Odd Sheeple Reaction

I agree and disagree with what you are saying. I recognize that restricting access to higher power firearms does limit lawful citizens more than criminals. What I would say, though, is that the net effect is a reduction in the absolute availability of the weapons. So while now only criminals are willing to carry them, it becomes harder for criminals to buy them. It also makes it more expensive, limiting the number of criminals who can afford them. Furthermore, if the people they rob can no longer have autos (for the sake of argument, I'll just say autos for anything military grade, and talk about guns as the everyday rifle/revolver/shotgun/etc.) then the criminals need them less. What you are arguing is that the change in the ratio of armed law-abiding citizens to armed criminals (again, armed meaning those carrying autos) is unacceptable. I will say that that is one valid viewpoint, but the stance I take is that the absolute reduction in the availability will result in a decrease in criminal use of these weapons that outweighs the derivative ratio shift.


EDIT: And I have no objection to your point about punishing people who have owned guns since before the law changes. These people should be offered an incentive to sell the weapons, or allowed to keep them (perhaps with some sort of special documentation or something), but certainly not punished for owning them before owning them became illegal.
 
I must respectfully disagree about using legislation to reduce availability.
If that was the case, then why can I go out in a small or large town in MD and have access to just about anything I want?
Black market items and the criminal element will not be stopped by legislation. I believe that better enforcement is the key, not more legislation.

David
 
the real problem is that either way you have problems: make soemthing illegal and you have the peopel that just dont care, it might be harder to get but they can still get it. leave something legal and then people, that if it was illegal would have gotten rid of it if it was deemed illegal, end up using it is the wrong way.

comparing drugs to knives and guns also does not make a good parallel because they have very different effects (yes both can kill some one but the more common problems are much different).

i am a fan of the franklin quote "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." but i do not think it is a right of everyone to own what ever firearm/knife/weapon/what ever you want to refer to them as (more so the guns/firearms than the knife part of that) and frankly i think there should be more restrictions on the avaliablity to get guns (but yes i do want a conseal carry permit and a Glock model 27 once). if you are a person that has nothing to hide you shouldnt have to worry about more restrictions. (this is not intended to start a debate over legal rights of if you can have what ever gun you want so please do not take it that way).

the only way to make gun restrictions work correctly is if we were like most of europe and just totaly out lawed fire arms so that the amount of firearms out there was extreamly low and very rare. but it cant happen here
-matt

edit (adding)- david, i agree and disagree, i do agree that better enforcement is what needs to be done but i do think some more restrictions need to be passed personaly
 
Fair enough.

we have here the situation I mentioned above: common goals, but divergent opinions about how to achieve them. From a theoretical standpoint, I would think legislation should be somewhat effective. However, I also know that we do have a systemic problem of inequity and selective enforcement. Certainly more egalitarian enforcement, if not more strict, would play a crucial role in any solution.

EDIT:

There also exists an underlying problem in the states which is the culture of violence and machismo that escalates to a conflict more readily than in other places. At my high school, 7 years ago now, I have a vivid memory of sitting in the cafeteria and watching two people catch eachother's eyes. There was no precipitating action, each simply disliked how the other was looking at him. They got up and ran across the room and really went at it. The dents in the plaster were there until I graduated. This anecdote is one I would attribute to an underlying problem in the way people learn to treat each other, and what is acceptable or necessary to survive. Only in this country do you need to know how to fight, or shoot a gun, or be versed in some form of self-defense to even consider going to some neighborhoods. Not that crappy neighborhoods don't exist elsewhere, but in no other country as modernized as ours does aggression hold such a prominent position.
 
bSquirrel,

So now you presume to invade peoples privacy by making them register their previously legal items? You presume to not allow ownership by allowing them to sell it? Sell it to whom? It is illegal now!
Are you not aware that legal ownership of automatic weapons requires a fairly substantial amount of money, background checks, specific weapons permits and basically forfeiture of your 4th & 5th Amendment rights if the BATF decides to check up on you? You are so wrong to presume such arguments as a viable solution to criminal activity. When you reach your 40's and 50's you will be wondering what the hell you were thinking when you decided to throw away yours and others legal rights and freedoms.
 
bSquirrel said:
A. the first thing: it is unconstitutional to prosecute someone for a crime committed before it became a crime. If they owned them before they became illegal, then they should not be punished for that.
Click to expand...

The problem with that is the bill that I provided a link to stipulates that if owners do not report their ownership to Illinois State Police within 90 days, they become a felon. This creates problems when legal firearm owners are not alerted to law changes and become felons without ever knowing what happened. Illinois has had several problems in this respect, up to and including delays in issuing FOIDs due to state employee layoffs, which are required just to possess a firearm, making hundreds of people into felons.

bSquirrel said:
I recognize that restricting access to higher power firearms does limit lawful citizens more than criminals. What I would say, though, is that the net effect is a reduction in the absolute availability of the weapons.
Click to expand...

While this may be true, just look at this link which details how the FBI lost "Nearly 450 firearms are missing -- including pistols, revolvers, assault rifles and shotguns, officials said. The list includes 184 weapons stolen from agents' cars and homes, one of which was used in a slaying in the South, the only crime connected to one of the FBI guns, officials said." This is just one of many ways that criminals acquire illegal firearms.

http://www.crimelynx.com/fbicomp.html

Also, an important consideration is the fact that the military/SWAT doesn't even recommend full auto fire, as it is largely ineffective past 10-25 yards. Instead, SOP is single aimed fire which is more effective. Additionally, if you have ever fired a semiautomatic battle rifle, such as a FAL, you would understand that pulling the trigger as fast as you can is generally the same as the fully automatic rate of fire on a BAR, which was coincidentally used during WWII. Tactical teams were first created in California because of the aimed bolt-action rifle fire directed towards police by disgruntled farmers. This is where arguments such as yours can create disasterous problems, because legislators will slowly outlaw more and more guns until they are all illegal. Of course, this won't solve problems as militaries will still utilize firearms, and even they "displace" some from time to time.

bSquirrel said:
Only in this country do you need to know how to fight, or shoot a gun, or be versed in some form of self-defense to even consider going to some neighborhoods. Not that crappy neighborhoods don't exist elsewhere, but in no other country as modernized as ours does aggression hold such a prominent position.
Click to expand...

Except for France, England, and several other European countries. Switzerland requires that every adult male have a fully automatic firearm, and yet it has one of the lowest crime rates per 100,000 people in the world. The problem lies in the way that our parents raise us, not with our society. I've always treated others with respect, even when they feel that they have somehthing to prove, and have never escalated any situation into a conflict. Just so you don't think I've lived a secluded suburban life, I've also been in some very rough areas of South Chicago, but never ran into trouble as I didn't go looking for it. More often than not, I de-escalate situations in which would have otherwise resulted in fights.
 
with all due respect SOLEIL,

why would it be a problem for someone to register something that is now required to be if they are not going to be doing anythign illegal with it.

and along those lines, the forteiture of the 4th and 5th ammendment rights will only be if the subject is related to the fire arm you have, and yet again if you are not doing anything illegal with it why would it matter if you must answer the questions.

it seems like those that are apposing any new legislation have an issue with having to register or answer more quesions, etc than they had to before. the only reason any one would have such a huge problem with any of that is if they have done or are going to do something illegal
-matt
 
SOLEIL said:
bSquirrel,

So now you presume to invade peoples privacy by making them register their previously legal items? You presume to not allow ownership by allowing them to sell it? Sell it to whom? It is illegal now!
Are you not aware that legal ownership of automatic weapons requires a fairly substantial amount of money, background checks, specific weapons permits and basically forfeiture of your 4th & 5th Amendment rights if the BATF decides to check up on you? You are so wrong to presume such arguments as a viable solution to criminal activity. When you reach your 40's and 50's you will be wondering what the hell you were thinking when you decided to throw away yours and others legal rights and freedoms.
Click to expand...

I wasnt trying to say that those are the only methods of addressing this issue. But if making autos illegal would prevent some crime and the law would be beneficial (I'm not making a statement on whether this is the case, just saying "if") then the autos that were legally purchased should be addressed as well. If the government decides that these are dangerous enough to take off the street altogether (again, not a judgment, just in the event that), then the previously lawful owners should certainly not be penalized, and should be offered some options. Either they should be offered compensation from the government (which is what I meant by selling them back) equivalent to their value when they were purchased or market value before the legislation, or some amount equal to the value of the gun. Another potential solution could be to issue licenses to those who already had them, but different licenses than you need to own other firearms or to conceal them. Licensing can hardly be protested. You need a license to own a dog, to get married, to drive, and to own any other gun. Why shouldn't people be licensed to keep the guns they had, provided they werent hurting anyone then? There are, I'm sure, other alternatives. All I was suggesting was that if good people were in danger of being penalized for crimes that weren't crimes when they did them, then the government should recognize that htey aren't criminals. If they absolutely cannot compromise and allow people to keep the guns they already had, then they should offer some compensation and some paperwork that would recognize their right to keep what they had. Registration would be a benefit as much as a limitation. People who registered their autos after their sales were banned would be allowed to keep them legally, and have documentation to show a cop if ever they needed to. I wasnt saying fuck the people who get shat on by the government. I was saying that their rights need to be respected in the forming of a law, and that it is the government's responsibility to care for the wellbeing of all--and providing special accomodations in special situations like this one.

I suppose I didnt make myself clearer before, but i wholeheartedly agree that when restricting people's rights, you should compensate those who enjoyed exercising those rights.

EDONIS:
the first thing: I never said that I agree with the execution of the present laws, merely that the intentions behind them were good. I am for reform all across the board. If one bill was unjust, then that bill is flawed. Not the intentions behind it.

second point: I dont mean to specify automatic weapons. I mean anything more lethal than anyone should ever need. Gun control should extend to hollow points, armor piercing bullets, extended clips, sniper rifles, etc. I dont know that much about guns, but I do know that under normal circumstances, a simple revolver is as much as anyone should ever need. (I put "should" in italics because I mean ideally)

third: I applaud your restraint. I dont know specific numbers, but I do know general trends. What you say about mandatory owning of fire-arms may be true, but even if it is, it only helps my argument. More weapons are available there and less people use them. Less are available here, and more people use them. WHat does that tell you? there's something wrong with the culture here. If people there can have them around and not kill each other, then great. But if people here cannot, then the laws here should reflect that difference. Essentially, I think that's what you just said, so I dont think there's any disagreement on this.
 
SR_matt said:
the only reason any one would have such a huge problem with any of that is if they have done or are going to do something illegal.
Click to expand...

Or, they don't want to pay $10,000 plus for a legal automatic firearm, when the same firearm, purchased illegally, is one quarter of the price. Additionally, considering the $200 transfer tax for any Form 4 paperwork, the government is just penalizing those who abide by the law. This is why those who fight these different bills are not thinking about doing something illegal, but are opposed to being marginalized and taxed for something they enjoy doing.

The underlying problem is whether or not the individual in question is going to use the firearm/knife/weapon, for just and legal purposes, or unjust and illegal purposes. The same can be said about those who drive cars, operate machinery, or fly airplanes. Just because drunk drivers kill thousands does not mean alcohol or cars should be made illegal, just look at the results of prohibition. The responsibility and accountability of the actor should be the focus, not his tools.
 
bSquirrel said:
third: I applaud your restraint. I dont know specific numbers, but I do know general trends. What you say about mandatory owning of fire-arms may be true, but even if it is, it only helps my argument. More weapons are available there and less people use them. Less are available here, and more people use them. WHat does that tell you? there's something wrong with the culture here. If people there can have them around and not kill each other, then great. But if people here cannot, then the laws here should reflect that difference. Essentially, I think that's what you just said, so I dont think there's any disagreement on this.
Click to expand...

Thank you for the complement, but in regards to what that tells, me, either people are afraid to invade another's home because of the consequences, or the society is superior. The problem with such legislation is that by outlawing guns, you don't make a society inherently better. That change must occur from the way that we socialize our children.
 
Edonis said:
Thank you for the complement, but in regards to what that tells, me, either people are afraid to invade another's home because of the consequences, or the society is superior. The problem with such legislation is that by outlawing guns, you don't make a society inherently better. That change must occur from the way that we socialize our children.
Click to expand...

Exactly. I dont think you can, regardless of whether you should, outlaw guns. (I dont htink you should, but it's a moot point since it will never happen in a million years) I do think certain excessively dangerous weapons should be regulated. Just like the modernized countries regulate the knowlege and materials required for nukes or bioweapons, and just like the most advanced and powerful weapons are reserved for military use only, I think the aim of any gun laws should simply be to keep calibur of the guns used on the street commensurate with the tasks they are needed for. Guns are designed to kill people. Yeah, people use them for other things and try to legitimate them, but first and foremost, guns are designed with one thing in mind: killing. All I'm saying is that if people need to have them, they should have guns that do only that, not more. If you must kill someone, it should be in self defense. If people are going to carry and use guns, they should use guns that couldnt be used for other things than self defense. It's not the prevalence of guns that concerns me, its the prevalence of people's reliance on them. If you must carry a gun, what legitimate purpose does a an m16 with armor piercing rounds fulfill that 22 rifle doesnt? not that 22 should be the most powerful available, but just as a for instance. Obviously if you're hunting, you need more power. But do you need a gun that can kill a deer from 3 miles without him ever knowing you're there? What good can possibly come from the availability of this gun. You cant defend yourself with a sniper rifle.

Ultimately, the problem is a severe one with no obvious solution. No doubt many wiser men have and will debate these ideas, and in some form they have been or will be implemented.
 
Thats the thing though, even if guns are completely outlawed for civilian use, the military and police with still use them, and as the link about the FBI above shows, those weapons can still get into the hands of criminals. This is why I believe that more effort should be put forth to eliminate or minimize criminal tendencies, not the tools they use in the course of a crime. Of course, this type of legislation does not win votes, and so politicians will never enact this sort of legislation.
 
of course that's true, that the heart of the problem is the individuals, but where do they come from? Have you looked at the numbers? I took an interesting class about the nature of crime, law, and punishment, with a particular focus on america and the evolution of criminality in the USA. The biggest thing I took from that class was that our crime rates are as much a symptom of how we deal with them as anything. The current law enforcement system is one that enforces a vicious circle that is impossible for many people to break out of, and which has evolved with a great deal of guidance from people who have had "winning votes" in mind, not whether their policies were the best for people. People may know what they want, but that doesnt mean that they know what's good for them or what they need.

EDIT: It also doesnt mean that what they want is good for everyone, or better for enough people that it cancels out the harm.
 
Edonis, the way i see it is like this, if you have bugs (criminals with guns) getting into your house, do you just squish them (arrest them and take away their gun, etc) or do you find where they come from and stop them from getting in (getting rid of the guns they use), and then kill the ones left inside (rounding up the guns and criminals using them around still).

either way there is always be a black market and theres no good solution to it all but its a lot less effort to stop the cause than to continue to fix the problem over and over.

in the end we can all agree there is a problem with how people use and see firearms (and since the thread was originaly about knives i guess we better add that in there too). we can all agree that we need to teach people at a much younger age how to use them as tools and use them responsibly, and that they are not an answer to problems with others.

we can also agree that there is a control issue of some kind, that there are many answers, and that none of the answers will make everyone happy and none will work perfectly.

yes, no? [/foreign accent]
-matt
 
Matt,

If you choose to legally own an auto in the U.S. you are subject to the BATF coming into your home without a reason or a warrant and demanding an inspection. If you are not home they can break in and check things out anyway. All because you have legally registered an automatic firearm. Any minor infringement of paperwork, storage or documentation can lead to confiscation, heavy fines or jail. If you have items that are required to be registered now that were previously legal to be non-registered then you are on a list of ownership of restricted weapons. There is now no need for any other reason than the fact that you are on this list to be suspect. It makes no difference if you have nothing to hide. The only reason that registration exists is so confiscation can be done in a quick and efficient manner. If you are suggessting that I have something to hide because I am willing to stand up for my legal rights, then screw you.

bSquirrel

You are constantly assuming that you know exactly what level of protection people need. Hollow points are not just for self defense, many hunters use them. They are in fact less effective than a truncated cone(target or wadcutter round) design in some situations. Whats wrong with extended clips? They are also legal for hunting in some areas. The ban on these clips did nothing as there were already millions of them in circulation. The retailers just held on to them until they were allowed to sell them to the civilian market again. You don't like they way they look, too bad. Whats wrong with AP rounds? The ones manufactured in the U.S. have always been available to the public. How often have you heard of their use in a crime? Do you even know what makes a round an AP one? There is no such thing as cop-killer bullets. They are a total media fantasy, do some research. You do not need a license in most states to own a long gun. Yes you do fill out paperwork, some states require background checks or waiting periods, but you do not need a license. You do not need a license in most states to own a handgun either. Same deal, paper work, background check, some have waiting periods if you are not a CCW holder. But in most states you do not need a license to own one. Get your facts right. You have never shot a firearm, have you? Where do you get your info? What is a sniper rifle? Just because a gun has a scope on it? Because it looks like one? If I have a high caliber gun configured to take large game at long ranges is it a sniper rifle? You better tell those Elk I shot at 750 yards that they were hit with a sniper rifle. Good Gods, ban them! Making sweeping generalizations of what is or is not needed according to your logic is useless. It is obvious that you are greatly lacking in the understanding of firearms and their uses and designations. Your thinking is the type that makes all firearms fall into sweeping catagories to ban. You guys just don't get it. Once you start restricting and banning legal items from law abiding persons it does not stop. Look at most of Europe, Austraila, and Japan. Look at NYC and most large cities in California. All those cool knives you now own or wish to own are very probably illegal to carry in any of those areas. It is because of myopic attitudes such as yours.
And watch your language, the f word is not appropiate in this forum. You surely do not want this post to go to WC.
 
SR_matt said:
either way there is always be a black market and theres no good solution to it all but its a lot less effort to stop the cause than to continue to fix the problem over and over.
Click to expand...

If you state that the black market will always exist, then you will always be fixing the problem (crime), not eliminating the cause (guns). What you need to do is stop the problem (crime), which generally has very little to do with the cause you propose (guns). I think that the relationship between your cause (guns) and your problem (crime) is tenuous at best. I don't recall who said it, but before WWI broke out, there was a quote "there are always two hands for every neck". This goes to show that the problem (crime) will never be solved by taking away guns, it will merely make the problem (crime) a more personal affair.

SR_matt said:
in the end we can all agree there is a problem with how people use and see firearms (and since the thread was originaly about knives i guess we better add that in there too). we can all agree that we need to teach people at a much younger age how to use them as tools and use them responsibly, and that they are not an answer to problems with others.

we can also agree that there is a control issue of some kind, that there are many answers, and that none of the answers will make everyone happy and none will work perfectly.
Click to expand...

That's just the thing though, why does there have to be a control issue? Why not focus on the criminal, not his tools of the trade. If you start focusing on tools, soon things such as screwdrivers become illegal, which is the case in Australia unless you have a legitimate use for one. I'm a strong believer in individual liberties, however, once someone's liberties begin to affect anothers, that is where the government must step in to create a solution. That solution should not involve taking away the liberties of those who play by the rules. This is why we have the philosophy, innocent until proven guilty. What you propose by enacting gun bans is changing that to guilty until proven innocent. Once you start to pull down the pillars of our liberties, none are safe.
 
Edonis said:
That's just the thing though, why does there have to be a control issue? Why not focus on the criminal, not his tools of the trade. If you start focusing on tools, soon things such as screwdrivers become illegal, which is the case in Australia unless you have a legitimate use for one. I'm a strong believer in individual liberties, however, once someone's liberties begin to affect anothers, that is where the government must step in to create a solution. That solution should not involve taking away the liberties of those who play by the rules. This is why we have the philosophy, innocent until proven guilty. What you propose by enacting gun bans is changing that to guilty until proven innocent. Once you start to pull down the pillars of our liberties, none are safe.
Click to expand...
but if it is that no one has a gun what other use than hunting do you have for one?

the problem with the just focus on the criminal not the tools, you end up waiting until someone gets hurt/killed to do something when by taking away the tools it would have not happened or probably not have been as bad.

if you did not need a gun for protection what else would you use it for besides hunting. i can not think of anything other than "o its fun to shoot".
-matt
 
Your putting the horse behind the cart. If not guns, then knives. Ban knives, then clubs, eventually sporks. The common denominator is the person, not the tool. If someone wants to commit a crime they will use rocks and sticks. God forbid that someone has the evil sling to defend and protect themselves.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top