Gun laws

[David]

Originally Posted by Ed

It's worse than I thought.

The list of firearms are those that are "acceptable" to the government. Not one surplus rifle or pistol. I estimate, what, 300 on the list. 400?

There are thousands of different firearms available.

This is confiscation and not close to being "reasonable".

Once again Ed:

The fact that a firearm is not listed in appendix A shall not be construed to mean that paragraph (1) applies to such firearm. No firearm exempted by this subsection may be deleted from appendix A so long as this subsection is in effect.

This country has an amazingly strong gun lobby. I don't image that the government will be taking all our guns away any time soon. I am sorry, but i see no problem with the banning of assault weapons. They are not necessary for sportsman, collectors or personal protection.

[clockwork]

look at the list and u will find guns that are out lawed on the old list such as the MINI 14 and B.A.Rs also under the law any gun older than 1898 I believe is considered a courio relic and would be excempt so why put them on a list?

I have never seen a list for guns that are allowed only guns to be banned this makes no sence to me. I also noted that the bill contradict its self in a few places. be warry of this bill

Originally Posted by David

Once again Ed:

The fact that a firearm is not listed in appendix A shall not be construed to mean that paragraph (1) applies to such firearm. No firearm exempted by this subsection may be deleted from appendix A so long as this subsection is in effect.

This country has an amazingly strong gun lobby. I don't image that the government will be taking all our guns away any time soon. I am sorry, but i see no problem with the banning of assault weapons. They are not necessary for sportsman, collectors or personal protection.

[clockwork]

according to wikipeda C&R goes back 50 yrs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Firearms_License

[Ed]

Originally Posted by clockwork

look at the list and u will find guns that are out lawed on the old list such as the MINI 14 and B.A.Rs also under the law any gun older than 1898 I believe is considered a courio relic and would be excempt so why put them on a list?

I have never seen a list for guns that are allowed only guns to be banned this makes no sence to me. I also noted that the bill contradict its self in a few places. be warry of this bill

The BAR is an NFA weapon. ie. a sevective fire weapon. It is handled under a completely different set of laws. But ... maybe not.

[clockwork]

there are a cpl diffrent versions of the BAR from full auto to selective fire so it can fall under diffrent regs depending on the type that a person has. I believe that machine gun kelly used this weapon

[celtan]

I think that was Bonnie and Clyde. Stole them from a Govt. Armoury (National Guard?). MGK carried the Tommy Gun (Thompsom .45)

BTW, the BAR had been around since WWI. US Soldiers weren't provided with it cuz' our Govt. was afraid that the germans would capture one and make copies of it. Instead, they were forced to use the french Chauchat, a piece-of-crap that seldom worked, even under ideal conditions. Thousands of "Yanks" needlessly died because of that decision.

I reside in San Juan, PR. Here we have the _toughest gun-laws_ in all the US of A, and also the _worst violent-crime rates_ in the Nation, comparable to Russia's.

Any criminal in PR can buy or actually "rent" an AK-47 on the housing projects, but a honest citizen can't own a flintlock family heirloom without a license, and if he's caught in the possession of an ounce of black powder, it's an automatic 5 year felony sentence !

Yes Virginia, it's true: The only ones who obey gun laws are the honest citizens, who wouldn't misuse guns in the first place. Those who commit crimes with them don't bother with the Law, it can be the toughest gun law in the Universe, and they would still break it.

There have been studies made on the performance of the anti-assault gun laws while it was on effect, and guess what? Zilch, no improvements whatsoever. It's just window-dressing for the PC minded folk. OTOH, states that allow concealed carry have lower crime-rates. Make your own conclussions.

I am in favor of gun control laws, but only those have prioven to be effective in keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, and those unfit to own them.

Merry Xmas y'all!


: ) Manuel Luis

Originally Posted by clockwork

there are a cpl diffrent versions of the BAR from full auto to selective fire so it can fall under diffrent regs depending on the type that a person has. I believe that machine gun kelly used this weapon

[David]

Write yer congressman gentlemen. That always works.

[Atlantia]

Its such a tough issue isn't it gentlemen?
As you'll all probobly know, the gun laws in the UK are now some of the tightest in the world. I used to have strong connections with the gun owning (target range shooting) fraternity in the UK and the total ban on handguns seemed terribly draconian when it was introduced here.
Yes, some terrible crimes ARE committed with legally held guns, but of course most are committed by criminals with illegal weapons. In fact, in the UK the main 'legally held' gun that gets missused has always been the shotgun, and those remain legal because they have such a powerful lobby of users.
We now have a situation where even replica handguns are essentially prohibited.
Has it done any good?
Well, I have to say as someone who athough a lifelong weapons collector (now of course my guns are all relics) and essentially a pacifist who would never ever consider shooting a gun at anything more than a paper target, I think it has had a positive overall effect.
I think banning replicas and toys is a step too far, but I do believe that banning handguns (and nearly all semi automatic rifles) here, has made a difference. Certainly I believe it has affected their use in violent crime, for several reasons.
So was it worth the sacrifice of hobby gun owners?
Well, I would have to say that I think it was (And I say this for the UK as our situation is completely different from yours).

Although we do of course still have a problem with gun crime, it is certainly not as bad as it could be, or IMHO would be if guns were more a part of the British way of life. We have managed to move to a situation where most British kids grow up playing with toy guns, but have no experience of shooting a real one and certainly no experience of killing anything with one. Therefore, I do believe that guns are seen in a completely different way here. Obviously some people DO want to illegally own a gun, but thats a BIG step over the line, and puts you in a definate criminal category. I think this combination of fear of/lack of experience of/and criminalisation of gun ownership does mean that to most people here, the idea of having a gun or using one in anger is just not 'on the table'.

I wish there WAS a solution, simple or not for you guys. I fear that in the end there will come a moment where you have to sacrifice many of your rights of private gun ownership to begin a long term process of lessening gun crime.
I honestly can't see even the most progressive President starting such a contentious process when it will surely take many, many terms of office to show any real results.

I know I've drifted way past the subject in hand, just thought you might want to read the views of someone who spent a lot of time around guns then DID see them banned.

Sad thing is, of course its worth the sacrifce if it works! But where DO you guys start?

Peace all, don't 'shoot me down' for thinking gun control can be a good thing.

[Ed]

Originally Posted by David

Once again Ed:

The fact that a firearm is not listed in appendix A shall not be construed to mean that paragraph (1) applies to such firearm. No firearm exempted by this subsection may be deleted from appendix A so long as this subsection is in effect.

This country has an amazingly strong gun lobby. I don't image that the government will be taking all our guns away any time soon. I am sorry, but i see no problem with the banning of assault weapons. They are not necessary for sportsman, collectors or personal protection.

Ummm I collect them.

Seriously, assault waepons are already strictly controlled. And have been for ages.

What they are saying is that hunting weapons with un-pc looks are to be controlled. That's a non-starter.

BTW, semi auto .223 weapons that are wrongly termed "assault weapons" are widely used for target shooting, varment shooting and are avidly collected.

[BBJW]

Originally Posted by David

Once again Ed:

The fact that a firearm is not listed in appendix A shall not be construed to mean that paragraph (1) applies to such firearm. No firearm exempted by this subsection may be deleted from appendix A so long as this subsection is in effect.

This country has an amazingly strong gun lobby. I don't image that the government will be taking all our guns away any time soon. I am sorry, but i see no problem with the banning of assault weapons. They are not necessary for sportsman, collectors or personal protection.

David- First off an "assault weapon" by definition capable of full automatic fire. Semi-autos are not therefore the dreaded assault weapon. I hunt with a semi-auto rifle, collect them (as well as blades), and use one to protect livestock. I do not care if you think they are necessary or not. You don't have to own one if you don't want to. If you lived in England you probably would have been all for the "assault sword" ban.

bbjw

[David]

Originally Posted by BBJW

David- First off an "assault weapon" by definition capable of full automatic fire. Semi-autos are not therefore the dreaded assault weapon. I hunt with a semi-auto rifle, collect them (as well as blades), and use one to protect livestock. I do not care if you think they are necessary or not. You don't have to own one if you don't want to. If you lived in England you probably would have been all for the "assault sword" ban.

Well it is pretty hard to kill 164 people with a sword like they did in Mumbai. Of course those were assault weapons, not semi-automatic ones, i am aware of the difference and they are indeed "dreaded".
If you really feel you "need" a semi-automatic rifle to hunt and protect your live stock that's your business, but i'm not at all interested in fighting for your right to keep them. I don't need them. I'm also not interested in fighting to take them away from you either. You don't care if i think they are necessary or not, but you see, i don't care if big brother takes them away from you, so really i think it's best if we just agree to disagree. I am sure that you are personally being a responsible citizen with you guns. I am not convinced that we can assume the same for everyone though.

[BBJW]

Originally Posted by David

Well it is pretty hard to kill 164 people with a sword like they did in Mumbai. Of course those were assault weapons, not semi-automatic ones, i am aware of the difference and they are indeed "dreaded".
If you really feel you "need" a semi-automatic rifle to hunt and protect your live stock that's your business, but i'm not at all interested in fighting for your right to keep them. I don't need them. I'm also not interested in fighting to take them away from you either. You don't care if i think they are necessary or not, but you see, i don't care if big brother takes them away from you, so really i think it's best if we just agree to disagree. I am sure that you are personally being a responsible citizen with you guns. I am not convinced that we can assume the same for everyone though.

The fact is that many of those killed in Mumbai were killed by grenades and other explosives. 10 trained and determined terrs with other rifles/pistols and pump shotguns could have done almost as much damage. ALSO the Indian police had very poor equipment. Few or no walkie talkies. No night vision or thermal imaging and some were armed with bolt action Enfield rifles. Had the Indian police had better equipment and training there would have been fewer casualties.

You may not care about my Constitutional rights, but I care about yours and have fought for them and would do so again.

bbjw

[David]

Originally Posted by BBJW

You may not care about my Constitutional rights, but I care about yours and have fought for them and would do so again.

The constitutional right that you speak of is open to vast interpretation. I feel not even a twinge of guilt for not stepping up and defending your right to owns guns that i personally don't believe should be in the hands of regular citizens. I also am not fighting to have them taken away from you, so why don't you just drop it and agree to disagree as i suggested. You are not going to change my mind on the subject.
I only got involved in this thread because i though Clockwork was misreading this bill and over reacting to it. In fact he was misreading the bill and thought appendix A was a ban list, not the exempt list that it actually is. I have no real interest in getting into a debate over the constitutionality of one's right to own semi-automatic or automatic weapons. That is a fool's debate and there will never be any winner.

[Gonzalo G]

We all come from a very different societies. There are many motivations and obscure fears behind the gun control. I would pont the matter as follows:

* What right does a State has to impose over it´s subjects any limitation to their liberty, if it does not constitute an actual offense against the criminal law? Which is the limit of the State to make laws constraining civil and personal rights? Like the right to defend the live against a criminal activity not controlled by the same State which pretends to disarm the civil society.

In the past and in the present, the protestant societies had intended to control the personal behaviour over the basis of moral values. So it came the Prohibition. What the Prohibition did to control crime and alcoholism? Nothing. It only created an inmense and powerfull network of organized crime, and it grew to stay indifinitely in the basement of the social and political order. What does the laws against drug consuming and trafficking had made to stop the traffic and drug related crimes? Nothing, it only has created a new generation of a more powerfull organized crime, and more offcial corruption. Lets face the facts: laws must be evaluated against statistics and efficacy indexes. This prohibitions have a great economic burden over the pockets of the public, without significant results. It only maintain an inmense state police bureaucracy with few results. Meanwhile people wants drugs, alcohol or guns, they will get them at any cost, and they will be sold to enrich the organized crime, no matter prohibitions.

* What confidence would we give to political tycoons to legislate in favour of the people, when they only live to their personal benefit? Are they to be trusted? Threir personal criteria is always correct, or instead, they bend to the side of convenience?

In the catolic Latin America, gun control is exercised to mantain an overwhelming superiority od the represive organs of the State over a population exploited by an oligarchy, with their parodies of democracy, which is in fact a clientelist order permeated by an inmense corruption. In Mexico, there was no gun control until the rise of the gerrilla movement, originated on the stupid and inept measures of a deeply authoritarian government. I purchased my first own gun at Sears at 18 years old without any requirement but my money, and the criminal rate was VERY low at that time. Now, we have gun control since then, and a very high rate of gun involved homicides. Crime is not controlled with efficacy because crime is good business. The common criminal pays to the police to recive protection, and the money flows up, to the highest levels. Organized crime is a better business. They pay directly to the highest levels. And they have rocket launchers, assault rifles, machineguns, cal .50 BMG sniper rifles, armoued cars, hand grenades and so on. How it is possible, without the protection of somebody, some institutions, very important? We have a great wave of violence on the country for this reason. And meanwhile, the governments tightens the gun control over the civil and honest population, which is defenseless. So...

* The fact is that crime violence is not affected by gun control, only good citizens register their guns. The other violence, comming from psychopaths, sociopaths and unadaptated people, is generated by the same societies which suddenly are afraid of what they have created theirselves. Poverty, racism, opression and ignorance are different forms of violence, and every form of violence exercised over some people, generates an equivalent response. Just take a night trip to the hoods to see. The public cult of the violence on the media is another factor. But nobody tries to control it, because movies, TV programs and other media, are good business. You can limit the rights of the people, but don´t try to touch the big business. What we need is to change the social context. This, can limit more efectively the violence, alcoholism and drug consumption. I understand the canadians have more guns per capita than USA americans, but a very low index of violent homicides....why? Why they do not sepeak so insistently about gun control? Why in Mexico, with so few guns on the hands of the honest vast majority of the population, we don´t have a SINGLE gun store in the whole country, and all comes from the black market? Because it is good business, because it generates many money to the dealers, and their protectors, the corrupt politicians and police officers. So, you can purchase a black market pistol, and register it if it´s caliber is legally accepted by the law, without questions asked. Of course, guns are very expensive in this way, but you can get ANY gun you want, legal or not.

The entire world is now in a recession. The financial capital had used the lack of international controls to make big and unethical speculative business to the expense of the general economic stability, producing another deep cyclic crisis. We all going to suffer this situation. This, will bring more gun violence on the streets, more drug adictions and more alcoholism. But, where are the intentions to control this, more dangerous weapons? They try to give aspirins to cure a pneumonia, but they do not fight against the roots of the sickness. This is hypocrisy. We don´t need gun control. We need to control our politicians....and the too smart people. I respect the pain of the persons who had sufered a loss on the hands of the senseless violence, but this is no reason to make many other inocent people to pay for this.

Please excuse me for this protest. I am not a liberal. I am not a right wing follower. I am only a citizen tired of all this situation. More gun control is going to be a big business for some people, but useless. Today, the ban against assault rifles has expirated since 2005, I believe. The criminal statistics did not change with the ban, or without the ban. The ban has no effect over society. They only give a false and temporary sense of security. The ban only limits honest people. And the problems are not resolved with laws, though bad laws creates many serious problems...and good business for the too smart people.


By the way, Manolo, it was not Bonnie and Clyde, it was Dillinger.

Regards

Gonzalo

[Atlantia]

Originally Posted by BBJW

David- First off an "assault weapon" by definition capable of full automatic fire. Semi-autos are not therefore the dreaded assault weapon. I hunt with a semi-auto rifle, collect them (as well as blades), and use one to protect livestock. I do not care if you think they are necessary or not. You don't have to own one if you don't want to. If you lived in England you probably would have been all for the "assault sword" ban.

bbjw

Its interesting you cite the 'sword ban' in the UK, as it clearly WAS an example of 'bad lawmaking'.
If we look at the figures (roughly) which led to the ban, if memory serves, we are talking about up to 60 000 incidents per year involving attacks with bladed weapons (worse case figures) in England and Wales.
However we are talking about approximately 5 or 6 actual deaths per year from attacks with the banned 'Samurai' class of reproduction swords.
That compares with many, many hundreds of deaths from 'stabbings' amongst which the preferred weapons are cheap chinese kitchen carving knives.
Statistically, more people are killed in the UK every year by: Boiled sweets, peanuts or wearing unsafe slippers.

Now for purposes of this discussion, the reason why the UK sword ban is an interesting example of lawmaking is that it is a headline grabbing attempt by a government to address a real problem with a ridiculous token law.

And introducing 'a little' gun control in the US is like the 'sword' ban here.
Like throwing a deckchair off of the Titanic.

So what do governments do?
Ours sees a problem with knife crime, and a public expectation of 'tough new laws to combat it' so is scared into banning something which will make no difference whatsoever.

Can I ask you, how many guns do you own?
If your government actually did decide to 'take the bull by the horns' and bring in large limits on gun ownership, and say for example they passed a law by which you were only allowed to own a side by side shotgun, for purposes of killing animals on your land, would you be prepared to turn in your other guns and accept government compensation? (which is effectively what was done in the UK).

Second part of the question is of course, even IF (which I serious doubt will ever happen) they did do that, and everyone legally owning guns did turn them in. How the hell would any administration tackle the millions of illegal weapons?

From an outsiders POV it sadly looks like any gun control with any chance of actually being passed into law in the States is just going to be at best a coat of paint on the golden gate?

Its obvious how strongly you feel about your 'right' to own guns, and clearly at least a sizeable minority of Americans agree with you. But by the same token, your experience of guns is going to be totally different from many other Americans. But surely nobody can argue that the US does have a huge problem with guns being used in violent crime, so from a pro-gun POV, how would you tackle it?

Regards
Gene

[clockwork]

Dave first off if you read the bill you would see that the bill contradicts it self and all the sudden there are gun on this bill that were outlawed on the old one. So do I think I miss read it not really since it was written with a bunch of attorney that double speak in every way. The Second amendment was given to the American people so that we could never be oppressed by the government and is not open to vast interpretation as you state. if you truly understand are history it is special interest groups and attorneys that have warped over the last 50 years. So I have to say that I completely disagree with you on your interpatation of are rights in this country.

Gonzalo G great write up and I agree with you completely.

[clockwork]

Gene the cure is simple don’t punish the lawful gun owners, as they have for the last fifty yrs. But actually enforce the laws and make the criminals do the time and not let them of with 1 tenth of the sentence. the morals in this country are crumbling under special interest rule like spanking your child if he/she does wrong. since when is it a good idea to have the Gov. tell you how to raise your child. this is just a example and I can go into many more. we need to reestablish values in this country and not worry about PC nonsense.

[Atlantia]

Originally Posted by clockwork

Gene the cure is simple don’t punish the lawful gun owners, as they have for the last fifty yrs. But actually enforce the laws and make the criminals do the time and not let them of with 1 tenth of the sentence. the morals in this country are crumbling under special interest rule like spanking your child if he/she does wrong. since when is it a good idea to have the Gov. tell you how to raise your child. this is just a example and I can go into many more. we need to reestablish values in this country and not worry about PC nonsense.

Hi 'Clockwork'

I think we can all agree that laws 'should' be enforced. But the UK government finds it hard enough to find the and punish the few (comparatively) gun carrying kids in our cities. Where do you suggest the US government starts to tackle the problem in a country awash with guns?

It cant just be about punishment. Even if you could catch and punish everyone illegally carrying or owning a gun in the US where would you put them all to serve out their full term sentences?

You'd need an 'escape from New York' sized prison!

And as for the Government staying out of raising kids?

I'd say the government needs to get MORE involved.
O.K, I'd agree that there are rare occasions where a kids needs a slap on the butt, and I am sure I deserved most of the ones I got off my parents as a kid! lol
But kids need protecting too.
So we need some legislation in that area.

Kids need to grow up respecting each other and feeling connected to each other, their community, and the State.


Gun ownership in the US is a traditional right, but so many more important rights have been sacrificed in recent years without a fight, and compared to some of the social problems in the US (and in Europe) does owning a gun really matter?
How much freedom and safety does having one really give you?


Just a quick google brings up these stats: (From the Harvard University Gazette)

In the US;

Every year, more than 30,000 people are shot to death in murders, suicides, and accidents. Another 65,000 suffer from gun injuries.

firearms kill about 85 people every day.

To put that into context, thats the equivilent of the 911 attacks every 5 weeks, year in, year out.
Or the US' entire casualties in Iraq to date, every 7 weeks.


So how do you start to tackle it?

regards
Gene

[David]

Just for a point of reference, here is the second amendment in it's entirety:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Please note that this "right" is tied to the opening requirement of "a well regulated militia" and that it is the right of "the people", not an individual. This amendment also could not possibly forsee the technological developments in weaponry that would allow for guns with the devastating killing capacity of many assault weapons or even semi-automatic ones.
People are welcome to interpret this amendment as they see fit, and debate and discuss accordingly, but please don't try to tell me that there is not room for a vast amount of interpretation of this single sentence that was written over 200 years ago.

[BBJW]

Gene- Saying firearms kill people is like saying a spoon makes you fat. The Second Amendment was put there to protect the rest of the Constitution. And David...the people are the militia. You can't pick and choose how to interpret the entire Constitution. David, I hope I'm wrong, but I seriously doubt you would fight to protect any part of the Constitution since you would just interpret it to suit your need. Well said Gonzalo. I'm thru with this thread.

bbjw

[David]

Originally Posted by clockwork

Dave first off if you read the bill you would see that the bill contradicts it self and all the sudden there are gun on this bill that were outlawed on the old one. So do I think I miss read it not really since it was written with a bunch of attorney that double speak in every way. The Second amendment was given to the American people so that we could never be oppressed by the government and is not open to vast interpretation as you state. if you truly understand are history it is special interest groups and attorneys that have warped over the last 50 years. So I have to say that I completely disagree with you on your interpatation of are rights in this country.

Clockwork, i will not argue with you that the bill might have some contradictions, however, your understanding of it originally clearly was mistaken. I also will not argue that lawyers use double-speak and are often hard to understand, so i do see why you might have been confused. As for the second amendment, it has been a point of argument for years so obviously it is open to vast interpretation as to exactly what our founding fathers had in mind. You say that you disagree with me on my interpretations of rights in "this country". Aren't you in Germany. What country are you talking about? MY country or YOUR country. Is American constitutional law a hobby of yours? I personally don't assume to fully know nor interpret the rights of Germans.