Gun Control

[UncleJoseph]

Since I am home from work ill today, I thought I'd start a few new threads...why not start with the most controversial: Gun Control! Although I'm bringing this to the table from the point of view of a U.S. citizen, and because of recent current events that have happened here, I'm also interested in what our international friends think about this issue.

As someone who has grown up with a significant exposure to personal gun ownership, and who has chosen a profession that requires me to carry a gun, I have a hard time wrapping my mind around certain gun control concepts. Indeed, the right to keep and bear arms is written into our Constitution. I firmly believe that a law-abiding citizen has the right to keep and bear arms. My personal opinion is that this right was explicitly declared in our Bill of Rights so that the people would have the means to resist tyranny, primarily in the form of an oppressive government (foreign or domestic). Some folks argue that this right is no longer needed and/or is outdated because of it was put into the constitution when the government (military) and common citizens were nearly on a level battlefield armed with the same weapons (muskets for the most part). Many gun control advocates state that there is no need for the common citizen to own assault rifles, weapons that can utilize high capacity magazines (for the love of God, with media stop calling them clips?), and weapons used by militaries.

As a private citizen, I believe that most personal firearms, whether designed solely for combat or otherwise, should not be banned from law-abiding citizens. I believe I have a right to defend myself, my family and other people with lethal force should the need arise.

As a law enforcement official, I still feel the same way about other law-abiding folks. Although I typically must be more alert when dealing with potentially armed folks, that is no different than in countries where guns are banned. Criminal still have access to illegal firearms in those countries, and I think police could be lulled into a sense of false security if they don't anticipate that a criminal is armed simply because guns are banned.

Gun registration doesn't really bother me...in Michigan we are already required to register handguns. We also register motor vehicles, aircraft, boats, etc. We currently aren't required to register rifles and shotguns, which I find silly...if we're required to register one kind of gun, why not the others? If we're not required to register one kind of gun, why register others?

In my law enforcement experience, gun registration has only helped folks. I have been able to recover stolen weapons and return them to their original owner, primarily because the records of make/model/serial numbers are already in a law enforcement database. If someone hasn't taken the time to record their serial numbers for rifles and shotguns, it's much less likely a stolen weapon would be identified and returned to them.

Some folks are worried about gun registration leading to gun confiscation. I admit, with all of the fear-mongering surrounding current events and proposed legislation, I firmly believe gun confiscation could someday be possible. There are pros and cons under all of these scenarios.

The U.S. is saturated in firearms. Banning them will not take them out of the hands of criminals in most instances. A few murders may be prevented, but certainly not most. There are lots of complicated relationships between crimes and guns, but nothing is black and white. Take Sandy Hook for example. The lawfully owned guns used to kill the school children were taken and used unlawfully by the owner's son. Gun control advocates say that if these guns were prohibited in the first place, the owner's son could not have used them. I cannot argue with that logic. We'll never know if he would have carried his plan out anyway, using some other method, or with guns he could have obtained another way. Folks are saying "not one more child," and "is our freedom really worth the lives of our children?" Freedom has bathed in the blood of our children for hundreds of years. To capitalize on these recent events solely for the gun control agenda is hard for me to stomach, yet I see the point of it.

Research shows that firearm-related deaths are the highest in the United States (not counting wars, civil riots, etc.). I cannot argue with that. However, other countries have far higher rates of violence (assaultive crimes), depending on which "assaultive" crimes you include in the statistics. Do these countries have higher assault rates because nobody fears being shot for assaulting someone? Who knows? If we banned guns in the U.S., would assaults go up?

It's not fair to compare the U.S. to the rest of the world from the perspective that we could be like everyone else. Our culture is far younger than many others, was built upon different principles, and simply got its start under far different circumstances much more recently. We certainly have the power to make and/or repeal amendments to our constitution. I am glad that those amendments are hard to make and/or repeal.

With gun control being such a hot issue, I'm curious what everybody thinks. I am in support of reform of certain gun control laws, but only so they become less arbitrary and more consistent. Some of our gun laws make no sense and really have no place on the books. Others make perfect sense to me, but aren't universally applied.

[paladin2019]

My thoughts....

Gun ownership is intrinsically linked to militia service. Militia service is the most visceral display of citizenship possible; to freely risk your blood and life for your country. It is the supreme act that vests a citizen's franchise.

Derived from militia service are other responsibilities, like jury duty, and rights, enfranchisement/voting.

Currently, 10USC311 defines the militia generally as all able-bodied men age 17-45 and all women in the National Guard. It further divides the militia into the organized militia, consisting of the National Guard and Naval Militia, and the unorganized militia, everyone else.

So what?

The likely reward of COL Broderick's SGM Freeman and PVT Denzel, assuming they survived Glory, would be returning home, mustering out, and prohibition against militia service. And because they choose not to serve in the militia, are they really Americans? If they won't join the militia, should we let them sit on a jury? Vote?

Why was Truman's executive order integrating the military so important? Why did Pat Schroeder and her people campaign so long for women in expanded roles in the military? Why was last year's abolition of "don't ask, don't tell" so important. These groups were traditionally denied service or denied service where they could reasonably be expected to fight. So their service was either covert, as under DADT, or somehow less than another's in the case of a segregated military. And if these groups aren't doing their fair share defending the country, why should they have the same say?

Not every white boy serves, but white boys serve so white boys as a class are "real Americans." The same applies for any other demographic in a nation. Unless that demographic openly serves as itself, its members are somehow less worthy of citizenship than those that do serve.Consider Switzerland; their franchise was denied to women until 1972 for exactly this reason. It wasn't until the Swiss came to the realization that it's dirty pool to deny women military service and then use that lack of service to justify their second-class citizenship.

A gun is the trapping of militia service. Not everyone serves in anything that could be considered even a semi-active capacity. So have a gun and "be ready when you're needed."

What exactly does that mean? That is where the conversation needs to focus.

[3278]

As a private citizen, I believe that most personal firearms, whether designed solely for combat or otherwise, should not be banned from law-abiding citizens. I believe I have a right to defend myself, my family and other people with lethal force should the need arise.

I think so, too. In some localities, however, the benefits of open ownership of some types of weapons may be overcome by the costs of allowing that ownership. In circumstances in which that is the case, I do want local jurisdictions to be able to place some limits on what types of weapons they allow, but I don't know how to do this while still respecting the intention of the amendment to allow individuals to arm themselves against the state.

Gun registration doesn't really bother me...in Michigan we are already required to register handguns. We also register motor vehicles, aircraft, boats, etc. We currently aren't required to register rifles and shotguns, which I find silly...if we're required to register one kind of gun, why not the others? If we're not required to register one kind of gun, why register others?

Again, I think individual jurisdictions should have the right to decide when a specific class of something requires a different legal treatment; different cars require different licence classes, different boats different types of registration, why not firearms? If we don't need to register shotguns - because we're not having the problems with them that we are with handguns - why require the process?

That said, I like consistency: just register it all, and use the same laws for everything. But then you lose the benefits of flexibility. I'd just rather things were simple.

Some folks are worried about gun registration leading to gun confiscation.

Yeah, my only concern would be that: basically, if the Fourth Reich arises here, we've given the government a list of whose houses to go to first, and that's anathema to the goal of the amendment. Again, a fine line that I think has no simple path.

I admit, with all of the fear-mongering surrounding current events and proposed legislation...

We need to have a moratorium on how soon after a tragedy we can have legislation on it. "Oh, shit, you mean nuclear energy can be dangerous? Well, no more of that!"

Research shows that firearm-related deaths are the highest in the United States (not counting wars, civil riots, etc.). I cannot argue with that. However, other countries have far higher rates of violence (assaultive crimes), depending on which "assaultive" crimes you include in the statistics.

Yeah, it's not just gun violence. We're a former frontier nation, the last superpower, with a huge population of people whose ancestors were property a little over a century ago, settled almost entirely by immigrants, forged in genocide and war. Our high rates of gun violence aren't because of our Constitution, they're because of who we are.

[Raygun]

A gun is the trapping of militia service. Not everyone serves in anything that could be considered even a semi-active capacity. So have a gun and "be ready when you're needed."

What exactly does that mean? That is where the conversation needs to focus.

I agree with this. I do not like the way our military is currently set up. It seems very much not the way it was intended and ripe for abuse. I would rather have a service structure similar to that of Finland or Switzerland, not only so that the people's right of gun ownership is reinforced properly, but so that we all have the shared experience of being responsible for each other, learning to defend our country, and being ready to do so a quickly as possible.

Again, however, I would prefer a more decentralized structure (I.E. the states being responsible for their defense rather than the federal government, and for those forces to be rallied under authority of congress only when necessary). The post-WWII Cold War way of thinking needs to come to close (though it may never, with all those nukes hanging over our heads. Speaking of which, it's funny how we never talk about disarming ourselves at THAT level! It's like we KNOW that'd be fucking stupid!). There's too much power being concentrated in this country year by year, and it of course benefits few at the cost of many. As it always does.

As a private citizen, I believe that most personal firearms, whether designed solely for combat or otherwise, should not be banned from law-abiding citizens. I believe I have a right to defend myself, my family and other people with lethal force should the need arise.

I think so, too. In some localities, however, the benefits of open ownership of some types of weapons may be overcome by the costs of allowing that ownership. In circumstances in which that is the case, I do want local jurisdictions to be able to place some limits on what types of weapons they allow, but I don't know how to do this while still respecting the intention of the amendment to allow individuals to arm themselves against the state.

The way I see it, you remove power of control from the state in question (in this case, the US federal government, except in terms of interstate and international commerce) and allow the states and local jurisdictions to regulate firearm ownership as their citizens see fit, so long as such regulations do not violate the Second Amendment. (I.E. bans on any sort of personal firearm are unconstitutional, regulating their availability and use are not.)

We are the UNITED STATES for a reason. People seem to forget that. I don't need people from California or New York telling me how to live my life, nor do I expect them to live the way I choose. The way I see it, they can regulate gun ownership however they want in their state, but I do not believe what is appropriate there to be appropriate where I live, where there are significantly less people and as such significantly less need for such controls.

Gun registration doesn't really bother me...in Michigan we are already required to register handguns. We also register motor vehicles, aircraft, boats, etc. We currently aren't required to register rifles and shotguns, which I find silly...if we're required to register one kind of gun, why not the others? If we're not required to register one kind of gun, why register others?

Again, I think individual jurisdictions should have the right to decide when a specific class of something requires a different legal treatment; different cars require different licence classes, different boats different types of registration, why not firearms? If we don't need to register shotguns - because we're not having the problems with them that we are with handguns - why require the process?

I agree.

That said, I like consistency: just register it all, and use the same laws for everything. But then you lose the benefits of flexibility. I'd just rather things were simple.

Everyone wants a simple solution. There isn't one. At least not one that unfairly and unjustly regulates people who are in no need of regulation. It's a complicated thing, and unfortunately, it seems to me like a lot of short-sighted people are content with the simple solution of bans, and their children or grandchildren are the ones who will pay for it. Generally speaking, people WANT FREE SHIT NOW no matter the consequences later, hence bankers rolling up huge chunks of debt and trading it as a commodity and fucking everyone over in the process.

The solution, as I see it, has exceedingly little to do with firearms themselves and more to do with other factors, such as availability of mental health care (which we pretty much ignore entirely in this country), how such systems integrate with current gun control regulations (disallowing certain people from purchasing), how our banking systems are regulated (causing temporary financial recessions and depressions that make life difficult on people and always lead to upswings in violence), and drug laws that create a black market and potential large financial gains to be made through illegal activity, which again leads to violence.

Our first gun laws in this country were enacted because of two major events that occurred at the time: 1) the Great Depression, and 2) Prohibition. What is similar about those circumstances today?

Some folks are worried about gun registration leading to gun confiscation.

Yeah, my only concern would be that: basically, if the Fourth Reich arises here, we've given the government a list of whose houses to go to first, and that's anathema to the goal of the amendment. Again, a fine line that I think has no simple path.

There's also the fact that Diane Feinstein, who is pushing the new AWB, has said that she would do precisely that if she were allowed to. That's how thoroughly unreasonable this person is and why her opinions on the matter should be wholly ignored.

I admit, with all of the fear-mongering surrounding current events and proposed legislation...

We need to have a moratorium on how soon after a tragedy we can have legislation on it. "Oh, shit, you mean nuclear energy can be dangerous? Well, no more of that!"

No kidding. Patriot Act, anyone?

Yeah, it's not just gun violence. We're a former frontier nation, the last superpower, with a huge population of people whose ancestors were property a little over a century ago, settled almost entirely by immigrants, forged in genocide and war. Our high rates of gun violence aren't because of our Constitution, they're because of who we are.

Which is another reason why I'd like to see different measures put in place and compared in context of ourselves, rather than comparing us quite unfairly to how certain measures work in Europe or elsewhere, where people tend to have an entirely different viewpoint of the world.

[3278]

The way I see it, you remove power of control from the state in question (in this case, the US federal government, except in terms of interstate and international commerce) and allow the states and local jurisdictions to regulate firearm ownership as their citizens see fit, so long as such regulations do not violate the Second Amendment. (I.E. bans on any sort of personal firearm are unconstitutional, regulating their availability and use are not.)

What about a city that decides it doesn't want to allow private ownership of handguns? Is it okay - with you - if they only ban some types of weapon, the ones they're having problems with? That's how I view it, but then I'm also aware that localities could easily make ownership so onerous it's effectively a blanket ban, or a ban so effective no resistance to government overreach would be possible...if indeed it would be possible anyway.

We are the UNITED STATES for a reason.

Yeah, I try to remind people that we're a federation made up of 50 states, meaning countries. The US isn't like Great Britain, it's like the EU...in theory, anyway. Doesn't seem to have worked out like that.

The way I see it, they can regulate gun ownership however they want in their state, but I do not believe what is appropriate there to be appropriate where I live, where there are significantly less people and as such significantly less need for such controls.

What I don't understand is why this isn't everyone's solution. Don't want to live where you can't have a handgun? Don't live in New York. Want to live where you can own a rifle with a 30 shot clip, because the crime rate is zero? Live in northern Minnesota. Federalism is a good idea.

The solution, as I see it, has exceedingly little to do with firearms themselves and more to do with other factors, such as availability of mental health care (which we pretty much ignore entirely in this country), how such systems integrate with current gun control regulations (disallowing certain people from purchasing), how our banking systems are regulated (causing temporary financial recessions and depressions that make life difficult on people and always lead to upswings in violence), and drug laws that create a black market and potential large financial gains to be made through illegal activity, which again leads to violence.

When the latest shooting happened, and the conversation went immediately to guns, this was my point: why aren't we talking about mental health. Why is the conversation about the tool, and not the craftsman? Why does the US have so many people doing stuff like this? When it's not guns, it's bombs in federal buildings and plague in the mail, so why not let's talk about the men - and it's always men - who are committing the atrocities, and focus on them, and why they are who they are?

[Raygun]

The way I see it, you remove power of control from the state in question (in this case, the US federal government, except in terms of interstate and international commerce) and allow the states and local jurisdictions to regulate firearm ownership as their citizens see fit, so long as such regulations do not violate the Second Amendment. (I.E. bans on any sort of personal firearm are unconstitutional, regulating their availability and use are not.)

What about a city that decides it doesn't want to allow private ownership of handguns? Is it okay - with you - if they only ban some types of weapon, the ones they're having problems with? That's how I view it, but then I'm also aware that localities could easily make ownership so onerous it's effectively a blanket ban, or a ban so effective no resistance to government overreach would be possible...if indeed it would be possible anyway.

It's not really okay with me that anything is banned. Generally speaking, I hate bans. I think they're always a short-sighted fear-based reaction, and are pretty much universally the wrong decision if that decision is meant to be permanent. In relation to guns in the US, I believe bans are unconstitutional, particularly when it comes to militarily-viable firearms like the box magazine-loaded semi-auto rifles they're trying to ban. Fucks with the whole "shall not be infringed" bit.

But I have no problem with controlling access to certain firearms over others by requiring training or some agreement of service (though ideally I think service should be mandatory, either military, Peace Corps, or some kind of local service). I don't much like the idea of licensing, if similar to cars, as that kind of structure pretty much defeats the purpose of the Amendment, and if cars are an indication, it probably wouldn't do any good anyway.

Yeah, I try to remind people that we're a federation made up of 50 states, meaning countries. The US isn't like Great Britain, it's like the EU...in theory, anyway. Doesn't seem to have worked out like that.

Thank you, Civil War and WWII.

When the latest shooting happened, and the conversation went immediately to guns, this was my point: why aren't we talking about mental health.

Well, that's the thing: I saw a lot of people on the more conservative side talking about that, but they were also the ones complaining about "Obamacare" and shit, which made me go "WHAT THE FUCK? You bitch about government-sponsored health care and NOW it's the answer?" And then the more liberal folks REFUSED to take advantage of that situation because apparently banning guns is more important than HEALTH CARE.

Why is the conversation about the tool, and not the craftsman? Why does the US have so many people doing stuff like this? When it's not guns, it's bombs in federal buildings and plague in the mail, so why not let's talk about the men - and it's always men - who are committing the atrocities, and focus on them, and why they are who they are?

I dunno, man. Doesn't seem like anyone in the federal government is interested in fixing anything anymore. They're just trying to find ways to funnel the money toward themselves.

[Bonefish]

What do I want?

Gun Registration. Uncle Jay points out the legal benefits of it. Second, there's just too many guns for use to say: "well, we don't know who has guns, or what guns, or where they are, or who is selling them, if they are selling them to felons or mentally unstable people." We do it with cars, we can do it with guns.

Licensing: Why not? Why shouldn't someone have to demonstrate that they can safely handle a firearm(not SHOOT it, but handle it), that they know the applicable laws for using that gun? Again, we do it for cars, why not for guns? I'm not talking about a 40 hour class, either, but something in line with what we do for cars, and about as onerous. First time, you have to either take a gun safety/law class, or provide proof that you have taken one, you take a written test, bam! Licensed. Now, every two years, swing by the DMV and renew that bitch*.

Now, that leads to my next point: we offer drivers education program in highschool. Why not gun safety? Why not, indeed?

Make every fucking state "shall issue" for CCW. Fuck may issue.

NO ASSAULT WEAPONS BANS. "Assault weapons" constitute a minority of firearms deaths or crimes, there's no legitimate reason to ban them. They are the ideal weapons for defense. I have an army ranger(ex? Dunno, are Rangers like marines, and there's no "ex-rangers"? Fuck if I know, I'm just now really making friends with Army guys) friend who coaches me and a few friends(consisting of an Army Medic with two tours in Iraq, a National guardsman who was a turret gunner on trucks in Iraq, another vet[think he's Air Force, not entirely sure], me, and some girlfriends) about firearms and how to handle'em, and he's swearing by carbines. Makes me wonder: this guy has been shot at, and he's teaching people who have been shot at, maybe he knows something.

Oh, and expand the ATF. Right now, the ATf is laughable, they can't legally do much to track guns, they have a handful of agents to look for the law breaks. Republicans wanna talk this :"we don't need more gun laws, just to enforce the ones we have!" bullshit? Then fucking empower the enforcement of said laws. I hear the estimate is that 1% or less of all licensed guns dealers break the laws, then let's empower the ATF to get that 1% and shut them down.

Armed teachers? I'd rather not. I know isreal does it, but I feel that when you society has reached a point that you feel it's necessary to arm the teachers of small children, your society has fucking gone the wrong goddamned way. Schools today are terrifying in their security arrangements, and sometimes when I visit them, I feel like I'm in jail/prison. Not a good way to raise our children.

Better mental health care. Period. We need more oversight/regulation/testing of pychiatric drugs(Several of which magnify the problems they are attempting to fix), and we need to make mental health care not a scary thing. Look, we're all fucking crazy. We need to fix that.

Alter the NFA restrictions on automatic weapons. The 1984 cut-off ate is.. well... 19 years out of date, and it's just making shit expensive. Most of the rest is good, but that 1984 limit is problematic to hobbists(because anyone who can spend thousands of dollars on machineguns, parts and ammo, is exactly that, a Hobbyist).

That's all.

*Srsly. Most people who are recreational hunters alreay have to renew hunting and fishign licenses... this ain't that far off.

[Nicephorus]

It's not really okay with me that anything is banned. Generally speaking, I hate bans. I think they're always a short-sighted fear-based reaction, and are pretty much universally the wrong decision if that decision is meant to be permanent.

Anything? So it's ok if I play around with weaponizing my own anthrax or seeing what I can make out of radioactive waste? I'd also love to have a Phalanx defense system mounted on my house, modified to speak in Dalek voices. Yea, I'm being a dick but if you're really against bans, you'd be against banning anything. I think it's ridiculous to be afraid of giving any ground for fear of slippery slope. The slippery slope is a logical fallacy, those who use it are usually fear mongers. I also think that confiscation would never happen, despite the ability to find one person in a thousand who support it. It's the sort of thing the the NRA loves to whisper about because they are largely funded by gun companies and fear boosts gun sales. That's why they promote images of home defense despite the falling crime rates.

I'm for keeping full auto and very large calibers banned but that's about it. Assault rifle is a fairly artificial construct and don't differ in lethality in a meaningful way from old fashioned semi auto deer hunting rifles. I support giving guns the same general level of tracking as cars. I also support background checks but think they're not very helpful unless there is also a national criminal database, which would have additional benefits. I also don't think registration and background checks have much effect if they are implemented only in local areas.

I don't expect that it would make a big difference, especially not for the first few years. But it would give law enforcement additional tools.

[sinsual]

I live in a County where the Federal Government has filed Suit against the Sherrif's department for enforcing Illegal Immigration Laws...interesting that 30% of those "Racially Profiled" people arrested, had already been deported multiple times for violent crimes.

Let me repeat that "30% of those picked up in sweeps by the MCSO and turned over to ICE for processing turned out to be Multiple Felons of Violent Crime in the US and deported"

Less than 1% were arrested in error, and of those arrested in error, NONE had appropriate documentation to show they were here legally.

Okay,so less that 20% arrested were of Caucasian/non-Latin descent, and maybe another 10-20% were non-Hispanic/non-Caucasian with outstanding warrants and or here illegally.

Now you add in the extensive violent crime at the border. The excessive amount of illegal firearms being smuggled "INTO" the US through those same channels...

And you know WHY I am armed.

Could I survive an AK/SKS home invasion? Probably not, but I am going to go down shooting God Damn It!

[Bonefish]

Yeah, well, differen't places are... different. NC is currently bucking the trend of downward violence, with firearms violence going up significantly compared to the national average. And we've got pretty free gun laws. *shrugs*

[UncleJoseph]

Yeah, well, differen't places are... different. NC is currently bucking the trend of downward violence, with firearms violence going up significantly compared to the national average. And we've got pretty free gun laws. *shrugs*

I wonder how much of a direct correlation there is between strict or lenient gun control vs. crime rates. Many states have reported a decrease in violent crimes when reducing gun control restrictions. But how much of that is just current trend vs. long-term correlation? Michigan became a shall-issue state with regard to concealed carry permits a few years back. Hundreds of thousands of concealed carry licenses have been issued since then. Yet the majority of the people are still unarmed. So while the chances are higher that a random encounter will be with an armed citizen, it's not a significantly higher chance than before the shall-issue law went into effect.

I can carry anywhere I want, whenever I want, with almost unlimited restrictions. I can carry into schools, government buildings, sporting and theater events, etc. These are all still prohibited places, even if you have a carry license. But I rarely go armed anywhere (although I'm starting to carry more often again). Lots of people with concealed carry licenses don't carry very often. I've found that carrying concealed is a bit of a job, on top of the huge responsibility. In the summer months, it's even harder to keep that firearm concealed. The last thing I want is someone to become alarmed because they realize I'm armed. People call the police for that shit!

[Bonefish]

It's tricky to figure out, honestly. For example, Michigan and NC both have Similar populations and population density, as well as median income, AND similar gun laws(I believe both our states reciprocate). Yet, last I checked, NC was having increasing gun violence, and michigan was having lower.

I wonder also about the doctrine of self-defense: in the last two years, NC has dropped it's "duty to retreat" aspect of self-defense and expanded the list of areas one can consider to be places of refuge where you can defend with your lethal force(in particular, your car is now seen in the same legal light as your home).

We have simialr levels of racial distribution, though it's notable that we've got about 21% black poulation, compared to michigan's 14%.

Then you can look at New Hampshire and Calif: both have the most restrictive gun regimes in the US. California is slightly above the national average(and actually failing, over-all, while cities in it seem to be higher) in crime, while New Hampshire is signifigantly below it.

I just don't know, man. I mean, I wanna believe that guns make us safer: that's something I've always supported and believed in. But the reality seems to be more compelx than that.

[sinsual]

CCW has taken on a new meaning here in AZ. Going through the process, aside from quicker times through Cabela's gun purchase lines, weighs in heavy should you use a firearm for self defense. Whether at home, or out and about, concealed or open carry. If you have a CCW, the prosecution seems to be more inclined to go with Self Defense unless you did something extremely stupid. Something that would bring into question whether you actually passed the required course.

[Raygun]

Anything? So it's ok if I play around with weaponizing my own anthrax or seeing what I can make out of radioactive waste? I'd also love to have a Phalanx defense system mounted on my house, modified to speak in Dalek voices. Yea, I'm being a dick but if you're really against bans, you'd be against banning anything.

I am not against controls or levels of control. It's the who's responsible for controlling it I am most interested in and I do not believe our federal government needs more power. As far as gun ownership is concerned, it is unnecessary - and in my opinion, unconstitutional - at the federal level. In any case, I think outright bans are never an optimal solution; they are a fear-based reaction to a perceived lack of control. As such, I am generally against them. But when it comes to WMDs, sure.

There's really not a lot you can do to control people manufacturing weaponized pathogens and such, beyond controlling the expertise it takes to do so. You can make all the laws in the world when it comes to that, it won't do shit except make you feel better.

I think it's ridiculous to be afraid of giving any ground for fear of slippery slope. The slippery slope is a logical fallacy, those who use it are usually fear mongers.

Amazingly enough, that swings to both sides of the argument. Pro-ban people take just as much advantage of the slippery slope argument as those on the other side do. Both are logical fallacies based on precident. Bad shit has happened in the past, bad shit will happen again. No kidding.

That said, the more people we pump out and stick together in tighter and tighter spaces, the more friction is going to occur, the more crazy bullshit is going to happen, and we are going to have to consider ways to minimize that, as well as ways to protect ourselves from it. But disarming responsible people in the guise of safety is morally reprehensible to me. We must assume that people are good and responsible until they prove to us that they are not, not the other way around. Unfortunately, people you would not expect to snap and do heinous shit sometimes. Controlling people for what they MIGHT do is wrong. Ultimately, our freedom is more important to me than our safety.

Personally, I think there are other ways to affect the situation (gun violence) without affecting personal ownership too harshly or even much at all. They are perhaps more difficult to accomplish and they don't sound as wonderful in soundbite form to a short attention span, but I think they would do more for us over the long run than just banning guns because we're lazy and GUNS ARE BAD!

I also think that confiscation would never happen, despite the ability to find one person in a thousand who support it. It's the sort of thing the the NRA loves to whisper about because they are largely funded by gun companies and fear boosts gun sales. That's why they promote images of home defense despite the falling crime rates.

Falling crime rates, yet we still want to ban guns. Particularly "assault weapons," even though they are statistically insignificant in terms of use to commit violent crime. Why? Because oddly enough, there was an incident in which one was used unlawfully that got quite a lot of press coverage (and not because fear and tragedy don't help CNN clock some advertising revenue!). As such, people had fresh reasons to fear.

COINCICENTALLY! The very senator who said that she would like to see guns confiscated put forth WHAT? A BILL FOR A NEW ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN! And her timing was quite impeccable, I might add. It's almost as if she was capitalizing on FEAR! I think if wider bans and confiscation is not something these people want, then perhaps they shouldn't say it, whether it's practical or not. For what it's worth, I don't think it'll happen either. At least not until a lot of other shit happens first. Like. You know. Assault weapons bans. (And what did Feinstein say when the new AWB got nixed from the gun control bill? "Mark my words. It'll happen again." Slippery slope, Diane!)

Everyone takes advantage of fear. Remember that the next time you try to scare your kids out of doing something they shouldn't.

I'm for keeping full auto and very large calibers banned but that's about it. Assault rifle is a fairly artificial construct and don't differ in lethality in a meaningful way from old fashioned semi auto deer hunting rifles.

As far as "assault weapons" go (as opposed to assault rifles; those are fully-automatic capable firearms that have been restricted by law in the US since before they were invented), that is true. Though this kind of comparison confuses the issue for the ignorant and should be avoided. I get a little tired of hearing the "WHO NEEDS THAT TO HUNT?" question from people who have maybe fired a gun once or twice in their lives at most. 1) The Second Amendment is not about hunting and never has been, and 2) Have they ever BEEN hunting? Sometimes you miss, it happens, and it's nice to have the ability to send a follow-up shot quickly. That's why.

I support giving guns the same general level of tracking as cars.

I would be more inclined not to dismiss the idea of this out of hand if it were handled at the same level as motor vehicles: licensed by state, registered by county, and then only for certain types of firearms. I am not cool with a national system with laws that affect all of us the same way. What is right for California and New York and Texas is not necessarily right for you and I where we respectively live. Again, we have states for a reason.

I also support background checks but think they're not very helpful unless there is also a national criminal database, which would have additional benefits. I also don't think registration and background checks have much effect if they are implemented only in local areas.

I think they'd work better if out-of-state purchases were simply not allowed, as is the case with handguns now. I have no problem extending that to all firearms, so long as internet purchases are still allowed (interstate FFL transfers unaffected, background checks must still be performed locally). No need for a national system, except to incorporate federal offenders into state databases. Not to say that state databases could not be interlinked, but the people of each state should be allowed to legislate how that is handled.