An honest question for gun control proponents

[shadowrider]

Do any of you have a sign on your yard, or on your home, indicating your abode has no guns?

Something along the lines of:

For the safety of all people living here
This house has no guns.

If not, why not?

Just curious..

[damntexdem]

1. Flaming post from the start: "anti-gun proponents."

It's a shame that DU is so filled with posters with such rightwing attitudes.

[shadowrider]

4. Point taken and subject line changed n/t

[derby378]

5. Who says gun ownership is a right-wing issue?

I think we are whomever we wish to be. And me, I'm a liberal Democrat with a gun.

[guitar man]

15. NO, that's impossible

everybody knows teh libruls hate teh evul guns and would never never own one. All teh libruls want to take ur guns away!!

:sarcasm:

[Callisto32]

16. Right of you shall not mean right wing.

Besides, a belief in the propriety of an armed general populace is an extremely liberal position.

[sinkingfeeling]

2. Why should anybody post that?

[YllwFvr]

3. good question

[bluestateguy]

6. I see NRA decals on cars all the time

I have never once seen a Brady Campaign decal on a car.

That right there should tell you something about the grassroots appeal of the anti-gun movement.

[Remmah2]

27. NRA stickers on your car will get you delayed at the Canadian border.

Canadian customs (Peace Bridge and Rainbow Bridge). Lots of extra questions and a look in the trunk when they spot a sticker on the rear view cameras. If you'll pardon the pun, the practice has been "customary" for many years.

[Hoyt]

33. Or it tells you something about the NRA members.

[friendly_iconoclast]

35. It certainly does. It tells me they like to put NRA stickers on their cars.

I must say, Hoyt, you have quite the cosmopolitan outlook. You're willing to genuflect to non-US authority figures.

[Hoyt]

36. Where I live, there is often NRA sticker, Insured by S&W and a confederate flag plate on the front.

[shadowrider]

7. I guess I'm asking if people are verbose in their convictions regarding their homes

as they are on this board.

I'm NOT going to deride anyone for any response. It's your choice whether you do or not. Just, if not, why not?

I truly want to know.

[Demoiselle]

10. Oops. Wrong spot.

[shadowrider]

11. Ok, you at least answered and your response is apppreciated n/t

[shadowrider]

12. And for the record, I agree with your second to last sentence. n/t

[qb]

8. What a loaded question

:rofl:

[shadowrider]

9. It's not a loaded question. I'm honestly curious. n/t

[Demoiselle]

13. No. (Right spot.)

Nor would I post a sign telling people to ignore my two huge dogs who bark like the hounds of hell if anybody comes near the house. Truth is, the pups are sweethearts, but I have no intention of telling that to strangers who arrive on my doorstep. I shoo the dogs out of the way, sure, but I wouldn't dream of fessing up the "they're harmless" factor. I'm a responsible dog owner and I can manage my dogs, you see. They make me feel safer and I don't have to worry about shooting myself, or friends or family, or making such a hash of owning/carrying a gun that some creep takes it away from me and shoots me with it. I'm assuming that you are an able and responsible gun owner, and I'm fine with that. There are people in this country who are neither able or responsible with guns...or with dogs. I'd like to see some more effective regulation in both areas.

[shadowrider]

14. LOL dang it. I answered in the wrong spot now. Please see my 2 responses to you n/t

[Demoiselle]

17. I did! Thanks.

[safeinOhio]

18. Your question is framed in black and white.

There are many, if not most gun owners that are for certain restrictions that would help keep guns out of the hands of mentally ill and criminals. I have no problem with a gun for self defense in the home or carried concealed by a licensed law abiding citizen. I am for restrictions on large capacity mags as they have zero use in self defense and have been used in crimes many times. I have no problem with a data base on every handgun in the country. I have no problem with background checks on private sales. I lived in a state that required it and I purchased handguns with no problem, only because I could legally do so.

Even though I am for gun rights, I am constantly personally attacked in this forum. Not my ideas, but me personally for my moderate views that are the same as a majority of Americans.

Now anyone could ask this question, why do gun rights proponents want to make it easy for criminals and insane people to get and possess handguns? I don't think that is a fair question anymore than I think your question is fair. There are those here that want to totally ban all guns. I have only seen one or two. Yet, any restriction is lumped with those one or two, just like your question presumes.

[shadowrider]

19. I've seen people attack your position(s), but I can't say I've ever seen anyone PERSONALLY attack

you.

And are you sure you've responded to the OP?? I ask nothing about restrictions.

[safeinOhio]

20. You used the term "gun control"

it would seem, as a ban on guns, as you have used it referring to guns to protect ones home. Gun control laws may have little or nothing to do with weapons you defend your home with. You do not relate gun control with restrictions on purchase and possession? If not, which one, or more would you support?


I have had many, many responses to my post deleted by the mods for personal attacks. That is a fact. I have had a few of mine deleted, only because I have responded to personal attacks with those of my own. I don't start personal attacks.

[shadowrider]

21. You misunderstand. Gun control is far different than a ban.

Gun control can be laws, regulations, restrictions etc. none of which I think are needed. Simply enforcing existing laws would fix many of the problems we currently have.

[safeinOhio]

22. Fair enough. How would you enforce

the current law that allows private sales of handguns without a background check, to keep restricted persons from buying them? How would you enforce the laws now on the books to keep a sick person, like the last tragic one, from firing 30 rounds into a crowd of people without reloading? How would you enforce the current laws so that this last week of 11 or more cops getting killed? Many of the current laws are unenforceable as currently written and funded.

[krispos42]

23. I appreciate you asking the questions

Far too often in the Gungeon, a person in favor of stricter gun laws proposes something, then attacks the people that argue against it, calling them "gun fetishes" or whatever.


I have some ideas as to how to answer your questions.

How would you enforce the current law that allows private sales of handguns without a background check, to keep restricted persons from buying them?

I have an idea to address this issue. My idea is that everybody that gets a state-issued identification card (e.g., driver's license) would also be put through the NICS background-check system (an opt-out would be available). Every ID card would have a corner on it that says "NICS OK" (or something similar) on it. If that person who is applying for the ID doesn't pass the NICS check (or opts out of it) then the DMV would clip off that part of the card before issuing it.

This means that, if a person does something that prevents them from buying a gun, the court bailiff can simply snip off that corner of his license as soon as the ruling is issued by the judge.

In parallel to this, pass legislation requiring all private sellers to check the buyer's ID for that corner before completing the transaction. No corner, no sale.

We could even make a requirement that the seller copy down the buyer's name and address and hold onto it for, say, a year or two.

In this fashion, the police is prevented from data-mining, yet if there is a crime committed there is a trail that can be followed by the investigators with a little footwork.

How would you enforce the laws now on the books to keep a sick person, like the last tragic one, from firing 30 rounds into a crowd of people without reloading?

No law was broken; ergo, there is no way to enforce the laws that would have prevented him from buy a gun.

How would you enforce the current laws so that this last week of 11 or more cops getting killed?

Eleven? I had no idea it was that high! Are you sure it's 11???

[safeinOhio]

25. Quick google shows 13 this last week

http://www.rolandsmartin.com/blog/index.php/2011/01/25/roland-tjms-01-25-11-roland-s-martintom-joyner-morning-show-roland-martin-talks-with-patrick-r-melvin-president-of-noble-about-recent-police-shootings/

I like your idea on background checks, sure beats the current situation. I, legally, purchased a handgun at a garage sale with no questions asked. I had to take it to the police dept. to have it's serial # checked to see if it was stolen or used in a crime.

Thanks to you also for addressing the problem without a smart aleck comment or personal attack.

My point on the last mass shooting, is that there is not any law to be enforced now. I don't think the AWB was good at stopping mass shootings. Way too many ways to get around it. If you look at the last 10 or 15 years, you'll find few if any defensive use of 30 rounds being fired. I couldn't find any, although there may have been one or two. On the other hand there have been many criminal offensive uses of high capacity mags. From mass shootings to weekly drive buys in urban areas are common with them. How to limit their use in criminal situations can be helped with a well written law and enforcement.

Enforcement of poorly written laws has always been a problem. I think that gun owners need to come together to put on limits that would slow down crime while still protecting our rights as law abiding citizens to purchase and possess handguns for defensive purposes.

Thanks for your reply.

[krispos42]

28. Thanks. I'm glad we can have this conversation.

I brought up the idea a couple of years ago, maybe, and one member, I believe it was iverglas, cited privacy concerns with my idea as originally presented. Because the DMV NICS check was automatic, if a person didn't have that corner of their driver's license intact it was de facto proof of a)adjudicated mental illness, b) convicted felon, c) convicted domestic abuser, d) having a restraining order against that person, and/or e) being a non-naturalized alien.

I think that by having an opt-out provision we can avoid that potential stigma.


Regarding the magazine-capacity limit, things start to bog down. There may have been no defensive use of 30 rounds in the past 20 years, but have there been defensive uses of more than 10? Probably. Have there been incidences where a person with a ≤10 magazine emptied it? Probably as well.

And we have to be careful with words, too. "High-capacity" means... what? More than 10 rounds, or more than the standard flush-fit magazine carries? Is the issue magazine for a Beretta 92 (15 rounds) high-capacity? Or is the aftermarket 29-round magazine "high capacity"? If the former, then lots of Berettas are used defensively with hi-cap magazines, although the magazine is probably not emptied too often. If the latter, then hi-cap magazines are virtually never used defensively, simply because almost nobody bothers to own one that size.

So 30 may be too many, but 10 may not be enough, and the limit is therefore arbitrary. No study has been done on this, either. We could say, for example, that according to Study X, the average number of rounds fired in a self-defense situation by people without a magazine limit was 'y', so we can reasonably debate if having a capacity of 2 * y is reasonable. Or we could say that according to Study X, the maximum number of rounds ever fired in a legitimate self-defense situation was 'z', so maximum legal capacity should be z+2.

And of course, we have the issue of rifle magazines vs. pistol magazines as well. Is there a difference? Should there be one limit for rifles, and another for handguns?

I read "Guns & Ammo" and "Handguns", and they don't ever mention magazines that extend beyond the pistol grip as something to think about. They do stress the importance of carrying spare magazines, not only as reloads but in case your loaded magazine suffers a mechanical failure. In fact, many of the writers prefer single-stack pistols with capacities of 6-8 rounds for concealed-carry. The M1911 design is particularly popular.

The issue is simply never brought up. They test the guns with the factory magazines, or aftermarket magazines of the same type. When they test a 9mm Glock, they don't slip in a 33-round magazine and blaze away.

Now it may simply be part of the test procedure to use the magazine it comes with, but I think that the serious shooters know that the really long pistol magazines are too difficult to keep handy in a quick-access safe, have reliability issues, and may impede handling.

All the hue and cry by the media over magazine capacity may actually make the things more common simply by publicizing their existence.

[RSillsbee]

24. My problem w/ your position is this

No matter how you frame it the only way it will work is unilateral registration of guns. Now I don't really care if you promise me that registration lists will never be used for confiscation, I have a boat load of antis out there who have stated their intentto confiscate all privately owned firearms.

So, why should I hand them the tool to do it?

[safeinOhio]

26. My position has always been for

only registration of handguns, not long guns. A very small percentage of long guns are used in street crimes compared to handguns.

I see very little use for handguns in a major overthrow of our government if it were, in the very unlikely case that we would lose our rights to vote to change the government. Also, with 300 million guns in the country, there is very little chance of a mass confiscation because of the logistics of such a move.

On the other hand, handguns are the common tool of bad guys because they are easily concealed. They are the real threat to me walking down the street. As I am legally able to buy and possess, along with my CCW, I have no problem with registration of my handguns. I want to know where my handgun came from, not stolen, and want to get it back if it is stolen before it is sold at a flea market or garage sale. The only people that would be restricted by registration of handguns are those that can't buy a gun from a retail dealer already.

[RSillsbee]

29. So what happens when you get handgun registration ( Over my dead body)

And it proves to have no effect on crime? Are we going to "unregister" all those guns?

[TheWraith]

30. You state several falsehoods here.

"I am for restrictions on large capacity mags as they have zero use in self defense and have been used in crimes many times."

1. Standard capacity magazines are routinely used in self-defense. If you don't believe they're useful for protection, you might want to talk to the hundreds of thousands of police that switched away from smaller capacity weapons for exactly that reason.

2. There is absolutely no evidence at all that standard capacity magazines are more likely to be used in crimes. The Clinton DOJ did a study on the federal Assault Weapons Ban and concluded that it had no measurable effect on crime. And the biggest mass murders in American history, places like Lubys and Virginia Tech, were committed with weapons and magazines that would be totally legal under your proposed restrictions.

"why do gun rights proponents want to make it easy for criminals and insane people to get and possess handguns?"

This is not just offensive and obnoxious, it's also a strawman argument. Please show where people who oppose unnecessary and ineffective bans argue that criminals and the insane should be given handguns. You can't, because it's a lie. But it's the exact sort of ad hominem argument that is used specifically because such proposals HAVE to be based on emotional overreaction and moral panic, not on any scientific knowledge of crime, firearms, or public policy.

[DissedByBush]

31. No, but if your neighbor is an anti-gunner, you could post this one

[shadowrider]

32. Not surprisingly, not one anti-gun advocate answered the question

in the OP, aside from a nice poster who was honest and forthright. I thanked her for that.

I can only assume they don't have a sign because for some odd reason, they don't want to become a target.

[Hoyt]

34. Your conclusion is wrong. People don't put us signs like No Booze, No Drugs, No Bombs, No Sense, etc