Gun Control in the USA

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

It is important and good that we trust in Christ, and place our lives in His hands. There is no other way for us to live. But within that context we are sometimes required to use our own wits, abilities, talents and gifts to accomplish the task before us, and that can include life-threatening situations. This thread, after all, is not about faith in Christ for protection, but Gun Control in the USA.

In that light, I reiterate: Taking guns from law abiding citizens doesn't take guns from thugs. Additional and more stringent gun registration laws, licensing, proficiency requirements, etc., doesn't take guns from thugs. Nationwide legal searches (proposed in some quarters of the more extreme gun control advocates) for guns violates the "unreasonable search and seizure" clause of the Fourth Amendment, and doesn't take guns from thugs. Repealing the Second Amendment doesn't take guns from thugs. The only way to take guns from thugs is to take thugs away from guns. Imprison 'em long, hard and deep for committing a felony with a gun. Jail 'em for an additional, consecutive year for committing a misdemeanor with a gun. That will take guns from thugs, because presumably it will be extremely difficult for them to get guns in prison or jail.

 

[Kaliani]

So enforcement of the current laws there is slack? People get away with owning illegal firearms on a regular basis?

 

[Sparkey]

So enforcement of the current laws there is slack? People get away with owning illegal firearms on a regular basis?

Good question, Kaliani. :p

There may be some small percentage of people who can "get away with" owning illegal firearms but not on a regular basis. The current restrictions to illegal firearms (including fully automatic) have been active and effective since 1934 making it unlawful for civilians to own "machine guns" or other weapon types deemed illegal without special permission from the U. S. Treasury Department.

FEDERAL FIREARMS REGULATIONS
To become a registered owner [of an otherwise illegal firearm], a complete FBI background investigation is conducted, checking for any criminal history or tendencies toward violence, and an application must be submitted to the ATF including two sets of fingerprints, a recent photo, a sworn affidavit that transfer of the NFA firearm is of "reasonable necessity," and that sale to and possession of the weapon by the applicant "would be consistent with public safety." The application form also requires the signature of a chief law enforcement officer with jurisdiction in the applicant's residence.

Since the Firearms Owners' Protection Act of May 19, 1986, ownership of newly manufactured machine guns has been prohibited to civilians. Machine guns which were manufactured prior to the Act's passage are regulated under the National Firearms Act, but those manufactured after the ban cannot ordinarily be sold to or owned by civilians.

SOURCES:
FAQ On National Firearms Act Weapons, Copyright by James O. Bardwell, 1994 - 2001.
National Firearms Act (NFA) — Machine Guns
THE FIREARMS OWNERS' PROTECTION ACT:

Twenty-five states have no further restrictions on civilian ownership of machine guns (some require registration with the state) than what is required by federal law. Other states have either placed further restrictions or outlawed operable machine guns to civilians entirely.

In 1995 there were over 240,000 machine guns registered with the ATF. (Zawitz, Marianne,Bureau of Justice Statistics, Guns Used in Crime [Marianne W. Zawitz statistician with the Bureau of Justice Statistics: "Guns Used in Crime"].) About half are owned by civilians and the other half by police departments and other governmental agencies (Gary Kleck, Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control, Walter de Gruyter, Inc., New York, 1997.)

Since 1934, there appear to have been at least two homicides committed with legally owned automatic weapons.

 

[Sparkey]

Writing a letter to each of your appropriate representatives is in order:

Dear (Recipient),

I am a law-abiding citizen and responsible gun owner.

I am saddened by the tragic events in Newtown, Connecticut, but I believe that efforts to impose new restrictions on me and other lawful and responsible owners like me are misguided. Did you know that violent crime with firearms has declined since the Federal "assault weapons ban" expired in 2004?

Your focus should be on strengthening mental health care and improving the quality of data supporting NICS checks (National Instant Criminal Background Check System). Do NOT pass more gun laws; instead, work to enforce the more than 20,000 gun laws already on the books.

I am your constituent and I vote. Please represent me.

Sincerely,

You can find your representative(s) here:
Ruger's "Advocacy by Zip Code"

 

[Sparkey]

So enforcement of the current laws there is slack? People get away with owning illegal firearms on a regular basis?

I really like your question and its implications.

• Criminals are businessmen of sorts. They operate under the same constraints any other business is run – but the business is illegal. Every business must keep costs down. Guns are like any other tool to a criminal. They are disposable. As prison surveys have invariably found; the object is to be as well armed as possible for as little money as possible.
• Most of the guns that were legally purchased and that were then used to commit a crime are “one crime and out” deals. Most of the stolen guns that are used in crimes are used in a great many crimes.

So we have several ways to take the question implied in the search. The overwhelming majority of gun related crimes are committed with guns that have been stolen, and traded for drugs. Those guns are passed from criminal to criminal, sold and resold, and may very well be used in hundreds of crimes before they are recovered from someone accused of a crime. Given that fact, it becomes obvious that no actual count of the number of crimes committed with “illegal guns” is possible. In fact, most gun related crimes are never solved, and are certainly never linked to an individual gun, legally purchased or not.

We do have a handle on the source of guns recovered from persons arrested and accused of a crime. Of guns recovered from persons arrested and charged with a crime:

• 84 percent of those guns were stolen in a burglary; including 4 percent stolen from a relative or a friend.
• 6 percent of those guns were confiscated and resold by a “law enforcement officer.” Legalized armed robbery, in other words.
• 2 percent of those guns were stolen from the police or the military.
• 2 percent of those guns were stolen from a parcel or delivery service.

That leaves just six percent of guns taken from arrestees that could properly be considered possible “crime guns” that could also have been legally purchased. And most of those were never used in a crime. If they had been “crime guns” they would already have been ditched.

Source: “What Percentage Of Crimes Committed With Illegal And Legal Guns”
Posted on August 22, 2012 by "Stranger"

 

[Sparkey]

The question arises, "If most gun crimes are committed with guns that are obtained from a burglary, or from guns traded for drugs, could we focus on prevention by requiring strict home security for firearm owners?"

Further legislation that restricts drug trades or imposes greater sentences to such trades involving firearms may help but the idea of passing more laws that target actions that are already deemed illegal is suspect. But what about guns obtained from legal owners (strangers) acquired by theft? Should they (legal owners of firearms) be forced to install greater security measures for the public good? Perhaps a combination of mandatory trigger locks, gun safes and home security systems should be considered.

Although there are other possible solutions along the same line they all fall because they tend to restrict the poor from owning firearms. This can be seen as a racial issue and certainly would be seen as a political dilemma to our legislators and representatives. Hence we see that the conclusion of the "gun control" advocates to prohibit all weapons from all law-abiding citizens, leaving gun possession to criminals and law-enforcement or military personnel is the only logical response to the problem.

The problem with the problem is seen when we ask if that is truly what we want? A society where only criminals can own guns seems less desirable to me, especially when we consider the statistics concerning legal defensive use of firearms and the prevention of crime combined with the fact that gun-related crime has consistently gone down in recent years.

• The rate of gun murder is at its lowest point since at least 1981: 3.6 per 100,000 people in 2010. The high point was 7 in 1993.
• Federal data shows violent crimes committed with guns — including murders, aggravated assaults and robberies — have declined for three straight years.
• Gun crime has been declining in the U.S. Firearm murders are down, as is overall gun violence – even as gun ownership increases.

 

[phantom309]

I havent been able to chime in much the last few days with work issues,but I had to comment on the fact-finding and awesome posts,Sparrow.Just looking at the overwhelming amount of information available,should one choose to research it and acknowledge it, I remain puzzled by the continuous (although small) support of firearm bans..even despite the factual ineffectiveness of it.

Good job man,thanks for your posts.

 

[Drew]

It may not be an over-statement that there is a kind of mass-delusion dimension to this issue. I work (here in Canada) in quite a "right-wing" environment - we do things like security technology, surveillance technology, other engineering etc. - the place is full of relatively 'conservative' 30 to 50 male years olds. And I can truthfully say that, without exception, everyone here (generally well-educated professionals) think the notion of assault weapons in the hands of citizens, and the arming of teachers, janitors, etc. to be, frankly, absurd.

Now many Americans agree. But many don't. I suggest, and I know this may seem judgemental and speculative (and I am on record as opposing such attitudes), but I think we are witnessing a group phenomenon whereby a group of people collectively commit to what is frankly an absurd and wildly unrealistic position - allowing civilians to have assault weapons and arming teachers, just as examples. The members of this group perpetuate what is, I suggest, a clearly delusional view of reality precisely by a kind of strength in numbers effect. In other words: "If all these other people think that this level of arming of the citizenry is not crazy, then I can adopt that position as well and not be considered crazy".

I greatly fear it will take something much worse - someone killing, say, 100 young children - before the delusion is burst.

 

[phantom309]

It may not be an over-statement that there is a kind of mass-delusion dimension to this issue. I work (here in Canada) in quite a "right-wing" environment - we do things like security technology, surveillance technology, other engineering etc. - the place is full of relatively 'conservative' 30 to 50 male years olds. And I can truthfully say that, without exception, everyone here (generally well-educated professionals) think the notion of assault weapons in the hands of citizens, and the arming of teachers, janitors, etc. to be, frankly, absurd.

Now many Americans agree. But many don't. I suggest, and I know this may seem judgemental and speculative (and I am on record as opposing such attitudes), but I think we are witnessing a group phenomenon whereby a group of people collectively commit to what is frankly an absurd and wildly unrealistic position - allowing civilians to have assault weapons and arming teachers, just as examples. The members of this group perpetuate what is, I suggest, a clearly delusional view of reality precisely by a kind of strength in numbers effect. In other words: "If all these other people think that this level of arming of the citizenry is not crazy, then I can adopt that position as well and not be considered crazy".

I greatly fear it will take something much worse - someone killing, say, 100 young children - before the delusion is burst.

Actually I would consider you stark raving mad at this point.

So let me get this straight - you press the point of using reasonable logic prior to this latest rant,and now that facts and statistic leaves your argument eviscerated,you seize the last opportunity available and the one least reasonable..that of resorting to personal insults when your argument fails.How mature.

The fact that you and a group of co-workers happen to agree with gun confiscation does not make your "logic" any more sound than it was before.Nothing will be accomplished by disarming legally armed and law abiding citizens.I think the notion of stripping away a means of self defense for the average working family is,quite frankly,absurd.These are the people who do not commit crimes.The facts have been laid out.Statistics have been piled at your feet.This is the very information you demanded,and then claimed you didnt have time to read.Common sense cries out against your every word in this matter.Therefore,I must submit that if anyone here is delusional then that person would be you.

Use whatever example/tragedy you like.Disarming those who dont do the deed is not the proper solution to the problem.Society in general is failing in ways unimagined before due to leaving behind our morals and attempting to erase all mention of God.The stench of moral decay grows stronger by the year,and legislation alone wont solve that.The examples you use are relatively isolated incidents,and pale in comparison to the number who have been saved by a parent or other civilian with access to a firearm from criminals who would have injured/killed them.You continually ignore those statistics,though..interestingly enough.

I predict there will be a delusion burst,alright.You just may not like it when you awake to find it was your own.Large scale gun control/confiscation has been on the horizon for years.I know it will happen but choose to fight against it every step of the way.Think outside the box for a minute.The next time you turn on your tv and see a stabbing,rape,murder or beating ask yourself how many of those instances could have been stopped had that civilian or a friend/neighbor/loved one been armed and able to protect them.When you disarm the people,the rules change.No longer can a single mother stop a kidnapping or a grandfather put an end to a home invasion that occurs while the grandkids are over.Congratulations.You are helping the criminal underworld by making it easier for them to use force and/or violence to achieve their goals.

 

[reba]

I greatly fear it will take something much worse - someone killing,
say, 100 young children - before the delusion is burst.

Most the same crowd that wants gun control kills over 3000 a day here in the US. It is not the right to life they want it is the control.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

I greatly fear it will take something much worse - someone killing, say, 100 young children - before the delusion is burst.

You almost sound as though you hope it happens so the ATF can swoop in and take everyone's guns.

 

[Sparkey]

... I work (here in Canada) in quite a "right-wing" environment - we do things like security technology, surveillance technology, other engineering etc. - the place is full of relatively 'conservative' 30 to 50 male years olds. And I can truthfully say that, without exception, everyone here (generally well-educated professionals) think ... [anecdotal conclusions omitted]

Drew? I would like to refer you to post #206:

More evidence of the problem: you have not (apparently) been educated about the problem of the anecdotal argument. This is probably no fault of yours, it is a fault of your education system.
...
Its simply not correct reasoning. If you don't believe me, I am sure you can find stuff on the internet about the error of arguing from anecdotes.

Further, your characterization of people who hold ideas that are opposed to you as "delusional" is a better example of delusion than those you point to.
Let's check, shall we?

DELUSIONAL: a persistent false psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary;​

Point to any member or evidence of any member of your opposition on this board who holds any persistent false psychotic belief, or if you prefer, point to any indisputable evidence you, or those who support your side, have presented and I'll gladly withdraw my observation. Else, we should be able to expect an apology for your false characterization, or at minimum a retraction. Right?

Finally, it simply seems strange to me that you support your conclusion(s) by reference to 30 to 50 others (known only to you), using the same strength in numbers argument to add weight to your anecdote and personal delusion: that disarming law abiding citizens or creating more criminals (by enacting greater gun type restrictions and prohibiting their possession) will somehow magically prevent crime.

 

[handy]

Or perhaps we are witnessing a group phenomenon whereby a group of people collectively commit to what is frankly an absurd and wildly unrealistic position - that making it illegal for law-abiding citizens to own guns is going to stop criminals and the insane from perpetrating gun violence.

 

[mdougie]

There should be common sense regulations regarding guns. Some weapons in the modern world are simply too destructive for individual citizens to own.

I also find that the conversation on sensible regulations gets drown out by those the extremes of both sides. Certainly the second amendment must be respected, while at the same time acknowledging that the second amendment doesn't use the word gun, but arms, and that arms if taken to it's extreme would allow people to own missile launchers and build dirty bombs in their attic.

 

[phantom309]

Drew? I would like to refer you to post #206:



Further, your characterization of people who hold ideas that are opposed to you as "delusional" is a better example of delusion than those you point to.
Let's check, shall we?

DELUSIONAL: a persistent false psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary;​

Point to any member or evidence of any member of your opposition on this board who holds any persistent false psychotic belief, or if you prefer, point to any indisputable evidence you, or those who support your side, have presented and I'll gladly withdraw my observation. Else, we should be able to expect an apology for your false characterization, or at minimum a retraction. Right?

Finally, it simply seems strange to me that you support your conclusion(s) by reference to 30 to 50 others (known only to you), using the same strength in numbers argument to add weight to your anecdote and personal delusion: that disarming law abiding citizens or creating more criminals (by enacting greater gun type restrictions and prohibiting their possession) will somehow magically prevent crime.

Slam dunk.

 

[Sparkey]

There should be common sense regulations regarding guns. Some weapons in the modern world are simply too destructive for individual citizens to own.

I also find that the conversation on sensible regulations gets drown out by those the extremes of both sides. Certainly the second amendment must be respected, while at the same time acknowledging that the second amendment doesn't use the word gun, but arms, and that arms if taken to it's extreme would allow people to own missile launchers and build dirty bombs in their attic.

I agree. The trouble comes when we try to agree on a definition for common sense, a misnomer if I've ever heard one.

Violent crime with firearms has declined since the Federal "assault weapons ban" expired in 2004, and that even while total sales have gone up. Focus should be on strengthening mental health care and improving the quality of data supporting NICS checks (National Instant Criminal Background Check System). There are more than 20,000 gun laws already on the books. Sure, the politicians need to be seen as doing something, but what if what they were seen to do was listen?

Back in Post #126, I listed in detail some of the specific real life actions that I had no trouble supporting:
My post received the highest endorsement possible:

I am entirely in favour of all your points, although I see them as only a partial solution. But, again, all the things you suggest seem sensible to me, and I would heartily endorse them. I happen to think they do not go far enough but I can recognise the value in them.

And again later in Post #139 Drew agreed:

I agree. From a practical perspective at least, I believe it is probably necessary to "compromise" on this issue.

Just seems to me that peeling back the rhetoric and actively pursuing the goal of getting weapons out of the hands of criminals is the common sense way to step toward our mutual goals.

Post # 126.

In Post #172, I asked Drew directly about his plan:

"You aim to disarm law-abiding citizens in the vain hope that this will somehow disarm deranged, would-be, mass murderers. I've not heard you say anything about actually disarming criminals, even though I've asked several times for details."​

I do not believe I have ever claimed that I know the best way to disarm your entire society.

... law-abiding citizens are safer when the entire society is disarmed.

Drew, that is exactly what I am asking you. How does one go about creating this? You continue to assure me that it can be done and that "it's" the right thing to do, but I'd like to bring you back to reality by asking exactly how? How would you disarm America?

You know, Drew, you're talking about removing a right that is protected by the Constitution, but beyond that, you're talking about taking away the ability to protect and defend against criminal action. You offer nothing in return except the idea that if magically all weapons disappeared people would be safer. You offer no proof that your contrived (impossible) scenario would help control crime in America and no method to accomplish your goal.

It's easy to say "guns are bad and should be banned." There's good armchair quarterbacking on how to go about it. There's theories and propositions. Every single one of them is outside the realm of reality. If laws were passed that banned guns in the USA, here's what would happen:

1. Criminals would laugh at the laws and keep their guns.
2. Some citizens would turn their's over and become unarmed future victims.
3. Some citizens would not turn their's over, and then what? Send the cops/feds door to door confiscating registered guns? Now you have dead cops/feds/bystanders/etc. when the bullets start flying.

Come up with some tangible solutions and we'll explore them. This means you, Drew!

DREW'S ADMISSION:

This is not correct logic. It really is quite clear: the fact that I do not have a solution does not mean that there is not one. Unless we are going to use proper reasoning, how can we have a proper discussion?

Common sense maybe? Drew wants to disarm citizens. I want to disarm criminals. Even though there seems to be agreement of sorts, there does not seem to be any common ground to be found between the two camps. IF there is no agreement that can be found, how can we find our first steps together - we are simply not headed to the same place.

His most recent speculation is that those who oppose him are suffering from a persistent false psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary. Sheesh!

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

There should be common sense regulations regarding guns. Some weapons in the modern world are simply too destructive for individual citizens to own.

I also find that the conversation on sensible regulations gets drown out by those the extremes of both sides. Certainly the second amendment must be respected, while at the same time acknowledging that the second amendment doesn't use the word gun, but arms, and that arms if taken to it's extreme would allow people to own missile launchers and build dirty bombs in their attic.

Well, in fairness to the founders, they didn't envision such weapons in 1789. The "weapon of mass destruction" then was the 6" cannon that could fire a 16-lb cannon ball about 400 yards at the most (with the wind). Though I'm pretty sure they didn't intend for private citizens to own one of those under their Second Amendment right, they didn't say anything against it, either.

You're right, the shrillness on both sides drowns out reason. We need to address the issue rationally. Who, after all, really needs a 30-shot magazine for a 9mm semi-automatic? No one I know. I am in favor of required gun safety and proficiency courses for prospective gun owners applying for a license for the first time. I'm in favor of trigger locks. With the technology we now have, I foresee the day (and it is truly already here) when we can imprint a gun with a bio-lock -- it only recognizes its owner's grip and will not fire for anyone else. Not the burglar ransacking the den, and most importantly, not the three-year old who stumbles across the weapon in daddy's desk drawer.

There is no reason owning guns cannot be made safer for everyone who will live and work around them. We do not need to take away the right to bear arms, or even curtail it through burdensome and unnecessary regulations.

 

[Sparkey]

The other day my son and I were talking about one of the differences between the Ruger Mark II and the Mark III. Basically, the MKIII has a loaded chamber indicator, and mag release on the frame. My son didn't like it because he takes a defensive use stand and the sees the "improvements" as additional failure points. The MKII has a "heel" type magazine release which is the simpler mechanism. The price of the older Mark II's (when they can be located) are approximately the same as the newer Mark III's because oftentimes people who buy the newer models turn around and invest in kits that can be used to defeat the the frame-style mag release.

When we begin to speak about various bio-locks we now consider mechanisms that are designed to cause the gun to fail - fingerprint locks, RFID chips (used for tracking as well) and biometric sensors in the grip and trigger that can track a gun owner’s hand size, strength, and Dynamic grip style also known as (DGR) Dynamic Grip Recognition. Both New Jersey and California have legislation pending technology centered on bio-locks that are being developed. And yes, similar concept mechanisms have been used in other scenarios.

As previously stated there are more than 20,000 gun laws on the books. Many states already require gun locks, training, and the other sensible suggestions you endorse. My question: Do these measures decrease violent crime? Or, do statistics show crime rates go up in areas with dense population and increased racial tension? In other words, are you convinced of your theory that gun violence can be contained/controlled/reduced by making more laws for law abiding citizens?

Instead of introducing needless delay to potential defensive situations and additional failure points I'd rather consider voluntary use of Biometric Gun Safes for storage of loaded weapons:

There are biometric locks that are in use today, just not for guns. My search on YouTube showed me how to defeat a $200 biometric lock with a paperclip. My real solution to the issue is to have voluntarily disarmed myself. That was my choice but I still advocate for the rights of others and their defense.

 

[Sparkey]

I guess that I don't envy the position our President is in. It's clear that the problem we as a nation face has no easy solution. Nobody wants more restrictions on a Federal level but it seems that compromise needs to be made by both sides. Now is a time to pray for our leaders.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

I guess that I don't envy the position our President is in. It's clear that the problem we as a nation face has no easy solution. Nobody wants more restrictions on a Federal level but it seems that compromise needs to be made by both sides. Now is a time to pray for our leaders.

I'm not sure how much sympathy needs to be expressed for our president, who has an agenda and will try to force his will on Congress and the American people.