Guns, GUNS, GUUUNNSS!!!!

[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.