Gun Control: Good or Bad?

[Into the blue]

Originally Posted by monkeyman

I haven't seen these sorts of lines since back when the forum was overrun with 9/11 threads. Perhaps you'll have better luck with them than Shaun did.

Zing!

[BillyTheMountain]

ZZzzzziiinnnngggg!!!!!!

[trickcyclist]

The Canadian federal parliament recently (last week) passed a private member's bill on second reading to abolish the long gun registry. This registry of long guns (mostly hunting firearms generally owned by people in rural areas, aboriginal people, and other law-abiding citizens) has cost Canadian taxpayers $2 billion. It was introduced with the promise that it would cost a mere $2 million. The registry is fraught with anomalies and inaccuracies making its value to law enforcement questionable at best. The gun control debate is alive and well here in Canada. Here are my thoughts.

To be worthwhile, gun control needs to be effective. To be effective, it needs to limit the access to firearms of those who should not possess firearms. It needs to demonstrably reduce criminal acts committed with a firearm. It needs to balance the freedoms of responsible citizens with reasonable limitations on those freedoms. Gun control here in Canada has failed on all counts.

As has been stated by others in this thread, In the sort of society in which most of us would wish to live, there are some important balances that we should strive to maintain. One is a balance of power between antisocial criminals and prosocial citizens. If criminals are excessively powerful in comparison to the ordinary citizen, the rule of law is at risk. Limiting citizen's access to firearms without effectively limiting criminal's access to firearms will always be counter-productive. It is also important to achieve balance between the power of the state and the power of the individual. In a democracy, the state should rule by the consent of the people, rather than by force alone, and should also be subject to the same rule of law as its citizens. When the state has the exclusive right to keep, bear, and use arms, that balance of power is at risk of being upset.

Here in North America, as is true in many other parts of the world, there are so many guns out there that any attempt at gun control will always run the risk of upsetting a stable (even if undesirable) balance of power. The vast majority of gun crimes are committed by individuals who are simply not susceptible to gun control. (That is true whether it be individual criminals or the state itself.)

Whatever controls we choose to exercise over the ownership of firearms, I will always wish to see that those controls are effective:

1. Limits access of those who are unsuitable for ownership
2. Reduces gun crime
3. Does not infringe the freedoms of the law abiding

I guess I've probably said enough. That's my best shot.

[BillyTheMountain]

In the USA, Felons cannot possess firearms.

Mental patients cannot possess firearms. When you buy a rifle or handgun, you must indicate on the paperwork that you have never been an psychiatric inpatient or been convicted of a crime punishable by a sentence of more than 1 year (felony).

Who thinks felons and mental patients should have a right to own firearms?

[trickcyclist]

Originally Posted by BillyTheMountain

In the USA, Felons cannot possess firearms.
Mental patients cannot possess firearms.
Who thinks felons and mental patients should have a right to own firearms?

#1. Limits access of those who are unsuitable for ownership

I buy into this one.

[ħǻřрέŗ]

Originally Posted by BillyTheMountain

In the USA, Felons cannot possess firearms.

Mental patients cannot possess firearms.

And therefore they don't.

In the USA:

It is illegal to sell, buy, or use heroin.
It is illegal for the underage to buy, sell, or use alcohol.
It is illegal for the underage to buy, sell, or use tobacco.
It is illegal for the underage to drive.
It is illegal for the underage to gamble.
It is illegal to rob, rape, murder, or burglarize.
It is illegal to commit fraud.
It is illegal to lie before a grand jury...

and therefore they don't.

[Daytripper63]

And if we enforced at least half of the existing laws in all the previous post this would be an incredible country, but our worthless elected officials would much rather pass more laws every year that never get enforced but look good on paper.

[johnfoss]

Originally Posted by ħǻřрέŗ

And therefore they don't.

I know someone who owns a 44 Magnum pistol, who has self-committed herself to mental facilities on more than one occasion, and who takes a long list of psycho-meds. AND, I think the fact that she self-committed makes her gun ownership 100% legal. Mmm hmm. And no, I'm not making this up.

Originally Posted by Daytripper63

And if we enforced at least half of the existing laws in all the previous post this would be an incredible country...

Huh? Sorry, got to call you on that one. People get arrested/prosecuted/convicted of all of those things every day {EDIT: Referring to the list in Harper's post}. Part of the reason those crimes are so "popular" is that they are culturally "accepted" by too large a percentage of our society. Too many of us are okay living around people they know to be criminals. For the lesser crimes like underage drinking, the temptation is almost built into being at that age, and no law is going to change it.

Laws don't change people. Take the one about lying in front of a Grand Jury. Everyone knows it's wrong, but that doesn't change the motivation for some people to do it anyway. Those laws do get enforced. Imperfectly, but it's not like they're being ignored. If conservatives had their way, crime-prevention budgets would be cut or eliminated. Stuff to prevent or reduce future crimes. Actual crime-fighting budgets would only be cut. Or am I wrong about that?

Airplanes:
I think zero guns should be allowed aboard. A gun is a stupid weapon to have on a pressurized aircraft. When are we going to get decent, affordable weapons that will stop a "bad person" without having to blow a hole in them? Naturally if you have a hijacking in progress, you need to really-really stop the assailant(s) if possible, and fast. I just think that in today's world, we should be able to come up with something that can do that without causing so much other destruction.

The problem with having guns handy is that they don't necessarily get used *by* the person who brought them, or *for* the purpose for which they are intended. If I'm a hijacker on a "BYOG" airline, I don't need to bring my own gun, all I need to do is steal one off another passenger. The threat of other passengers with guns cannot prevent the death of someone who's already been shot. If an assailant acts fast, a lot can happen before everyone else can wield their weapons.

Notice how there haven't been any hijackings since 9/11? I think that's because if someone tries to do something similar again, the passengers will take apart the hostages with their bare hands. No weapons or plastic silverware needed. If a future planeload of people gets the idea their plane is going to be used as a missle, even if that isn't the intent of the hijackers, they're going to overwhelm them and the hijackers may or may not survive until the plane lands safely for the proper authorities to take over.

That said, I'm with Gilby on letting airlines make their own choices on that. I'll make my own choices accordingly. However I do not agree if Gilby thinks airlines should set their own rules on how much maintenance is "enough" for their aircraft. I know exactly what that would lead to.

[Gilby]

Originally Posted by johnfoss

That said, I'm with Gilby on letting airlines make their own choices on that. I'll make my own choices accordingly. However I do not agree if Gilby thinks airlines should set their own rules on how much maintenance is "enough" for their aircraft. I know exactly what that would lead to.

How is it different? What would it lead to?

Market forces will lead to the airlines keeping the aircraft well maintained.

• The consumer wants a safe flight, this leads to the airline providing good maintenance on their planes so that they keep a good track record of safety. It also leads to airlines getting insurance so that the consumers know that if something happens, they (or their estate) will be compensated for their losses.
• The aircraft maker wants their planes to have a good track record, this leads to there being contracts in the sale of the aircraft to ensure they are maintained.
• The airline is liable if their plane fails and injures someone or their property, this leads to them maintaining their aircrafts and getting insurance.
• The airline's insurer(s) wants to minimize their risk, this leads to the insurer making sure the airline provides good maintenance to their aircraft.

So, yes it will lead to safer flights. Out with the coercive laws that protect airlines from having liability. In with real law, which would make them liable for their actions.

[ħǻřрέŗ]

Originally Posted by johnfoss

Huh? Sorry, got to call you on that one. People get arrested/prosecuted/convicted of all of those things every day {EDIT: Referring to the list in Harper's post}.

That's just crazy talk. Those things are illegal. It's impossible for people to do illegal things. They're against the law.

Originally Posted by johnfoss

Airplanes:
I think zero guns should be allowed aboard. A gun is a stupid weapon to have on a pressurized aircraft.

A gun is not a stupid weapon to have on a pressurized aircraft. A gun loaded with hard ball or hollow point bullets is stupid to have aboard an airplane. That's a job for pre-fragmented rounds.

[Daytripper63]

Originally Posted by johnfoss

Huh? Sorry, got to call you on that one. People get arrested/prosecuted/convicted of all of those things every day {EDIT: Referring to the list in Harper's post}. Part of the reason those crimes are so "popular" is that they are culturally "accepted" by too large a percentage of our society. Too many of us are okay living around people they know to be criminals. For the lesser crimes like underage drinking, the temptation is almost built into being at that age, and no law is going to change it.

Laws don't change people. Take the one about lying in front of a Grand Jury. Everyone knows it's wrong, but that doesn't change the motivation for some people to do it anyway. Those laws do get enforced. Imperfectly, but it's not like they're being ignored. If conservatives had their way, crime-prevention budgets would be cut or eliminated. Stuff to prevent or reduce future crimes. Actual crime-fighting budgets would only be cut. Or am I wrong about that?

It is the constant dropping of charges / plea bargains and lack of enforcement and what you say about things that are accepted by a percentage of society today is a huge problem just look at the public outcry for Roman Polanski (filmmaker fights extradition to the United States, where he faces sentencing for raping a teenager at a party in 1977.
Polanski fled America on the eve of sentencing in 1978 and has lived in exile in France and Switzerland ever since.) many say we are wrong to persue him for a crime over 30 years ago but what about the fact he fled the country the day before he was to be sentenced, he knows he is guilty and needs to pay for his actions just like everybody should.
If only KARMA was more powerful.

[BillyTheMountain]

Originally Posted by johnfoss

I know someone who owns a 44 Magnum pistol, who has self-committed herself to mental facilities on more than one occasion, and who takes a long list of psycho-meds. AND, I think the fact that she self-committed makes her gun ownership 100% legal. Mmm hmm. And no, I'm not making this up.

The Feds are on their way over to you for this criminal's name and location, thank you. You can visit her in Federal Prison tomorrow, or tell her to hand her gun over to authorities today. Admitting yourself to the hospital is not a way around the laws designed to protect you and your children from mental patients with handguns.

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2008/rpt/2008-R-0188.htm

A new federal law (Public Law 110-180) encourages states to report the necessary mental health data to the FBI by offering them more than $ 1 billion to improve reporting systems and address privacy concerns. (A copy and Congressional Research Service summary of the public law are attached. )
BACKGROUND

Since 1968, federal law has banned gun sales or transfers to, among others, anyone adjudicated as “a mental defective” or committed to a mental institution (18 USC § 922(d)(4) & 27 CFR § 478. 11). Since 1993, it has required (1) states to report people prohibited from acquiring or possessing firearms to the NICS database and (2) federal firearm licensees (gun dealers), before completing firearm transfers, to check the database to determine if prospective purchasers are disqualified from receiving firearms under state or federal law. But a 1997 U. S. Supreme Court ruling effectively made state participation in NICS voluntary. In Printz v. U. S. (521 U. S. 898 (1997)), the court ruled as unconstitutional, under the 10th Amendment, federal attempts to compel states to contribute to a federal regulatory program, absent funding.

[BillyTheMountain]

Originally Posted by ħǻřрέŗ

And therefore they don't.

In the USA:

It is illegal to sell, buy, or use heroin.
It is illegal for the underage to buy, sell, or use alcohol.
It is illegal for the underage to buy, sell, or use tobacco.
It is illegal for the underage to drive.
It is illegal for the underage to gamble.
It is illegal to rob, rape, murder, or burglarize.
It is illegal to commit fraud.
It is illegal to lie before a grand jury...

and therefore they don't.

Drunk driving laws have reduced highway deaths and injuries.

Bicycles rarely ride on the sidewalk since the law against doing it.

Of course, laws only work if they are enforced.

[wobbling bear]

anybody to answer my question about the distinction between "law abiding citizens" and "criminals" ?
some predictive technique to learn when and how one will cross the line? both ways btw?

[wobbling bear]

Originally Posted by trickcyclist

• Does not infringe the freedoms of the law abiding

I have doubts over reasoning that separates society into two different sets: criminals and law abiding citizens. ("they" and "us").
Two questions:
- how many deaths provoked by "law abiding citizens" (I mean they were "law abiding" 10 minutes before).
- I saw a cartoon by an American artist where the hijack of a plane (sept 11) was avoided because all "law abiding citizens" in the plane had a gun and so could overcome the hijackers ..... So do you think all "law abiding" passengers in a plane should be allowed to carry a gun aboard?

just curious.