Changing Gun Laws

[Ben Beckerich]

I'm not saying nothing should be illegal. I'm differentiating between laws that punish bad behavior, and laws that go so far as to control otherwise harmless behavior because of a perception that the otherwise harmless behavior can lead to bad behavior.

 

It's illegal to murder. Murder kills people. That's a good law.

 

It's illegal to possess a handgun in DC. Possessing handguns doesn't kill people. But there is a perception that it increases the likelihood that you will kill someone, so they're banned.

 

Prohibiting peaceful activity or possession is crossing the line of crime and punishment.

 

The same retarded (in my opinion, being very liberal) mentality is applied to our "war on drugs." The mere possessing of a plant is illegal, because of the fantastically incorrect perception that it will lead to behavior that could lead to harm.

 

Are we a nation of free men, free to go about their business so long as they're not doing harm? Or are we to toe-the-line at the whim of incorrect perceptions?

 

As to the nuclear question, I can't answer that. Nuclear devices are so incredibly expensive and laborious and difficult to obtain that only 6 (IIRC) nations on earth possess them. We might as well be asking if it should be legal to own a hand of God.

 

The fact remains that as our species progresses, a time will come when nuclear weapons are obtainable, and people will obtain them. Will a law against possessing them stop people?

[rob]

The fact remains that as our species progresses, a time will come when nuclear weapons are obtainable, and people will obtain them. Will a law against possessing them stop people?

 

Sure, if that same law also controls the manufacture and distribution of them. You can't prevent all cases but that doesn't mean there isn't a benefit to making it difficult. Sure, *some* people might still have the means and money to obtain them, but even assuming they are cheap it would still be nice to keep the local schizophrenic from stumbling down to the local JihadMart and picking up a couple with no questions asked, no? How to do that? By keeping the black market small with effective regulation. Obviously nuclear weapons are a bit of an extreme case and extreme cases never engender good policy discussion, so we are digressing a bit there.

 

But what is the value of outlawing murder? Criminals are going to do it, anyway. So why should society bother outlawing it all? That's a serious question, btw, not snarky. I'm curious why you think that's so much different.

 

I'm with you on the drug war -- banning something outright tends to cause a massive black market. This is why I don't think guns should be outlawed -- just well-regulated. Hell, I'd probably be OK with allowing nuclear weapons too if there were a proper way to regulate them, but now we're obviously deeeeeep into hypotheticals.

 

I have no problem with sane, responsible adults doing (almost) whatever the hell they like. As long as the person proves that he is a sane, responsible adult (for some things). Like driving.

 

Or guns.

 

I can fathom a world in which you disagree with me (as I said, I was raised libertarian so I get it) but I can't fathom a world in which you think anything I'm saying is extremely unreasonable or extreme and makes me a communist or that I hate the constitution or that I'm an authoritarian or that I'm a Bill Maher loving liberal.

[Ben Beckerich]

Let's say you like to throw hatchets. It's a hobby and sport, and maybe you even do it competitively. What percentage of people wielding hatchets will use them to kill people? You can kill the hell out of people with a good hatchet. What if .000029% of hatchets were used to murder someone every year in this country? Should we start regulating them based on that?

 

 

 

There are about 270,000,000 privately owned guns in this country. There are 8,000-10,000 murders with guns every year. On a given year, that means that .000029% of guns are used to murder people. And remember, that includes all the illegally possessed guns too.

 

 

So for something so incredibly small.... we should hold people liable, upon pain of felony (can't vote, can't get food stamps, can't get section 8 housing, can't own guns, can't get a decent job, can't get federal school grants, etc, etc, FOR LIFE), for selling a gun to someone they didn't run through a background check? Or for possessing a gun in the wrong place? Or for..... anything, really, when we're looking at the actual numbers?

 

Wouldn't it be better to just leave the guy alone, and punish him when he actually does harm?

[Fairweather]

There's also that pesky constitution thing that Rob & Co. can't get past. Guns are a protected right; cars aren't.

 

but the SCOTUS already ruled that controls on gun ownership is not unconstitutional. Another moment of cognitive dissonance? Just clench your teeth, it'll pass.

 

Yes they did--in a round about way. But in the Heller 2008 decision, they clearly defined gun ownership as an individual right. Rob, TTK, & Co. can parse that sentence and semicolon in the 2nd until the cows come home, but it's a done deal. (BTW, Ben, this same decision also rendered DC's ban on handguns unconstitutional.)

 

Anyhow, Rob can tell us all that he has no authoritarian bent, but the logic that flows from his belief system in pretty easy to follow: permits for the press, speech, petition, association, and even, perhaps, religion along with his regulation of the second freedom. Fact is, Rob is a sheltered Seattle simpleton who has no clue how or where he stands on much of anything.

Edited December 7, 2013 by Fairweather

[rob]

So for something so incredibly small....

 

Wouldn't it be better to just leave the guy alone, and punish him when he actually does harm?

 

I knew this was where we were leading, but just wanted to see it play out. It's the old, "actually gun violence isn't even really that big of a problem" argument. Meh

[rob]

 

Yes they did--in a round about way. But in the Heller 2008 decision, they clearly defined gun ownership as an individual right. Rob, TTK, & Co. can parse that sentence and semicolon in the 2nd until the cows come home, but it's a done deal.

 

Actually, I don't agree with outlawing guns. I believe in the individual right to own guns, and not just for hunting either but for self-defense. In fact, I am a gun owner. But I know you haven't been listening.

 

Here is some more from the Heller decision, which I'm sure you've read but it doesn't support your position so I'm sure you'll ignore it or post a photo of Chinese communists hurting somebody

 

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited…. [it is] …not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.

 

Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

 

Pretty "round about" isn't it?

[rob]

I'm curious how folks envision background checks working with a private sale.

 

Would the seller be held responsible for verifying that the name/spelling/DOB/SSN/etc. was correct? Would people be comfortable with giving this type of info to some stranger when they want to buy a gun? Or, perhaps the background check would be run through the local PD?

 

 

Good question. In Switzerland, as of 2008, individual sales require a gun ownership permit, but I'm not sure how that's verified. It's something that would be well discussed by our congress, but unfortunately there isn't any hope of meaningful discussion anywhere on the horizon.

 

In my mind, I imagine the background check could be done by a gun shop, for a fee. I recently sold a firearm to a stranger and had a third-party gun shop perform the NICS check for me. It was pretty easy. In fact, some states require this for gun show sales.

[Fairweather]

Reading comprehension, Rob. I've never anywhere said that the mentally ill or felons should have their 2nd Amendment rights in full. Let me ask you this: do you believe that the mentally ill and/or convicted felons should have their voting rights left intact?

[rob]

Reading comprehension, Rob. I've never anywhere said that the mentally ill or felons should have their 2nd Amendment rights in full. Let me ask you this: do you believe that the mentally ill and/or convicted felons should have their voting rights left intact?

 

Sure, you just disagree with any effective means of enforcing limits on gun ownership for felons. Like universal background checks.

 

I do not know how I feel about convicted felons and voting, I guess I don't know enough about it. I mean, I know the basics -- felons can't vote until their rights are restored? However, I am not aware of any law that prevents the mentally ill from voting. Is that common?

[Ben Beckerich]

So for something so incredibly small....

 

Wouldn't it be better to just leave the guy alone, and punish him when he actually does harm?

 

I knew this was where we were leading, but just wanted to see it play out. It's the old, "actually gun violence isn't even really that big of a problem" argument. Meh

 

No, that's not the argument I made. 10,000 murders with guns isn't a small number- that's 10,000 lives, with 10,000 mothers and 10,000 wives/sisters/brothers/sons/etc whose lives are destroyed because of the malice of another.

 

But I was asking you if you thought, based on a figure of 0.000029% odds any gun will be used in a crime, if that warrants making tens of millions- 100% of people buying and selling guns jump through hoops and spend money and bear liability? Please factor the change we could expect in that 0.000029% figure upon implementation.

 

For more perspective, .000029% comes out to 1 murder for every 3,448,275 guns, both legally and illegally possessed(and only factoring for legally owned guns, that number is sure to rock pretty hard).

[Ben Beckerich]

We're looking at numbers... not making subjective statements about how bad crime is or isn't.

[Ben Beckerich]

Since my whole position is based on the numbers, it's really relevant to the conversation. Yet I can never get anyone to really address what the numbers actually look like.

 

It's like trying to tell a cop his job isn't dangerous. What? My job is hella dangerous! Don't you watch TV?? Well, if you look at the actual numbers, you'll find that police officer isn't even on the radar. Garbage collector, pilot, roofer, logger, fisherman, taxi driver (always top 10)..... all substantially more dangerous jobs. In fact, there are only about 75 felonious slayings of police officers in this country every year- out of about a 1,000,000 police officers, that's 0.000075 or 1 in 13,333. NON-law enforcement citizens have substantially better odds of being murdered in a given year.

 

But there's just no way in hell people will ever believe it when you say it.

[rob]

Yeah, I get what you're saying. It's an interesting perspective, I'll have to chew on it if that's OK. My first thought is that your numbers are probably too big -- after all, that assumes a 1:1 relationship (i.e. one gun only kills one person) but actually the percentage of guns that kill people is prbably even lower than you say, assuming your numbers of ownership are accurate (since one gun can kill multiple people).

 

As I say, it's an interesting perspective and honestly an angle I haven't really looked at deeply so I'll give it some thought; that said, when I consider this argument, I tend to believe that firearm homicide by GDP is a much more useful number, and when compared to our peers our rate is astronomical. High enough to warrant something to be done, at least in my opinion.

 

I'm not sure the percentage of firearms used in homicides as a function of total ownership is as interesting a metic as number of firearm-related homicides as a function of GDP -- in our case, nearly 4 per 100,000 which is FAR above our peers and warrants investigation and resolution, imo. Who cares what percentage of guns are doing the killing, if a lot of killing is being done.

 

I'll give it some thought, but assuming you are not advocating "no solution is necessary," I'd like to know how you think we should address our embarrassing (to me, anyway) rate of firearm homicide (per GDP).

 

I'm off to a holiday party. CHeers!

[Fairweather]

Reading comprehension, Rob. I've never anywhere said that the mentally ill or felons should have their 2nd Amendment rights in full. Let me ask you this: do you believe that the mentally ill and/or convicted felons should have their voting rights left intact?

 

Sure, you just disagree with any effective means of enforcing limits on gun ownership for felons. Like universal background checks.

 

I do not know how I feel about convicted felons and voting, I guess I don't know enough about it. I mean, I know the basics -- felons can't vote until their rights are restored? However, I am not aware of any law that prevents the mentally ill from voting. Is that common?

 

1.) Please do show me where I've ever opposed universal background checks. I'd love to see it. (I certainly do oppose gun registration.)

 

2.) You're missing the point (no, probably dodging it) re voting rights. In what way is denying certain people one right while upholding their other rights consistent? I'd like to hear your thoughts. I can guess what they are, so you might want to think it through carefully. (Which, I realize, is not something you're accustomed to doing.)

Edited December 7, 2013 by Fairweather

[rob]

1.) Please do show me where I've ever opposed universal background checks. I'd love to see it.

 

My mistake, I guess. I guess you agree with me re: gun control.

 

2.) You're missing the point (no, probably dodging it) re voting rights. In what way is denying certain people one right while upholding their other rights consistent? I'd like to hear your thoughts.

 

Regarding denying one right but not others: you mean like, taking away a drunk driver's driver license but letting keep his right to vote? I guess you're right, it's not consistent. But why should it be? Why should you have to lose all of your rights all at once? Why not lose just some, depending on what your infraction is? I dunno, I guess I don't understand what you're asking. Not trying to dodge, I just don't get what you're asking. For the record, though, I typically don't like systems wherein somebody can't earn their rights back. I don't know if that's relevant but I'll throw it out there.

[Fairweather]

1.) Please do show me where I've ever opposed universal background checks. I'd love to see it.

 

My mistake, I guess. I guess you agree with me re: gun control.

 

2.) You're missing the point (no, probably dodging it) re voting rights. In what way is denying certain people one right while upholding their other rights consistent? I'd like to hear your thoughts.

 

Regarding denying one right but not others: you mean like, taking away a drunk driver's driver license but letting keep his right to vote? I guess you're right, it's not consistent. But why should it be? Why should you have to lose all of your rights all at once? Why not lose just some, depending on what your infraction is? I dunno, I guess I don't understand what you're asking. Not trying to dodge, I just don't get what you're asking. For the record, though, I typically don't like systems wherein somebody can't earn their rights back. I don't know if that's relevant but I'll throw it out there.

 

Rob, when we say "rights" within the legal context that we're discussing, we mean constitutionally guaranteed freedoms. You keep trying to draw comps to driving--because it's easy. But, c'mon, you can't possibly be this dense. Seriously?

[Fairweather]

For the record, though, I typically don't like systems wherein somebody can't earn their rights back. I don't know if that's relevant but I'll throw it out there.

 

Your friend and mentor, TTK, believes that felons should remain franchised--even while serving their sentence. Should these felons keep their guns too? And at what point should someone who has been declared mentally unstable/deficient/whatever have their right to own a gun restored? Never? If I recall, the gun purchase form says something like "have you ever been declared mentally..."

 

We may very well be talking past each other here, but all of our rights deserve a strong defense. Even the ones that are an affront to our sensibilities.

[JasonG]

Sounds like many folks are for background checks, which seems reasonable to me, and doesn't sound like much of a hassle from what Rob describes with his sale.

 

However, I'm curious. Is there good, recent data out there on how felons and other criminals get their firearms? I guess I'm wondering if background checks will really do much to reduce the gun violence rate, or it will mostly make law abiding folks go through a few more hoops with little change in the violence.

 

One source seems to think that cracking down on rogue dealers (via a robustly funded ATF?) is the main way to stem the flow of guns:

 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html

 

And, just to keep the car/gun debate going, check this out:

 

 

Given the advances in auto safety I guess it is only a matter of time, but I was surprised that we are almost there.

[AlpineK]

[video:youtube]

[tvashtarkatena]

To clear up some misconceptions, not that I'm not flattered by the attention -

 

Well over 50% of felons committed non-violent, primarily drug related crimes. 25% are were convicted for pot.

 

I believe these folks should have their gun ownership rights restored. They are often forced to live in low income/high crime environments that are inherently more dangerous, and so often have a gun for protection. The police find the gun and its often an excuse to tip them over the top of our 3 strikes laws - life in prison, for having an illegal gun in the house.

 

I also believe convicts who've served their time should have their voting rights restored. Many don't because of outstanding court debts - which they can never repay because they can no longer find employment.

 

That's about it on that front. Pretty simple.

[Pete_H]

I disagree. I think if you've shown that you are irresponsible enough to commit a felony, even a non-violent one, you have shown that you are not responsible enough to own a gun.

 

I understand many felons come from disadvantaged, low income/high crime environments, but individuals have to be held to some level of personal responsibility.

 

I'm sure even those convicted of pot offenses, weren't convicted of felonies for mere possession. It must have been for large scale production or distribution. Even though I agree with the decriminalization of pot, those individuals still knowingly broke the law on a large-scale.

 

That said, it would seem reasonable to restore gun rights for non-violent felons if they had no infractions for ten years or something.

[Ben Beckerich]

Sounds like many folks are for background checks, which seems reasonable to me, and doesn't sound like much of a hassle from what Rob describes with his sale.

 

However, I'm curious. Is there good, recent data out there on how felons and other criminals get their firearms? I guess I'm wondering if background checks will really do much to reduce the gun violence rate, or it will mostly make law abiding folks go through a few more hoops with little change in the violence.

 

One source seems to think that cracking down on rogue dealers (via a robustly funded ATF?) is the main way to stem the flow of guns:

 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html

 

And, just to keep the car/gun debate going, check this out:

 

 

Given the advances in auto safety I guess it is only a matter of time, but I was surprised that we are almost there.

 

Most "gun deaths" are suicide- so any time I see "gun deaths" instead of "felonious slayings," aka "murders," I pretty much stop paying attention...

 

As to the sentiment that it'll be a hassle for nothing- that IS the argument against them. It's making 100% of people jump through hoops and spend money for no reduction in crime.

 

How can I say no reduction?

 

Because this has been done before. 1934, 1938, 1968, 1972, 1986, 1994, for major federal bans/restrictions/regulations, plus a few thousand state and local bans/restrictions.... and yet, crime rates never follow. Crime has always been locked money- when we're in a recession, crime goes up.. when we're in a period of growth, crime goes down. Crime is high in poor areas, crime is low in wealthy areas.

 

On the flip side.... if you look at gun laws as they relate to crime, you'll ALWAYS find that the most restrictive areas have the highest crime, and the least restrictive areas have the lowest crime.

 

Which one is "the problem" that needs fixing?

Edited December 7, 2013 by Ben Beckerich

[Ben Beckerich]

I disagree. I think if you've shown that you are irresponsible enough to commit a felony, even a non-violent one, you have shown that you are not responsible enough to own a gun.

 

I understand many felons come from disadvantaged, low income/high crime environments, but individuals have to be held to some level of personal responsibility.

 

I'm sure even those convicted of pot offenses, weren't convicted of felonies for mere possession. It must have been for large scale production or distribution. Even though I agree with the decriminalization of pot, those individuals still knowingly broke the law on a large-scale.

 

That said, it would seem reasonable to restore gun rights for non-violent felons if they had no infractions for ten years or something.

 

If committing a felony was hard to do, or necessarily involved great harm, or even some harm, then you might have a valid point. Unfortunately, that's not the reality of our criminal justice system. You are a felon, and so am I. We will continue to commit felonies throughout the rest of the day. Google Computer Fraud and Abuse (Title 18 U.S. Code §1030). There are so many laws making so many things felonies we don't even know how many there are- literally. Did you know pirating a song on the internet is a felony? Downloading a $.99 song without paying for it.... FELON- can't vote, can't own a gun, can't get public assistance, can't get a lot of jobs, can't get a lot of apartments, etc, etc, etc, for life, unless expunged- which is never a given and is not easy.

 

http://www.threefeloniesaday.com/Youtoo/tabid/86/Default.aspx

 

Think you aren't a felon?

 

And yes, simple possession of marijuana is still a felony in many places in America.

Edited December 7, 2013 by Ben Beckerich

[Ben Beckerich]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Aitken

 

This guy was arrested, convicted, sentenced, imprisoned and paroled, and will remain a violent/irresponsible/detestable felon for life... for following New Jersey's constitutionally-vague gun laws. That's right, I said FOR following them.

Edited December 7, 2013 by Ben Beckerich

[AlpineK]

[video:youtube]