Guns, GUNS, GUUUNNSS!!!!

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

After listening a tiny remark in a polite conversation today after a rehearsal I got thinking that this one is worth debating in a rational* way: Pros and Cons of guns, regulation, limits (or lack thereof), etc. Do the classical arguments for and against hold water?

Who want's to take a side on this one? 

*something virtually impossible anywhere else.

[ivor]

Can I be pro?  I'm sure you'll beat me.

[Opsa]

Naw, we'll just shoot ya.

[Griffin NoName]

I'd like a starting pistol.

My alarm clock just failed to get me to a meeting; I turned up one hour late having slept through it just as everyone was leaving.

[beagle]

Without guns the evil redcoats would come back. We're just waiting for the day you forget to reload.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

Well, my stance is that personal weapons of mass destruction ought to be strictly regulated.  Otherwise....

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

Oooo, but we're not here to talk about stances...

So far, MB and Bob are playing in favor of guns, and beagle and Griffin are equivocally against or is this a yanks vs brits kind of thing? 

Despite my own stance I'll play with the boys*, so lets start:

There is no moral justification to prevent self defense nor reason for it to be constrained by the state.

*no beagle, I didn't forget you're a boy

[Swatopluk]

I am for extremly restrictive regulations. Anyone who wants to own a firearm needs to prove that
a) (s)he is technically able to handle the thing
b) (s)he is 'morally' sound and responsible
That means mandatory training at least on the level necessary to get a driving licence. Regular renewal of licence required*.
Any conviction for e.g. DUI or other irresponsible acts should lead to loss of licence. Depending on severity that should be temporarily or for life.
All firearms have to be personalized and registered. If there is a way to do the same for ammo, it should be followed.
Loss of weapon has to be reported immediately or the owner can be held responsible for any abuse. Negligence in this regard is to be punished (e.g. leaving your handgun in your car visibly).
Strict purpose related regulations should be in place (i.e., where and how can you carry what arm**).
Other, less lethal, means of self-defense should be encouraged.
At the border of no-gun zones there should be secured keeping facilities in order to defang the deadbeat argument that one has to carry the weapon in because otherwise somebody could steal it from the car etc.

*I would propose the same for driving licences
**more leeway for hunting weapons in the country, strict no-gun areas in certain other places.

[Aggie]

Without guns the evil redcoats would come back. We're just waiting for the day you forget to reload.

They carry Tasers these days...  wait, that's the other Royal boys in red.

Agree with Swato to a large degree, because he's largely described Canadian gun laws wrt handguns; for example:
-Must be locked and the trigger secured at all times
-Can be legally carried only from home to a legal shooting range, and must be transported in a locked box.

I'm from a meat-hunting family (learned to shoot at 5 & got my first gun at 10) and strongly support the availability of sporting rifles/shotguns, but I don't buy into most of the arguments for carrying weapons publicly for any other reason (in a safe society - I have been glad all security guards in the Philippines carry guns on a couple of occasions).  Home protection?  A good 12-gauge is enough, and make it a pump-action for the audible deterrent properties of that ol' shick-shick. I generally support keeping handguns legal, but for target-shooting usage only (or law enforcement), and don't think there's any reason to pack heat.

I hates the long gun registry in Canada, mostly in terms of dollars wasted for results obtained. 

[beagle]

So far, MB and Bob are playing in favor of guns, and beagle and Griffin are equivocally against or is this a yanks vs brits kind of thing? 

No strong opinions really.  It's one of those things that seems a big issue in the States but is off the radar here. I have no problem with German/Canadian style licensing for hunting/sport but am just glad I don't live somewhere where people need one for self defence. They don't work here in Midsomer anyway; they just poison you instead.

Personally I've only ever shot clays, and most of those survived unscathed.  Standing around in the cold, mud and rain so you can pretend to be to the manor born is one of those pleasures I can take or leave.

[Pachyderm]

As a keen shot, I am all in favour of the safe, controlled and regulated use of guns, as indicated in posts above. Don't get the need for fully-automatic military style assault weapons for "home defence". Isn't that what the Police are for?

I love shooting. Mostly clays, but have no problem with hunting for food. Hunting to get your photo taken, standing proudly over the recently deceased carcass of whatever it was is not for me.

However, there are those who want to do it, and to cater for them, do it as part of the usual population controls. It is necessary to cull sometimes, and why not use this to generate some income for the Park/Reserve/Farm or whatever?

Had a blazing row with a fellow biologist about that one. I tend to the realistic (hence being a consultant, she was very definetely in the "AWww, isn't it cute. Save the animals" section, and in her own words "Couldn't get her head around the need for population control". She has a degree in Biological Sciences, and a tendancy to ignore one of the most basic facts in biology. She slotted seamlessly in as a volunteer at the Wildlife Trust...

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

I am for extremly restrictive regulations.....

Fine.

Who's gonna pay for all the enforcement?  Who gets to decide *when* the regulations are enforced or given a polite *wink-wink* and ignored? 

As for "that's what the police are for" there is a average 30 minute wait for police to actually show up, if it's in a common neighborhood (last time I checked).  This is strictly within cities.  If you live outside of a city?  The wait extends to hours or days even ...

A lot can happen in that time.

Reminds me of the following supposedly true story:

A man (unarmed as it turns out) woke up one night to noise in his backyard:  sure enough, some thugs were breaking into his outdoor garage, and preparing to make off with his tools.  He calls 911.  He is greeted with,

"It is very late, and we just do not have anyone to send.  Sorry.  Maybe in a couple of hours or so."

"That's okay" he says, and hangs up.

He waits about a minute, then calls 911 again.  "Nevermind sending the police.  I just shot them all.  Whenever you get the chance, you can send the meat wagon" and hangs up again.

Within minutes, there were several cop cars and a helicopter.  The ambulance can be heard whining in the background on the way....

The lead policeman complains, "I thought you said you shot them!"

The man responds, "I thought you said you didn't have anyone to send."

The thugs were all arrested....

...however?  This would only work one time...

[Swatopluk]

Over here cars are taxed (revenue is theoretically used to keep the roads in working condition or to build new ones). Driving licences come with a fee. Gun training could be done by certified private instructors (again as with drive training for cars).
Regulations are always only as strong as their enforcement independent of area, so if it can work with cars, why not with guns?
Okay, I am well aware that there are some regions in the world where these type of regulations would not work due to corruption of the state and the mind of the (or at least too many) citizens but not all the world lies between Panama and the 49th Parallel* 

As for guns as anti-burglar devices, I am very sceptical about that. Many a family member lost his/her life because (s)he was mistaken for a burglar/intruder**. A home taser might be a better (though very imperfect solution). Shooting burglars/intruders (with a lethal weapon) except in direct self-defense is imo not justified. Mere defense of property should be no excuse for manslaughter/murder/killing with intent. Again I know that this view is not shared by many US citizens (including lawmakers).

Lawmakers that pass laws allowing guns in places of alcohol consumption should be held fully responsible for the results (accessory of manslaughter). As proposed in my earlier post: Hand your guns in, when you enter the no-gun zone, and get it back when leaving unless in a state that would preclude responsible action, like intoxication. Then it should either stay or be handed over in a disabled condition only.

*Mexico got infected too, so the Rio Grande would be the wrong Southern border
**I leave out other gun related accidents. Those can happen with any weapon especially if handled irresponsibly (like leaving them lying around loaded in the presence of kids).

[Aggie]

As for "that's what the police are for" there is a average 30 minute wait for police to actually show up, if it's in a common neighborhood (last time I checked).  This is strictly within cities.  If you live outside of a city?  The wait extends to hours or days even ...

A lot can happen in that time.

I do not necessary dispute the possible role of firearms in home defense (as a last resort), especially in rural areas, but IMHO even quite restrictive rules on training, licensing and transportation do not disallow a gun owner to keep a weapon at home. IMHO, regulations on trigger locks and/or locked storage are not serious restrictions to home defense use (provided one doesn't mind a gun safe in the bedroom ).

I personally do not support the right to carry (loaded and/or unlocked) handguns, due to human nature; it's bound to cause more unwarranted shootings than it prevents. But on the other hand, urban handgun bans to the degree that some cities implement them (i.e. Toronto closing down shooting ranges when we already have VERY STRICT carrying and transportation regulations) is naive; the people carrying firearms for the purpose of committing crimes are not going to stop carrying because it's a crime.  I do support harsher penalties for unlawful possession and use of handguns - but that's in the same breath as my support for harsher penalties for drinking and driving, especially where it results in death (sentences for killing while drunk behind the wheel are pathetic). 

Urban gun restrictions are, however, very popular with urban voters who rarely hear about legitimate and safe gun use, but DO hear about illegal gun violence on a regular basis.


Canada currently requires a license (following a training course) for both possession and acquisition of firearms; formerly, possession was permitted provided you didn't buy it yourself. There are no re-testing requirements, although I do believe the license expires every 5 years or so and must be removed, plus must be kept up-to-date with current home address, similar to a driver's license.  Handguns here require additional licensing if I recall correctly (in theory, long guns require registration, but the system is a mess and it's not enforced). I'm not up to date on my firearms license at the moment.

The only downside to the necessity of licensing is that it creates a database of gun owners which (paranoid owners presume) could be used as an excuse to allow the police otherwise unlawful entry into one's home. The database does not concern me per se, but the prospect that one could be arbitrarily searched because they are a legal gun owner does.



Pachy:  Over here, the biggest proponents of appropriate population control (both in terms of culls and on hunting closures) and of habitat protection are hunters themselves: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ducks_Unlimited
We want to see healthy, huntable populations, so we tend to support temporary bans or restrictions on hunting to achieve this.

Exceptions to this tend to be those who have an interest in big-game tourist hunting of trophy animals (i.e. grizzly bears - why do you need to kill a grizzly when numbers are low? Black bears OTOH are plentiful and tasty, and DO need some population control around human populated areas).

ROFL on educated bunny-huggers who should know better about population dynamics.

[Swatopluk]

Show them some of these and they may accept the need of control (tell them that crosses and garlic don't work on them) 

http://www.wissen.de/wde/generator/substanzen/bilder/sigmalink/m/mo/mos_/moschustier_1829244,property=zoom.jpg

The picture above is genuine.
The one below looks a a bit suspect though

http://www.blackstate.gr/Pics/Cool/letsflyawaycomeflywithmeSM.jpg

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

I do not necessary dispute the possible role of firearms in home defense (as a last resort), especially in rural areas, but IMHO even quite restrictive rules on training, licensing and transportation do not disallow a gun owner to keep a weapon at home. IMHO, regulations on trigger locks and/or locked storage are not serious restrictions to home defense use (provided one doesn't mind a gun safe in the bedroom ).

Registration is just an excuse to levy a tax-- and nothing more-- as it's currently implemented.

Again?  How do you propose to pay for the enforcement of the new bureaucracy created by your registration/licensing?

And comparing guns to cars is disingenuous:  a car is.....big.  It's nearly impossible to conceal.  They are expensive, and require expensive maintenance.  They require highly specialized and dedicated areas to operate upon (roads), highly specialized and large places to store, and so forth.

It's quite simple to regulate cars:  simply put your enforcement personnel into cars, and drive them around the roads...

...does not compare with guns logistically.  Not even a little bit:  a gun is easy to conceal, even a rifle (especially when compared to a car).  A gun can be put away for decades, then brought out and used immediately providing you have proper ammunition--- try that with a car!  After just 8 years, a car's tires are so aged from oxygen exposure they are not safe at any speed...let alone the fuel goes bad after 2 years, and the engine oil goes bad only a little longer than that... putting a car into long-term storage, and taking it out again requires significant investment in time, materials and prep (before *and* after).

Not so with a gun-- a bit of preservative oil wiping it down, and it'll fire like it was new decades later... (if you have good ammo, obviously).

Couple that with the provincial attitude within law enforcement, and again...who will enforce your rigid license requirements?  Who will pay for this added burden?

How will you regulate the thriving person-to-person gun trade?  More than 50% (last time I tried to find info....and these were estimates at best) of gun sales is private person-to-person.  I.e. not at all regulated.   A large percentage of the remaining sales takes place in the used market, pawn shops & such-- again much of this is very likely "under the table" cash transactions... again... how do you propose to regulate any of *those* transactions?   There are already strict penalties to a pawn shop selling guns this way, but they do it anyhow....

_________

I, personally do not have a serious problem with requiring a license to own a gun-- but.  How on earth is it going to be enforced?  If you put into place such laws-- you only penalize those willing to comply... and piss them off even more than before, making it even *more* difficult to pass really useful regulations that you absolutely want to keep in place (like fully automatic fire, explosives and so forth...)

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

I actually can see the problem with enforcement in the US, particularly with the untouchable status of gun manufacturers, but that is a different argument (and I'm supposedly playing the other side).

Other argument I heard is one of natural law: in a death-life situation all regulations are meaningless, is either him/her or me, how does regulation solve that problem?


Pachy: population controls are necessary because we have eradicated their predators or upset the balance that kept them. Although you could argue that given that we are continually taking land they used before, we are forcing their populations below their potential (which would or does superimpose with ours). Not an argument against controls, but acknowledging that we are either doing mothers nature work for her, or more precisely restricting mother nature more and more. 

[Aggie]

Registration is just an excuse to levy a tax-- and nothing more-- as it's currently implemented.

Again?  How do you propose to pay for the enforcement of the new bureaucracy created by your registration/licensing?

Enforcement?  2 billion dollars wasted on the bloody long-gun registry and you expect me to pay for enforcement? 

_{(even the RCMP ain't touching that one)}

You have answered your own question, though - the tax pays (in theory) for administration.

I, personally do not have a serious problem with requiring a license to own a gun-- but.  How on earth is it going to be enforced?  If you put into place such laws-- you only penalize those willing to comply... and piss them off even more than before, making it even *more* difficult to pass really useful regulations that you absolutely want to keep in place (like fully automatic fire, explosives and so forth...)

Just....  don't enforce unless things go wrong.  The premise here (likely more plausible in Canada than the US) is that compliance with the spirit, if not the letter, of the law will largely be voluntary for the core user group.   

Comparing to cars, if you drive the speed limit and do not get in an accident, how does the government determine whether you as a driver (as opposed to a car owner/insurance holder) actually have a license?  It's not the gun or car that needs direct licensing, it's the owner/operator (actually, cars are much, much more dangerous, because nobody carries liability insurance on a firearm).  The purpose IMHO of licensing is to enforce a minimum amount of safety education before handing over the right to operate a dangerous object.

Guns are definitely easier to trade on the underground market, but this doesn't negate reasonable licensing for owners/operators.

Overall, this one's like health care - I'm reasonably satisfied with the Canadian system, but don't think it's a good bolt-on for America.

[beagle]

These seem like a self-supporting arguments to me. If even the temperamentally unstable are allowed access to guns without licence checks then yes, parents, school teachers,  and even average school kids may need them too.

It is sort of hard to imagine the U.S. without guns and religion though. Just remember to hand both in at the departure desk.

[Swatopluk]

Well, a gun simply changing hands under the table would mean
a) the new owner would have an unlicensed gun. If caught with it he'd be in trouble (serious trouble, if I had a say in that).
b) the former owner would be liable for any misdeeds carried out, for legally the gun would still be his.

You have never been within 100 mile sof the Polish border I presume or you would know that smuggling cars is easier than smuggling firearms 
Ammo ages too (look at Darwin Awards for macabre results). And it would be technically possible to make faster decaying powder (then put 'best before..." on the packet).
Over here gun regulations work remarkably well (and the police is usually quite good at finding illegal ones*). But as I said above: simply impossible in the US for the time being.
<do not take seriously> Maybe change would come, if someone showed up and send the whole NRA leadership to kingdom coming by means of arms** the same leadership is beating the drum for legalizing</do not take seriously>

*But that's just another proof that Germany is a fascist commie police state in the eyes of real Merkins.
**Made in the US of course

[Pachyderm]

Pachy: population controls are necessary because we have eradicated their predators or upset the balance that kept them. Although you could argue that given that we are continually taking land they used before, we are forcing their populations below their potential (which would or does superimpose with ours). Not an argument against controls, but acknowledging that we are either doing mothers nature work for her, or more precisely restricting mother nature more and more.

So we have to either increase the space given over to wildlife and protected as such (no complaints from me), or control the population in the space we do let them have. The reasons behind the controls are, to me, immaterial. They need to be in place so that future generations can see the animals and habitats themselves, not just on the TV.

[ivor]

One only has to look at Prohibition to see what effect more restrictive gun laws would have illegal guns in the U.S.  Prohibition created a huge black market for alcohol along with an increase in graft and corruption.  If you want to see an explosion in the illegal gun trade then ban guns.  Like banning alcohol, banning guns makes the illegal gun trade "worth" the risk.  Sure you'll catch some of them, but not nearly enough of them.  Every time you put one out of business you just create a more lucrative market for the next person.  Look at Mexico.  Mexico has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the world. Has that stopped the violence?  No.  The U. S. has given the Mexican Government $500 billion dollars to fight gun violence and the drug trade.  Has that stopped the drug trade and the violence? No.  If we don't legalize drugs and possible give them away for free the violence will cross the border eventually.  

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

Actually I was thinking on that, MB, the same rules apply for guns and drugs at the point of a ban although to be fair legalization of drugs isn't the same as deregulation of drugs, which is as devastating (see the case of China at the cross of the XX century) as a complete ban. I guess the same can be argued with guns, a total ban will force manufacturers and owners to go underground and form a black market with all it's consequences, but then the opposite, complete deregulation of guns may prove to be as destructive.

[Aggie]

We must all be violent drug-abusers, because the comparison occurred to me as well, especially with respect to Canadians often following the spirit but not the letter of the law and drawing arbitrary lines as to what is permissible (if you don't get caught) and what is properly illegal.

Pot and unregistered* long guns?  No biggie, just don't get busted.   Unregistered handguns and heroin? You're asking for it.

Canadian attitudes tend to be very-live-and-let-live/die; you may do what you like if it doesn't impact me, but it's your own damned fault if you get caught out for it. Handguns and other explicitly anti-personnel firearms are strongly perceived as potentially 'impacting me', whereas long guns are generally acknowledged to be sporting equipment / farming tools. Same deal for drugs - anything strong enough to cause an addict to commit crimes (crack, meth, heroin) or be a nuisance (i.e. panhandling alcoholics, public cigarette smokers are starting to fall into this category) to support their habit is strongly frowned upon, whereas substances which tend to impact the user only are socially more acceptable.


*as opposed to unlicensed.

[Swatopluk]

I was not talking about banning all firearms (except from certain locations).
Did a major black market for machine guns pop up, when they got banned for civilian use btw? (that's not totally a rhetorical question).
And to my knowledge there already is a thriving marketplace for stolen legal weapons, where people who lost their licence and/or do not want to show up on the radar supply themselves.
And the weapon manufacturers simply love it (btw as do car manufacturers. A stolen car means that somebody has to buy a new one and the new 'owner' needs spare parts occasionally. Some brands have even advertized with 'most stolen car in its class'). That's one reason why they move heaven and (primarily) hell to prevent personalization of handguns. Who would steal a pistol that cannot be used without major tinkering? But theft is a creator of demand because the theft victims will quickly buy replacements.
I also believe that there is a cynical believe that the omnipresence of stolen guns creates a climate of fear leading to even greater demand and should thus be encouraged.
---
Another sick anecdote
When Congress for a short moment broke free from the NRA dictate and declared that the sale (but not possession) of 100-shot magazines would be banned the manufacturers had to order extra shifts to satisfy the sudden demand. Military people asked about it told that there is no practical use for such things in the military (They use far shorter magazines. For continuous fire they use belts). Iirc some of the buyers of these things told that they needed (!) them for hunting.
In the civilized countries I know hunting with automatic weapons* is banned by law. It's unhuntsmanlike and simply sick. I guess those are the same type of people that used flamethrowers in the past, when it was still allowed.

*often even semiautomatic and weapons with magazines exceeding a certain size.

[Aggie]

In the civilized countries I know hunting with automatic weapons* is banned by law. It's unhuntsmanlike and simply sick. I guess those are the same type of people that used flamethrowers in the past, when it was still allowed.

*often even semiautomatic and weapons with magazines exceeding a certain size.

I think we're down to a maximum of 5 bullet magazines here for hunting rifles - even back when I was still hunting, my 10-shot magazine was considered illegal (circa 1996?) unless blocks were installed to prevent full loading.


Bans (or any expected supply shortage) will do that, though - huge demand for incandescent light bulbs in Germany right now, isn't there?

Also, I buy Solhinun in bulk because the market sometimes doesn't have them for months at a time - I seriously crave them more when they are not available.  Hey - sometimes you just need a Pine Bud Drink. 

[ivor]

I think that gun violence and drug use and sale go hand in hand.  If you have a drug dealer carrying drugs and lots of money he will need to have a gun to protect his stash.  If you give away the drugs to whoever wants them there's no market.  No need for drug money, no need to steal to support a habit.  No market no profit.  No profit no need for a gun.  Sure people will die of drug use but that their choice.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

... Just....  don't enforce unless things go wrong. 

I have a very serious issue with that sort of thinking.

Our basic society is slowly shifting from belief in gods as the arbiter of morality, to law as the arbiter of morality.

The problem with the former, is that gods tend to be capricious and impossible to argue with-- for example, the only way to argue with "God said so" is with "No she didn't".   No possible room for compromise.

But.

If you shift to utilizing man-made laws, and that all laws are applied equally to everyone, then compromise *is* possible, because you can always argue from a standpoint of opinion; yours, his, hers, theirs, and so forth.

This is where I have issue:  if you deliberately create a law that is "wink, wink, nudge, nudge" you undermine the basic idea that laws are to be respected.  You introduce the flawed idea that laws are just suggestions only as long as they are convenient. 

And I think that is a most dangerous view:  look at Dubya:  *he* believed the laws were only there for the common masses, and never for those in power... I'm sure you can point to other similar examples.

Diluting laws by enacting "enforce if you feel good about it" statutes removes the moral high-ground, when calling out people like Duba.

In my opinion, of course.

[Aggie]

I'm not promoting the "wink wink nudge nudge" so much as pointing out that for some laws, enforcement is really not possible without creating a totalitarian police state.  In my opinion, this does not negate the utility of putting the laws in place and promoting voluntary compliance, WITH a legal basis for addressing those who are flaunting the laws.

In the case of those in power, it's entirely feasible to hold the actions of those at the top to account (provided they are not actively using their powers to prevent this), because it's a relatively small group of known, identifiable and auditable people.

For the common masses, one really cannot expect total enforcement of all laws, so from a purely practical standpoint, law-based deterrence can only be enacted by putting laws in place which punish those who are caught, when their law-breaking becomes a public nuisance.  Heck, even for industry - compliance with environmental laws ultimately depends on the actual procedures undertaken, and I know from firsthand experience that "thou shalt" does not translate to "we did" at anywhere near a 100% compliance rate.

Some things are reasonably easy to enforce through forced compliance (building code inspections), and there are a few things that IMHO warrant a police-state mentality and semi-invasive tactics (production and distribution of child pornography), but it's not realistic to expect statistically significant prosecution for many offenses.


On that note, I'll put the question back to you, as it's essentially the same question you've raised about enacting tougher licensing laws:

-How do you propose to effectively enforce ANY law pertaining to individual behaviour, if that behaviour is not publicly / overtly visible?

-Following up on that, would you support the elimination of any law that is not easily enforceable on the majority of offenders (i.e. should we have laws that are difficult to enforce)?


This could go beyond guns and drugs to anything ranging from illegal immigration to domestic/child abuse to renting out an unlicensed basement suite.

[ivor]

Doesn't enforcing law at the convenience of the 'thorities teach our society to ignore the law as long as they don't get caught?  Look at speeding for example.  I've heard many, many people complain that I wasn't even doing the speed limit.  That's a prime example of lack of enforcement leading to a change is perception of the law to society.  I think that may be why we have such a high mortality rate on the roads in the U. S. 

[Opsa]

I dislike all guns, I'm sorry.

But I understand the need for them, since they exist. I understand the sport of shooting and hunting, when necessary. It's interesting to work on the skill of target practice.

I also know that there are people out there who have guns. Lots of people. I'm probably surrounded by them. My neighbors are nice people and if they have guns, maybe it's because in these paranoid times they feel it necessary to have them handy in case they need to protect their families. (Personally, I feel that if someone sneaks into my house and holds a gun at me, I would not have time to grab for one, but that's just my over-thinking on the subject.)

I would love to see them banned, but I know that the more reasonable approach is to ask that they be very strictly regulated. If my neighbor wants one for protection, that's his right, and he can legally go through the process to register for one. If he has one illegally, that's his guilt, and he can live with it. If the police find him with it, he has only himself to blame.

The police can't really enforce the legal sale of guns, but if there is a law in place, well-meaning citizens will follow it. If they use it for illegal reasons, it can be traced back to them. Those who do not follow gun regulations run the risk of having extra charges against them if they are caught with illegal firearms. If rifles are for hunting, then what's the problem with having them registered? Handguns are for shooting people, and they need to be regulated as well. Automatic weapons are for killing multiple people and are generally bought by clowns who on power trips, IMHO, and should be limited to use only by soldiers and police on duty.

I'm not for either the free trade of firearms, or the ban of firearms. I'll settle for reasonable gun regulations that protect innocent and law-abiding people.

[Aggie]

Doesn't enforcing law at the convenience of the 'thorities teach our society to ignore the law as long as they don't get caught?  Look at speeding for example.  I've heard many, many people complain that I wasn't even doing the speed limit.  That's a prime example of lack of enforcement leading to a change is perception of the law to society.  I think that may be why we have such a high mortality rate on the roads in the U. S. 

Again, how do you propose full enforcement without massive invasions of privacy and a Big Brother state? 

I am personally for increasing penalties to up the ante, with reasonable attempts at enforcement.  With speeding as an example, I tend to drive on the highway at approximately 8 km over the speed limit - below the enforcement threshold.  IF I was to speed to a greater degree (e.g. making a safe pass of a car going below the speed limit), I make sure to stay within 20 km of the speed limit to avoid the escalated fine that is incurred past that amount.  If speeding fines were $500 regardless of how much one was exceeding the limit, I would not speed at all, ever. I highly doubt that the average person consciously performs that kind of cost/benefit analysis on a regular basis, but most people in purely voluntary circumstances will avoid the risk of being caught if the penalties are high enough.

I admit my opinions vary highly by which laws I think should be rigidly enforced and which shouldn't, btw - in my mind enforcement should be geared towards protecting innocent people (public safety) rather than keeping people from hurting themselves (because there are plenty of legal ways to do that).  To beat a subject into the ground, I am strongly in favour of the invasive anti-drunk driving tactics I saw in Korea - EVERYONE blows a breathalyzer at a checkstop. I passed through (as a passenger) two in the three weeks I was there the first time, and was rarely in a car - it seems to be remarkably effective in a country full of heavy drinkers.  Checkstops are highly randomized in terms of location, so there's a good chance of being caught.  Here in Canada, one either rarely encounters a checkstop (Calgary), knows where they are likely to occur (hometown), or can talk their way through it while under the influence (I've known several people who've been stopped while drunk and got away with it by saying "No officer, nothing to drink"). As a result, it's terrifying to drive on a weekend at night - last time I was out driving at night in downtown Cowtown, I saw at least 3-4 visibly impaired drivers (weaving, cutting in without looking, etc.) within a 10-block drive.

If rifles are for hunting, then what's the problem with having them registered?

I have $2 billion* reasons for why this turned out to be a bad idea in Canada, but admittedly that says more about the Canadian government and their ability to manage the bureaucratic process than firearms registration in general.  As previously mentioned, there is some paranoia about whether the presence of a gun in the home gives police the right to enter and search (on the suspicion that a person with a registered gun may have unregistered guns ), but that is likely on the part of people who are otherwise breaking the laws of the land in the privacy of their own home.

It may be worth mentioning that as penalties for gun crimes have been increased in Canada, the percentage of homicides committed with edged and blunt weapons has increased and the percentage of shootings has decreased.

But I defend your right to dislike guns.  They are quite literally purpose-made killing machines.



*I could have bought some ammo with that portion of my tax money.

[ivor]

I don't propose full enforcement. quite the opposite.  If they don't enforce it or just enforce it when they feel like it, then it shouldn't be law.   

[Swatopluk]

The question with enforecement is one of credibility. If the average person has the impression that there is a real danger to be caught vioalting a law, then compliance will be high. Otherwise it depends on whether there is an appeal to violate. There are a lot of forbidden things that I could do with extremly low risk of getting caught but I rarely do them. Other rules I violate without much thought, e.g. I do not check whether an insect I swat is on a list of protected species* (like some species of wasps around here).
A prime example is using public transport without buying a ticket. Few do it around here on the last and the first two days of a month because on those days controls are tight, while on other days the (guessed) rate is about 10%.

*But I try not to hurt bees and bumblebees, although they are not protected

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

Something else I was thinking, while thugs want untraceable guns, a law abiding citizen might not, for instance if I had a gun in my house the last thing I would like is to be shot with it or my son to use it without my knowledge. If the gun is linked to his owner by fingerprint (the only tech available at this point to do so) then stealing it is less attractive with less risk to the owner. I'm sure there is a market for those kinds of guns and it wouldn't be surprising if most (sane) law abiding citizens would be happy with such arrangement.

I don't see the gun lobby pushing for it, though.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

On that note, I'll put the question back to you, as it's essentially the same question you've raised about enacting tougher licensing laws:

-How do you propose to effectively enforce ANY law pertaining to individual behaviour, if that behaviour is not publicly / overtly visible?

-Following up on that, would you support the elimination of any law that is not easily enforceable on the majority of offenders (i.e. should we have laws that are difficult to enforce)?


This could go beyond guns and drugs to anything ranging from illegal immigration to domestic/child abuse to renting out an unlicensed basement suite.

You are correct.  Being essentially a libertarian at heart, if a law is unenforceable or society in general is not willing to pony up the funds to *make* it enforceable, then the law ought to be stricken from the books-- it's presence dilutes the basic foundation and respect the concept of "law abiding" deserves.

For example, I think all adult-to-adult so-called "sodomy" laws ought to be removed from the books immediately.  What two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes ought to be strictly up to them.

And again, for example, I agree with the notion that child-porn and child-rape ought to be enforced with draconian methods as much as we are willing and able-- to the point of near elimination if possible.  That being said?  I also think that totally artificial "child porn" ought to be ignored-- that is?  Computer-generated "child porn" pictures ought to be exempt-- no child was involved or harmed in such cases, and it falls back to the adult doing what he wants in the privacy of his own home.   Besides, such programs *might* provide a safety-valve for some folk, such that they don't actually harm *real* kids... The very idea that such programs are "gateway" is ludicrous.   Anyone studying population groups can recognize that there are aberrant individuals who's behavior is outside the average behavior patterns.  These individuals will do what they will do regardless of anything they experience-- that is, a child pornographer who started with strictly artificial methods, and moves on to real kids would've simply started with real kids initially, had the program not been available-- indeed, given the chance, he might well have stuck with the program instead if his "do not cross *this* line" motivation was ingrained strongly enough.

Oooooh....sorry.  Totally off-topic....  but it is germane to the subject of Laws and Law-abiding, which is the fundamental basis for *any* ethical reason to control guns.



To sum-up, though:  individual responsibility and individual accountability should be key ethical precepts for any successful society.  IMHO.   If we can somehow instill these two, handgun ownership will not be an issue...

I think the fundamental respect for Law and Law Compliance is key to the above.  Having laws on the books that everyone more or less thinks are silly, only helps undermine respect *for* the law itself.   Eventually to the point of, "why bother?  Just do as you please-- if you get caught, blame the non-compliance of 'everyone else is doing it' instead."   A jury that consists of "everyone else is doing it" will be highly sympathetic...

[Swatopluk]

Will there be state-issued artificial child prawn for incurable addicts? 
---
Back to topic:
NRA and gun manufacturers have declared personalization of guns totally inacceptable. The gun industry's motive is obvious (see my earlier post). The NRA is on the one hand beholden to the industry (like senators to the insurance industry), on the other hand the mere idea goes against their ideology (gun laws of any kind are evil) and institutional paranoia (it's another ruse by the gungrabbers to get the list of their enemies to eliminate).
The only tangentially reasonable argument against personalized trigger locks I have heard is that even the fastest version could cost the legal user the split-second that can lie between life and death in a critical situation.
It will probably also make the weapon more expensive and may reduce its reliability but that should not be a deciding factor (comparision to cars may again be useful here).

[Griffin NoName]

Re. enforcable laws, something Swato said a few pages ago resonated with me. I propose that anyone breaking gun laws lose their driving (vehicle) license for life.

[Swatopluk]

Re. enforcable laws, something Swato said a few pages ago resonated with me. I propose that anyone breaking gun laws lose their driving (vehicle) license for life.

Has actually been proposed here but was considered as unrealistic.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

Will there be state-issued artificial child prawn for incurable addicts? 

Why not?  If under closely supervised conditions, the participant may actually see behavior improvement...    (that and a nice new deed to a bridge somewhere...)

---
Back to topic:
NRA and gun manufacturers have declared personalization of guns totally inacceptable. The gun industry's motive is obvious (see my earlier post). The NRA is on the one hand beholden to the industry (like senators to the insurance industry), on the other hand the mere idea goes against their ideology (gun laws of any kind are evil) and institutional paranoia (it's another ruse by the gungrabbers to get the list of their enemies to eliminate).
The only tangentially reasonable argument against personalized trigger locks I have heard is that even the fastest version could cost the legal user the split-second that can lie between life and death in a critical situation.
It will probably also make the weapon more expensive and may reduce its reliability but that should not be a deciding factor (comparision to cars may again be useful here).

I agree with your assessment of the NRA, with special emphasis:  the NRA firmly believes *any* gun laws are the proverbial camel's nose in the tent, and vehemently oppose them automatically.  Even if the laws are otherwise reasonable...

...for example, I recall reading about one law that proposed imposing strict penalties on gun owners, if it could be shown the owner was careless in the storage of their firearms.   The NRA went after that one with both barrels a'blazin' claiming the wordage was too vague... 

Sadly, opponents to the NRA's position failed to utilize the obvious:  the NRA is against gun safety... (which was the motive behind the bill, IMHO).  I believe a watered-down version made it onto California's books, though-- something about requiring trigger locks or lockable gun safes, I don't recall (don't live in Ca myself).  Anyway, at the gun shows, some of the newer guns come with trigger locks "to conform with California's statute such-an-such"  (yes, I admit to going to gun shows...  )

But, [again] the NRA and I part ways-- I see nothing wrong with a firearm that can be set to exclusive use.   That is? The gun can be setup such that only the legitimate owner can make it function.  This, in my opinion would be incredibly wonderful-- provided there was also a way to re-assign ownership.   This way, I could sell the weapon, if I felt the need, but until I de-assigned it, no one on earth can make it "go" without my explicit permission.  No kid can accidentally shoot his pal.   No thief can break in, grab *my* gun, and shoot *me*.   In fact?  I would not mind if the thing fired an electric shock (non lethal-- safe for a kid to be shocked) into the handle if an unauthorized attempt to fire was made.  Something that would make the user drop it like a hot potato.... with a loud alarm, too... many thieves would simply run away at the loud noise, which is Just Fine With Me.   A kid, being shocked once is unlikely to play with it again...ever.  Again?  Just Fine.

But, this system with proper authorization, ought to be able to be diffused for a limited time-span-- say an hour, with a beeping reminder time was nearly up.  This way, you could take your favorite gun to the firing range, let your range buddies fire it with ease, and then with no further action on your part [so you couldn't forget] the gun automatically returns to the super-exclusive mode.

All of this is easily possible with today's technology; they now have determined that no two hands are alike with respect to any number of easily measured biometrics.  From galvanic skin responses, to pressure points, to shape of the grip, to the strength and style of fingers holding the object.  Each of these is pretty unique from person-to-person.  Thus?  The system could be completely transparent to the user, so long as he/she is authorized by the gun's grip electronics.   If I feel threatened, I simply pick up the gun as I would normally... and it's grip senses I'm an authorized user, and enables the electronic firing pin... (thus if the battery is too low, the gun still cannot fire, even if the electronic grip cannot sense anything due to power loss).   Keep the thing on a charging-pad or cradle or holster which trickle-charges the grip's batteries.  Or, heck-- the current demands for this ought to be quite low on standby.  Add some heat sensors or similar, such that, if cold, it goes into standby mode, conserving power.  Thus?  A primary lithium battery ought to be good for 10 years.... If a person doesn't pay attention to his firearm more often than than?  Too bad... 

*sigh*

[Swatopluk]

A possible problem could of course be that biometric signals can significantly differ in stress situations (that's the idea behind the lie detector).
Would be pretty bad if the system does not recognize you in a critical situation because of that.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

A possible problem could of course be that biometric signals can significantly differ in stress situations (that's the idea behind the lie detector).
Would be pretty bad if the system does not recognize you in a critical situation because of that.

Point.  On the other hand?  If being drunk could be sensed...and the gun disabled... this ought to be seen as a very good thing, IMOH.... a drunk can't hit anything reliably anyhow-- a drunk ought to be reduced to using a baseball bat instead... 

[pieces o nine]

I've been following this thread with interest; sadly, I don;t have anything particularly new or profound to add.



But this was a low-simmering point of disagreement in my own family: my dad thought he was Charlton Heston and kept a bb gun (!!!) inside the living room coat closet to protect his family and property, and to vent his spleen upon the occasional gopher trespassing on the lawn. Although I accept the 'need' for them, I've never had one and never will.

My parents once drove several hundred miles to visit. I took them to a restaurant where Dad placed his order, put down his menu, and immediately launched into a prepared recitation of 'recent would-be criminals foiled by gun owners' speech. I listened politely and responded with my own prepared recitation of 'gun owners who recently shot or killed in error or craziness' speech. That out of the way, we had a very nice visit.



It's refreshing to read a debate on this topic that is civil. When you've hashed it out, please join me over in the Toadfish Pub for a nice dessert and maybe some cone-yak. (And if you'll be so kind as to leave yer guns in yer car...)

[Swatopluk]

The only 'firearms' in this home are a very old air rifle and a starting pistol. I don't know where the latter is kept currently and the former is behind a very heavy desk right behind me. So a child would have to lift several times its body weight to get at it, then would have to find the pellets in another room and again have considerable body strength to cock it. So it would be easier to use it as a club. The most dangerous thing would be a child eating the lead pellets. My mother hates the stuff and so it's kept out of sight (and hasn't been used in years).
Personally I am fascinated with guns from a technical and historical point of view but it's mainly limited to reading (or looking at some in a museum).

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

I don't hunt (nor I'm inclined to, unless it's for survival purposes and that is a very remote possibility), the police is fairly responsive where I live, and burglaries are quite infrequent so I don't need a gun. In any case I don't see myself getting one unless the circumstances are so bleak for me to consider killing someone; when I asked my dad many years ago why he didn't had a gun he said that the purpose of such weapons is to kill, the moment you pull one on someone else you have to be ready to kill that person and that he wasn't interested in killing anyone. I have to say that the argument stuck with me.

I understand that a gun can be used in a less than lethal form but in reality once a bullet comes out of it you don't know if it will hit a vital organ or sever an artery. Also I understand that if you live under the real danger of a psycho-crackhead breaking into your house then may be you have to consider defending yourself, but the percentage of people that live under such conditions are a minority, quite possibly a very small one, regardless of what the 11 news may try to suggest.  Just imagine how smaller the gun market would be if the fear mongering went away.

In the end the question is one of balance, some people have a legitimate use for a gun and they should be able to get one (and everybody else should the need arise), but it is my opinion that regulation should take place. Enforcement may never be 100% (that would require something close to a police state), but can be reasonably enforced as most laws are. Will there be people selling guns under the radar? Sure, the same way some people sells cigarettes to minors but doesn't mean it should be tolerated. Again it is a matter of balance, it can't be all or nothing and the fact that almost everywhere you hear about this topic the loudest voices are for all or nothing means that like many other 'cultural war' topics this one has been hijacked by the ones on the extremes.