blatantly obvious. Let me have my guns.

Exactly. This is the point that it seems gun control advocates never seem to truly grasp. When you institute more gun control laws, all you do is make it harder for law-abiding people, the people who should have them, and need them, to get firearms for personal protection.

*Edit* Whoops...realized I came in a little late on this one.

 

[Sub-moa]

There has been a lot of discussion of gun laws, licensing, and punishment today. Remember it is the government that writes the laws and licensing and punishment rules. They can also change them later as well. Here in Washington a property owner can end up in more trouble than a one-arm monkey in a tree full of ripe fruit and a flock of crows simply by chopping down some weeds if those weeds are within 100 feet of a “wetland”…ANY “wetland”. :cowboy_12

Past governments of Hitler, Stalin, Castro, Idi Amin (Uganda), Rwanda, and presently Sudan, instuted liscensing of people to own, or carry, a firearm. In ALL of these the first people that were rounded up and shot were those the government KNEW had a firearm because they were “liscensed”! There are more than 50 other governments, in the last 150 years and presently, that could be listed for the same behavior, and those are only the ones I have read about.

Gun control starts with the seemingly benign action of liscensing to “protect us” from the bad guys. Eventually, those in power use the liscense lists to track down, disarm, and kill those who have the power to resist their forced changes, whether they intend to resist or not. Anyone who is trained in the use of a firearm is a danger to them, even when disarmed, because he has the potental of being a trained armed combatant.

Control freaks are attracted to politically powerful positions. People who desire to help and serve are also attracted to government. Eventually, the nasty ones are able to take power simply because they are able to drive out, intimidate, or kill those who are there to serve. It is because of this that I am against any form of liscensing for people or guns.

When the “Stalin” of the USS of Amerika rises to power, and one eventually will, I want him to have to try and find me, not simply look me up on the license list.