Gun Control

[Forlorn Drifter]

Guys, give me some merit here. I know it wasn't like the movies. But there are enough historical records that establish that there was a bunch of criminality.

The point is that there was basically no gun control at all, lots of citizens were carrying weapons. Was the outcome of that near entire lack of gun control:
less gun related criminality or more gun related criminality (including homicides)? I would say the historical indication (apart from the fictionalized accounts of it) points towards "more".

Although it is fair to point out there were many more factors involved, correlation does not imply causation and so on, but I think the availability of guns was a big part of the causation and I think that is a pretty reasonable assertion.

If any historians here would like to chime in I would be really interested in that.

I think it was a lack of control and order in general in the wild west. Law enforcement was at the local level and often times the law men were thugs themselves. Lots of corruption as well.

^I honestly find it odd how that sounds just about the same as today...

[marurun]

I have seen some good ideas brought up through this thread. Here is where I stand on this issue:

The US Constitution indeed guarantees the right to bear arms, but it mentions them in the same context with militia. A militia was critical to the fledgling US, considering independence was won with a guerrilla force and support from France. Taking time to grow the population and form a large enough standing army for defense was surely a worry.

Just as there are recognized limits on the freedom of speech and protections against unreasonable search and seizure, there are recognized limits on the right to bear arms. At the moment, as in many other times in history, we are wrestling with what limits are appropriate.

I confess that freedom of speech is far more important to me than freedom to bear arms. You have to pro-actively exercise the 2nd amendment, whereas the 1st amendment protects you even passively. The right to bear arms is much more a practical issue than the freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is essential for a healthy democratic society. The very structure of our government is dependent upon it. The freedom to bear arms, however, has had a lot more contextual change. In early US history it was for defense against our former master, Britain. In middle US history it helped greatly with the Manifest Destiny. We could never have stolen the land out from under the Native Americans without the guns to push them out. Guns were critical in Texas taking its independence from Mexico and joining the US. And today the practical culture of hunting and land management is still dependent upon the gun. That said, guns do become a complicated issue in urban centers.

It is unreasonable to say that if we ban guns they will simply go away. As many have pointed out, there are major socioeconomic factors related to fundamental inequality that play out here. Also, the difficulty in identifying mental health issues and the very restrictive and expensive barriers the US has to getting good care plays a role.

That said, while driving a car isn't a right, per se, I think it provides a good model. To drive a car legally you must have a license, and you must keep your license up-to-date. Your information is on file and you must pass a driving test indicating you understand the technical and legal issues involved in operating a vehicle in public spaces. I think gun ownership should work the same way. I think there should be a test and training required. I also think if you own a gun and intend to bring it out of the house into public spaces, that gun needs to be inspected to make sure it works and is compliant with the law (no full-auto mods).

In summary, guns should be inspected and registered, just like cars, and gun owners should be required to demonstrate some level of proficiency and knowledge of applicable law before being licensed. Further, I do support current legislative moves to ban extended magazines and certain types of ammunition. Several gun scholars have said that while the assault weapon ban is too nebulous, the provisions covering extended magazines and ammunition types might have reduced the numbers of deaths in recent shootings. The other provisions of the ban would not have had any real effect. I also have no problem closing the private sale loopholes. While recent shooters would not have been stopped by Federal lookups, I think it is still an appropriate move to level the selling field. Further, the ATF has been hamstrung by funding and deliberate structural restraints for some time. It is time to let them get out and do their job. Violations of Federal and state law on gun restrictions needs to be pursued aggressively and punishments need to be severe.

These kinds of provisions have actually proven popular in surveys of legal gun owners, despite the fact that the NRA opposes them. In this case, the NRA is far more conservative than the people they purportedly represent.

I'm sure many here will disagree with me, and that's fine. We've demonstrated time and time again that we are, by and large, adults here on this forum and capable of disagreeing reasonably. Still, I think the points I've raised would have a net positive effect on gun violence without punishing those responsible individuals who want or need to own guns. It would add some additional expense and some new hoops to jump through, but would not actually significantly change the landscape of gun ownership on the legal side. Increased ATF activity and coordination with other law-enforcement agencies would hopefully, over time, have an impact on illegal gun ownership.

[Jmustang1968]

You do have to get a license and show a level of competency to carrry a gun in public places in most areas. And those are state issued licenses.

Magazine limits do little. You know how quickly one can change mags?

These sound good in theory but most likely won't have the desired real worls effect.

[AppleQueso]

You do have to get a license and show a level of competency to carrry a gun in public places in most areas. And those are state issued licenses.

Magazine limits do little. You know how quickly one can change mags?

These sound good in theory but most likely won't have the desired real worls effect.

The "you can quickly change mags" argument begs the question as to what the point of high capacity magazines is to begin with.

[Jmustang1968]

You do have to get a license and show a level of competency to carrry a gun in public places in most areas. And those are state issued licenses.

Magazine limits do little. You know how quickly one can change mags?

These sound good in theory but most likely won't have the desired real worls effect.

The "you can quickly change mags" argument begs the question as to what the point of high capacity magazines is to begin with.

Annoyance for target shooting. It takes a bit to load the mags. But if you had a mass shooting you are planning, it is easy to have several mags pre loaded. Basically only something that inconveniences a lawful user.

There are also millions of high capacity mags in the public. Easily obtainable, so someone could get them if they wanted anyway. What does one care about a mag limit if they are reasy to kill people?

[o.pwuaioc]

That applies to *anything*. Why should we force people to get a driver's license if people can and will just drive without it anyway.

[Jmustang1968]

That applies to *anything*. Why should we force people to get a driver's license if people can and will just drive without it anyway.

Because someone driving unlawfully will most likely fear the consequences of no license. So the law will have an effect.

Someone going on a murderous rampage is basically on a suicide mission and obviously doesn't care about consequences.

Context and intent of the law is important. You are failing to take it into context.

[AppleQueso]

That applies to *anything*. Why should we force people to get a driver's license if people can and will just drive without it anyway.

Because someone driving unlawfully will most likely fear the consequences of no license. So the law will have an effect.

Someone going on a murderous rampage is basically on a suicide mission and obviously doesn't care about consequences.

Context and intent of the law is important. You are failing to take it into context.

Most people I've known who drive unlawfully don't really think about the consequences of what they're doing at all...

[o.pwuaioc]

That applies to *anything*. Why should we force people to get a driver's license if people can and will just drive without it anyway.

Because someone driving unlawfully will most likely fear the consequences of no license. So the law will have an effect.

Someone going on a murderous rampage is basically on a suicide mission and obviously doesn't care about consequences.

Context and intent of the law is important. You are failing to take it into context.

Most people I've known who drive unlawfully don't really think about the consequences of what they're doing at all...

Not to mention that I've known far more people to drive illegally (without a license, speeding, ignoring stop signs), then I have people who went on murderous rampages.

[Jmustang1968]

Someone who is prepared to kill people will not care what other laws they break. So the law of limiting mags will have little intended effect.

Not having a license will prevent many people from driving. No law stops everyone, but they live to pay consequences and hopefully learn from it.

These 2 things really aren't all that comparable.