All-purpose gun legislation thread

[Houngan]

Biased, but this is what I’m talking about: http://www.vpc.org/studies/eddie3.htm

The left would rather there be no guns around kids at all.

I’m not agreeing or disagreeing with this, by the way. Just pointing out that the Eddie Eagle program isn’t a factor to those on the gun control side of the debate. They don’t want the need for the program to even exist.

I don’t want Catholic priests to exist, but that doesn’t mean kids shouldn’t be told how to spot a pedophile.

[Houngan]

What about an 80-year old woman against 10 men? 10 men in body armor? 10 men in body armor with assualt rifles?

I agree that you have a basic right to try and defend yourself. It’s not a basic right to have whatever tools are necessary to have guranteed, effective defense against all and sundry. The minute that you demand that the 80-year old woman needs overwhelming force to bring her on par, that 20-year-old man can have the same.

You’re doing what Napolitino did: I need to have whatever they (i.e., the attackers) have. It’s a circular position: whatever may be used against me, I need to be able to match or one-up. Well, once you have, they can have it. So up it again!

Self-defense as a natural right does not directly progress to having guns, as a natural right. The 2nd Amendment does give that right, but that’s separate from a natural rights argument.

I haven’t taken the positions that guns are a natural right, just that self-defense is. I will take the position that in the US, considering our crime, violence, geography, and law enforcement then a firearm is the most obvious choice to guarantee a minimum chance of successful self-defense for a comprehensive set of our citizens. I do not, and have not made any case for types of weapons. If you have a problem with Neopolitano’s point, Google maps can get you to wherever he lives and you can take it up with him.

[jeffd]

No problem. But hey, that’s like saying you agree with parts of Christianity that support your religious views. There are factions! People died! Fortunately, economists seem to be relatively non-violent about their differences of opinion.

When I someday earn my PHd, I aim to change that. No more freshwater vs. saltwater bullshit and silly arguments in journals. We’ll settle things in the ring.

[Stepsongrapes]

Out of curiosity, what do you think the end-game would be? Overall ban on handgun ownership, semi-auto ownership, etc?

Given the sheer numbers of guns already in circulation, and their longevity, would you think existing weapons would be grand-fathered in? Or would there be some time (maybe 50 years from now) when they’d turn them in (depending on where public opinion sits 50+ years from now).

Basically, what do you think a reasonable long term gun-control policy given the realities of the current state of gun ownership is in the US. Are you thinking of playing a very long-game, like decades?

Answering the bottom first, I think it’s a long-game, no matter what anyone would prefer.

At some point, I would hope that the situation would be some what akin to what you see in the Nordic countries: heavy licensure, monitoring, and safety requirements. If we ended up like the following description of Sweden, I think we’d be good.

Sweden

Gun ownership requires license and is regulated by the weapon law (Vapenlagen 1996:67) further regulations are found in weapon decree (Vapenförordningen 1996:70). The law doesn’t ban any specific firearms or weapons, it merely states the requirements to own one. Everything from pepperspray to full-automatic machine guns are technically legal, and license to civilians can be given in ‘special’ cases. Like the other Nordic countries Sweden has a high rate of gun ownership, due to the popularity of hunting. The weapons law doesn’t apply to air guns and similar with a projectile energy less than 10 joules at the end of barrel. These require no license and may be bought by any person over 18 years. Breech-loading rifles manufactured before 1890 are exempt as well. The gun license is obtained from the Police, and one must be in good standing and at least 18 years old, but exceptions regarding age can be made. To apply one must either be a member in an approved shooting club for at least six months or pass a hunting examination (jägarexamen). The former is mostly used to legally acquire pistols for sport shooting and the latter for hunting rifles. A hunting examination must be passed to actually use a firearm for hunting. One can for instance acquire a shotgun license through a skeet shooting club but may only use it for clay pigeon shooting until an actual hunting examination has been passed. The minimum age for taking an hunting exam is 15 years. A person under 18 years may not own a firearm him- or herself, unless an exception have been made. A person with a gun license may legally under supervision lend his or her gun to a person at least 15 years and older. A person may be granted license to own up to six hunting rifles, ten pistols or a mix of eight rifles and pistols. Owning more firearms than this requires a valid reason. Firearms must be stored in an approved gun safe. Carry-permits are usually only given to armed guards, for civilians it’s illegal to carry a firearm around unless between the home and shooting range. Self-defence needs can permit a person to acquire a license in special circumstances. . . . Owning firearms is viewed as more of a privilege than a right.

Overview of gun laws by nation

[jeffd]

Can you go into more detail? It’s only two sentences, maybe you could explain why one or both of them is such a reach, and we could discuss it, instead of you being dismissive.

Not really actually; based on fifty-seven pages of thread I’m pretty well convinced that you’re not particularly rational on this subject. Hence me dismissing you.

[Starlight]

Fortunately, economists seem to be relatively non-violent about their differences of opinion.

Just because the people they kill are not at their own hands…

[Telefrog]

I don’t want Catholic priests to exist, but that doesn’t mean kids shouldn’t be told how to spot a pedophile.

There are visual cues for identifying pedophiles? ;)

Seriously though, I think Eddie Eagle illustrates the divide between gun control advocates and gun enthusiasts. The NRA says the program helps save lives by teaching kids what to do when they find a firearm lying around. (Stay away. Go get an adult. There’s nothing controversial there.) The people that want more gun control say the program is part of the NRA indoctorine agenda and they maintain that it misses the point. You shouldn’t need a program, if guns didn’t show up all over the place.

I think it’s interesting to see the viewpoint difference.

[Houngan]

There are visual cues for identifying pedophiles? ;)

Seriously though, I think Eddie Eagle illustrates the divide between gun control advocates and gun enthusiasts. The NRA says the program helps save lives by teaching kids what to do when they find a firearm lying around. (Stay away. Go get an adult. There’s nothing controversial there.) The people that want more gun control say the program is part of the NRA indoctorine agenda and they maintain that it misses the point. You shouldn’t need a program, if guns didn’t show up all over the place.

I think it’s interesting to see the viewpoint difference.

Sure, but the bolded is unrealistic. That’s just simple logic, if there’s something that’s a threat then why not educate about how to handle that threat? Further, the program is designed and administered specifically to avoid ANY political or “indoctrinating” information. Read a bit about it.

[Houngan]

Not really actually; based on fifty-seven pages of thread I’m pretty well convinced that you’re not particularly rational on this subject. Hence me dismissing you.

Could be. Maybe. You seem to avoid ever actually going into detail about your own posts, I’m not sure how my irrationality prevents you from explaining yourself, but if that’s the case then I’m sure we’re poorer for it.

[Gav]

Self-defense is a basic human right. If you can tell me how to achieve that for a 80-year-old woman vs. a 20-year-old man with something other than a firearm, I’m all ears.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/10/us/home-invasion-gun-rights/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

And is there any other weapon that lets a father accidentally shoot his kid when he mistakes him for a burglar? (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/retired-police-officer-shoots-kills-son-mistaking-him-151734492.html)

How about something that lets a homeowner defend against a drunk tourist, shooting him to death for knocking on his door? (http://www.nytimes.com/1994/01/08/us/homeowner-shoots-tourist-by-mistake-in-texas-police-say.html)

Anecdata is cheap.

[CLWheeljack]

To be a valid interest of collection it must be possible to obtain a complete collection, for example - Pre-World War II British handguns -. A collector may start a second (or more) collection if he or she has collected for several years and shown a great interest in gun history.

Haha. I like that they legally define a collection.

I’m wondering mostly how you logistically handle the guns currently in circulation. I actually don’t particularly disagree with any of the Swedish terms, they seem reasonable enough. There’s probably some reasonable approach, like grandfathering in current owners, but making all transfers (including inheritance, etc) subject to the registration / regulation scheme.

The hard thing is that no matter what you do, there will be a long period after the law passes where nothing changes. So, you really need to long-term political will to changing the status quo.

[Houngan]

And is there any other weapon that lets a father accidentally shoot his kid when he mistakes him for a burglar? (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/retired-police-officer-shoots-kills-son-mistaking-him-151734492.html)

How about something that lets a homeowner defend against a drunk tourist, shooting him to death for knocking on his door? (http://www.nytimes.com/1994/01/08/us/homeowner-shoots-tourist-by-mistake-in-texas-police-say.html)

Anecdata is cheap.

Then don’t use it, and instead respond to the actual point. What’s a reasonable expectation for self-defense for a physically-unfit US citizen? If the position is that it’s just the cost of doing business in order to get rid of guns, then I accept that.

[Telefrog]

Sure, but the bolded is unrealistic. That’s just simple logic, if there’s something that’s a threat then why not educate about how to handle that threat? Further, the program is designed and administered specifically to avoid ANY political or “indoctrinating” information. Read a bit about it.

I can’t get any clearer than this: I don’t agree the program is a form of NRA indoctrination program. I don’t find anything in the Eddie Eagle program to be anything more than good practical advice since it mainly focuses on “STAY AWAY FROM GUNS AND GO GET AN ADULT.”

You mentioned the far left and said Eddie Eagle did more than they did to save young lives. I’m pointing out that the left doesn’t give two craps about Eddie Eagle (beyond some thinking it’s a NRA Trojan Horse) because they think you wouldn’t need the program if there weren’t so many guns.

I’m further pointing out that boosters of Eddie Eagle are talking past the gun control argument. Gun control advocates don’t want Eddie Eagle. They’d like a world in which a child finds an unattended gun does not exist.

Is that practical? Certainly not in the US of today. I think the debate breaks down because one side thinks you can’t shift that needle much or at all, while the other believes you can.

To put it another way, we don’t have a national program teaching kids not to play with landmines in the US because the scenario probably wouldn’t come up very often. It certainly could happen, but the odds are so low that we don’t bother. Gun control folks would like those same odds for kids finding a gun.

[Houngan]

I can’t get any clearer than this: I don’t agree the program is a form of NRA indoctrination program. I don’t find anything in the Eddie Eagle program to be anyhting more than good practical advice since it mainly focuses on “STAY AWAY FROM GUNS AND GO GET AN ADULT.”

You mentioned the far left and said Eddie Eagle did more than they did to save young lives. I’m pointing out that the left doesn’t give two craps about Eddie Eagle (beyond some thinking it’s a NRA Trojan Horse) because they think you wouldn’t need the program if there weren’t so many guns.

I’m further pointing out that boosters of Eddie Eagle are talking past the gun control argument. Gun control advocates don’t want Eddie Eagle. they’d like a world in which a child finds an unattended gun does not exist.

Is that practical? Certainly not in the US of today. I think the debate breaks down because one side thinks you can’t shift that needle much or at all, while the other believes you can.

To put it another way, we don’t have a national program teaching kids not to play with landmines in the US because the scenario probably wouldn’t come up very often. It certainly could happen, but the odds are so low that we don’t bother. Gun control folks would like those same odds for kids finding a gun.

Sure, we’re on the same page then. I’d like those same odds for kids finding a gun as well, along with criminals getting access to guns. At that point, I’d probably not give a rat’s ass about having my own guns, though I would miss the sport.

[Stepsongrapes]

Haha. I like that they legally define a collection.

I’m wondering mostly how you logistically handle the guns currently in circulation. I actually don’t particularly disagree with any of the Swedish terms, they seem reasonable enough. There’s probably some reasonable approach, like grandfathering in current owners, but making all transfers (including inheritance, etc) subject to the registration / regulation scheme.

The hard thing is that no matter what you do, there will be a long period after the law passes where nothing changes. So, you really need to long-term political will to changing the status quo.

One thing that I absolutely agree with Houngan on: there are no easy solutions. That, alone, isn’t a basis to give up. That’s why my earlier point on supporting an assualt weapons ban. Baby steps are a necessity for this issue. I think most gun control politicians realize this when they push for the ban.

Back to my point on guns and cars, it boggles my mind how differently the two things are handled, from almost every standpoint, in the US: regulation, training, safety features, licensing, registration, renewal.

[Houngan]

One thing that I absolutely agree with Houngan on: there are no easy solutions. That, alone, isn’t a basis to give up. That’s why my earlier point on supporting an assualt weapons ban. Baby steps are a necessity for this issue. I think most gun control politicians realize this when they push for the ban.

Back to my point on guns and cars, it boggles my mind how differently the two things are handled, from almost every standpoint, in the US: regulation, training, safety features, licensing, registration, renewal.

I offer this as humor, not as an argument:

http://www.michaelzwilliamson.com/blog/item/we-need-to-regulate-cars-the-way-we-regulate-guns

[Gav]

Then don’t use it, and instead respond to the actual point. What’s a reasonable expectation for self-defense for a physically-unfit US citizen? If the position is that it’s just the cost of doing business in order to get rid of guns, then I accept that.

I’d like to see some actual evidence that, on balance, guns help more physically-unfit US citizens than they hurt. Without that, you don’t have a point, you’ve got a story.

[Houngan]

I’d like to see some actual evidence that, on balance, guns help more physically-unfit US citizens than they hurt. Without that, you don’t have a point, you’ve got a story.

Okay, what sort of data would you accept? Generally whenever I or another links to anything supporting the idea that firearms are successfully used in self-defense it’s dismissed. So you tell me what you would find compelling and I will (lm)GTFY.

[Jason_McCullough]

Wait, are we talking about mandatory training tied to CCW licenses, or mandatory training tied to being able to purchase a firearm? If the latter, then yes, they probably oppose that, and it’s something with which I disagree, because I’m middle class and have the time and money to attend any training, even though it would be a complete waste of my time.

CCW. The observation I’m trying to badly make here is that the NRA’s lobbying arm is a bag of useless dicks, who are interested in opposing all firearm law changes unless they target a group they don’t like.

As for safety, are you unaware of the Eddie Eagle program? It’s saved a hell of a lot more kids than anything the left has done about firearms.

Ho ho ho trolly. The NRA’s non-lobbying programs are pretty good. I just wish their crazytown lobbyists and their hysteria hype cycle would get the hell out of the way.

[Houngan]

CCW. The observation I’m trying to badly make here is that the NRA’s lobbying arm is a bag of useless dicks, who are interested in opposing all firearm law changes unless they target a group they don’t like.

Ho ho ho trolly. The NRA’s non-lobbying programs are pretty good. I just wish their crazytown lobbyists and their hysteria hype cycle would get the hell out of the way.

Well then I just . . . agree with you entirely. Carry on.