The benefits of gun control.

[rusty_rebar]

I have sort of asked this question before, but never got an answer.

This question is for the people that are in favor of gun control. I am not, but I am trying to understand your viewpoint. I just want to know a couple of things.

1. What is the societal problem that you are attempting to address with gun control?

2. What legal structures would you want to see created or repealed that would bring about this goal?

Please explain how these legal structures would address this societal problem.

My goal here is to have a civil discussion. People in favor of gun control are smart people, just as people who are opposed to gun control are smart people. The issue seems to be philosophical to me. I am sure we can have a productive discussion to understand each others viewpoints.


*minor grammar edit

[TheWraith]

1. I just recced this, but couldn't bring it back to zero.

Somebody doesn't like honest discussion, apparently.

[GreenStormCloud]

2. K & R and waiting for the gun control people to respond. N/T

[rrneck]

3. Now yer talkin'

:popcorn:

[virginia mountainman]

4. K & R.....nt

[rd_kent]

5. Pass the popcorn....with butter please....

:popcorn:

[virginia mountainman]

6. Got plenty to go around!!

[spin]

7. K&R All quiet on the Western Front. (n/t)

[Tim01]

8. So very quiet. k&r

[Euromutt]

9. Well, it is Saturday night; I'd say we give it at least 24 hours

... before we decide, even provisionally, that's nobody interested in a frank but polite exchange of views.

[OHdem10]

10. I have never had problems with gun ownership, even though I

personally am not all that comfortable around guns.

Something has peaked my curiosity and yes concern.

Over the past month just here on DU alone I have seen
reports from State after State passing Conceal Carry Laws.

Then states adding to the laws its appears.

Pemiting people to carry gun to work if it is left locked in car???
Permitting people now to show gun as act of self-defense.

There are others.

add to that: Report after report of people killing intruders.
people killing cops. No, I am not supporting Intruders
but killing them????

As I said earlier, I have never had a problem with people owning
guns. I thought this meant they were kept in the home and
used for hunting so forth.

What is with this sudden need for people to have a gun with
them at all times??? No I am not a conspiracy theorists.
I do notice patterns. Sometimes these are red flags, --not
always. We need to be alert.

[rrneck]

11. Alert indeed.

If I'm not mistaken the first concealed carry law was passed in Georgia in the mid seventies. Then Florida really got the ball rolling in the mid eighties. Most states now allow concealed carry.

People get assaulted outside of the home as well. They get car jacked and mugged all over the place, and need to defend themselves if that happens. Did you ever notice that almost nobody gets mugged in a police station? That's because the criminals usually attack people when they're sure there won't be a cop around.

The vast majority of firearms are kept for sporting and self defense purposes.

on edit:

Here's a map that gets thrown around a lot.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry_in_the_United_States

[pipoman]

14. A pattern to check

is the pattern of lower violent crime over the last 20 years. Is it coincidence that during the same time most states have adopted concealed carry and/or 'castle doctrine' type laws? These laws are mostly about the 2nd Amendment which has not one single thing to do with hunting...in fact the current stat is only 1 in 3 gun owners hunt.

[virginia mountainman]

15. The vast majority of these new laws, are a direct result....

Of a long term voter backlash, that shows no sign of abating anytime soon, the gun control gains made in the early 1990's planted the seeds, and those seeds, having grown into trees, are bearing fruit now. Every time a politician even mentions any kind of gun control, email servers melt, mail bags multiply, phone lines get red hot, and politicians get the message very quickly.

As long as gun owners perceive a threat, their activism will continue, after all, it is much better to be on the offensive, than the defensive. They are reminded of the threat, regularly, like the push to ban assault rifles in Washington state...Eric Holders comments.."talk" of closing the gun show loophole...

The talking heads on the news, that talk about "meaningful gun control" and complain about "lack of movement" on it, don't realize that all they are doing is reminding, millions of TV viewers in "rest of the nation", that "they are still trying to ban guns"...They elites just don't get it, so they keep talking, and the people, keep listening, and seeing the threat..

The Brady Campaign's and VPC's successes, almost 20 years ago, has come back to bite them, they kept "poking" the sleeping giant that is several million, peaceful, law abiding, reliably voting, solid block of gun owners... The politicians where quick to learn that gun control did not bring near the votes, Sara and her ilk promised, instead it costed them dearly, when their first votes on Gun Control, became among their last votes.

Now those gun owners have reached the political strength, to not only stop, most gun control proposals before they even get to the floor for a vote, they have the ability to form their own legislation, and get it passed into law, and that is what we are seeing now...

15 years, of constant, steady political gains, has made it so..

Brady and the VPC should have quit, when they where ahead in 1993....The Hated AW ban of 1994, was the legislation that enraged millions, and most of them are still pissed about it.

If they would have stopped then, gun rights would not have moved so far today, but when they started banning guns, because of cosmetic features, gun owners woke up and said this is pure political BS, and "not one step more".

In a way, Brady, MMM, and the VPC, are their own worst enamy...The awoke us, now they can feel our wraith.

The sad truth is, if they really want the gun right movement to go away, all they need to do is SHUT THE HELL UP about gun control, and in a few years, many strong gun rights supporters would stop pushing the legislators....BUT, Sara Brady, Paul Helmke, Micheal Blomberg, all republicans, cannot shut their traps that long to let the issue die down...

They keep the wound raw, so we, the great mass that is the Gun Rights movement, will march on...to victory...

[SteveM]

17. I will address your concerns about killing intruders ...

While you may not wish to kill intruders (and frankly, few people who do so actually want to), there is little recourse for a home-owner who fears for his/her life when no other ready help is available. Certainly, call the police; warn the intruder that you have a gun; rack the action Hollywood-style, if you so desire. But when the HyperPunk keeps coming, you had better be ready to shoot the "intruder." Because by then, after sufficient warning, this person means to do you harm.

I discussed the notion of "ahimsa" in a previous thread. Ahimsa is the highest order of non-violence advocated by Gandhi. This outlook seeks (in the case of the intruder) to stop the attacker without harming him/her, even to the point of your own death. If you follow this philosophy in protecting yourself, your family, your property, you may thwart the attacker; if you haven't and you or your's suffer, you have at least tried to follow this highest order of non-violence. But Gandhi recognized implicitly that most of us will not achieve ahimsa. What are we to do? Gandhi said there were but two options left: resist with violence the attacker, for protection of your family and property was your duty, ahimsa or not.

The third option? To turn away from your duty to protect, and be a coward. That was the very word he used. "Non-violence presupposes ability to strike. It is a conscious, deliberate restraint put upon one's desire for vengeance. But vengeance is any day superior to passive, effeminate and helpless submission."

Needless to say, Gandhi did not brook the vulgar notions of passivism expressed by some in these threads: doing nothing but cowering in fear or running away.

Frankly, I don't know for sure what I would do when confronted by an intruder who refused to flee. Would I run (and be a coward), would I reason with the intruder and stand before him (and practice ahimsa), would I shoot the intruder, taking a less-preferred route in exercising one's duty? With a firearm, all 3 options are left open.

BTW, my notion of a HyperPunk is an intruder which desires not to steal, but to confront and do harm. In one survey, about 25% of intruders are "excited" by the prospect of confronting someone with a gun (whether there is one present or not).

[GreenStormCloud]

19. On killing in self-defense, including intruders.

If someone illegally breaks into my home, I don't have the ability to know what he is up to. He may be drunk and thinking he has had to break into his own home, or he may be a homicidal maniac. I simply don't know. Nor do I have a good way to find out. To stay alive, and to protect my family, I must assume the worst and respond accordingly. That means that I will shoot without warning, and I will aim for center-mass, and I will fire multiple shots.

About No Warning. If I give him a warning, I have also surrendered the initiative to him. Action beats reaction. He now has time to act before I can react. He can now get in the first shot. Sorry, but I can't allow that, so I will shoot first to eliminate the threat.

Shooting for center-mass. Since my life is in danger, I don't want to miss. On TV the good guys often shoot to wound. Back in the days of kiddy westerns, Roy Rodgers and The Lone Ranger always shot the gun out of the bad guys hand, then holstered their own gun and had a fist fight with the bad guy. Real life isn't a kiddy western. Besides, people can still die from wounding shots.

We would happily post stories of bad guys getting scared away by defenders with guns. I know several people who have done exactly that, including my wife. I don't know anybody (Outside of law enforcement or military combat veterans) who has killed in self-defense. But scaring a mugger away just doesn't make the news. Even wounding a bad guy rarely makes it to the news. Usually the BG has to be dead for it to show up in the media. So that is why the defense stories that we post almost always involve dead bad guys.

On carrying concealed. Twenty years ago, concealed carry was either illegal or it was hard to get the permit. It is only recently that it has become legal in most states. Then Obama stated that he was against concealed carry and would support national legislation to outlaw it. (He has since shut up on the topic.) But that scared the crap out of a lot of people, including Democrats, and many people are rushing to get their CCW in hopes that if such legislation does come to pass, they will be grandfathered in. Others are fearful that the bad economy will cause an increase in crime. It isn't just RW who are getting the CCW permits. Lots of liberals are too. Pink Pistols, a gay shooting organization, strongly encourages all GBLT people to get a CCW permit. Their slogan is: Armed Gays Don't Get Bashed.

[safeinOhio]

22. I have a hard time with some here that

own over 10 grand in guns yet are unwilling to spend 2 or 3 hundred, or even less, in securing their homes to make it way less likely that anyone would intrude. Home defense starts with outside lighting and secure windows and doors.

$24.00 for motion lights on your porch. less than 10 bucks for 3 inch screws for your strikers and henges to make it very hard to kick in a door. A drill and some dowel to make it had to get in a window. 10 buck for some warning stickers for window and doors saying house is protected by an alarm.

Your homicidal maniac will at least have to make a lot more noise to get in giving you time and waking you up. You have already surrendered the initiative to him if you have not secured your home in the first place.

[burrfoot]

26. I don't always entirely agree with you, safe,

but I think you make very valid points about the relatively cheap ways that people can upgrade the security of their homes.

I can't attest to the veracity of this myself, but I keep hearing that the practical goal isn't to make your house impenetrable, but to make it harder or less desirable to target than the next house.

That being said, bad people will still try to do bad things, and some of those motherfuckers are pretty stupid. So, take reasonable precautions, but also keep a gun close by.

Just my .02

[rd_kent]

27. You are right, we all should take measures to secure our homes...

But what YOU consider appropriate and what another may consider appropriate can be two different things. Then there are those times when you are not IN your house, but in the car, at the store, on a hike, etc....

You do make a valid point about securing your home, and it IS important, but I disagree with you in the sentiment I inferred from your post, which seems to be that DEFENDING my home and my family should be the LAST priority. While again, I agree we SHOULD secure our homes, I do have every right to leave the front door unlocked. I have every right not expect that someone will try to come in uninvited. I have every right to take any measure I deem necessary to not only prevent them getting in (like lights, locks, alarms) but also to defend my home and family (like 3 .45 holes in the chest). It really boils down to a personal choice, right?

I get tired of the argument that "A TV is worth someones life to you?", when the question should be "Why does someone feel a TV is worth THEIR life when they try to steal it." See the difference?

You and I are not far off in agreement here, I just think we look at who the real victim is differently.

[safeinOhio]

36. Personal choice or common sense.

You have every right to leave your door open. Depending on the area that may not make a lot of sense.
Look, the last thing I want to do is shoot anyone. There is all of that blood to clean up. Hours with the prosecutor and detectives. Polygraph test, I've taken those and they are no fun at all even if you are telling the truth. Lawyers and court cost. No matter how tuff you think you are, even Marines, end up with post stress syndrome after taking a life.
It is a terrible feeling to have some ass hole break in and of course you feel he deserves the worst. I have that feeling when some ass hole cuts me off in traffic while texting. Still it is sometimes better to think about all of the cost of doing something, even if it is your right.

Don't get me wrong, I will shoot an intruder in a second to protect myself. I find that other options that can prevent that make much more sense to me. If someone gets past my security measure and I do shoot, my ass is covered in court because I can prove I took measures to prevent it and shooting was my last option.

I'll put it this way. You have every right in the world to look down the barrel of your gun to see if it is clean. But, it makes a lot of sense to first take every precaution you can. Remove the mag, rack the action and inspect it from the top and rear first. You guys keep bringing up your rights. That is all great, I'll just keep bringing up common sense and thinking about all of the consequences of my actions.

[GreenStormCloud]

62. Your post reminds me of driver's education classes back in high school.

Specifically I am reffering to defensive driving. We were taught then, as drivers are today, that it is better and safer to allow the other guy to have the right-of-way, even if he is doing something illegal. The motto was, "You can be right. Dead Right."

The extra precautions to harden the house take less money than a single good quality gun, and take less time than a single trip to the range. If they are enough to send the goblin somewhere else, then all is well and good. If he is determined and stupid enough to break in anyway, then there will be enough noise to wake us up, enough time to be fully awake and ready to greet him properly, and plenty of evidence to back up my story.

[GreenStormCloud]

34. Definately I agree that the house should be hardened first.

Hardening the house is cheaper and more effective than the guns. The guns are for situations in which the bad guy gets in anyway, despite the hardening.

We don't have kids or pets so when we go to bed, we have critical inside areas guarded by motion detectors with the alarm in the bedroom.

[safeinOhio]

12. Ok, I'll step in the crap.

First off I'd leave 90% of the laws we have now.

The societal problem I am going to attempt is violent crime. All of us CCW holders carry to protect against it and protect our selves and love ones from harm. I am 100% for the right to do that as long as we are sane law abiding people.

I would like to see every state institute the same registration of handgun purchases that Michigan has. To purchase a handgun one must apply for a "permit to purchase" at a local police station. Take a short test and have a criminal and pysch background check. After that the handgun is brought to the station to be checked for safety and serial # with in 3 days. This must be done for purchase from a private individual or a Federal Dealer.

When I lived in Michigan, I felt that was no problem for me. Here in Ohio I have bought a hand gun at a garage sale with no check. Any bad or crazy could do the same.

This has not been found to be a violation of the Second Amendment. I have no problem with it as long guns don't have that restriction. That takes away the fear of a gov. list of all guns. Handguns are easier to use in crime and hide when involved in illegal activity. This would solve many problems with the "gun show" bullshit. Sure criminal could buy guns, but only long guns that would be harder to conceal making the streets more dangerous.

I would not want this as a Federal law, but would like to see all states debate it and hopefully pass a similar one. Most straw purchases are of handguns. This would leave a record of only handguns and could help slow the illegal purchases of them by those we would rather not see having them.


Ok, blast away.

[Euromutt]

18. Michigan ditched the "safety inspection" last year

And with good reason, namely that it was never about inspecting the firearm, but rather, the person buying it. It occurred rather too often that the criterium for judging whether a handgun was "safe" was the ethnicity of the applicant, if you know what I mean. For shits and giggles, see if you can find a standardized set of criteria for judging whether a handgun was "safe"; I'm betting you won't find it.

[safeinOhio]

20. I was not concerned about the safety part of the safety inspection

I thought it was a great way to inspect the serial # and find out if it had been reported stolen.

My point is that there can be rules that apply to handguns that are stricter than long guns and still be within the 2nd. I have no problem with registration of handguns only and records of all sales and transfers. While this will not solve illegal hand guns it will slow down the trade to those not legally able to purchase.

Also one is issued a green registration card that one must have in with them when they have that gun with them. That way if one has a handgun in the trunk there is a way to see if that is a legal one and not just stolen.

[Euromutt]

23. Well, I'll concede your idea makes sense in theory

Though to be honest, I rather suspect you've managed to come with an application for the "safety inspection" that actually made sense, and by doing so, you've done better than the state legislature and various law enforcement agencies of Michigan ever have.

There is, however, the matter of whether it will work in practice. Because the existence of a de facto handgun registration in Michigan doesn't seem to have done a thing to stop Detroit from alternating with Baltimore in being the city of over 500,000 inhabitants with the highest murder rate in the country. In other words, it suffers from the problem all too common to gun control measures, which is that the only people who will comply with it are the ones who probably weren't going to use their firearms for nefarious purposes in the first place.

[safeinOhio]

25. Only 50 miles from Ohio.

No, not perfect, however we don't know how bad it would be without those restrictions. I think it give LE a tool to take illegal guns off the street and put the person with an illegal handgun in jail. I think that is a goal all responsible hand gun owners can agree on.

[Euromutt]

46. I'm not sure it would have much added value

Are you familiar with Haynes v. United States (1968)? The Supreme Court ruled that Haynes could not be penalized for failing to register a short-barreled shotgun, because--as a convicted felon, who was prohibited from possessing any firearm--requiring him to register it violated his right against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment. The upshot of this ruling is that anyone who is already legally prohibited from possessing a firearm is in effect exempt from any registration requirement.

[wjbarricklow]

21. Yeah, you did.. it's all over your feet.

"I would not want this as a Federal law, but would like to see all states debate it and hopefully pass a similar one. Most straw purchases are of handguns."

How would such tests stop straw purchases? All the crook has to do is get a clean girlfriend to go through the process- same as they do now. Once that handgun is in the channels it will get traded just as anything else does, and when he needs crack, the crack dealer will receive it in trade, and he'll get another girlfriend or steal another one from someone like you or me.

All you're really going to accomplish is to create more red tape and expense for honest people who buy firearms, and open the door for prohibitive increases in fees for background checks and mental evaluations.


Opens the door for such restrictions on long guns as well. It's all legal according to the second amendment, right? Let's say we put a dent in the number of illegal individuals with handguns out there. Or that the media thinks the law is working. More crimes will be committed with long guns. You also have more SWAT call outs because a rifle in a criminal's hands is a LOT more dangerous than a handgun. You'll be on here making the same argument on our rifles and shotguns.

[safeinOhio]

24. Why are you so angry?

It could slow down straw sales because the girlfriend would have to take a test and bring the gun in and be responsible for it. Pretty simple. If it cost you an extra buck to buy your thousand dollar custom 1911, so what. How cheap are you?
You can come up with another solution to slow handgun violence? Illegal gun purchasers by criminals and unstable people, what is your solution? I have no problem with red tape. Open the door for restrictions on long guns sounds like one of those "straw man" arguments. Just like the argument that banning guns will open the door to violent free world.

Like Obamas' point on right-wing Republicans. There is no compromise with ideologues.

[wjbarricklow]

32. What, me angry?

I was trying to inject some humor. I didn't mean to sound "angry" "sarcastic" or "pissy".

I shouldn't joke around with people who don't know me yet. For that I apologize.

Was your first handgun a $1000 Kimber? Mine wasn't. A lot of people start out with a .22 revolver or something like the $100 38 I bought years ago- my first revolver. looking at what the purchase process has morphed into in states such as New Jersey, with fingerprinting, multiple forms, references, waits of a year or more in some cases, that $100 first handgun becomes that much more difficult to obtain.

One of the problems with additional background checks, tests, and other rigamarole is that it reduces gun ownership overall. The young people starting out in the shooting sports, faced with additional barriers, often just find another sport to pursue. Personally I think this is a subversive intent behind this kind of legislation.

With fewer owners, fewer voters we have less clout to keep our rights.

The real kick in the teeth is that the criminals simply find a way around these laws, such as using a straw buyer, or simply stealing a handgun. Or using other types of guns.

"You can come up with another solution to slow handgun violence? "

Yup. Shooting someone is a rarely a criminal's first offense. Put violent criminals in prison. Keep them in there longer than we keep them now. Don't have room? Don't lock people up for a little bit of pot. As a matter of fact, don't put people in prison for drug offenses at all. Without illegal drug trade there's less reason for criminals to shoot each other.

Criminals are still coming up with handguns in Michigan. If Michigan kept its criminals in prison, their criminals wouldn't be crossing state lines or breaking Michigan laws to obtain firearms.

[rd_kent]

29. No need to be sarcastic or pissy.....

Its not often we get someone willing to have a rational debate with actual ideas and a back and forth on the merits of the ideas. Please don't ruin it by coming in here on day one and acting like a jackass.

Your points were valid too, and they should be discussed, just take it down a notch, okay?

Welcome to DU!

[wjbarricklow]

41. Sorry.

Sorry. Didn't mean it that way.

[rd_kent]

28. Interesting...

I might agree to getting a "purchase permit" (but at least here in Washington, my CCW does just that, I can purchase a gun anytime now) but as far as bringing my guns to the police to have it checked and the serial # logged, I think not.

[safeinOhio]

30. As I recall my CCW

in Michigan made it so I didn't have to first apply for a purchase permit. I did have to take the handgun in after purchase.

As long as it is a handgun, I'm all for registering and having the police know who the legal owner of that handgun is. The pros and cons of that would make a good debate. I like that it does not violate the 2nd.

Any other ideas to reduce the chance that felons and other restricted people have easy access to handgun purchase?

[oneshooter]

31. Then you would be ok with a state issued permit to vote? n/t

[safeinOhio]

33. Yes, we already have that it is

called a voter registration card.

[oneshooter]

37. However in Texas a Voter registration card is not needed.

As long as you are a legal resident and have registered to vote before, all you need is a Texas ID card. So you would be ok with a required permit to go to the church of your choice, to buy a computer and printer, to be on the ethernet?
Once you start there will be those who will push the envelope to put more control on your rights. In the name of "safety", the name of stopping crime, the name of protecting children. The end result is there is no greater safety, no less crime, and the children are no safer. However you are less free, and THAT is a tragic loss.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[PavePusher]

43. Which does not require training, a test, fees, background checks, etc.

But you knew that already.

All you have to do is prove eligibility, which usually distills down to proof of residence.

Hell, in Chicago (and other places), famously, you don't even need a pulse...

Try that with a CCW...

[taurus145]

52. There's the rub

The mere fact that taking your new handgun to the police for registration is required is indeed an infringement of your 2A rights. It is an infringement because it is an impediment to ownership.

I see enforced registration of firearms - any firearms - as equal to registering this post with the Thought Police before hitting the "Post Message" button. Rights should not have such restrictions.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[OffWithTheirHeads]

13. Uhhh...gun control helps me keep more rounds in the little circle?

[Mike K]

16. Fear of Guns:

My father was a locksmith by trade as well as a proficient amateur gunsmith, so my brother and I were raised in a home where guns were commonplace but securely stored and we were thoroughly indoctrinated about the dangers and the necessary restrictions associated with them. Briefly stated, because of our exposure to and early education about guns they held no mystique for us. We understood them and had the proper respect for them.

Based on observations I've made and conversations I've had over the past half century I am of the opinion that the majority of Americans who advocate sweeping gun restrictions know little to nothing about guns, are afraid of them, and because they are not inclined to defend themselves under any circumstances they are oblivious to the primary purpose of gun ownership. It simply does not occur to them.

While gun control advocates are quick to cite firearms accident and misuse statistics as ample justification to universally ban guns, they ignore the fact that far more death, injury and property damage is caused by improper and unnecessary use of automobiles. The risk of being killed or injured on a street or highway by some careless driver is infinitely greater than the risk of being shot, yet guns are perceived by the Brady types as the most dangerous things in the world.

The most sensible thing I've ever heard said about gun ownership is this: It is better to have a gun and not need it than to need a gun and not have it. And while I don't know who first said that there absolutely is no argument against it.

[rusty_rebar]

38. I have to say

I am a little surprised at the total lack of response from gun control advocates. It is rather telling that they espouse a position, but have no desire or ability to back up that position with any reasoning or logic. I have a real hard time taking any of these gun control arguments seriously when the proponents are not even willing to describe the intent of the control they favor.

I will answer my own question with my views and maybe then they can come tell me why I am so nuts.

The problem that I would like to address is Violent Crime. I think this is epidemic in our country, and in several other countries throughout the world.

The first thing I would do to decrease violent crime is not really related to guns directly. I would decriminalize the manufacture, transport, sale, possession and use of drugs. I would then like to see these drugs taxed, like alcohol or tobacco is now, and sold by merchants (think along the lines of marijuana coops in medicinal marijuana states). These retailers do not use the tactics of drug dealers (turf wars, gun battles).

I think this would have the following effects:

1. The price of drugs would be lower. Whenever there is a black market for a good, the price of that good is going to be higher. There are just more operational costs involved in getting those goods to market. Cheaper drug prices and a safer supply would reduce the need for those addicted to these substances to commit violent crimes to "feed their need".

2. The demand for drugs would remain about the same. Ask yourself this. If crack were legal tomorrow, would you be rushing out to buy some? I would not. I have no desire to try crack. Perhaps some college aged kids would experiment more.

3. The government would make some money. This is for three reasons. First, they would directly be making money on the tax. Second they would not be spending money on incarcerating hundreds of thousands of drug offenders. Third they would not be spending billions of dollars prosecuting some fantasy drug war.

Secondly, I would make it legal for any law abiding citizen, who has not been deemed mentally unfit, to own any type of firearm that they desire. This runs the gambit from a derringer .22 all the way up to a 20MM anti-aircraft gun.

I would create an education for children that would teach them the fundamentals of firearms safety and handling. Almost everyone, at some point in their life will encounter a firearm, even if they never own one. We all should have an understanding of how to safely handle firearms.

I would create a program where any law abiding citizen, who has not been deemed mentally unfit, could go down to a government range and take various courses on shooting skills. This would be at no cost to the citizens. For those that just want to shoot for fun, on the weapon on their choice, they could bring down their ammo and get a lane. For those who are interested, there could be tactical shooting courses run with government issued weapons. Ammo would be free, and upon successful completion of these courses, you will be issued a weapon by the government (think Switzerland).

If you commit a crime with a firearm, and that crime would have been a crime without a firearm, then you should be harshly punished. I am not in favor of mandatory sentences for any crimes. When I say a crime that would have been a crime without a firearm I mean the following. If I rob you, that is a crime. I don't need a firearm to rob you. If I use a firearm to rob you, the punishment should be much more sever. On the other hand, if I am walking around with a fully automatic weapon, that would not be a crime without the firearm. I don't want to imprison people simply for possessing something, but not doing anything criminal with it.

After you finish your punishment, you have finished your punishment. You should no longer be barred from owning a firearm. If you commit further crimes, the fact that you have a history of this should be taken into account when you are sentenced, possibly leading to life in prison.

[rrneck]

39. I'll take a poke...

Recreational drugs with no medicinal use should still be illegal, but without long jail terms for their possession and use. Lock up the dealers, but not the users. Instead, the sentencing for addictive drugs should be some sort of detox and public service. That takes the pressure off the jails and at the same time takes into consideration the peculiarly American tendency to overindulge in damn near everything.

I kinda like the limitations on firearms vs. destructive devices where they are. All it would take is one idiot with a full auto weapon or a 20mm anti-aircraft gun to make a huge mess (and with those tools, he could). That's a shit storm none of us needs. We can defend ourselves with the tools we have. You should be a special somebody to have more just like it takes more certification to have a CCW.

Crime with a firearm should definitely draw a much more harsh sentence, and when the malefactor goes to jail s/he should have to look forward to many years of intensive rehabilitation, not just warehousing for the private prison industry. That way when they get out they will be citizens that deserve the right to have a firearm.

[rusty_rebar]

40. I have no issue

with a law restricting the type of arms that can be obtained so long as that law can pass the strict scrutiny test, which is:

The law mus be
1. Justified by a compelling governmental interest.
2. Narrowly tailored to achieve this interest.
3. The least restrictive means to achieve this interest.

So, from your statement

I kinda like the limitations on firearms vs. destructive devices where they are. All it would take is one idiot with a full auto weapon or a 20mm anti-aircraft gun to make a huge mess

Although there may be a compelling governmental interest in keeping these types of arms out of the hands of "evil doers", an outright ban on these arms does not meet the standards of being narrowly tailored or the least restrictive means to achieve this interest.

A less restrictive means, just off the top of my head, would be to insist upon a thorough background check on anyone interested in obtaining such arms. That would meet the goal of keeping these arms out of the hands of "evil doers" just as well as an outright ban.

[rrneck]

42. That'll work. nt

[PavePusher]

44. I still don't understand why a crime commited with a firearm...

should be punished more severely than a crime commited with any other weapon.

The punishment should be tailored to fit the intent and the result, the tool is pretty irrelavent.

[rrneck]

45. Good point.

Hang on, lemme grab my bootstraps.

I think it might help level the playing field in terms of disparity of force between good guys and bad guys. If you use a gun to say, burglarize a house, that adds to the penalty because there is a presumption in the eyes of the law that you will be willing to use deadly force to complete the crime and get away. So if you want to burglarize a house, fine. You have a choice of fighting it out with an armed homeowner or not carrying a gun and making damn sure the house is empty. It might help cull out the burglars from the homicidal home invaders, thus making it a bit safer for the homeowner and maybe even lowering the crime rate.

The bad guys make a risk assessment just like everybody else. Increase the liabilities and they (hopefully) will adjust their tactics to suit the risk. An ounce of prevention and all that.

[Katya Mullethov]

47. It's a game of inches .

Dont be coy , you know why .

[beevul]

48. Why?

"Recreational drugs with no medicinal use should still be illegal..."


Why?


What justification is there for this?


We don't consider alcohol in this light, why should we consider any "more-or-less parallel" substance differently?


Why not approach it the SAME way as alcohol? That is, we punish those that endanger others wit its use, but we don't generally punish ANYONE for simple possession or use.


Why should a "recreational" drug be treated any differently?

On edit: The "war on drugs" is a solution, far worse that the problem it attempts to solve, whether that problem is real or percieved.

[rrneck]

49. A very good point.

I'm obviously making this up as I go along, so...

The recreational drugs to which I was referring would be stuff like heroin, cocaine, crack, meth and other seriously addictive drugs. Drugs that powerful should be administered under a doctor's care. Alcohol, while potentially addictive, doesn't seem to be as immediately so as the others. It seems to me that most people who start those are on a pretty fast one way downhill slide.

Americans have a tendency to overindulge in everything, but hard drugs hook you fast and the addiction can take over your life before you know it.

Whyzit only the pro gun people ask insightful questions?

[MisterBill45]

53. Drugs

"I'm obviously making this up as I go along, so...

The recreational drugs to which I was referring would be stuff like heroin, cocaine, crack, meth and other seriously addictive drugs. Drugs that powerful should be administered under a doctor's care. Alcohol, while potentially addictive, doesn't seem to be as immediately so as the others. It seems to me that most people who start those are on a pretty fast one way downhill slide.
Americans have a tendency to overindulge in everything, but hard drugs hook you fast and the addiction can take over your life before you know it."


Trying to keep people from using mind-altering substances is the most quixotic puritanical crusade around and absolutely guaranteed to be a failure.

In order to be anything remotely like effective, you'd need to have a full-on police state. The gestapo-like tactics we already see from law enforcement and the militarization of our police is a direct result of drug prohibition policies and even that isn't effective. Neither one of us wants to live in a truly effective drug-free country. There are some...like Singapore...no thanks.

Focus your efforts on harm reduction, treatment options and a serious child-welfare programs and you'd get better results at a tiny fraction of the cost and without throwing out the 4th amendment or having cops that look like they're on patrol in Falluja.

The first step in recovery from addiction to anything, including hopeless ideological attempts to save us from ourselves is the admission of powerlessness. We CAN'T make progress on the social costs of drug abuse by keeping it illegal for adults to possess and use narcotics. virtually all the crime associated with drugs stem from their illegality, not their effects. We didn't have giant crime waves when cocaine was perfectly legal and sold over the counter in this country. There was simply a campaign by conservatives trying to control the masses "for their own good," which was successful largely because of ginned-up racist hysteria over black men getting stoned and raping white women.

Almost any attempt to regulate personal behavior beyond simple crime control (where there's actually an unwilling victim involved) introduces levels of state control that inevitably gets out of hand. The prisons are full of people who have never hurt a soul, whose only "crime" was to possess a substance some do-gooder thinks is sinful. We could put them all on double-rations of welfare and education programs for less money and with far less destruction to the society.

[rrneck]

54. From post #39.

"Recreational drugs with no medicinal use should still be illegal, but without long jail terms for their possession and use. Lock up the dealers, but not the users. Instead, the sentencing for addictive drugs should be some sort of detox and public service. That takes the pressure off the jails and at the same time takes into consideration the peculiarly American tendency to overindulge in damn near everything."

You're right, the war on drugs is an abysmal failure. You can't legislate morality, but you can use government to help raise the quality of life for people. That's where the real rising tide that lifts all boats comes from. You start lifting those at the bottom and we all benefit. Those at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder frequently overindulge in recreational drugs and, unlike those in the upper classes, they can't afford to check themselves into the Betty Ford Clinic and put their careers on hold till they clean up.

In a country that is addicted to cheeseburgers and reality tv, uncontrolled narcotic use would do more than ruin the lives of poor people. Make that shit legal and Glaxo Smith Kline will turn it out by the boxcar load. It'll become the biggest corporate revenue stream since Marlboros and Texas oil. Legalizing drugs would be disaster capitalism on steroids (another controlled substance that's wrecking professional sports). Decriminalizing the use of the substance and using the infractions of the law as an opportunity to help people is the best way I have been able to come up with so far. But I'm always open to suggestion.

on edit:
And welcome to DU! :hi:

[MisterBill45]

55. rrneck -Drugs

Thanks for the welcome!

I must disagree with you though for a simple reason: I do not believe that government efforts to make us safe from ourselves have any hope of being effective without introducing a level of government intrusion that borders on tyranny.

It doesn't matter whether the aim of the government is "helping people" or "keeping the n&&&&&'s down." If they have to use essentially the same methods, they are equally as harmful, even if one is perhaps more disgusting form a moral perspective than the other.

First, the vast majority of drug users, even users of really nasty stuff like Cocaine and Meth, DON'T have their lives destroyed by it. So right off the bat you're proposing the heavy hand of the police state (and there's no other kind that can do this do this) to monitor/police an illegal trade that will inevitably have vast quantities of money to spend on things like bribing cops and judges, arming really dangerous criminals and making the borders more porous in an age of potential NBC terrorism.

In other words, the costs of prohibition are so enormously dangerous to civil liberties, national security and the foundations of corruption-free government that the threat you were protecting against would have to be at least equally bad. That is simply not the case with drugs.

Drugs are not the culprit in making our inner-cities so dangerous and the poor and minority communities so dysfunctional. That's a function of the enforcement of laws that are insane at their base, not to mention a school/welfare/child-welfare system that is degrading, guarantees poverty (try living on AFDC, I've done it and I barely kept off the streets) and provides a "baseline" of community income that's so low it's utterly destructive of social cohesion.

With a decent social welfare system you wouldn't need to worry about someone having to take time off to go to rehab. As for the corporate pushing of it, we've nearly banned 100% of all cigarette advertising. You could easily craft a policy iof not alowing brand names or any other form of legal "pushing." Again, looking to cigarettes for an example, keeping it legal but socially unacceptable (I'm assuming you're only talking about the nasty stuff) you reduce use pn a massive scale. Far better than what you can do with a wholly illegal substance.

Decriminalizing use doesn't do anything about Meth labs. Nor does it do anything to reduce the costs of the drugs and hence associated property crime to pay an artificially high price for a substance which doesn't really cost much to make. Making people criminals for what they choose to put into their own body is despotic on its face and making the penalties merely "less awful" doesn't change that fact.

People are going to do things that are bad for them. There's a societal cost for any unhealthy behavior. The difference between a free society and a dictatorship is that in a free society we realize that some wrongs, some costs, simply can't be avoided without a solution that's vastly worse than the problem. It's always a utopian ideal that starts a tyrannical government. Whether the dictatorship's goal is "racial purity," "Economic justice" or "health," doesn't make any difference. The result is always the same.

You have to confine yourself to the possible and you have to be ok that there will NEVER be total justice, total harmony or total equality. Nothing is perfect in a world run by humans. The best we can do is make sure people aren't held back by the predations of their fellows OR THE GOVERNMENT.

[rrneck]

56. Just so I understand,

are you the advocating the legalization of the manufacture, distribution and sale of drugs?

I agree about the decent social welfare system. That, in itself, would go a long way to solving a whole host of social ills. I alluded to that when I mentioned the need for "detox" earlier. That's the place where that could happen. It looks like we are at least a generation away from single payer health care yet though, if that.

[MisterBill45]

57. You got it

When a substance is illegal, all you can do is use the club of the police state.

When it's legal, it can be taxed, regulated and controlled. Prohibition of substances has not ever in human history been successful outside a police state. Regulation of legal substances has been a hugely successful enterprise by and large.

If you want genuine reduction of the harm done by drug abuse, the only way forward is legalization, regulation and education. Unless you're happy with the narco-prison-police-industrial complex, the fact is that the harm reduction doesn't exist. You could hardly do more harm to the society if you tried.

How many drug dealers do you think ask kids for ID? How many have signs up saying WE CARD? Time to end the madness and start over again.

[rrneck]

58. I like the education part.

Hell, I'm a liberal and we always go for education. The rest, I'm not so sure.

Is there any country in the world that consumes more than Americans? Television is legal, and it seems like every day somebody finds a new place to put a screen. Music is legal, and half the population is walking around with two wires stuck in their ears consuming it at every waking moment. Food is legal, and our rate of obesity has reached epidemic proportions. Perfume is legal and we even found a way to make money charging people to breathe. Ever heard of an oxygen bar? Hell, relationships between people are legal and they have been reduced by overconsumption to "orlykthksby". If there is a way for us to increase or enhance our sensory input, Americans will dive in and wallow in it until it kills us.

We chronically over consume substances that are necessary to our survival to the point that our society is being damaged, and that's not to mention alcohol and tobacco. And like you say, even in the face of draconian penalties for the use of drugs, the war on drugs is an abject failure for everybody but the industrial private prison complex. It seems to me that the introduction of a legalized shiny new sensory enhancement toy to a population of people who already have a problem in the inhibitive behavior department is a formula for disaster. But maybe not, if we get a chance to educate them in the prudent use of drugs first. I doubt we'll get that chance.

Drugs that are illegal now, and I'm talking about heroin, cocaine, meth, etc., are designed to create a physical dependence and increased tolerance to their effects. Think about it. If you legalize this stuff, you will have created a legal product that is its own reason for overconsumption. You won't have to put a Nike swoosh on it. You won't have to stand a pretty girl next to it. All you have to do is make it available and its own physical properties will sell itself to you inside your skull. It's a corporate marketing department's wet dream.

People's concerns about big government are overblown. Government performs the same role now that common consensus around a campfire performed for humans a million years ago. It is a mechanism for the maintenance of reciprocity. It's how humans work out what's fair among themselves. Reducing the size of government does not increase freedom. It just reduces reciprocity by changing management from a plurality of the people to a ruling oligarchy of business interests. If you legalize drugs you will only be changing management of the product as well. That is to say, you will turn it over to the real professional pushers when it comes to the production and marketing of shit you don't need. Do you really want to legalize narcotics in the country that gave us the Pet Rock?

I can't say as I like the idea of having the guys that gave us the Hummer and the double bacon cheddar cheeseburger fiddling around with the recipe for heroin. And I know I don't like the idea of the minds that gave us televisions in car seat backs and telephones finding new and exciting ways to get cocaine into people. If you want to control the use of anything in this country, the last thing you want to do is to make that thing profitable.

I think I still like my idea better. Lock up the dealers instead of hiring Glaxo Smith Kline to manufacture drugs and Goldman Sacs to finance the operation. Decriminalize the use of drugs to keep users out of prison and use our newly minted health care system *cough* to help people detox and have them perform community service. That way, we require them to do their part for society and learn to live better. We don't use government to protect people from themselves, we use government to ensure equity among the members of the governed.

Legalizing hard drugs in the United States will create a permanent underclass of addicts fit only for the most menial jobs, and that underclass may be a lot larger than you think. Remember that they used to put cocaine in Coca Cola? It could find its way back there pretty quick. And in every other product you consume as well.

Among groups of people a strong person can take more than he gives and succeed. Among groups of societies, the society that fosters reciprocity among its members succeeds. Legalize hard drugs and you will hand tremendous power to a small group of people who are already too powerful, and send us on a fast downhill slide to oblivion.

[MisterBill45]

59. I think your issue is trust. Saraha Brady has the same issue

I'm going to ask you to re-read your post carefully.

Your position is, when all the examples etc. are stripped away and it's down to its component parts:

'People cannot be trusted to do what they wish with their own bodies. Only we, in our wisdom as the smart elite are suited to decide what people can do with their own bodies.' -That's not a straw man, it's really the essence of what you're saying.

The harm you wish to prevent (people doing stupid things which hurt their health and cause some problems in the society) is trivial compared with the harm you absolutely guarantee with your proposal of 'more of the same only a little less in one, relatively inconsequential part.'

If the substance is illegal, NOTHING will change in the drug war except casual users will only receive "light" sentences. It's still a damn crime and the person will still be caught up in the criminal justice system. they will likely be considered a criminal FOREVER even though they've never harmed a soul. Why? Because you have decided what's best for them. YOU have decided that they can't handle freedom and personal responsibility because they are too stupid and therefore the repressive hand of the state must come down and force compliance, regardless of actual harm done.

I can easily make the same argument with regard to guns. In fact, I can demonstrate a worse harm from gun ownership/availability than you can demonstrate from drug use unless you include the consequences of its illegality.

Both prohibition and gun-banning are symptoms of a totalitarian impulse, well-intentioned or not.

If someone wants to do some recreational cocaine, what harm has he done you? the FACTS are that this substance does not hopelessly addict the majority of people who play around with it. If that were true we'd have giant proportions of the population as hopeless addicts. The same is true of Meth, Heroin and the rest. Contrary to the myths put out by the prohibitionists, most people do NOT become addicted to this stuff. Compared to most other mind-altering substances yes, they are VERY addictive. Nasty stuff without a doubt. But the notion that everyone who takes a hit off a crack pipe or takes a toot of cocaine will instantly become a hopeless addict is simply a fantasy.

-And seriously, if crack was legal tomorrow, would you go out and start smoking it? I don't think you would. I certainly wouldn't. The difference is that I'm willing to trust you to do as you will with your own body. You seem unwilling to grant me the same courtesy.

If the sale and manufacture of the drugs is still illegal you haven't done anything about the real issues at hand.

1. You still have a substance which costs many many times what it needs to SOLELY because of it's illegality.

2. You empower major criminal organizations and street gangs with gobs of money they would otherwise not have because you have guaranteed the product they sell is very expensive and hence, very profitable.

3. You continue the cycle of no-knock warrants and intrusive police-state tactics in pursuit of the still illegal substance.

4. You still have a massive prison infrastructure and population because there will be so many people will continue to be "dealers" merely to pay for their own habit. They won't fall under the de-criminalized category of "user."

5. You still have no control over meth-labs, which are ecological disaster areas, nor over the deforestation of the Andes and Columbian jungles to produce coca out of sight of the authorities.

6. The cost of the substance will force many addicts to commit crime in order to supply their habits. When was the last time you saw an alcoholic mug an old lady for a drink? They don't because it's CHEAP. If you can panhandle the money for a bottle in a matter of an hour or so, why do something awful that risks major consequences without need?

7. Intenationally, The drug war has destroyed Columbia and has Mexico on the brink. the SOLE reason for that destruction is the illegality of the substance. I won't pay $500 an ounce for a substance I can legally grow in my own backyard nor pay $50 a gram for something a pharma company can make and sell for 1/10th that price. It's not expensive to make any of these chemicals. No illegality, no major profit, hence no criminal involvement and no MONEY in the hands of criminals to do all this harm.

8. Finally, the substance itself, being illegal and totally off the books is guaranteed to be unreliable, often outright poisonous and completely unknown purity by the user. People don't OD on heroin because they like it so much, they OD because they're used to getting something of XX purity and suddenly find they've shot up something with 5 times that purity or with adulterating poisonous contaminants.

Decriminalization of use is a nice start in ending the insane policies. But if you think you can successfully protect people from themselves when it comes to consumption with anything other than education and social pressure, you're a poor student of human nature and history. Desire will always find a way, law or no law.

I'm not against government involvement at all. I advocate for it strongly. I just want government involved in useful enterprise, not tilting at windmills and destroying the country in the process.

We've tried prohibition for 100 years with inarguably disastrous results. Advocating "prohibition lite" is not a reasonable change in policy. It's just adding one more lifeboat to the Titanic. Better than nothing perhaps, but it isn't even addressing the gaping hole in the ship.

[rrneck]

60. ...

"People cannot be trusted to do what they wish with their own bodies."

That's true. They frequently use their own bodies to assault, murder and rape other peoples bodies, not to mention steal their property. I think what you are trying to say about my position is that people cannot be trusted to do what they wish to their own bodies.

Your rights stop at the other guy's nose. People are free to ingest whatever they please as long as it doesn't adversely affect those around them. Would you be comfortable getting on a plane with a drunken flight crew? I'm guessing you're probably no more comfortable with it than the FAA. I hope I don't have to belabor the point to include drugs. Substance abuse is not a victimless crime. That's why it's illegal to do most of the things that make life possible in this civilized modern world if you abuse drugs and alcohol. If you try to drive, operate machinery, handle dangerous chemicals, transmit crucial information or just plain work for a living under the influence of these substances sooner or later you will a)get busted, b)hurt yourself or c)hurt somebody else.

Decriminalizing the use of these substances creates for society a teachable moment for those who cannot use drugs and alcohol prudently. The substances themselves do not have magical powers that destroy people any more than guns embolden crime. Substance abuse generally occurs along with a deeper set of problems that an individual may be experiencing. It also tends to exacerbate those problems.

It is not wrong for one person to sell drugs to another person. If that's so, why are drug dealers such bad people? It's not because they break the law. Civil disobedience has a rich and distinguished tradition in the promotion of social justice. So how do we make a distinction between someone who sells illegal drugs on the street and Henry David Thoreau? Because it is wrong to profit from human misery.

If we legalize the manufacture and sale of hard drugs we give the exploitation of the most vulnerable and troubled members of our species official imprimatur. Again. The list of "reputable corporations" that have profited from war, disaster, fear, ignorance, hate, gluttony, and disease is long and distinguished. Giving them another tool to profit from the very worst that humanity has to offer is just plain uncivilized.

damn typos

[Euromutt]

61. But what makes cocaine and heroin so different from alcohol?

No, I wouldn't want to get on an aircraft with a stoned or coked-up flight crew, but as you yourself allude, you wouldn't want to get on an aircraft with a drunk flight crew either. And yet, we don't consider that sufficient reason to outlaw alcohol. We make it a disciplinary offense to show up for work drunk, especially if you're a pilot or a surgeon or whatnot. Why couldn't we adopt the same attitude towards currently illegal drugs?

Why are drug dealers bad people? They aren't, necessarily. I knew three of the campus dealers in college, and none of them engaged in any evil activity to my knowledge. But then, they did it as a sideline, rather than being reliant on it as their main source of income. The problems arise when dealers start getting greedy, and want to muscle in on competitors' markets; because the illegal drug trade is, well, illegal, the only way to resolve these kind of disputes permanently is by killing the opposition. And once you get into the habit of killing over minor disputes, that carries over into non-business disputes, and before you know it, you're capping some guy for spilling beer on your shoes.

[rrneck]

65. I'm not suggesting

that the solution to the problem is to outlaw any particular substance or object. I see no reason to make the use of any substance illegal on general principals, although some substances have a much narrower operational envelope for use than others. Thus, I also see no reason, also on general principals, why it should be illegal for one person to sell any substance to another. The abuse of those substances on the other hand is a genuine problem. If the use of a substance has so devoured one's life that they are willing to risk the safety and well being of others to continue to use it, they are a danger to the public and have to be dealt with.

When we put somebody in prison, we are firing them from society. Decriminalization is basically societal disciplinary action. I've never had the experience, but I'll bet if you get busted drunk or high on the job you will be required to go into the "program". That's a teachable moment if there ever was one. Like I said, "Decriminalizing the use of these substances creates for society a teachable moment for those who cannot use drugs and alcohol prudently".

You are right, drug dealers aren't necessarily bad people. So how do we distinguish the good ones from the bad ones? Greed is as much of a symptom of a failure to fulfill the social contract as substance abuse. I don't think there are all that many people out there able to use Schedule I or II narcotics in moderation. It must be pretty potent stuff if people are willing to risk destroying their lives and draconian prison sentences if they get busted. If a dealer plans to make much more than a sideline living at it, s/he will need to expand his or her market share into areas of the population that are not really able to use their product safely. That means they will have to profit from human weakness and misery. And that should be illegal.

[MisterBill45]

64. You have GOT to be shitting me

I'm trying very hard not to completely lose it and be distinctly uncivil in response to this. It's a veritable laundry list of false assumptions, false dilemmas, hypocrisy and strawmen. Not to mention a distinctly classist/racist overtone.

The part that really infuriated me, that really sent me over the edge, was this little gem:
"If we legalize the manufacture and sale of hard drugs we give the exploitation of the most vulnerable and troubled members of our species official imprimatur."

Why don't you come right out an say it: "Poor people and minorities are too stupid, ignorant and INFERIOR to be ALLOWED to make their own choices, so we, the privileged, white, educated elite need to protect them from the far smarter predators of business."

That is essentially what you said, in plain English, rather than dressed up as false compassion. That post doesn't smack of a tyrannical impulse, it oozes it.

Clearly those poor, stupid, ignorant minorities and poor people shouldn't be allowed to choose to own a firearm either. After all, they MIGHT use it in a way you disapprove of. So because they MIGHT do something bad, they should be shackled.

Do you even read this stuff before you hit the submit button? It's the same damn argument the Brady Bunch AND George Wallace make/made.

It is a distinctly illiberal group of statements. I strongly urge you to re-consider your position and retract the statement.

[rrneck]

66. Are you satisfied

with the way BATF form #4473 is written?

Also, why would you assume that poor people and minorities are more prone to substance abuse than anybody else?

[GreenStormCloud]

63. Outstanding post.

I have copied it an will likely quote from it. Complete legalization with moderate regulation, similar to alcohol, would do much to solve our crime problem.

The arguments of the prohibitionists for both guns and drugs are emotional, not logical.

[wired]

50. Look at the real history of machine guns

In the world since prohibition ended in 1934 and machine guns became tightly controlled but still legal at the federal level and in in most states there have been a grand total of two cases where a legally owned machine gun has been used to commit a crime and both of those were perpetrated by off duty police officers. Thats over 75 years and over a million legally owned machine guns. Legal machine gun owners are the most responsible people you'll find anywhere. 20mm antitank guns are also legal to own. Ever heard of a crime committed with one? Me neither.

[rrneck]

51. True that.

They are indeed tightly regulated. Like I said, that's the way I like it. It could well be that all the progress achieved to date like CCW, castle doctrine, the death of the AWB, and growing acceptance of firearms by the general public has come in light, at least in part, because of the scarcity of full auto weapons. Gun owners gave up full auto and got the other benefits in return.

If we deregulated full auto and even one idiot shot up a crowd of people, a lot of ground could be lost. Before quick.

Every aspect of social change must be viewed in light of everything that goes on around it. We are learning, as a culture, how to allow people to carry guns. Part of that education has been to decide what people should be able to have, what they have to do to get it, and what they have to do to keep it. It's a delicate balance and changing one aspect will surely have an impact elsewhere.

I'll overlook the snark this time.

Welcome to DU. :hi: