I too was horrified by the website seen in class on Friday. The website proves to me that gun regulation is an issue in this country. The selling of the weapons on that website should not be legal. I agree with the pro-gun control group that no one needs an AK-47 for their own personal security. However, I do think that citizens should continue to have the right to possess and carry a gun. I strongly supported Michelle’s statement in Friday’s class on how she would feel insecure if she couldn’t have the right to own a gun, because that ban would not stop criminals from using guns. I don’t like the idea of a country where only the police and the criminals have guns. That leaves the individual citizen in a weaker position, I don’t care how you try and argue it. The police and by extension the government, are not infallible. The primary interest of the police and the government is for the security of the whole of society, not for the security of every individual.
PTJ made a point about asking who in the class had shot a gun before. For me, I think it was telling how the people who had not shot a gun were so avidly anti-gun and fearful of guns in general (just an impression, correct me if I’m wrong). I have grown up in a house with guns and shot both rifles and handguns before. My dad likes to hunt and fish, so consequently my freezer at home always some fish and venison it and my family eats both on a regular basis. I don’t think of hunting as some archaic masculine pastime. The deer and javilena (wild pig) populations in some areas of Texas have caused extreme damage to property. Areas with such problems like to bring in hunters in order to control the population.
The kind of gun regulation that I would advocate for would treat guns like cars and be a national system overall. You need a license to operate a car and you should need a license to operate a gun. Obtaining this license would require a wait period, official identification shown and recorded in a local state office and a class taught on gun law, safety and use. Assault weapons should be illegal across the board, but the ban needs to end there.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
I am curious, you agree that assault weapons should be banned, but what about automatic handguns? Should those who carry a concealed firearm be able to buy suppressors?Gun control is an issue that many people feel strongly about, and everyone sets the standard at different points, what kind of weaponry provides adequate personal protection is subjective. This is truly a World Politics class question due to it being opinion-based with no right or wrong answer
I have a question for you then, if you don't mind.
What makes an 'assault rifle' unfit for the citizenry?
Fully automatic firearms, those that fire more than one round per pull of the trigger, are already highly regulated. Purchasing a fully automatic firearm requires a $200 tax stamp, FBI background check, permission from your local sheriff, and that the firearm not be made after 1986. Due to the limited supply of automatics (firearms that fire multiple rounds per pull of the trigger) the lowest you could purchase one would be around $5000.
Generally, most people confuse "assault weapons" with "semi automatics that are patterned off of fully automatics". My AR-15 may look menacing, but it makes it no more automatic than putting stickers all over your Hyundai will make it NASCAR ready.
The ammo? AK's use 7.62x39 ammo which is a medium powered cartridge. In combat, you need to carry more ammo, so you decrease its weight by making it smaller. The vast majority of standard hunting rounds like the 30.06 carry a LOT more kinetic energy than something as light as the AK fires. Here's a very old video showing how underpowered the AK round is compared to hunting rounds.
So, if your basing your "no assault rifles" on looks, that's not logical. If you're basing it on "cartridge", that too is illogical since any deer rifle is much more powerful.
What are you basing it on, then?
Also, do you know that if you are to purchase a gun online that it must be shipped to a Federal Firearms License (FFL) holder and a background check ran on you before you can pick it up? You can't buy modern firearms off the web and have them shipped to your house (Antiques can be if you hold a C&R license).
Just some food for thought. If you have any questions, please ask. You seem intelligent enough to realize that being outgunned by the police and government isn't a good idea, I'd like to expand on that so you recognize your rights and why you should never let the government infringe on them, even with something that might make you uncomfortable.
Actually, I would like guns to have the same regulations as cars, too.
- You only need a license to operate a car on public roads. No license is required to OWN any car you wish, nor are any permits required to operate a car on private property.
- A silencer is practically required on cars, so I want to be able to get a suppressor (aka silencer) for my guns
- There is no limit to how fast or powerful of a car I can own. Would that mean I can buy machine guns or cannons?
- What waiting period is there for a license to drive a car? Any 16 year old can walk into the DL office and walk out less than an hour later with a DL.
- Could you define for me the functional difference between what you think is an "assault rifle" and what you feel is an "acceptable" rifle?
Alex: I pretty much agree with everything you said. But like Robb has said, simply saying "assault weapons should be illegal" doesn't address the problem. We have to look to a deeper solution to the issue and address the underlying causes of the weapons' existence.
Adam: Full-auto handguns already are. Glock 18s aren't for street sale. And the murder rate among those with concealed carry permits is 0%. Only 1 to 2 percent of those eligible to get a permit get one in the first place, and 60% of the time the gun is in a sock drawer, in addition to the fact that they have them exclusively for protective purposes, such as the doctor in the parking garage.
To answer Seamus: I am not an expert on gun control or law. I know my question lacks nuance and I so I'll have to pull a Sarah Palin and get back to you on that.
To answer Robb:I wouldn't use the term unfit, but rather excessive. I believe guns should be used to promote individual security. They should not however give an individual the capability of starting their own personal war. I am partially basing my argument of looks I guess. Maybe a more appropriate argument should be that weapons manufactured for military combat should be banned. As for the online website, I was happy to hear that there is a background check. However, the merchandise on that site still makes me uneasy. How through are government background checks?
To answer divemedic: Thank you for pointing out the many weaknesses of my plan.Please let me know if you have any alternatives. A gun liscenship system would not negate restrictions and regulations on who could own a gun. The question of gun use on private property would be up to the owner, however, in order to own that gun you would need a liscense. I am not sure if this addresses your statement, let me know. I am just wondering what state you know of where you can get a driver's license in one hour? I 'm from Texas which is more lax than some other states and we have to hold a permit for six months during which we must log 30 hours of driving time. A driving class or equivalent is required and you must pass a test in order to obtain your liscense. Also, different types of vehicles require different liscenses and so different tests and other requirements. Having your driver's liscense does not entitle you to operate a motorcycle or drive an eighteen wheeler. Different types of guns would entail diffent instruction and possibly age or other requirements/restrictions. The silencer and functional difference statements are addressed in comments to others.
To answer Bo Vice: Why do guns exist, or why do assualt weapons exist? I am not entirely clear on what you are asking.
I have lived in Georgia, Virginia, Florida, and Arkansas/ All of those states gave me a driver's license in less than an hour, and with very little in the way of paperwork.
The problem I have with your plan is that requiring a license for a right means that you no longer have that right, the mere fact that a license is required means that it is no longer a right, but a privilege that is granted or removed at the whim of the license office.
Imagine a license to vote- or own a book. A license to have locks on your doors.
The right to bear arms has nothing to do with hunting, or sports. It is a basic guarantee of the freedoms we have in this country. A government cannot enslave an armed citizenry. While I understand that an armed overthrow of the government is unlikely at this point, history shows us that our form of government will no last forever. Do you think that we as Americans can simply vote a dictator from office?
Access and possession of arms means that we will not need them.
If you wish peace, prepare for war. Predators do not prey on those who can fight back, they prey on the defenseless.
and to add- you say that you want gun laws to mirror those for owning a car, but as you left out-
I do not need a license to own a car. Or 100 cars. Without a license, I can buy a plane, a semi, a dump truck, a very fast sports car, or a giant 4 wheel drive.
Are you saying that car ownership is more guaranteed by the Constitution than the right to arms?
You might be surprised to realize that the vast majority of military weapons come from civilian uses and not vice versa. In order to maintain our ability to go into combat quickly, gun manufacturers can't just wait until a war. They have to build weaponry year round, and by running their tests via what works for civilians, they are able to keep up designs that will work for the military as well.
However, your thought of "starting his own army" is misguided, mostly because you are confusing the weapon with the intent. I can legally own howitzers and fully automatic machine guns if I was wealthy enough to purchase them. In my hands, even a 20mm rifle (which can be owned) poses no harm to anyone. The .22 plinker rifle in the hands of a criminal can be used to cause more mayhem.
The fact is, it's not the weapon, it's the user.
Now, you'll probably not sleep better knowing that mass murder is better done using explosives and chemicals than firearms. Unlike what you see in the movies, in the US, 80% of gunshot victims survive. To really kill a lot of people, you need bombs, not guns.
Bombs are relatively easy to make. In fact, a little powdered creamer and a touch of black powder and you can make 50' high fireballs. Imagine what would happen if you sealed the container?
None of us gun owners want to put guns in the hands of criminals, but then again, if that person is such a threat to society that you want to wait until the point-of-sale to try to catch them from doing something wrong, shouldn't they not be allowed out in public?
As for the background checks, they are useless at best, unconstitutional at worst. When the system is down, and I go to purchase a firearm, I am considered guilty by default. How would you like it if you were considered guilty and had to prove your innocence in court? Why is it any difference for firearms purchases?
Silencers - Did you know that in ENGLAND, of all places, sound suppressors are required? Do you realize that installing a suppressor (they don't really silence a firearm unless you've modified practically every last element of it, not just the barrel) makes the firearm harder to conceal, therefor limiting its usefulness to criminals but that it's medically beneficial to those of us who shoot as a hobby?
And here in Florida, if you don't speak English, you can get a drivers license in minutes (the rest of us have to take the exam and wait an hour).
Here's a thought experiment for you - Why not just make it a law that harming others without due cause is illegal? Doesn't matter if you use a bat, a gun, a knife, or a stuffed lemur.
It's already illegal? Then how is limiting access to certain weaponry (which you yourself admit you cannot define very well) is going to make anyone bent on violence less prone to break that law? Do you really think criminals will go "Man, I want to kill that guy but all I have is an {insert forbidden firearm here} and it's illegal for me to have that."
I don't want the mentally ill or the criminals to have guns. Unfortunately, relying on a cash register to stop them is folly. The best thing to do is keep them off the street to begin with. By saying "firearms that look similar to X", you don't affect the criminals, you affect the law abiding.
Thanks for having a decent discussion here. It's a rarity we get answers back that don't call us names!
I'd like to congratulate you on your maturity. You admit what you don't know. That itself demonstrates more wisdom than many possess.
The fact that the very sight of a picture of fireamrs prompted this post and engenders "unease" should tell you that your uneasiness about them is not based upon reason or logic, but emotion.
You can't judge a book by it's cover. Just because a firearm looks "scary" or dangerous to you doesn't make it so...especially in light of your admitted limited knowledge of them.
As Robb already pointed out, the rifles that you saw on that web page were semi-automatic rifles designed to look similar to military rifles. They are not, in fact, combat rifles in any way. Considering the primary purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to ensure a capable militia in order to defend the nation against enemies, I would argue that we SHOULD have access to military arms...but that is another argument.
The fact is that the firearms in question here are nothing more than medium powered, semi-automatic utility rifles that look similar to their military counterparts.
They have many legitimate civilian uses and are quite useful for home defense. They are, in fact, less powerful than most hunting arms and are VERY rarely used in crime. Rifles, even carbine sized ones, are not easy for criminals to carry around in public discreetly.
The bottom line is that your fear of these firearms is misplaced. I'd recommend you find someone in your area (there are several gun bloggers in Texas who, I'm sure, would be more than willing to help you out) to take you to a range and allow you to safely experience and learn more about these very fun to shoot and useful rifles.
Licensing and registration does not prevent criminal misuse. Criminals simply disobey the laws. All Licensing and registration do is place undue burdens on those who are unlikely to misuse firearms in the first place.
Licensing and registration also places undue and unconstitutional power into the hands of the government. The founding fathers limited the powers of government for a reason.
SilenceDogood,
Robb referred me over here and I would like to comment. Bear with me, I'll try to be polite.
First, your concern over allowing civilians access to guns manufactured for military use. There is no such distinction. Case in point: Your Dad's hunting rifle. You do realize the only difference between a hunting rifle and a sniper rifle is the target? In fact, every single sniper rifle is use today by the US military is an adaption of a civilian hunting rifle and can be readily bought by civilians. A Marine Corps M40A3 is nothing more and than a hand-built, accurized Remington 700 hunting rifle. In fact, Remington will sell you the basic gun in that configuration for the asking. You just customize it into the Marine Corp pattern. If you're willing to spend the time and money, there is no functional difference. The difference is in name.
The .50 caliber sniper rifles the military uses today started out exclusively as long distance civilian target rifles. Barrett Firearms made the guns specifically for civilian use and the military picked them up for combat use much later (over a decade, in fact). They never were military weapons to begin with yet are demonized as such today.
On "assault weapons", you are definitely confusing appearance with function. An AR-15 (looks like an M-16) or a WASR-10 (looks like an AK-47) function no differently than a Remington 7400 semi-automatic hunting rifle. They just look scary. And the Remington 7400 fires a much more powerful hunting cartridge.
The military look-alikes are just that: look-alikes. We like them because they look like their military counterparts and accept military accessories. But the one thing they cannot ever do is accept the parts that make them fully automatic like the true military weapons carried by our soldiers. It is illegal to even attempt the modifications.
A civilian CAN buy the real military weapons as Robb pointed out. Just very time-consuming and expensive. If you want an M-16, you can get one. It will set you back anywhere from $12,000 to $20,000. Real AK-47s tend to run around $25,000.
You ask this question: "How through are government background checks?". Answer: As thorough as any government organization can make it. If you are expecting 100% perfection or close to it in a government database, forget it. By and large, the NICS background check is a feel-good measure. Up until 10 years ago, it didn't even exist. The country got by fine for 30 years on "signature on penalty of purjury and felony charges".
The background check is only as good as the agencies charged with putting data into it doing so in a timely fashion and keeping it up-to-date. It stores a list of disqualied individuals or those with potential disqualifiers, nothing more. If you're convicted of a crime that would disqualify gun ownership but doesn't put it into the system and you lie on the Federal form (a felony, by the way), you might still be able to buy a gun. Two cases in point: The Virginia Tech shooter and the Chantilly, VA police shooter.
In the first case, the VT shooter had been ordered for mental health treatment but the judge opted for out-patient care and thus, never had to report the disqualification to NICS. It was an administrative failure on the part of the State of Virginia. The VT shooter followed ever other state law in place including the 30 day waiting period between handgun purchases and the NICS background checks for each.
In the second case of the Chantilly, VA shooter, he was involved in using drugs and lied on the Federal form.
The system is only as good as the data in it and diligence behind it. And it does make mistakes. I know from personal experience.
As to licensing and registration of firearms and owners like you do cars, PLEASE DO! Seriously. Rather that provide rationale, I defer to LawDog who demolishes that notion right quick. If you want to license arms ownership like we do cars, I know as a gun owner I would welcome it. Alas, I suspect you are after something far more intrusive and restrictive.
Which brings me to my last point: You don't license Rights. I use the capital "R" there to denote Constitutional Rights versus perceived "rights" that people think we have which are not rights at all. Free Speech (among others in the 1st Amendment) is a Right. To not have troops quartered in your home is a Right. To not incriminate yourself is a Right. As is the Right to keep and bear arms of the 2nd Amendment.
Do you think you should have to pay a fee to vote next week? Hell no! But they used to do that and it was found to be Unconstitutional. You cannot impose a fee or pay a tax in order to exercise a right. In a grand sense, if you have to pay to or ask permission from the Government to exercise a Right, it isn't a Right. It's a privilege. Last time I checked it wasn't the Bill of Privileges (When the Government Agrees). Rights transcend the government and ours specifically were enumerated to protect them explicitly from Government excess.
Any form of licensing or registration that can be used to impair, dissuade or outright restrict the exercise of 2nd Amendment rights as they exist today renders it moot. It ceases to be a Right. And such action serves no purpose since it has been found that a criminal cannot be charged with failing to register an illegal gun in jurisdictions that require registration because it would violate their 5th Amendment rights against self-incrimination! Yet, a private citizen under the same circumstance in the absence of a crime could be charged.
That is a small sampling of where that particular road can led.
It sounds like you really just need some exposure. If you were local to me, I'd happily let you try out a so-called "assault weapon" and you'll find it isn't anything special save for being lightweight, accurate and fun to shoot. I've been hunting with a so-called "assault weapon". Takes deer just fine.
But advocating bans is folly and would help deprive me of my Rights and my property. Where's the freedom in that? The onus is on you to demonstrate that such policies outweigh their detrimental impact on the law-abiding citizens they affect. They tried from 1994-2004 and the net result was insignificant. Why try again? There are a lot more "assault weapons" in the hands of civilians now because of the 1994 ban-that-wasn't-a-ban. Trying again now would be virtual political suicide. It cost the Democrats the House for the first time in 40 years. What do you think would happen if it was tried again on an equal or grander scale with millions more in circulation?
Please keep asking questions and consider the answers carefully. Hopefully we can help answer them.
"Maybe a more appropriate argument should be that weapons manufactured for military combat should be banned."
As stated, they essentially are already banned. Many states do not allow such in the hands of civilians. Where they are legal, they are extremely limited in access, highly regulated, and uber-expensive.
Now let me approach things from a very very different angle. "Ergonomics" and health. You see, the car you drive is very very different than the car your great grandfather drove. In fact, the mouse you use on your computer is very different than the one your father probably used on an old Mac Classic.
One of the key differences is ergonomics. In times past, rifles had the stocks they do because wood was pretty much the only material that was light, strong, moderately hard, and reasonably affordable. This is the same reason skis were made of wood. However, have you tried buying wood skis today? They're all made out of what? Plastic! (Maybe with some aluminum re-inforcement.) Going back to the mouse issue. Have you seen today's computer mice? What are they all about - ergonomics. We've learned a lot about the art of holding something - as strange as that might sound.
So over the years, the army has funded a fair amount of research into ergonomics and alternative materials. The results of what is now 40 yr old technology has trickled into the civilian world. The result, civilians want rifles that are lightweight, modular, weather resistant, rot proof, etc. The AR-15, which may look identical on the outside to the M-16, is really no more than a low-powered light weight hunting rifle with an alternative ergonomic and weatherproofing construction.
So when the media rants about "assault weapons" the gun community shakes it's head in frustration. Because we actually understand the issue. It's akin to complaining about those "Mustang racing cars", when the models we have are equipped with 4-cyclinder engines. It may look the same but there is a big difference between having a 4 cylinder under the hood or an 8 cylinder.
So when ever you hear the term "assault weapon" realize you're falling for hype over a 4-cyclinder that looks like an V-8 sports car. When you hear the term "assault rifle", realize that such is only accurate when it's speaking of a military grade weapon that is capable of burst fire and/or full auto. And that if reference is truly, than they are speaking of a highly highly regulated firearm that is not readily available to the civilian populace except with the greatest restrictions. And more than likely cost as much as a decent used car and may have in fact cost more than a corvette.
***
All that said, you're doing the right thing asking questions. Never stop!
- N.U.G.U.N.
http://nugun.wordpress.com
I can save you some time on your licensing idea. It sounds good, but it doesn't do much.
I know that because I live in Illinois, and I have a license to own a gun. It's called a "FOID" or Firearm Owners' ID card. I had to get it in order to buy, sell, or even handle firearms or ammunition--in Illinois, you can go to jail if someone left one round of .22 in the car you're driving, unless you have your FOID. The FOID takes a background check and a minimum of two weeks to get; the state police are supposedly limited to thirty days before they must issue the FOID, but it usually takes quite a bit longer than that.
So, good for Illinois, right? Well, no. We've had the FOID since 1968, and none of our neighbors have it. And unsurprisingly, Wisconsin, Indiana, Kentucky, Missouri and Iowa all have much lower rates of violent crime, including crimes committed with firearms. All those states also allow citizens to own machine guns, silencers and short rifles/shotguns (with the restrictions Robb mentioned) while Illinois does not--and yet, they still have lower rates of violent crime and crime committed with firearms.
Missouri, Kentucky, and Indiana are all shall-issue CCW states, while Illinois doesn't allow concealed carry for any private citizen--and yet, again, each of those states has much lower rates of violent crime and crime committed with firearms.
The fact is, the licensing scheme has been tried in the real world (well, in Illinois, which is similar to the real world in many ways.) It failed. It makes gun ownership difficult and dangerous, but it doesn't lower crime.
(If you're thinking "No fair! What Illinois has that those places don't is Chicago! The guns have nothing to do with it!" then you're catching on. It's the places and the people, not the tools those people own. Put 8 million people in a pressure cooker like Chicago and bad things happen no matter what kind of licenses you require.
"the people who had not shot a gun were so avidly anti-gun and fearful "
This applies just as well to the concept that military guns are somehow too dangerous for civilians. Most common hunting rifles are based on the Mauser used in both world wars--in fact, until the 60's, it was common to "sporterize" a surplus Mauser (or other bolt-action battle rifle) for civilian use as a hunting gun.
This was less common with the guns after WWII, because the trend of most armies was full-auto machine guns, unavailable to civilians without a lot of extra expense and red tape. Another post WWII trend was to give up power to gain capacity--The modern M16 or AK47 is much less powerful than either their WWII-era counterparts, or modern hunting rifles.
So the only meaningful "evil" military feature is capacity. This was part of the 1994 Assault Weapons ban. It meant that the guns carried by most police were now "assault weapons" and unavailable to civilians unless their magazine capacity was reduced to 10 rounds.
The other parts of the assault weapons ban were just plain silly--Adjustable stocks, grips, flash reducers, barrel shrouds, bayonet mounts, grenade launchers--basically features that were not related to lethality or misuse, but made the guns look military or scary.
Post a Comment