Gun Rights in Ohio

David Weigel | December 13, 2006

Democrats and Republicans have come together in Ohio to... shitcan a Republican governor's veto of Second Amendment reforms.

The bill makes a variety of changes to Ohio's Shall Issue law for concealed handgun licenses. It explicitly prohibits local governments from creating no-carry zones, except in places where state law already forbids carryings. The bill also removes the requirement that concealed carry permitees must, when driving, keep the handgun in plain view in the car, or in a locked container.

Even more significantly, the bill eliminates over 80 anti-gun local ordinances, including bans on cosmetically-incorrect self-loading firearms (so-called "assault weapons") in Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton, and Cincinnati. Like the vast majority of states, Ohio does not have an "assault weapon" ban, but Ohio has had more cities with local bans than has any other non-ban state.

As Kopel points out, the bill got its crucial veto-overriding vote from incoming state attorney general and Democrat Marc Dann. I'd also note that incoming Gov. Ted Strickland, another Democrat (it was 2006; get used to it) is pro-gun and had strong NRA support. Both men are liberals; this is just one policy area where Democrats have finally caved to the libertarian consensus, to avoid another decade of drubbings over the gun issue.

(Via Instapundit.)

(By my count, that's my 10,000th pro-Democrat goo-goo post. Send the money to the address we discussed, Kos!)

Comments

Dan T.|12.13.06 @ 10:16AM|#

Congrats Ohio, welcome to the old west. I hope there's some healthcare reforms in there too, because you'll need it for the blood in the streets that's going to be the result.

|12.13.06 @ 10:16AM|#

Good for them. The Republican Party in Ohio is probably the nation's worst state Republican Party. I am not surprised the governor would veto a gun rights bill. Par for the course for Ohio Republicans.

|12.13.06 @ 10:20AM|#

Though libertarians traditionally have more roots in the Republican party, I feel that today there is a very heavy presence by Democrats... perhaps the parties have evolved since they were first typecasted long ago, or maybe the Republican party of today is so ridiculous that it has to tip the other way. Maybe it's even the evolution of Libertarian socialism. Though many Democrats still want tighter gun control, many don't want a complete ban on guns for private citizens... and that has to be a good thing.

|12.13.06 @ 10:22AM|#

"Though many Democrats still want tighter gun control, many don't want a complete ban on guns for private citizens... and that has to be a good thing."

I think all of them Republican or Democrat who want tighter gun control only want so as a means to an end; banning of all firearms. I don't trust any of them.

|12.13.06 @ 10:23AM|#

This is the first sensible post you've had in weeks. Good job! Although would Kos really pay you for opposing gun control? Or is he such a yellow dog that he'd vote for George Wallace and Orval Fabus if they had a (D) after their names?

|12.13.06 @ 10:27AM|#

David Weigel is a liberal shill! David Weigel is a liberal shill!

JK!

Sorry, thought I'd get that post out of the way early. ;)

Nobody Important|12.13.06 @ 10:39AM|#

"Of course I favor a national anti-gun law. Who wants armed taxpayers?"

|12.13.06 @ 10:57AM|#

Gun control aimed as disarming the general public, as opposed to more targetted efforts, has simply proven to be a failure. People in the reality-based community look at evidence, and the evidence shows that this type of broad-based gun control doesn't accomoplish its intended goals.

The situation is comparable to welfare reform in the early 1990s. Democrats didn't support it because they bought into the "Bring Back the Gilded Age" ideology of welfare's fiercest critics, but because they were goo-goos who recognized failure and decided they needed a change of course.

|12.13.06 @ 11:12AM|#

Weigel,

Once you learn the difference between a pro-Democratic goo-goo post and an actually blog-worthy pro-liberty post such as this you'll probably find the criticism fading.

I won't hold my breath.

|12.13.06 @ 11:13AM|#

"Democrats didn't support it because they bought into the "Bring Back the Gilded Age" ideology of welfare's fiercest critics, but because they were goo-goos who recognized failure and decided they needed a change of course"

Jesus Joe it was the Republican Congress who passed welfare reform. Twenty one of forty six Democrats in the Senate voted against it and ninety seven of 198 Democrats in the House voted against it. Are all of those Dems who voted against it and all of the Democratic public intellecutals who said it would be diaster and called Clinton a trader for signing it "not reality based"? You really do live in a fantasy world.

http://www.ssa.gov/history/tally1996.html

|12.13.06 @ 11:16AM|#

Joe,

It makes me feel so much better that our Democratic overlords are going to less us average saps keep our guns because "gun control doesn't accomplish its intended goals" rather than it being say a right enshrined in the Constitution. Be honest, after getting their asses handed to them in election after election and gun control being a proven political looser, they decided to abadon the issue.

|12.13.06 @ 11:18AM|#

this is just one policy area where Democrats have finally caved to the libertarian consensus, to avoid another decade of drubbings over the gun issue.

Question for Dave Weigel and others: How would you weigh the importance this about-face in comparison to Democrat-led neo-protectionism?

I, for one, value free trade more. (But I grew up in a blue state where getting a gun was only slightly less difficult than getting polonium-210 so I may be a pussy.) Still, free trade has massive, global humanitarian implications. RKBA doesn't.

Only tangentially related: since at least 2004 the Democrats have been pushing this idea that Republicans are impervious to evidence (which is no doubt true). Now it looks like they're using it to win elections.

|12.13.06 @ 11:22AM|#

Nobody Important, God that takes me back. A good snapshot of the spirit of '94. Those were the days.

|12.13.06 @ 11:27AM|#

Dan T -

Several states have had the "shall issue" law in effect for several years. I don't recall seeing many "blood in the street" news reports from Florida after private citizens were no longer prohibited from carrying concealed weapons. Do you really believe all us Buckeye folks will just start shooting each other as a matter of routine?

|12.13.06 @ 11:29AM|#

Wow. Democrats repeal moronic laws that were their own damned idea in the first place.

I truly feel as if a new day has dawned for Democrats and the right to keep and bear arms.

Next thing you know, Nancy Pelosi will be kissing babies before competing at a USPSA match.

|12.13.06 @ 11:36AM|#

Yeah, I'm not sure what happened here. The Ohio General Assembly must have "libertarian Democrat" on its mind. First there was this gun control override. Next will be this bill limiting traffic cameras.

http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/cuyahoga/1166002259125610.xml&coll=2

|12.13.06 @ 11:38AM|#

Ohio's original CCW law included a provision that journalists could request per-county lists of license holders. Despite repeated attempts, I don't see any evidence of that provision having been repealed. That said, this new legislation is still a vast improvement.

Strickland was pro-gun as a representative, but I've seen some debate as to whether or not he really internalized gun rights. He represented a district in rural southeastern Ohio, where his constituency pretty much required pro-gun votes. Now, he's got to court big-city Dems from places like Cleveland (who gave us Fingerhut, Kuscinich (sp?) and Hagan). Furthermore, his Lt. Gov, Lee Fisher, is an old-timey socialist sort of Dem; he's been around for a while. I guess we'll have to wait and see.

|12.13.06 @ 11:43AM|#

John,

"Jesus Joe it was the Republican Congress who passed welfare reform." And a Democratic president who campaigned on it and signed it.

"Twenty one of forty six Democrats in the Senate voted against it" So a majority of Democratic Senators voted for the final version

"...and ninety seven of 198 Democrats in the House voted against it." So a majority of House Democrats voted for the final version.

A Democratic President signed a bill that was supported by a majority of Democrats in both houses. Wow, you really got me there.

Larry A|12.13.06 @ 11:56AM|#

Congrats Ohio, welcome to the old west. I hope there's some healthcare reforms in there too, because you'll need it for the blood in the streets that's going to be the result.

Ha. Ha.

Since the mid 80s when Florida passed its shall-issue law the anti-gun folks have responded to every civilians-with-guns story with such dire predictions. Blood will flow in the streets. With concealed carry fender-benders will turn into firefights. Armed pilots will shoot their passengers. Ending the assault rifle ban will stack bodies like cordwood. Fifty caliber rifles will shoot down airliners. Of-duty police officers carrying will cost cities millions in liability judgements.

After dozens of predictions over two decades, the anti-gun folks have been wrong every single time.

I, for one, value free trade more. (But I grew up in a blue state where getting a gun was only slightly less difficult than getting polonium-210 so I may be a pussy.) Still, free trade has massive, global humanitarian implications. RKBA doesn't.

Google "genocide." The common denominator among the populations murdered is that they were first disarmed.

Sam Franklin|12.13.06 @ 12:05PM|#

I think all of them Republican or Democrat who want tighter gun control only want so as a means to an end; banning of all firearms. I don't trust any of them.

I am a mild supporter of gun rights. When I read things like this (and I often seem to), it makes me not care about the issue, and less likely to make sure to vote for the pro-gun candidate. this kind of comment is bad pr.

ed|12.13.06 @ 12:12PM|#

A Democratic President signed a bill that was supported by a majority of Democrats in both houses

After initially opposing it. Joe's right. Clinton flip-flopped.

|12.13.06 @ 12:33PM|#

Sam--

I am a mild supporter of gun rights. When I read things like this (and I often seem to), it makes me not care about the issue, and less likely to make sure to vote for the pro-gun candidate. this kind of comment is bad pr.

Excellent!

I just happen to regard you as a major "fuckwit" of the highest order.

Thus, I am only further assured that I am correct in my postition on this particular issue.

|12.13.06 @ 12:39PM|#

ed,

Clinton and the Democrats didn't flip-flop. The bill flip-flopped, to come more in line with the position the Democrats stakes out.

Reading the fine print - or, you know, the main body of the document - is a good skill to develop.

|12.13.06 @ 12:40PM|#

Sam, I hear that if you pour corn syrup on a Glock it will discharge, killing a busload of 2nd graders.

|12.13.06 @ 12:55PM|#

I'm on my way to get my concealed permit tomorrow... glad I don't live in OH.

|12.13.06 @ 1:03PM|#

"...and ninety seven of 198 Democrats in the House voted against it." So a majority of House Democrats voted for the final version.


What about the nearly 50% minority? Are they not reality based? I guess this means you no longer support people like Ted Kennedy and Henry Waxman. Moreover, how many of those Democrats voted for the measure because they knew it was going to pass anyway and their vote didn't matter? That is a lot different than having the majority and passing it. Do you honestly expect anyone to believe that there would have been welfare reform had the Republicans not taken congress? Moreover, what about all of the Democratic public intellectuals in the media who said it was going to be a disaster? Are you now willing to admit that those people were wrong and not really Democrats?

R C Dean|12.13.06 @ 1:08PM|#

funny joe man:

Gun control aimed as disarming the general public, as opposed to more targetted efforts, has simply proven to be a failure.

This implies that 'more targeted' gun control (whatever that is) has been a success.

Two questions:

(1) Success at what?

(2) Where?

|12.13.06 @ 1:12PM|#

Dean-

Instead of disarming the general public, joe no doubt supports disarming cops and SWAT teams.

;-p

Sam Franklin|12.13.06 @ 1:17PM|#

Sam, I hear that if you pour corn syrup on a Glock it will discharge, killing a busload of 2nd graders.

I got anothoher funny cs rumor. I heard that if you complained about corn syrup at a pro-business blog board for about a year, you know, to the point where it became a running joke, then food manufacturers would quietly start taking the HFCS out of their products and displacing it with sugar.

Anybody know if that works?

|12.13.06 @ 1:17PM|#

RC Dean,

(1) Success at what? Getting Democrats elected.

(2) Where? In elections outside of large urban areas.

The Democrats are being drug towards gun control by kicking and screaming out of desparation over loosing so much in the last 12 years. They finally got smart and lost gun control as an issue this year and it certainly didn't hurt them. Notice Joe didn't mention anything about there being any right to own a gun or what will happen when the Democrats once again decide that gun confiscation will achieve the desired results. As soon they think they can get away with it with the electorate, the Democrats will be coming for the guns again, I gaurentee it.

Sam Franklin|12.13.06 @ 1:20PM|#

Two questions:

(1) Success at what?

(2) Where?

You want joe to name everybody who has not been shot by a stray machine gun bullet by virtue of the fact that machine guns are relatively difficult to get due their legal status?

Is that a fair question, RCD? I mean how would joe go about collecting these names -- even the people who would have been shot in this way, absent machine gun restrictions, have no way of knowing that.

|12.13.06 @ 1:23PM|#

*tousles Sam's hair*

That's why I like you so much.

You're so utterly off-the-charts, certifiably batshit insane that even your non-sequiturs score creativity points for being utterly nonsensical.

That is, if its even possible for such a thing to exist.

I just have to wonder, Sam, are you actually self-aware of the fact that you're insane? I mean, have you ever re-read something you've written and thought "Wow! It really is quite astounding at how goddamned nuts I am!"

|12.13.06 @ 1:24PM|#

My previous post should have read as follows:

"That is, if its even possible for such a thing as a nonsensical nonsequitur to exist."

Sam Franklin|12.13.06 @ 1:27PM|#

I just have to wonder, Sam, are you actually self-aware of the fact that you're insane? I mean, have you ever re-read something you've written and thought "Wow! It really is quite astounding at how goddamned nuts I am!"

My latest record can be downloaded at:

www.farceswannamo.com

the whole thing is pretty crazy. I made it that way on purpose so it would not sound like any other record you have ever heard. I didn't think of it so much crazy as original, but maybe it amounts to the same. Anyway, near the end of terminal you can hear a very literal transcription of what it is like when the pain in your head is so bad that you feel like you are going crazy. Harrowing and funny at the same time. I recommend it (and its free). Glad I am not in that headspace any more.

|12.13.06 @ 1:27PM|#

John,

"What about the nearly 50% minority? Are they not reality based?"

Ten years earlier, they would have been a 70% majority. Today, they are perhaps a 20% minority on the central question of old-fashioned AFDC vs. modern TANF (depending on the specific issue - there was a lot in that bill).

Another example of reality-basedness of the Democratic Party is that the change continued, even sped up, after the passage of the bill. We've had about a decade to observe the results, and even many Democrats - like Kennedy and Waxman - who opposed the 1996 bill have come around.

"Do you honestly expect anyone to believe that there would have been welfare reform had the Republicans not taken congress?" Yes, although it would have looked a little different. In case you've forgotten, Clinton ran on a platform of ending welfare as we know it, and won the Democratic nomination.

"I guarantee it." Uh huh. And since when had John ever 1) been flagrantly wrong about his predictions of how events will turn our or 2) shown a lack of understanding of what motivates Democrats?

Sam Franklin|12.13.06 @ 1:28PM|#

"end of terminal"

should be:

--end of the song entitled "the Turmoil"--

whoops.

|12.13.06 @ 1:34PM|#

Good example, Franklin.

I'll add that efforts designed to interdict trafficing in firearms - the gun show loophole, the unlimited number of purchases you can make in the states on the southern reaches of I95 - haven't been accomplished, so we won't be able to tell if they will succeed in reducing the number of shootings from illegall-purchased weapons.

If they do, we will no doubt here about how the number of illegally-transfered guns in NYC hasn't really dropped.

Then we'll hear that it has dropped, but it nothing to do with the laws.

Then we'll hear that the laws did reduce the number of shootings, but that the private sector would have reduced those numbers earlier and faster anyway.

|12.13.06 @ 1:34PM|#

Yes Joe,

Bill Clinton did run on ending welfare as we know it and got "ONE OF THE loudest--and most bipartisan--rounds of applause during Bill Clinton's 1993 State of the Union address came when he reiterated his promise to "end welfare as we know it." http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0377/is_n111/ai_14152774

Yet, nothing happened in the two years in which the Democrats controlled Congress. Welfare reform only happened after the Republicans took control and re-election forced the issue with Clinton. If it was going to happen with a Democratic Congress, why didn't it happen in 93 or 94, especially in 1994 when the Democrats were getting killed in the polls and everyone knew it was a popular initiative? I didn't becuase the Democratic Congress didn't support it. Those are the facts Joe. I am sorry but I can't change them to make you feel better.

|12.13.06 @ 1:39PM|#

"I'll add that efforts designed to interdict trafficing in firearms - the gun show loophole, the unlimited number of purchases you can make in the states on the southern reaches of I95 - haven't been accomplished, so we won't be able to tell if they will succeed in reducing the number of shootings from illegall-purchased weapons."

It wouldn't have reduced one shooting because there isn't any connnections between gun shows and crime. According to the National Institute of Justice, the research arm of the U.S. Department of Justice. According to an NIJ study released in December 1997 (Homicide in Eight U.S. Cities, a report that covers much more than homicide), only 2 percent of criminal guns come from gun shows. (The same study found that twenty-five percent of crime guns came from gun stores, even though FBI permission is required for every purchase from a gun store.)

http://www.i2i.org/main/article.php?article_id=533

The gun shows has got to be one of dumbest bogeymen ever dreamed up by the gun confiscators. Federal laws do apply at gun shows. If you have ever actually been to a gun show, you would know that 99% of the sellers at these things have a federal fire arms license and are subject and obey the federal gun laws. There is no "gun show" loophole. It is a myth. Yes, an individual can sell a fire arm without a license, but he doesn't need a gun show to do that. If you are in the business of selling hot guns to criminals, you don't need a gun show.

|12.13.06 @ 1:40PM|#

RC and John:

I know that we sometimes automatically disagree with joe just out of habit, but his original comment at 10:57 was pretty much correct.

The Dems don't really believe in the Second Amendment, that is true, but they have seen the results of supporting gun control, and they do deserve some credit for at least being smart enough to leave the issue alone.

|12.13.06 @ 1:47PM|#

John,

"If it was going to happen with a Democratic Congress, why didn't it happen in 93 or 94, especially in 1994 when the Democrats were getting killed in the polls and everyone knew it was a popular initiative?"

Because Clinton chose to concentrate on health care reform instead during his first two years.

And which is it, John? Are 2% of the guns used in crimes from gun shows, or has not one such crime been committed with a gun from a gun show? This is the sort of mess you get into when you try too hard.

|12.13.06 @ 1:51PM|#

"Are 2% of the guns used in crimes from gun shows,"

Joe just because the gun was bought at a gun show doesn't mean closing the gun show will keep from being bought. The point is that individuals don't need gun shows to sell guns. It is the individual selling to the criminal that is the problem, not the gun show. Those 2% would have been sold regardless.

|12.13.06 @ 1:52PM|#

"The Dems don't really believe in the Second Amendment"

That is why they can't be trusted on the issue, I don't care how many fake rednecks they trot out as candidates.

|12.13.06 @ 1:53PM|#

"This is the sort of mess you get into when you try too hard."

You know Joe, I try to be nice to you sometimes, I really do, but then you say some stupid smug comment like that after what I have said just went completly over your head and I am really tempted to just say screw it and let my worst instincts come out. Why do you have to say things like that?

|12.13.06 @ 1:54PM|#

"Good example, Franklin."

The National Firearms Act isn't that good of an example for more than one reason:

1) It was passed at a time when there were vanishingly few machineguns already in private hands.

2) The weapons it does regulate, despite what Hollywood would have you believe, aren't the sort to generally be used in crime. Per any number of sources, criminals overwhelmingly choose handguns chambered in .22, .25, and .380.

"I'll add that efforts designed to interdict trafficing in firearms - the gun show loophole,"

Freedom as loophole.
This has got to be one of the silliest memes perpetrated by the left.
It completely falls apart if you start talking about doing the same thing for other civil liberties. Should we all be forced to register our computers with the government because we *might* use them to commit nefarious acts of hacking?

"the unlimited number of purchases you can make in the states on the southern reaches of I95 - haven't been accomplished,"

Joe, weren't you just praising the fact that a "more targetted approach to gun control" seems to be the ticket?
You previously posted that "People in the reality-based community look at evidence, and the evidence shows that this type of broad-based gun control doesn't accomoplish its intended goals."

Yet here you are, proposing a broadly-based purchase limit on guns in other states in order to combat crime in one location. Odd, that.

After all, it's already illegal to import a firearm into New York without first applying for an ownership permit. Glad to see that particular law has helped so much to stop crime in New York.

Dan T.|12.13.06 @ 1:59PM|#

lol i'm gay for man penis

Dan T.|12.13.06 @ 2:18PM|#

The Dan T. post @ 1:59pm isn't me.

Although I do love teh cock. Tee-hee!

|12.13.06 @ 2:23PM|#

mediageek,

Would more machine guns have been used in crimes in the decades since then if they had not been banned? They were popular enough among organized criminals in the 20s.

Second, the proper comparison to efforts to reduce illegal gun sales by limiting their sales wouldn't be requireing everyone to register their computer, but limits on who can purchase certain technologies.

Third, I wouldn't call, say, a four-gun per month limit on purchases "broadly based." How many people not looking to traffic in guns would that really effect?

Fourth, "After all, it's already illegal to import a firearm into New York without first applying for an ownership permit" is a silly argument. Replacing an easily evaded law that depends on the cooperation of the criminal with one that merely changes the regulations on already-regulated gun dealers would greatly improve compliance, because law-abiding people with an interest in obeying the law can be counted on to obey the law, and criminals with an interest in violating the law can be counted on to violate it.

|12.13.06 @ 2:31PM|#

How many people not looking to traffic in guns would that really effect?

Quite a few, actually.

|12.13.06 @ 2:33PM|#

joe:

This is turning into a typical joe dog-pile, but I take issue with your "nothing wrong with sensible gun-control" position. The thing is, the people behind these measures are pursuing a superobjective of total banning and confiscation.

If you disagree, would you also argue that proponents of "partial-birth abortion" would just go home after they ban this particular procedure?

|12.13.06 @ 2:34PM|#

"oponents" of partial birth...

|12.13.06 @ 2:38PM|#

"Would more machine guns have been used in crimes in the decades since then if they had not been banned? They were popular enough among organized criminals in the 20s."

This is immaterial. Even assuming the law was effective at removing machineguns from the hands of criminals, at best all it would have done would be to cause the criminals to shift to using something else.

Also, historically speaking, the likes of John Dillinger or Bonnie & Clyde were aberrations of their era. They were no more indicative of the average criminal of their day than Harris & Klebold are of criminals in this day and age.

It's worth noting that nearly all of the criminal violence of that era was a direct result of alcohol prohibition.

But then, I suppose for those who took the view that the average human isn't capable of responsibly drinking a beer it's only a logical hop-skip-and-a-jump to freaking out over the average human owning a gun.

More later, it's lunchtime and I've got a serious jones for a burrito.

|12.13.06 @ 2:50PM|#

MNG,

There are likely some people who are pursuing a gun-ban agenda, but it is paranoia to assume that all, or most, people who express concern about gun trafficking have this motivation.

Isaac,

Gee, maybe they can go to New York and explain to the families why the deaths of their loved ones are worth it, so that your "lots of people" won't have to do their shopping in two trips instead of one.

mediageek,

Even if that is true, you don't see any benefit to having criminals in urban areas use single-shot weapons rather than fulll-auto? None at all?

|12.13.06 @ 2:54PM|#

MNG,

"If you disagree, would you also argue that proponents of "partial-birth abortion" would just go home after they ban this particular procedure?"

I hear the proponents of bans on D&X denounce abortion, in its entirety, all the time.

In contrast, I hear the proponents of efforts to reduce illegal gun trafficking defend the private ownership of firearms all the time.

If the people arguing for a ban on "partial birth abortions" included statements about their support for abortion rights, and proclaimed their opposition to any effort to ban abortions in the first and second trimesters, in every speech they gave before audiences known to support abortion rights, I would view their efforts differently.

|12.13.06 @ 2:57PM|#

What is it about "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged" that some of y'all don't get? And "blood in the streets" is the oldest red herring (nyuk nyuk) in the book, in fact it has faded so badly that it has turned a pale shade of pink AND is no longer EVEN in common use by Teddy "his car has killed more people than my .45" Kennedy. Mary Jo Kopechne could not be reached for comment on this matter.

Sam Franklin|12.13.06 @ 3:10PM|#

If the people arguing for a ban on "partial birth abortions" included statements about their support for abortion rights, and proclaimed their opposition to any effort to ban abortions in the first and second trimesters, in every speech they gave before audiences known to support abortion rights, I would view their efforts differently.

That didn't work at all when I tried it at Democratic Underground. Guess what they did to me!

|12.13.06 @ 3:11PM|#

Yawn. What part of "well regulated" do you not get?

There's something about Ted Kennedy that makes his opponents' intelligence shrink. Every time you read a truly idiotic argument, you can count on a reference to Ted Kennedy's forty year old accident.

|12.13.06 @ 3:12PM|#

I'm a little late to the debate, but I believe it was John (2nd comment) who said:
"The Republican Party in Ohio is probably the nation's worst state Republican Party"

Sorry but I thought New Jersey had that prize wrapped up.

|12.13.06 @ 3:12PM|#

Sam,

I imagine they acted like thoughtless loonies incapable of drawing a fairly obvious distinction when it conflicts with an absolutist ideology.

|12.13.06 @ 3:17PM|#

"Shitcan?" Usually Reason has been respectable enough to not use vulgar language without good cause. Tacky.

Dan T.|12.13.06 @ 3:20PM|#

The Dan T. post @ 2:18pm isn't me.

but i'm gay lol

|12.13.06 @ 3:23PM|#

"Even if that is true, you don't see any benefit to having criminals in urban areas use single-shot weapons rather than fulll-auto? None at all?"

Joe, nearly all of the "advantages" of having a full-auto weapon are psychological.

A submachinegun is nothing more than an overgrown pistol with a voracious appetite. Difficult to conceal, expensive to feed, and in the rare instances where a full-auto would be advantageous, you had better possess the skills to handle the weapon.

Those skills basically equate to hours upon hours spent at a range practicing and purchasing ammunition by the palette.

Spray 'n' pray will never be as deadly as aimed fire.

As a grim compare 'n' contrast, look at the number of deaths resulting from the North Hollywood Bank shootout vs. Muhammad and Malvo's crime spree.

|12.13.06 @ 3:26PM|#

"In contrast, I hear the proponents of efforts to reduce illegal gun trafficking defend the private ownership of firearms all the time."

Yes, you are correct. The NRA, GOA, and any number of pro-gun state level organizations have been saying this for years.

Sam Franklin|12.13.06 @ 3:46PM|#

As a grim compare 'n' contrast, look at the number of deaths resulting from the North Hollywood Bank shootout vs. Muhammad and Malvo's crime spree.

I think at some point there is going to be a highly successful terrorist attack in the US involving several shooters and a hundred fatalities or more. Probably on the freeways, or maybe at a stadium.

If / when that happens, this whole gun debate is going to go down a lot different.

I think Naveed Afzal Haq would have scored a few more Jewish women if he had had a machine gun.

I think Kyle Aaron Huff would have scored more ravers if he had a machine gun.

If you really want to know what a terrorist attack with a machine gun looks like, then read up on Baruch Goldstein and his Galil rifle. I think you will be quite impressed with his spray and pray results he got when preying on the praying.

|12.13.06 @ 3:51PM|#

Sam, how many times in your life have you ever actually shot a machinegun?

Sam Franklin|12.13.06 @ 4:08PM|#

I usually burn them. Seems more respectful, somehow.

Thanks, I'll be here all week.

|12.13.06 @ 4:20PM|#

I'll chalk that one up as being a big, fat, corn syrup slathered goose egg.

Thanks for playing Sam, Vanna will escort you off of the stage and give you a copy of Reason Hit 'n' Run The Home Game! as a lovely parting gift.

|12.13.06 @ 4:47PM|#

"If you really want to know what a terrorist attack with a machine gun looks like, then read up on Baruch Goldstein and his Galil rifle. I think you will be quite impressed with his spray and pray results he got when preying on the praying."

It is harder to shoot people than you think. They have a bad habbit of moving and messing up your aim. Probably the best example of a terrorist attack with assault weapons was the guy on the tower down in Austin in the 1960s. He had a virtually bullet proof position with a huge field of fire, several good rifles, and the guy was a fromer Marine who could flat out shoot. Even then he only killed a few dozen.

Nobody Important|12.13.06 @ 4:54PM|#

joe | December 13, 2006, 1:34pm

I'll add that efforts designed to interdict trafficing in firearms - the gun show loophole,

Anyone who uses the phrase "gun show loophole" is either ignorant or disingenous.

Which one are you?

|12.13.06 @ 5:08PM|#

mediageek,

"A submachinegun is nothing more than an overgrown pistol with a voracious appetite. Difficult to conceal, expensive to feed, and in the rare instances where a full-auto would be advantageous, you had better possess the skills to handle the weapon."

Not if you don't care who else you hit.


MNG,

I'll grant you this: when people claim to be drawing a significant distiction (between late-term "partial birth" abortions and all others, or between machine guns and ordinary rifles), but act in a way that doesn't actually distinguish between the two (by writing the "partial birth" abortion ban in a way that includes other abortions, or by including irrelevant crap like the material of the stock in the "Assault Weapons Ban"), I can appreciate skepticism towards people who draw that same distinction.

But skepticism isn't the same thing as unthinking rejectionism.

Nobody Important|12.13.06 @ 5:08PM|#

joe | December 13, 2006, 2:50pm
There are likely some people who are pursuing a gun-ban agenda, but it is paranoia to assume that all, or most, people who express concern about gun trafficking have this motivation.

Just the major players.

For example, "The Brady Center filed an amicus brief in support of the District of Columbia's longstanding handgun ban... In a related case, U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan upheld the handgun ban in a decision issued March 31, 2004. The CATO Institute has appealed the ruling and the Brady Center intends to file an amicus brief in support of the District in that appeal."

So the Brady Center (formerly Handgun Control Inc.) is on the record as supporting a total ban on handguns.

And they only grade the District of Columbia a "B." What would DC have to to get an "A" from the Brady Center?

|12.13.06 @ 5:11PM|#

mediageek demonstrates my point nicely.

"The NRA, GOA, and any number of pro-gun state level organizations have been saying (that the government should concentrate on stopping trafficking rather than disarming the public) for years."

And then, after making that distinction, they act to stop any action to reduce illegal trafficking, while claiming to defend the public's right to legally bear arms.

And that makes me immediately skeptical of them whenever I see them insist that a certain effort threatens the right to bear arms.

|12.13.06 @ 5:14PM|#

mediageek, how many times in your life have you actually carried out a terrorist attack?

None? That doesn't stop you from mouthing off about the dangers of terroris, does it? Nor should it.

Nobody Important,

I agree, the Brady Center counts as a gun-banning group. Do you know why they work to convince people otherwise? Because they know that most of the people who might be their allies on certain issues don't agree with them.

Postbellum Joe|12.13.06 @ 5:14PM|#

I don't know why people are so upset about these poll taxes and literacy tests.

Nobody I know here in the South has said that they want to make it illegal for blacks to vote.

|12.13.06 @ 5:31PM|#

Yawn.

Joe's bad. Baaaaaaaaaaadddd.

Like slaveowners. Or Nazis.

Pathetic.

|12.13.06 @ 6:01PM|#

Insteading of inconveiniancing lawful gun owners, why don't we punish gun using criminals more harshly?

And speaking of state Republican parties that suck, check out the Illinois GOP.

Postbellum Joe|12.13.06 @ 6:04PM|#

You don't have to make something illegal to make it impossible to get.

We don't want to ban guns. We just want to make it so costly and burdensome to that nobody can or will.

Postbellum Joe|12.13.06 @ 6:05PM|#

Correction:

You don't have to make something illegal to make it impossible to get.

We don't want to ban guns. We just want to make it so costly and burdensome to own guns to that nobody can or will.

|12.13.06 @ 6:22PM|#

"None? That doesn't stop you from mouthing off about the dangers of terroris, does it? Nor should it."

When did I ever mouth off about the dangers of terrorists? My posts were all strictly crime- and technical skill-related.

Geeze, joe, I even provided real world examples.

|12.13.06 @ 6:25PM|#

"And then, after making that distinction, they act to stop any action to reduce illegal trafficking, while claiming to defend the public's right to legally bear arms."

Joe, the problem is that all of your so-called "reasonable" solutions are, quite frankly, arbitrary.

Four guns a month? Where do you get this number? Why not two, or eight? It makes no sense.

Such laws only impact the law-abiding as guns can and will always be had from a myriad of other sources.

|12.13.06 @ 6:28PM|#

In other gun-related news today, it has come to my attention that the government of Denmark has moved to ban the shooting sport of IPSC on so-called safety grounds. (This despite an impeccable safety record.)

|12.13.06 @ 6:39PM|#

A "War on Guns" is likely to be as effective as the "War on Drugs" and the "War on Poverty." Prohibition of firearms just creates another profit center for criminal enterprises.

I am familiar with machine guns. I have used fired them as a civilian and a member of the armed forces. The real difference in power exists when one person has a gun and the other does not. Even if machine guns were readily available, they do not offer a marked advantage to a criminal. The real advantage is when a criminal has a firearm and the victim does not. Criminal prefer handguns because they are easy to hide, easy to carry and perform the essential task which is to intimidate one's victim and if necessary, kill them. A machine gun offers a marked advantage on a battlefield, but the situation is entirely different. Legalize Class III firearms tomorrow. The guy robbing the 7-11 is far more likely to use a cheap Saturday-night special handgun than an M2 .50 caliber Browning machine gun. So it goes.

I also agree with the idea that anti-gun activists are using the same tactics as the environmental community. If you can't stop development outright, just make regulations so insanely tight that development is effectively impossible. Regulations are effectively a tax on firearms. The higher this "tax," the more firearms transactions will occur in the underground economy.

|12.13.06 @ 6:56PM|#

I think at some point there is going to be a highly successful terrorist attack in the US involving several shooters and a hundred fatalities or more. Probably on the freeways, or maybe at a stadium.

Which will most likely be carried out with illegally-imported, purchased and posessed AK-47s, which, despite the media stereotypes, are not as accurate as you would think, especially in the hands of someone who has no training.

Look, I know it's hard for some people to get over the idea that machine guns are simply Bullet Hoses That Dispense Instant and Horrible Death, but they're not. If you don't know how to handle one, or if you're just "spraying and praying", you're not going to hit much of anything.

Which, incidentally, is why the Marines eliminated the full auto option on their M-16's in favor of a three-round "burst" setting: They found that after three rounds of full auto, the point of impact was usually off high and to the right. Even without the burst, all US troops are trained to fire 3-5 round bursts, and then re-acquire the target before firing again.

Nobody Important|12.13.06 @ 7:27PM|#

joe | December 13, 2006, 2:54pm

I hear the proponents of bans on D&X denounce abortion, in its entirety, all the time.
In contrast, I hear the proponents of efforts to reduce illegal gun trafficking defend the private ownership of firearms all the time.

Jeez. Opponents of partial-birth abortion are extremists. But people who favor gun control are reasonable moderates. Why am I not surprised?

Nobody Important|12.13.06 @ 7:30PM|#

joe | December 13, 2006, 2:23pm
Third, I wouldn't call, say, a four-gun per month limit on purchases "broadly based." How many people not looking to traffic in guns would that really effect?

Who's talking about an arbitrary "four-gun per month limit on purchases?" Every proposal I've always heard was for an arbitrary "one gun a month" limit. But I guess your distortion is a lame attempt to make the extremists sound four time less extreme.

If a certain item is legal, then it should be nobody's business how many I have.

The idea that possession above some arbitrary amount should automatically be construed as "trafficking" is the same type of authoritarian thinking that got Richard Paey 25 years in prison.

|12.13.06 @ 7:36PM|#

Joe,

"Yawn. What part of 'well regulated' do you not get?"

He certainly understands it better than you, and problably also notices that (regardless of whether you think the archaic or the current meaning should apply) that it modifies militia rather than the right to keep and bear arms.

To add to what mediageek says about 'spray and pray', just look at the results of the Tacoma Mall shooting: a guy with a semiauto AK variant with a large magazine, shooting a medium rifle cartridge (w/about 5x the energy of a typical submachine gun cartridge), and not a single fatality. But I guess it's no wonder that gun opponents tend to view them as magic implements rather than tools.

Nobody Important|12.13.06 @ 7:39PM|#

Sam Franklin | December 13, 2006, 3:46pm
I think at some point there is going to be a highly successful terrorist attack in the US involving several shooters and a hundred fatalities or more. Probably on the freeways, or maybe at a stadium.
If / when that happens, this whole gun debate is going to go down a lot different.

From the novel Enemies Foreign and Domestic:

PROLOGUE: OPENING DAY

The home team was set to receive the kickoff of their season opener. The 80,000 football fans packing the stadium were on their feet looking down at the two teams lined up on the vivid green field. It was a mild September Sunday in the Maryland suburbs of the nation's capital, and every seat was taken by loyal crimson and gold wearing fans who were fervently hoping to see their team improve last season's dismal record and make a run for the playoffs. The crowd noise reached a sustained roar as they watched the kicker trot toward the teed-up football, they saw the two teams rush at each other, and they followed the flight of the ball high into the air.

In the midst of this jubilant bedlam, in the center of the western end zone upper deck, a forty year old architect from Annapolis was struck by something on the left temple. He immediately collapsed forward, spurting blood over his friends and several other fans as he fell across the seats below. His shocking injury occurred while the football was still arcing through the air and down the field, so at first the louder screaming of the fans surrounding his crumpled bleeding body went unnoticed by the rest of the crowd around them.

Every two seconds a similar scene was repeated with horrifying variations across the western upper deck stands, as one fan after another was dealt a sudden bloody wound to the face, head, neck, shoulder, arm or chest. A few victims were killed outright, and some were only slightly grazed, but many received searingly painful wounds which caused them to shriek and jerk and fling blood in all directions. Every two seconds another tableau of unexpected violent trauma was created, sending out radiating bands of fear as the shouted word spread from mouth to ear among the trapped thousands: sniper! The waves of horror emanating from each new victim spread and merged and multiplied until the entire western end zone upper deck section became engulfed in seething animal panic.

[...]

A hundred tightly pressed bodies, propelled by fear and assisted by gravity, pushed hard against each unlucky person already wedged against the safety railing at the bottom of the upper deck. The rails bent outward as the human avalanche gathered momentum, and then they buckled and victims began to tumble over. The falling victims were still holding tightly onto those above, pulling them over as well, and the solid cascade began. Dozens and then hundreds of linked victims fell past the VIP sky boxes, thudding down onto the fans packed into the lower stands ninety feet below.

[...]

|12.13.06 @ 10:33PM|#

So many misrpresentations, so little time.

Look, in the most recent election cycle, the NRA spent 85% of it's campaign monies on GOP candidates. GOA spent 100% on GOP candidates.

The result? A pretty good night for the Dems.

Second, there's all this talk about Dems wanting to ban all guns. Yet, no one can cite or point to any organization affiliated with the Dems adocating a total ban on guns.

only 2 percent of criminal guns come from gun shows.

Baloney. The BATF did a study (June 2000) which shows close to 40% of guns used in crimes coming from gun shows. Frankly, anyone who has attended more than one gun show can probably identify, without too much difficulty, who is making straw purchases.

|12.13.06 @ 10:55PM|#

Maybe off the subject; I recently saw a series of pictures (on the internet, of course (sorry no link)) following a front line squad through WWII Europe. None of them carried an M-1, they all carried greaseguns(cheap, easy to make, notoriously inaccurate).

|12.13.06 @ 11:12PM|#

I don't think that the Democrats have changed. What has changed is that they have been completely shut out of power and the most radical elements have been fomenting revolution. I think it eventually sunk in a couple of years ago that if they wanted the blood of Bush-supporters to run red in the streets, they probably would have to be armed. Kos and others have changed their positions on the necessity to have an armed populace to counter tyrrany, because they believe that we are living under tyranny now.
Bottom line: Democratic Bush-hatred has overcome their gun-hatred.

|12.13.06 @ 11:34PM|#

So many misrpresentations[sic], so little time.

Indeed, you simply make too many misrepresentations in your post to even bother deal with.

Guy Montag|12.13.06 @ 11:37PM|#

Ohio? Those income tax freaks keep telling me that Ohio is not even a State!

Well, from my reading of the Constitution, even the people in the territories should be abe to carry concealed.

Nobody Important|12.13.06 @ 11:54PM|#

Jadegold | December 13, 2006, 10:33pm
The BATF did a study (June 2000) which shows close to 40% of guns used in crimes coming from gun shows.

40 percent? Really?

From "Should Gun Shows Be Outlawed?"

The Bureau of Justice Statistics report Firearms Use by Offenders finds that only about 1 percent of U.S. crime guns come from gun shows. The BJS study was based on personal interviews with 18,000 prison inmates in 1997, and was the largest such study ever conducted by the federal government. Of course this figure includes all sales at gun shows, including sales by federal firearms licensees. (Since some future criminals have clean or expunged records, they could pass any background check.) The sources of criminal guns were:

* Purchased from a retail store, 8.3 percent.
* Purchased at a pawnshop, 3.8 percent.
* Purchased at a flea market, 1.0 percent.
* Purchased in a gun show, 0.7 percent.
* Obtained from friends or family, 39.6 percent.
* Got on the street/illegal source, 39.2 percent.

Combining "gun show" with "flea market", we get 1.7 percent.

snip

The Bureau of Justice Statistics report from November 2001 was entirely consistent with previous federal studies. A June 2000 federal study, Federal Firearms Offenders, 1992-98 found only 1.7 percent of federal prison inmates obtaining their gun from a gun show (plus 1.5 percent from a "flea market").

Similarly, a National Institute of Justice (NIJ) study, released in December 1997, reported less than 2 percent of criminal guns come from gun shows. (Homicide in Eight U.S. Cities, page 99; the report covers much more than homicide.) The same study found that twenty-five percent of crime guns came from gun stores, even though FBI permission is required for every purchase from a gun store.

Jadegold's BATF study is here. Skimming through it, there' s a lot of talk about investigations, but I don't really see anything about "crime guns." Given the political climate at the time, I could see why the BATF would be devoting a lot of resources to investigating guns, especially at gun shows.

Please point out where it says 40% of guns used in crimes come from gun shows.

|12.14.06 @ 12:03AM|#

Please point out where it says 40% of guns used in crimes come from gun shows.

Forty percent is the percentage of guns sold by private sellers at gun shows in Virginia. Jadegold is apparently assuming that all those guns were used in crimes.

Let that be a guide to the credibility or relevance of anything else in that post.

|12.14.06 @ 5:17AM|#

Dan T. | December 13, 2006, 10:16am | #

Congrats Ohio, welcome to the old west. I hope there's some healthcare reforms in there too, because you'll need it for the blood in the streets that's going to be the result.

Dan-

Please see Fletch's fuckwit comment, as it would apply equally well to such a statement above.

Hugs.

Sam Franklin|12.14.06 @ 7:59AM|#

PROLOGUE: OPENING DAY

The way I picture it is two trucks, loaded with bags of cement simultanously pulling across the lanes in both directions of a busy 6 lane freeway.

After the big crash, the men with the guns come and shoot people in their cars, as many as 4 or 5 men could shoot.

Probably fewer fatalities, but a lot scarier.

Either that or freeway snipers scattered about the country. Freeway snipers seem to be hard to catch even when they repeat their crime.

|12.14.06 @ 8:53AM|#

I think it's rather plain what I'm getting at, but I'll sum it up. I see no difference between those who advocate gun-control, and other "controllers", such as abortion-control. All these people have something in common. They all are deeply cynical of human nature, and don't think individuals should be permitted to make these kinds of decisions for themselves.

Does this make me an "unthinking rejectionist"? Perhaps. But I see the enemies of individual self-determination just as close-minded and unyielding, so that balances things.. except that I like to think that little thing called the US Constitution weighs in on my side.

|12.14.06 @ 9:41AM|#

mediageek,

"When did I ever mouth off about the dangers of terrorists?"

All the time, on other threads. And yet, by your own bullying logic, you shouldn't do so, because you've neither committed a terrorist act nor foiled one.

"Four guns a month? Where do you get this number? Why not two, or eight?" OK, why not? What's a reasonable number that will minimize the burden on oridnary people while still throwing a wrench into the all-too-common practice of loading up your trunk with gun in Georgia and driving up I95 to sell them?

"Such laws only impact the law-abiding as guns can and will always be had from a myriad of other sources." Actually, the number of guns used in violent crimes in NYC that were sold this way is quite staggering.

Nobody Important, your arguments are well matched to your handle.

Kirk Parker,

Since the milia is the general pubic, the distinction between regulating the mlitia and regulating the general public in their handling of firearms is a meaningless one.

Also, you should learn the difference between a semi-automatic and an automatic weapon, if you want to discuss the regulation of automatic weapons.

|12.14.06 @ 10:01AM|#

"You know Joe, I try to be nice to you sometimes, I really do, but then you say some stupid smug comment like that after what I have said just went completly over your head and I am really tempted to just say screw it and let my worst instincts come out. Why do you have to say things like that?"

The reason Joe acts this way is because he's a liberal who cant defend his argument. When liberals start to lose the debate, they get mad and resort to name calling. There's just no where else for them to go.

|12.14.06 @ 10:06AM|#

"Second, there's all this talk about Dems wanting to ban all guns. Yet, no one can cite or point to any organization affiliated with the Dems adocating a total ban on guns."

The Violence Policy Center. The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence.

Internationally, there's IANSA, Australia has Gun Control Australia. Also, one need only point to the United Kingdom where the situation is so bad that the UK Olympic Pistol Team has to practice in France, yet the gun bigots continue to campaign to outlaw replica firearms and competitive air guns.

And even if those outright prohibitionist organizations didn't exist, the Brady Campaign still advocates for onerous, irrational, and capriciously vindictive levels of gun control aimed only at turning the gun culture into it's own political whipping boy.

Just because an organization would let citizens own a single-shot rifle that must be kept in a locked safe at a gun club doesn't mean they're pro-gun.

"Baloney. The BATF did a study (June 2000) which shows close to 40% of guns used in crimes coming from gun shows. Frankly, anyone who has attended more than one gun show can probably identify, without too much difficulty, who is making straw purchases."

So, you're saying that the Department of Justice are a bunch of liars?

Sam Franklin|12.14.06 @ 10:14AM|#

Some of the commenters get real heated up on this subject. Almost makes it hard to have an intelligent discussion.

|12.14.06 @ 10:18AM|#

"All the time, on other threads. And yet, by your own bullying logic, you shouldn't do so, because you've neither committed a terrorist act nor foiled one."

Really? Prefer to share some links? Makes no nevermind, as even if you weren't confusing me with John it's completely beside the point in this discussion.

"OK, why not? What's a reasonable number that will minimize the burden on oridnary people while still throwing a wrench into the all-too-common practice of loading up your trunk with gun in Georgia and driving up I95 to sell them?"

How's this for an idea: Instead of wasting resources making sure that law abiding citizens aren't buying more than some arbitrary number of guns we could prosecute the people who are, you know, actually breaking the law by selling firearms across state lines without going through an FFL, or those who sell guns to felons, or those who break New York's (onerous and moronic) state laws?

I mean, call me crazy, but maybe instead of cracking down on regular people, the justice system ought to concentrate on punishing criminals.

Sam Franklin|12.14.06 @ 10:23AM|#

How's this for an idea: Instead of wasting resources making sure that law abiding citizens aren't buying more than some arbitrary number of guns we could prosecute the people who are, you know, actually breaking the law by selling firearms across state lines without going through an FFL, or those who sell guns to felons, or those who break New York's (onerous and moronic) state laws?

I think microchip trackers in each and every gun would help in these enforcement efforts. That way, it would be easier to tell if the guns were transported across state lines in a manner violating federal law.

Now that you are helping craft sensible regulations, mediageek, look how much progress we can make. i am glad you have coe down off that high horse.

What else should we do regulationwise?

I hope the microchips don't cost too much. Gunowners need to pay for reterofit after all (I'm not paying for it, that's for sure).

|12.14.06 @ 10:26AM|#

Joe, out of sheer curiosity, I ran a Google search of Hit 'n' Run looking for the terms "mediageek" and "terror."

Results 1 - 86 of 86 from www.reason.com/blog for mediageek, terror. (0.27 seconds)

86 hits, many of which just found my username near another user's post who used "terror"(-ism, -ists, istas, -inos.)

Given that I've been posting nearly daily on Hit 'n' Run for a couple of years, those results are a bit sparse for someone accused of bringing up terrorism [FINGER QUOTES] "All the time, on other threads." [/FINGER QUOTES]

|12.14.06 @ 10:50AM|#

Dave, I hear that those can be circumvented by immersing them in corn syrup.

Sam Franklin|12.14.06 @ 11:09AM|#

Dave, I hear that those can be circumvented by immersing them in corn syrup.

Yeah, when Hillary's BATF stops getting the signals from all your transponders, that is when they come on out to your gunsafe to make sure there hasn't been a theft (or worse). Make sure not to shoot these agents -- they might be coming by at a funny hour and they don't always knock.

Or, I suppose you could just leave the microchip intact and save yourself the trouble. You paid for your chips -- it wouldn't make any sense for you to try to disable them.

|12.14.06 @ 11:17AM|#

Why do I get the feeling that Dave doesn't understand that I'm mocking him?

Sam Franklin|12.14.06 @ 11:27AM|#

I think the Microchip could be placed next to the serial number.

Would this work? Would the chip throw off the balance of the gun? When firing a gun, are the user's hand positioned away from that part of the gun.

On handguns, maybe the chips could go on the butt end end of the butt.

|12.14.06 @ 12:29PM|#

I think the Microchip could be placed next to the serial number.

Would this work? Would the chip throw off the balance of the gun? When firing a gun, are the user's hand positioned away from that part of the gun.

You really want involuntary microchip tracking on personal property? I mean, seriously? I'm not much for "slippery slope" arguments, as typically when they're raised they're already MUCH too late, but do you realize the ramifications of this? What comes next? Merry Land wants money in wine taxes, so it doesn't want internet sales. So, now we have to put chips on wine...just to make sure that kids don't start drinking it. But, wait, people drive to the next state also, and we want tax money, so let's put them on cars too, just to make sure we know that isn't going on. It's ridiculous, presumptive of guilt with no evidence thereof, and simply dangerous even if well meaning.

I simply am astounded that people would want the government that deeply in their privates. Seriously. It's such a bizarre concept to me, to see someone apparantly openly advocating such is akin to someone saying how well crack addicts do raising gifted children. It might work in isolated cases, but on the whole I wouldn't think many people really want that.

Sam Franklin|12.14.06 @ 1:02PM|#

I'm not much for "slippery slope" arguments, as typically when they're raised they're already MUCH too late, but do you realize the ramifications of this? What comes next?

Oh, I don't think the slope is that slippery. People, except those who own guns, understand tat stolen guns can cause problems that unpaid wine taxes do not.

The gun owners of America make up a proud private militia of sorts, but it does need to be well-regulated, in a way that people who aren't militias don't need to be regulated.

|12.14.06 @ 1:42PM|#

mediageek,

"How's this for an idea: Instead of wasting resources making sure that law abiding citizens aren't buying more than some arbitrary number of guns we could prosecute the people who are, you know, actually breaking the law by selling firearms across state lines without going through an FFL, or those who sell guns to felons, or those who break New York's (onerous and moronic) state laws?"

Hopelessly weak, and virtually impossible to enforce. If a legal buyer can load up his truck without violating the law, and the only violation of the law is when he drives up to Philly and starts selling, then enforcement becomes much more difficult. As I already explained, which nobody had a response to, enforcing regulations when a licensed dealer performs a reportable transaction is much more likely to actually work.

Yes, some persons might be inconvenienced. Did you ever think that reducing the number of shopping trips someone has to make is not the only legitimate public policy goal?

|12.14.06 @ 3:02PM|#

Oh, I don't think the slope is that slippery. People, except those who own guns, understand tat stolen guns can cause problems that unpaid wine taxes do not.

As I said, the argument is had long after the slope is behind one. If you honestly believe that it's a good thing for the govt to put "tags" on private property, just because you think one particular flavor causes trouble (more kids die from scissors, drownings, and don't even start with cars...) in your mind, and you can get supposedly logical people to agree with you, then the Orwellian nightmare is upon us.

As I already explained, which nobody had a response to, enforcing regulations when a licensed dealer performs a reportable transaction is much more likely to actually work.

I'd have to go upstream and look at what you've written, Joe. Honestly, this waiting period crap does nothing to reduce anything which is objectionable, with the exception that gun suicides decline in favor of other methods. A friend of mine who has no firearm experience, when I was explaining all the silliness MerryLand puts me through to purchase a handgun, said "Well, hell, if I wanted to go shoot someone I'd just go to walmart and buy a shotgun. I wouldn't even need to shoot well." My point is that if a benevolent person who has very little knowledge of firearms, and even less of how to bring violence on another, can figure that out in under 20 seconds, all your checks and waiting periods and quantity limitations result in nothing more than intellectual masturbation about how you're controlling undesirable people.

That's what it seems to be all about to people who are all for firearm regulations. Obviously, it doesn't work on anyone who isn't already law abiding, those who break the laws are not going to pay attention to another law. Therefore, it can only be about undesirable people.

Case in point is http://www.washtimes.com/metro/20061212-121703-7734r.htm , where our wonderful pain in the ass to people who own firearms attorney general talks about his wonderful future. Specifically, he says on page 2 "I'm not suggesting that we have to have a total ban of all guns in America," Mr. Curran said. "First of all, that's never going to happen. ... But I would like to see to it that there begins to be a restriction on who can get these guns." I wonder just who should sit in judgement of who should be provided with certain tools and who shouldn't?

I guess the answer can be reasonably inferred via the rest of the article, where he's all for one party govt if it's Democrat, and not at all if it's Repub.

|12.14.06 @ 3:24PM|#

I have to say I love all this back and forth and whatnot, but let's just get the truth out in the open... Thanks to federalism, state A can't ban guns in state B, and the US Congress isn't going to pass a national purchase limit.

How's that for reality based?

As you were.

Sam Franklin|12.14.06 @ 4:52PM|#

the US Congress isn't going to pass a national purchase limit.

So it is okay not to consider this issue when voting in national US elections?

|12.14.06 @ 5:02PM|#

Feel free to consider it all you want. There are just somethings that don't register as wildly popular. Like abolishing the federal income tax, for example.

|12.14.06 @ 6:18PM|#

Looks like I killed off the thread. :(

No, really guys... Go back to the debate; it was entertaining.

|12.14.06 @ 6:42PM|#

"Hopelessly weak, and virtually impossible to enforce. If a legal buyer can load up his truck without violating the law, and the only violation of the law is when he drives up to Philly and starts selling, then enforcement becomes much more difficult."

Gee, and if we could only force every kid in school to take a pee test we could easily find every drug user. Maybe it would be easier to find all those drug users if we set up roadblocks and searched random cars.

Gee, we could stop all kinds of crime if people were only willing to give up yet another smidgen of their civil liberties.

A policeman's job is only easy in a police state, joe.

"Yes, some persons might be inconvenienced. Did you ever think that reducing the number of shopping trips someone has to make is not the only legitimate public policy goal?"

Joe, as it's obvious you've never had to go through the process of buying a firearm, let me state quite bluntly that it's already enough of a pain in the ass already.

Not that you care. You're happy to flog an entire subculture so long as it lets you feel like you're doing something.

|12.14.06 @ 6:47PM|#

ellipsis, yeah, it does pretty much boil down to that.

Also, it strikes me as patently obvious that if these gun control measures in NYC aren't working, then perhaps they ought to be repealed.

At best, the only thing those laws have accomplished is to force criminals to shift the ways that they engage in business, while nearly stripping citizens of their basic civil right to possess effective means of defending themselves.

Barbaric, when you think about it.

|12.14.06 @ 6:51PM|#

Forty percent is the percentage of guns sold by private sellers at gun shows in Virginia. Jadegold is apparently assuming that all those guns were used in crimes.

Nope, Issac. As I recall, I cited the BATF study; I can't help it if your research skills consist of putting your hand down the back of your pants. The full report's title is Following the Gun: Enforcing Federal Laws Against Firearms Traffickers (June 2000). One can find the data on page 17.

"A prior review of ATF gun show investigations shows that prohibited persons, such as convicted felons and juveniles, do personally buy firearms at gun shows and gun shows are sources of firearms that are trafficked to such prohibited persons. The gun show review found that firearms were diverted at and through gun shows by straw purchasers, unregulated private sellers, and licensed dealers. Felons were associated with selling or purchasing firearms in 46 percent of the gun show investigations. Firearms that were illegally diverted at or through gun shows were recovered in subsequent crimes, including homicide and robbery, in more than a third of the gun show investigations."

Again, organized gun nut money went overwhelmingly to GOP candidates this electiuon cycle. The Dems won pretty big.

|12.14.06 @ 7:00PM|#

Jadegold, Nobody Important already quoted, cited, and even linked to actual sources disproving what you claim.

Hell, he even took the time to link to the study you talked about.

Perhaps you'd care to point out which chapter and page backs up your assertion?

I mean, that is kind of a standard thing to do in a debate and all.

|12.14.06 @ 8:13PM|#

Oh, I see, the problem is that the numbers you quote don't come closing to saying "close to 40% of guns used in crimes com[e] from gun shows."

That's an interesting conclusion you came to. As I said, it just helps in evaluating the accuracy or relevancy of anything you say.

|12.14.06 @ 8:27PM|#

Nope, Issac. As I recall, I cited the BATF study; I can't help it if your research skills consist of putting your hand down the back of your pants.

Nor can you help it if you have the mental capacity of a squirrel, in a general sense of course, not intending to apply necessarily to people who advocate this kind of silliness. The problem is, one must first actually understand the subject they are dealing with.

That said, in fairness to Jadegold, he or she is falling into the standard trap they all do, referring to "gun show loophole" applying to private firearm sales. This causes confusion when looking at actual data from people, ie BATF, who actually understand what they are discussing, and actually mean a "gun show" when they say "gun show". It's a common problem that people fall into when they have no freaking clue of what goes into handgun purchasing in reality, or any firearm for that matter.

That said, a lot of the problem is that the private transfers, whatever level, that DO result in crime are typically an acquaintance or family member giving them a firearm. This is for the purpose of doing wrong, and is very unlikely to change by requiring private party transfers go through some kind of background check. The checks just simply won't be done, and nobody will know that the firearm was transferred until such time as it is used in a crime. Meaning, of course, requiring such things is in reality no more than harrassment of generally law abiding people.

It really does come down to, simply, who you consider to be the "undesirables".

|12.14.06 @ 9:49PM|#

problem is, one must first actually understand the subject they are dealing with.

Indeed, Caine. That's why you are compelled to rely on semantical dodges such as pretending there's some vast difference between a gun show purchase and a private firearm transaction.

I can guarantee most gun shows will have folks who are more than willing to sell firearms out of the trunks of their cars parked in the lot.

That said (to repeat Caine's over-used phrase), the charge that law-abiding citizens are being harrassed by the mere act of having to establish their bona fides is laughable considering the fact society is being asked to put up with third-world gun violence numbers and its associated costs.

|12.14.06 @ 10:01PM|#

The Violence Policy Center. The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence

Neither group has ever advocated a total ban on firearms.

The VPC's policy: "The VPC approaches gun violence as a public health issue, advocating that firearms be subject to health and safety standards like those that apply to virtually all other consumer products."

No word of ban there.

CGSV? Ditto, noword of banning anything.

Perhaps you read minds.


Internationally, there's IANSA, Australia has Gun Control Australia. Also, one need only point to the United Kingdom where the situation is so bad that the UK Olympic Pistol Team has to practice in France, yet the gun bigots continue to campaign to outlaw replica firearms and competitive air guns.

The Dems are campaigning in Australia? Learn something new each day.

The UK pistol team happens to train in Ireland, the Isle of Man, and the Channel Islands. But the France lie is a nice touch.

Nobody Important|12.14.06 @ 11:28PM|#

From "Absolutists Politics in a Moderate Package: Prohibitionist Intentions of the Gun Control Movement" by Gary Kleck (Journal on Firearms And Public Policy. Volume 13. Fall 2002. 1 MB PDF, HTML).

Restrictive licensing of handguns can be every bit as restrictive as a handgun ban; under the Sullivan Law's restrictive licensing system in New York City, less than 1% of civilians have a permit allowing them to legally own a handgun (p.2)

Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist Mike Royko stated it more bluntly: "the ultimate goal of the anti-gun lobby is to ban the private ownership of all weapons. That is their ultimate goal, although the anti-gun people won't admit it. It would be foolish strategy." (p. 3)

Accused of harboring prohibitionist intentions, they cite their organization's official current legislative agenda. For example, HCI Chairman Pete Shields seemed to deny any intent of his organization to push for stricter controls on long guns in future when he wrote: "Handgun Control, Inc., does not propose further controls on rifles and shotguns." Two features of this phrasing are note- worthy. First, the statement pertained to what HCI "proposes," i.e. its stated policy agenda, rather than what its leadership ultimately wanted. Second, the statement was phrased in the present tense; it said nothing about what HCI might propose in the future. And in fact, within eight years, HCI did push for a ban on various rifles and shotguns. (p. 4)

"This measure may not be much, but it's a good first step," thereby acknowledging their intention to follow an incrementalist strategy. For example, HCI Chair Pete Shields admitted in 1976 that "we're going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily -- given the political realities -- going to be very modest. The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition totally illegal." (p. 5)

Likewise, Rep. William Clay (D-MO) described the Brady Act as "the minimum step" that Congress should take to control handguns. "We need much stricter gun control, and eventually we should bar the ownership of handguns except in a few cases." Similarly, Rep. Bobby Rush (D-IL) was quoted in 1999 as saying that "Ultimately, I would like to see the manufacture and possession of handguns banned except for military and police use. But that's the endgame. And in the meantime, there are some specific things that we can do with legislation." (p. 5)

Thus, there is little serious dispute that gun control organizations, including HCI, are pursuing a step-by-step strategy, where attaining moderate controls facilitates gaining stricter controls. The only point on which disputants differ is how far this incrementalist path will be followed. While some of the preceding proponents openly acknowledged advocating an incrementalist strategy that they hoped would end in prohibition, other proponents, such as the leaders of HCI, do not currently admit to any plans to pursue controls that far. On the other hand, HCI's leaders do not say exactly how far they will pursue further controls, i.e. what their ultimate stopping point will be. (p. 6)

HCI as an organization has never officially stated that it will never support banning possession of all guns or handguns, and it certainly has never said that it would actively oppose gun bans. Further, HCI has never in practice opposed a gun ban in its history. Quite the contrary, it has actively supported local and state proposals to ban handguns, and has actively defended existing handgun bans passed by local governments. When a ban on handgun possession was passed by the Village of Morton Grove, Illinois, and the ordinance was challenged in court, HCI filed an amicus curiae brief urging the appellate court to uphold the ordinance. (p. 6)

Likewise, in 1978, HCI, under its old name of the National Council to Control Handguns, filed an amicus curiae brief in defense of the Washington, D.C., handgun ban. More recently, in the 1990s, HCI President Richard Aborn urged other cities to adopt the same law.23 Thus, HCI at minimum supports local handgun bans. (pp. 6 - 7. See also my post at December 13, 2006, 5:08pm)

HCI's support for handgun bans, however, has not been limited to local measures. In the Fall of 1976, under its old name of the National Council to Control Handguns, it contributed $16,000 to a state referendum campaign to ban the private possession of handguns in Massachusetts, providing nearly 30% of the campaign's financing.24 Thus, HCI has supported state-level, as well as local, handgun prohibition. It has never publicly repudiated this support. (p. 7)

In contrast to HCI, other major gun control advocacy groups openly support prohibition. After HCI, the most prominent national gun control advocacy groups are probably the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (CSGV), formerly the National Coalition to Ban Handguns, and the Violence Policy Center (VPC). CSGV, organized by the Board of the Church and Society of the Methodist Church in 1975, unambiguously supports prohibitionist controls.30 Its Web site states that it advocates "a ban on the sale and possession of handguns and assault weapons." CSGV does not, however, admit to any intentions to ban long guns (aside from the subset they regard as "assault weapons") as well as handguns, so they too could harbor covert prohibitionist intentions that go beyond their advocacy of bans on handguns and "assault weapons."
VPC also openly supports handgun prohibition, though a more indirect variant. It supports the Firearms Safety and Consumer Protection Act (H.R. 920), which would grant regulatory authority to the Department of the Treasury that "would subject the gun industry to the same safety standards as virtually all other products sold in America."32 This does not sound much like a gun ban, until one knows how VPC anticipates this regulatory power being used. In a 1999 New York Times op-ed article supporting this bill, VPC's executive director, Josh Sugarmann, wrote that "any rational regulator with that authority would ban handguns." (pp. 8 - 9)

For example, Common Cause is probably best known for its efforts to reform campaign financing. However, in a 1972 statement presented to a House Judiciary Subcommittee, the organization endorsed a "total ban on the sale and manufacture of all handguns" as well as a proposal that "private ownership of handguns also be prohibited." Likewise the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the Unitarian Universalist Association, the American Civil Liberties Union, Americans for Democratic Action, the National Alliance for Safer Cities, the National Board of the Young Women's Christian Association of the U.S.A., and the International Ladies Garment Workers' Union have all at some time endorsed banning the private possession of handguns. (p. 9)

Even the leaders of HCI openly admitted their prohibitionist intentions at one time. In repeated public statements early in the organization's history, the long-time chair of HCI, Pete Shields, explicitly supported handgun prohibition, and even acknowledged that HCI was following an incrementalist strategy to attain this long-term goal. In July of 1976, Shields told a reporter for the New Yorker that his organization's ultimate goal was "to make the possession of all handguns totally illegal" (emphasis in original) and was pursuing an incrementalist strategy in pursuit of the goal. He repeated these points in an interview in September of 1977 with Parade magazine. (pp. 9 - 10)

In his 1981 book, HCI Chair Pete Shields assured his readers that HCI had no intention of pushing for further controls over long guns, i.e. shotguns and rifles: "Handgun Control, Inc. does not propose further controls on rifles and shotguns. Rifles and shotguns are not the problem; they are not concealable."... Yet, within a decade, as soon as the political opportunity arose to restrict "assault rifles" (which are no more concealable than other long guns), both HCI and CSGV began to lobby for a ban on "assault weapons," an amorphous category largely composed of long guns....This willingness to extend their control efforts to long guns undermines the credibility of HCI and CSGV promises concerning the limits of their future control ambitions. (pp. 16 - 17)

There are also earlier precedents for moderate gun controls being expanded and made stricter until they reached the status of de facto gun bans. New York's Sullivan Law, passed in 1911, initially allowed almost any adult to get the required permit for possessing a handgun, but legislative amendments and progressively stricter police administration of the law in New York City eventually produced a de facto ban on the private possession of handguns. Likewise, Washington, D.C., initially required only the registration of handguns, but in 1976 passed a law providing that the District would no longer register handguns, effectively banning any further acquisition of handguns. This handgun "freeze" in the long run will become a handgun ban as registered handgun owners move out of the city or die.
While neither Congress nor any state legislature has passed bans on guns or handguns, this is not because no such legislation has been introduced. Proposals to ban the private possession of handguns have been under consideration by the U.S. Congress since at least 1974. For example, Representative Jonathan Bingham had one version or another of a bill banning private possession of handguns under consideration from at least as early as 1974 to as late as 1981. This bill was supported by HCI, when it was called the National Council to Control Handguns (NCCH 1974). More recently, Senator John Chafee (R-RI) introduced a bill in 1992 banning handgun possession, as did Rep. Major Owens (D-Brooklyn, NY) in 1993 (p. 17)

And in 1999, the Attorney General of Maryland, J. JosephCurran proposed banning handguns in that state (p. 18)

Ramsey Clark, Attorney General of the United States, 1967- 1969: "I think we should work for the day when there are no guns at all, at least in urban areas -- even for the police on normal duty."
Pat Brown, former governor of California: "I feel that we should take the general position that handguns should be barred except by police officials and other authorized people, and then try to find out how to seize them in the days ahead."
Patrick Murphy, former New York City Police Commissioner and President of the Police Foundation: "The time has come for us to disarm the individual citizen." (p. 23)

President Bill Clinton is arguably the most prominent of all prohibitionists. One year into his first term, he was asked by a reporter for his opinion on "banning handguns." Given a straightforward opportunity to state whether he personally supported or opposed banning handguns, Clinton instead carefully confined his answer to an assessment of the short-term political achievability of such a measure: "I don't think the American people are there right now. But with more than 200 million guns in circulation, we've got so much more to do on this issue before we even reach that. I don't think that's an option now." (pp. 24 - 25)

In a 1978 national survey, 51% of U.S. adults agreed with the statement that "A national gun registration program might well eventually leadfiscation of registered firearms by the government." (p. 32)

|12.15.06 @ 3:38AM|#

Indeed, Caine. That's why you are compelled to rely on semantical dodges such as pretending there's some vast difference between a gun show purchase and a private firearm transaction.

I'm not compelled. You're being imprecise and therefore the substance you quote doesn't agree with your statement. I just pointed out the basis on the off chance someone missed it, which helps explain you're only being imprecise instead of a complete ignorant ass to keep asserting something in the face of documented links pointing out your statement is wrong. Basically I'm trying to help you not look like such an ass, but it appears to be a more difficult task than I had previous anticipated.

Neither group has ever advocated a total ban on firearms.

Actually, you're being very careful here. No, not a "total" ban on firearms, not yet. They're advocating a ban on a number of different types of firearms, based mainly on cosmetic issues but occasionally based on function. I guess muzzleloaders would be ok to them in the short term, until they can get rid of those, so I'd have to concede they aren't advocating a TOTAL ban on firearms since they know they can't sell it.

The Dems are campaigning in Australia? Learn something new each day.

Actually, it's like saying a separate branch of the same tree. "Weed" is perhaps the better analogy.

That said (to repeat Caine's over-used phrase), the charge that law-abiding citizens are being harrassed by the mere act of having to establish their bona fides is laughable considering the fact society is being asked to put up with third-world gun violence numbers and its associated costs.

Thanks for the recognition, I'm glad you can look past ideas and retain full focus on prose.

Nice dodge with the "third-world" stuff. How would "third-world gun violence numbers" be affected by the People's Republic of MerryLand requiring another two legal size sheets of paper with the same questions as the fed form, in quadruplicate, combined with a seven day wait period? By the way, your purchase limits don't apply to me, since I'm a "designated collector" and can take home as many "regulated" fireams as I can afford at any time, but if I was not, then that is thrown in also.

I'm curious, Just who are you scared of having arms? Seriously, drop the pretentious canned arguments and describe exactly who it is you want to prevent.

Sam Franklin|12.15.06 @ 7:25AM|#

Feel free to consider it all you want.

Let me put it another way. So it would not be rational to consider the issue when voting in US elections. The logic being that it makes no sense to consider a moot issue when deciding whom to vote for. that is what I take from your comment above, ellipsis. Good read?

Nobody Important|12.15.06 @ 7:42AM|#

Jadegold | December 14, 2006, 6:51pm
Felons were associated with selling or purchasing firearms in 46 percent of the gun show investigations.

(1) I haven't read the entire study, which I linked to earlier, so I can't comment on its specific merits. However, as had been pointed out years before, BATF investigations are not representative of guns used in crime (see here and here).

Saying that "felons were involved in 46% of gun show investigations" is not the same thing as "46% of crime guns come from gun shows." In fact, I'm wondering why the other 54% of investigations did not involve felons. What was the BATF investigating?

(2) By the end of 1998, President Clinton had already decided to make gun shows an issue. Unfortunately, I can no longer find his original memo to the BATF on-line, but here's a NY Times summary:

Clinton Calls For Closing Big Loophole In Gun Law
November 8, 1998, Sunday

Pres Clinton orders Treasury and Justice Depts to recommend ways to stop gun shows from exploiting loophole in Brady gun control law; claims gun shows have become 'illegal arms bazaars' for criminals and gun runners; Government estimates that five million people attend gun shows every year; Brady law's requirement for waiting periods and background checks does not apply to gun show sales; Clinton is seeking way to close that loophole.
(emphasis added to the lie)

In spite of the data I cited earlier, do you think it's possible that the BATF was under political pressure to come up with some scary sounding numbers to support the president's agenda?

"X% of sales at gun shows done without background checks" or "Y% of investigations involve criminals" may make for great sound bites, but are really meaningless.

I suppose if anybody claimed that Saddam Hussein was seeking to purchase weapons of mass destruction from gun shows, the Brady bunch would cite that as evidence of the menace of gun shows.

Once again, for those who haven't figured it out already, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS "THE GUN SHOW LOOPHOLE." Whether or not all firearms transactions should require background checks is an idea that can be debated on its own merits. But because it legally happens at gun shows, where the laws are the same as they are everywhere else, does not make it a "loophole." And calling it one is being ignorant or misleading. Stop giving in to the culture of fear.

|12.15.06 @ 11:04AM|#

"Neither group has ever advocated a total ban on firearms."

Of course not, because advocating an outright ban would be public policy suicide. But actions, as they say, speak much louder than words.

That you actually attempt to claim that these organizations are somehow not bigotted against the shooting culture is both utterly laughable and demonstrative of just how clueless you actually are. Or perhaps you'd care to provide a link to any information where any of these organizations have spoken up on behalf of the people's civil right to the most effective means to self defense.

"The Dems are campaigning in Australia? Learn something new each day."

My illustration had nothing to do with the Democrats and everything to do with pointing out that in the countries like the UK and Australia that the prohibitionists have gotten their way. If you'd like to post information showing that the US-based gun ban organizations are largely different than their international counterparts in supporting the civil right to own a firearm, you're certainly more than welcome to.

"The UK pistol team happens to train in Ireland, the Isle of Man, and the Channel Islands. But the France lie is a nice touch."

Ok, so they don't train in France. According to the BBC they train in Switzerland.

I'll refrain from calling you a liar, and simply point out that you're woefully misinformed.

|12.15.06 @ 11:15AM|#

Jadegold's next post:

"Hi, I'm totally going to ignore any actual facts, make the batshit insane claim that the VPC and similar groups aren't a threat to gun rights, and call names. If you were here in real life, I'd throw feces, too."

Nobody Important|12.15.06 @ 12:02PM|#

Consider this:

Gun control groups say that an instant-background-check or a 3-5 day waiting period to conduct background checks prevent criminals from getting guns.

Maybe, maybe not. That's a reasonable debate.

But they have also consistently opposed licensing systems that requires (1) a 30 - 90 day waiting period, (2) a more thorough background check that usually includes fingerprinting and photographing the applicant, references, etc. (3) a required training course that usually costs over $100, (4) a licensing fee that usually costs over $100.

They say that the second background-check and licensing-system described does not do enough to prevent criminals from carrying concealed weapons.

The only constant in both positions is that gun-rights must be restricted, but never expanded. And then have the gall to claim that they're not really prohibitionists.

F**k 'em. They're weasily lying-sacks of s**t.

At least the anti-abortionists are much more honest about their motives and goals.* Hell, they're quite proud of their position. As much as I disagree with that bunch, at least I can respect them.



* Or if the anti-abortionists are as disingenous as the anti-gunners, the lame-stream media refuses to cover-up for them.

|12.15.06 @ 12:10PM|#

Sam Franklin | December 15, 2006, 7:25am | #
Feel free to consider it all you want.

Let me put it another way. So it would not be rational to consider the issue when voting in US elections. The logic being that it makes no sense to consider a moot issue when deciding whom to vote for. that is what I take from your comment above, ellipsis. Good read?

You don't seem to understand my point. A Jesus freak in Alabama can advocate theocracy all he wants, and can vote for theocratic candidates. Said candidate could even win. That doesn't mean the whole US is in any danger of instituting theocracy.

If it's an issue that's near and dear to your heart, you have every right to vote your conscience. Just know that your position isn't wildly popular.

|12.15.06 @ 12:25PM|#

Ellipsis-

Sam Franklin, aka Dave W. is, so far as I can tell, demonstrably suffering from some form of mental illness. He's really not even worth responding to.

Sammy Franklin|12.15.06 @ 1:36PM|#

If it's an issue that's near and dear to your heart, you have every right to vote your conscience. Just know that your position isn't wildly popular.

I didn't take a position on the sales restrictions we were discussing above. My only proposal was a tracking chip, and even that suggestion was more to demonstrate that there are other types of gun restrictions that are not bannings and do not lead ineluctably to bannings.

i still take out of your comment that if I were against sales restrictions (in reality I am undecided), then it would not make sense for me to consider that issue when voting because it is moot due to the unpopularity of sales restrictions. To spell it out for you further, if a gun nut took your comment seriously, then she would not be rational to consider sales restrictions when voting because (i) you and I know the subject is off the table forever; and (ii) there are other issues that are therefore more important. When I scroll back up and review our dialogue, this interpretation still seems to make sense.

|12.15.06 @ 3:04PM|#

if a gun nut

We prefer firearm enthusiasts.

i still take out of your comment that if I were against sales restrictions (in reality I am undecided), then it would not make sense for me to consider that issue when voting because it is moot due to the unpopularity of sales restrictions.

At least we have a rational discussion here.

My take on your statement is tempered by my knowledge of the practical application of firearm regulation. I would say you would have to consider it, not so much for the issue alone (unless there were a realistic chance that it would be passed), but more that the people that advocate one part of firearm regulation tend to advocate others. The total package is unacceptable from a civil liberty standpoint, for me. I don't buy the "they cost us so much" argument, as many other things cost more.

People liken firearm rights to abortion rights, but there is one major difference. Regardless of how poorly it is worded, firearm rights are specifically addressed in the constitution. There are those who will aggressively oppose any firearm regulation based on the fact it involves firearms, and there are those who will oppose it on more libertarian beliefs (myself included here).

|10.20.09 @ 11:31PM|#

We all know it's easy to buy guns in America. How easy? Can Crazy People Buy Guns?