Guns, GUNS, GUUUNNSS!!!!

[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.