Gun Control Fantasy

CardLogic · October 20th, 2005, 07:29 AM

Myths that gun laws work and that gun rights don’t exist lead to the heel of despotism
-
John Stossel is co-anchor of ABC News’ "20/20" and author of "Give Me a Break," just released in paperback.

Guns are dangerous. But myths are dangerous, too. Myths about guns are very dangerous, because they lead to bad laws. And bad laws kill
people.
"Don’t tell me this bill will not make a difference," said Bill Clinton, who as president signed the Brady Bill into law.

Sorry. Even the federal government can’t say it has made a difference. The Centers for Disease Control did an extensive review of various types of gun control: waiting periods, registration and licensing, and bans on certain firearms. It found that the idea that gun control laws have reduced violent crime is simply a myth.

I wanted to know why the laws weren’t working, so I asked the experts. "I’m not going in the store to buy no gun," said one maximum-security inmate in New Jersey. "So, I could care less if they had a background check or not."
"There’s guns everywhere," said another inmate. "If you got money, you can get a gun."

Talking to prisoners about guns emphasizes a few key lessons. First, criminals don’t obey the law. (That’s why we call them "criminals.") Second, no law can repeal the law of supply and demand. If there’s money to be made selling something, someone will sell it.

A study funded by the Department of Justice confirmed what the prisoners said. Criminals buy their guns illegally and easily. The study found that what felons fear most is not the police or the prison system, but their fellow citizens, who might be armed. One inmate told me, "When you gonna rob somebody you don’t know, it makes it harder because you don’t know what to expect out of them."

What if it were legal in America for adults to carry concealed weapons? I put that question to gun-control advocate Rev. Al Sharpton. His eyes opened wide, and he said, "We’d be living in a state of terror!"
In fact, it was a trick question. Most states now have "right to carry" laws. And their people are not living in a state of terror. Not one of those states reported an upsurge in crime.

Why? Because guns are used more than twice as often defensively as criminally. When armed men broke into Susan Gonzalez’ house and shot her, she grabbed her husband’s gun and started firing. "I figured if I could shoot one of them, even if we both died, someone would know who had been in my home." She killed one of the intruders. She lived. Studies on defensive use of guns find this kind of thing happens at least 700,000 times a year.

And there’s another myth, with a special risk of its own. The myth has it that the Supreme Court, in a case called United States v. Miller, interpreted the Second Amendment — "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" — as conferring a special privilege on the National Guard, and not as affirming an individual right. In fact, what the court held is only that the right to bear arms doesn’t mean Congress can’t prohibit certain kinds of guns that aren’t necessary for the common defense. Interestingly, federal law still says every able-bodied American man from 17 to 44 is a member of the United States militia.

What’s the special risk? As Alex Kozinski, a federal appeals judge and an immigrant from Eastern Europe, warned in 2003, "the simple truth — born of experience — is that tyranny thrives best where government need not fear the wrath of an armed people."

"The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do," Judge Kozinski noted. "But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed — where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once."

Assface · October 20th, 2005, 07:47 AM

I'm not sure exactly what laws are on the books my views are as follows:

Registering all firearms. Just like a car. Even though the criminals aren't buying from stores it's still nice to know where most are. I honestly can't understand why anyone would be against registering their guns, if it gets stolen it makes it easier to get it returned. If you're a honest, law abiding citizen it shouldn't bother you to register your gun.

Certification and mandatory training to own a gun. Current and former military/law enforcement personel would be exluded because they are obviously well trained already. If you're going to own a gun you should know how to use it, otherwise it doesn't do you any good.

Semi-automatic ok, fully automatic not ok.

Exremely stict laws regarding crimes with guns. Harsh punishment for the criminals so you don't have to punish the honest people.

CardLogic · October 20th, 2005, 07:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Assface

Registering all firearms. Just like a car. Even though the criminals aren't buying from stores it's still nice to know where most are. I honestly can't understand why anyone would be against registering their guns, if it gets stolen it makes it easier to get it returned. If you're a honest, law abiding citizen it shouldn't bother you to register your gun.

The argument against registering all firearms is that should the extreme scenario occur, the resultant database would make it more possible for all firearms to be located and confiscated. I think it's a valid argument.

krepitch · October 20th, 2005, 07:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CardLogic

The argument against registering all firearms is that should the extreme scenario occur, the resultant database would make it more possible for all firearms to be located and confiscated. I think it's a valid argument.

What extreme scenario is this?

PortlandCardFan · October 20th, 2005, 08:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Assface

I'm not sure exactly what laws are on the books my views are as follows:

Registering all firearms. Just like a car. Even though the criminals aren't buying from stores it's still nice to know where most are. I honestly can't understand why anyone would be against registering their guns, if it gets stolen it makes it easier to get it returned. If you're a honest, law abiding citizen it shouldn't bother you to register your gun.

Certification and mandatory training to own a gun. Current and former military/law enforcement personel would be exluded because they are obviously well trained already. If you're going to own a gun you should know how to use it, otherwise it doesn't do you any good.

Semi-automatic ok, fully automatic not ok.

Exremely stict laws regarding crimes with guns. Harsh punishment for the criminals so you don't have to punish the honest people.

If you are requiring training for all individuals why should one not be able to own a fully Auto fire arm? If you have nothing to hide then its all good!! Now if you wanted to put a restriction on caliber, I could understand it.

PortlandCardFan · October 20th, 2005, 08:09 AM

I have thought for a while that if you own a fire arm that fits a military profile (i.e. Assault rifle) then you should automagically be part of a state militia. Individuals that fit this profile would report to a Nation Guard duty station quarterly and go through training for extended weekend (3 to 4 days). These individuals would go through tactical training, search and rescue, first aid, WMD, etc.

Small price to pay for the Security of your State and Country.

Oh yeah I can't vote because I don't agree with any of the options. I would go for better restrictions. Get rid of some and create others.

CardLogic · October 20th, 2005, 08:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by krepitch

What extreme scenario is this?

The scenario that Congress decides who is allowed to have a firearm! If you believe this to be unrealistic, that it could never happen, then you haven't been paying attention.

CardLogic · October 20th, 2005, 08:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PortlandCardFan

I have thought for a while that if you own a fire arm that fits a military profile (i.e. Assault rifle) then you should automagically be part of a state militia. Individuals that fit this profile would report to a Nation Guard duty station quarterly and go through training for extended weekend (3 to 4 days). These individuals would go through tactical training, search and rescue, first aid, WMD, etc.

Small price to pay for the Security of your State and Country.

Oh yeah I can't vote because I don't agree with any of the options. I would go for better restrictions. Get rid of some and create others.

Are you assuming that all those who own this type of weapon are suitable for the type of training you suggest? Except, for the stated caveat, sounds like a good idea.

And seems your vote is more legislation, i.e. - restrictions; although I understand you point. Stupid polls!!!

Assface · October 20th, 2005, 08:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PortlandCardFan

I have thought for a while that if you own a fire arm that fits a military profile (i.e. Assault rifle) then you should automagically be part of a state militia. Individuals that fit this profile would report to a Nation Guard duty station quarterly and go through training for extended weekend (3 to 4 days). These individuals would go through tactical training, search and rescue, first aid, WMD, etc.

Small price to pay for the Security of your State and Country.

Oh yeah I can't vote because I don't agree with any of the options. I would go for better restrictions. Get rid of some and create others.

That's not a bad idea. It's always nice to have a few extra helping hands.

PortlandCardFan · October 20th, 2005, 08:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CardLogic

The scenario that Congress decides who is allowed to have a firearm! If you believe this to be unrealistic, that it could never happen, then you haven't been paying attention.

No way in hell I am gonna let the government take my right to defend myself and my country if the need arises.

krepitch · October 20th, 2005, 08:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CardLogic

The scenario that Congress decides who is allowed to have a firearm! If you believe this to be unrealistic, that it could never happen, then you haven't been paying attention.

If there's one amendment that isn't in any danger, it's the second one.

PortlandCardFan · October 20th, 2005, 08:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CardLogic

Are you assuming that all those who own this type of weapon are suitable for the type of training you suggest? Except, for the stated caveat, sounds like a good idea.

And seems your vote is more legislation, i.e. - restrictions; although I understand you point. Stupid polls!!!

Your right... Not all people are suitable for training but guess what. The military already has people that are not suitable for training.

I had a 'boot' SAW gunner who was afraid to fire his weapon. How he got through boot camp and Infantry Training School is beyond me. The point is ineptness is all around us.

Chaz · October 20th, 2005, 08:24 AM

First of all fully auto are already restricted and fully registered. It has been that way for almost 100 years now.

I am against full registration of every gun.
If I am otherwise a law abiding citizen it is none of the government's business if I decide to own a gun.

If the government wants us to give up our guns then I say "you first".

I believe strongly in "shall carry" concealed carry laws. Not every state has them so I voted less restrictions.

CardLogic · October 20th, 2005, 08:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PortlandCardFan

No way in hell I am gonna let the government take my right to defend myself and my country if the need arises.

Would you agree that there are some in government that believe that you are exactly the type of person that ought not to have guns? Their reasoning would be that in an emergency situation that you are likely to take matters into your own hands. Which is exactly the behavior they fear and want to avoid!

CardLogic · October 20th, 2005, 08:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by krepitch

If there's one amendment that isn't in any danger, it's the second one.

And who ever thought that the liberal judges on the SCOTUS would decide that it is in the public interest to take away someone's property in order to sell it to some corporate entity!!!