Do Firearms Cause Murder...

[Don Roley]

I also don’t support the conspiracy theories that gun control is just a pre-step to banning guns. Is alcohol regulation the precursor to another prohibition? Is the regulation of paint thinner a step towards doing away with paint?

I do not think it is a vast conspiracy. But I think that registration leads to the eventual confiscation of firearms.

Yes, there are groups out there that are openly trying to get all firearms or pistols banned that propose 'reasonable' legislation for the regulation of firearms. But I think the vast majority of people and politicians that propose or support registration and regulation are not out to get rid of all firearms.

But later on, someone gets into power who wants to get rid of firearms. It is kind of like a die- hard Bush supporter I know who is worried about some of the anti- terror laws being discussed. As he puts it, "I see nothing in his past behavior to make me think Bush will abuse this stuff for personal gain- but eventually we are going to get someone like Hillary in office."

The anti-gun groups I mentioned seem to specialize in jumping on a tragedy before the bodies have time to cool in order to put the next stage of their agenda in motion. That seems to be another reason why reasonable laws about firearm registration seems to lead to the police coming around to pick them up.

It is not a conspiracy. But there does seem to be a lot of cases where one leads to the other.

 

[Flatlander]

Given the historical innuendo over gun registration, I can see why there'd be significant concern. So, don't register, that's fine.

As has been repeatedly pointed out, and I agree, guns don't kill people, people kill people.

So, regulate the people, that's all I'm saying. I don't understand why so many don't see the validity of this proposition.

I understand the value of having an armed population; does the appropriate firearm training not add value to this idea? I think it does.

I also don't understand the resistance to the idea, given that someone without the training in proper use is dangerous to everyone on the street. Seems pretty straight forward to me.

 

[Mr.Rooster]

FlatLander, I think we are on the same page. You and I anyway.

 

[7starmantis]

It seems everyone is looking at this issue from only two sides, excesive regulation leading to confiscation, or complete lack of regulation or control. Thats just simply not the case and is not what is needed. I'm not for stricter regulations for law-abiding citizens, but I think its absurd to offer a complete lack of control.

Its true that the firearm itself doesn't commit murder, but regulation of the ability to obtain said weapon along with manditory education is simply the responisble action to take in today's society.

7sm

 

[Cruentus]

It seems everyone is looking at this issue from only two sides, excesive regulation leading to confiscation, or complete lack of regulation or control. Thats just simply not the case and is not what is needed. I'm not for stricter regulations for law-abiding citizens, but I think its absurd to offer a complete lack of control.

Its true that the firearm itself doesn't commit murder, but regulation of the ability to obtain said weapon along with manditory education is simply the responisble action to take in today's society.

7sm

The problem is that most regulation, especially ones aimed at what kind of firearm you can obtain, and most registration requirements have lead to confiscation or banning. This is just a fact when we look at some states and most other countries.

This is my problem with most regulation.

That said, I don't mind minimal saftey training standards to carry, as long as it is done on a shall issue bases. This requires basic saftey training for those who would carry in public. Also, I don't mind some standards for hunting, like manditory notification of Law Enforcement in case of an accident. And, if someone has been convicted of violent crime, then the review board should have strict standards on whether or not that individual should be allowed a carry permit. And, there should be strict penalties for those who commit violent crime with weapons.

These are all fine because they penalize bad bahavior, and may reduce unsafe behavior as with training standards. Yet, it all has to be carefully done because there seems to always be some ******* politician who wants to take this stuff too far.

It is the other stupid stuff like manditory registration, "assault weapons ban," regulation on how many rounds you can have in a magazine, waiting periods, etc, etc, etc that attempts to regulate ownership. It is this attempted regulation of ownership that is the core of the problem, is ineffective in reducing crime or keeping us safe, and is only effective in removing civil liberties.

If we understand this seperation of ownership vs. behavior, then we will probably be closer to some common ground.

Paul

 

[Don Roley]

That said, I don't mind minimal saftey training standards to carry, as long as it is done on a shall issue bases.

In theory, I have no problem with that. In reality, I know of quite a few cases where things were left to the descretion of some members of goverment who then used their power to effectively stop anyone from getting a firearm, carry permit, etc.

There was a story I saw on the news 15 or so years ago on the people who were allowed to carry a concealed weapon in a county where the sheriff had to approve the application. The people who were on the list also coincidently were on the donors list for the sheriff's re-election.

The standards and such would have to be laid out in law and not subject to the whims of some political hack.

 

[FearlessFreep]

Driving a car, operating heavy machinery, dispensing prescription drugs.

It seems there are many things that can be done that are potentially very dangerous to yourself and those around you that before you can legally do them, you have to prove at least a minimal amount of training and/or competence so you don't accidentally or needessly endanger those around you

 

[Hand Sword]

Correct! Ultimately, it's people that murder, not the objects that are used.

 

[modarnis]

It seems everyone is looking at this issue from only two sides, excesive regulation leading to confiscation, or complete lack of regulation or control. Thats just simply not the case and is not what is needed. I'm not for stricter regulations for law-abiding citizens, but I think its absurd to offer a complete lack of control.

Its true that the firearm itself doesn't commit murder, but regulation of the ability to obtain said weapon along with manditory education is simply the responisble action to take in today's society.

7sm

How does that type of regulation correlate to any benefit of less murder or crime in general? Criminals generally do not obtain their firearms through lawful channels. They buy stolen guns on the street. Why is it logical to increase regulation on law abiding citizens (many of which will get training and continue to train on their own accord) while the persons who need regulation continue on, business as usual? What demonstrable societal benefit would come from these increased regulations?

 

[7starmantis]

The problem is that most regulation, especially ones aimed at what kind of firearm you can obtain, and most registration requirements have lead to confiscation or banning. This is just a fact when we look at some states and most other countries.

I agree with that to a point. Its a stretch to say "most regulation" but certain kinds of regulation I would agree with you.

That said, I don't mind minimal saftey training standards to carry, as long as it is done on a shall issue bases. This requires basic saftey training for those who would carry in public. Also, I don't mind some standards for hunting, like manditory notification of Law Enforcement in case of an accident. And, if someone has been convicted of violent crime, then the review board should have strict standards on whether or not that individual should be allowed a carry permit. And, there should be strict penalties for those who commit violent crime with weapons.

The sad reality of the society we live in is that more individual programs like this will not work and wont be tried. Only generalizing laws and such will really work across the board of our citizens. I mean take the [FONT=arial,helvetica][SIZE=-1]20,851,820[/SIZE][/FONT] people in Teas alone. You think wait times are long now...
I'm not saying I agree, but its the way it is.

If we understand this seperation of ownership vs. behavior, then we will probably be closer to some common ground.

That I completely agree with.

How does that type of regulation correlate to any benefit of less murder or crime in general? Criminals generally do not obtain their firearms through lawful channels. They buy stolen guns on the street. Why is it logical to increase regulation on law abiding citizens (many of which will get training and continue to train on their own accord) while the persons who need regulation continue on, business as usual? What demonstrable societal benefit would come from these increased regulations?

I'm not sure you understood what I was trying to say. I dont think gun control and or regulation is really going to do much at all for "less murder" besides maybe making the availability of murder by handgun a bit harder to achieve and collect much stiffer penalties. I agree that a criminal intent of using a gun for murder wouldn't go purchase one legally and register it, but does that mean we remove registration? If we did wouldn't it make that a possibility for someone intent on using the firearm for murder? Its a matter of realizing what the law is supposed to do. Its not supposed to stop murders with firearms. Like I said in another thread, no single action will solve any of thes issues, its a collection of many different types from many different angles.

I am not for the increaesd regulation for law-abiding citizens, I stated that pretty clearly in my post. I'm not sure why your asking me the benefits of such, since I dont agree with it. What I am saying is that the complete deregulation and control of firearms will not only do nothing to affect the status of violent crimes with firearms, but will only make attainable said firearms to those wishing to perfrom such acts. Its the age old question. Because someone is finding away around a rule means we should drop the rule? No, the answer is to uphold those other angles and rules that support this one.

7sm

 

[Cruentus]

In theory, I have no problem with that. In reality, I know of quite a few cases where things were left to the descretion of some members of goverment who then used their power to effectively stop anyone from getting a firearm, carry permit, etc.

That is the other side that I agree with also. Potential curruption and abuse is always a possability.

 

[Cruentus]

I agree with that to a point. Its a stretch to say "most regulation" but certain kinds of regulation I would agree with you.

It's not really a stretch when you consider that most other countries do not allow their citizens the right to bear arms, and that right was stripped with the introduction of seemingly reasonable regulation.

The sad reality of the society we live in is that more individual programs like this will not work and wont be tried. Only generalizing laws and such will really work across the board of our citizens. I mean take the [FONT=arial,helvetica][SIZE=-1]20,851,820[/SIZE][/FONT] people in Teas alone. You think wait times are long now...
I'm not saying I agree, but its the way it is.

Actually, it is working pretty well here in Michigan. To have a CPL (concealed pistols license), you have to pass a minimal 8 hour training course that covers safety and basic firearms use. We are a shall issue state, so if I fit the minimal requirements (basically, no felonies or things on your record that demonstrate poor judgement) then I get my licence to carry. Here in Oakland county we have a new finger printing process and things are much more effecient. So, I recieved my CPL in 3 1/2 weeks from the time I turned in my stuff. With my license, I can buy and take home any firearm that is legal to sell without a waiting period, and I don't have to renew my license for 5 years. And when I do go to renew it, the process is even simpler.

The only way you could run into hicupps is if you have something glaring on your record that causes the data base to red flag you. Then, the gun review board reviews your case. They can deny you, but you have the chance to appeal. This could lengthen the process for you. Also, not all counties are as effecient as Oaklands; Wayne County the waiting period for a CPL is about 6 month.

The system isn't perfect, but I would have to say it is pretty fair. Passing an 8 hour course and getting your license to carry in a month is pretty reasonable.

So, having a minimal standard and an effecient process can work; and we are proving that. By the way, the banner on the gun forum for GLSDA is a group I am involved with, and has been landmark for pushing and supporting for a lot of these steps to be made.

My only worry is that the wrong person in power will ruin it for us, as Mr. Roley expressed.

Paul

 

[Laeticia]

I think it is good thing that guns are registered and you should have permit to get them. But I am from Finland and we have quite strict gun laws so this might be learned way to think. But then again those laws dont stop us owning 3th most guns per capita in world. (mostly hunting weapons)

For what it's worth, I support regulation to a degree, and this far haven't seen a problem with it. Here's an example about gun regulation:

First you get the "buying permission" from the police, to actually buy the gun (you state what type of gun you want to buy, caliber etc.). For this you need to prove that you're a member of a shooting club and get 2 persons (gun owners of course) to vouch for you. This changes from region to region, though. Some of my friends needed only the membership papers, I needed both of these things.

After you've bought the gun you must register it and get an "owning permission". You go to the police station, they examine your gun, check the buying papers and you fill the form for the actual permission. In some weeks you get the plastic permission card you have to carry with you whenever you carry your gun to the range and back. Usually you get a permanent permission, but I for example got an year-long permission that I had to renew to get the permanent permission (19yo girls with .22 pistol are highly suspicious... ). Note: I say "owning permission", because it's not a permission to carry your gun everywhere with you. In theory you should carry your gun only to the range and back, not have it with you all the time.

And as Korppi said, Finland is far from being a "No Gun"-country. You just have to do a bit paperwork to get the gun, that's all. It's regulated. Now can someone tell me how this is a bad thing?

Cheers,
Laeticia

 

[7starmantis]

Actually, it is working pretty well here in Michigan. To have a CPL (concealed pistols license), you have to pass a minimal 8 hour training course that covers safety and basic firearms use. We are a shall issue state, so if I fit the minimal requirements (basically, no felonies or things on your record that demonstrate poor judgement) then I get my licence to carry. Here in Oakland county we have a new finger printing process and things are much more effecient. So, I recieved my CPL in 3 1/2 weeks from the time I turned in my stuff. With my license, I can buy and take home any firearm that is legal to sell without a waiting period, and I don't have to renew my license for 5 years. And when I do go to renew it, the process is even simpler.

Thats pretty good, in Texas you have to go through a 10 -15 hour course (pass with a 70), a 50 round test (pass with a 70), fingerprint and photo, background check, fine, penalties, tax, and child support payement check, then wait an average of 2 months for the liscense. We also have to renew the license every 4 years. This is however what I was refering to as blanketed laws. To have a more individual process where a board must meet on each applicant would be out of the question.

The system isn't perfect, but I would have to say it is pretty fair. Passing an 8 hour course and getting your license to carry in a month is pretty reasonable.

I think thats fair, I think Texas' is fair as well. I dont mind going through that to receive my permit. I am under no illusions that the process is keeping criminals from carrying guns if they really want to, but it certainly weeds out those not interested in the safety and education (especially of the laws). It also creates stiffer penalties for the criminal when he is found carrying a weapon.

So, having a minimal standard and an effecient process can work; and we are proving that. By the way, the banner on the gun forum for GLSDA is a group I am involved with, and has been landmark for pushing and supporting for a lot of these steps to be made.

My only worry is that the wrong person in power will ruin it for us, as Mr. Roley expressed.

I completely support this process, I was simply making the point that the lack of a process is irresponsible at best. I share your worry over the wrong person in power, but then thats the whole idea behind our "democracy".
I think we need to understand the desired effects of these types of processes. If we try to apply this process to the issue of illegal gun cartel, we see it fall apart, but it has its uses and we can see its benefits.

7sm

 

[modarnis]

And as Korppi said, Finland is far from being a "No Gun"-country. You just have to do a bit paperwork to get the gun, that's all. It's regulated. Now can someone tell me how this is a bad thing?

Cheers,
Laeticia

Here in the US, it could be construed as a bad thing. The constitutional language in our bill of rights confers these rights on the people. If I propsed that you had to register all of your household possessions to be afforded protections from unreasonable searches and seizure in the 4th amendment context, or submit an outline of your proposed speech for approval prior to exercising your first amendment right to free speech, most would be up in arms and call me crazy for thinking that way. Why should the second amendment 'the people' be treated differently?

There already exists a significant federal paper trail for the lawful purchase of a firearm in the US. Most state's require seperate state paperwork for purchase or transfer of firearms. I posed the question earlier, but what benefit is gained from these additional regulations vis a vis law abiding citizens? Keep in mind, that criminals in the US or elsewhere do not purchase their weapons in a lawful stream of commerce

 

[modarnis]

Not trying to snipe, but I'm requoting your original statement above. Here is your follow-up:

>>I am not for the increaesd regulation for law-abiding citizens, I stated that pretty clearly in my post. I'm not sure why your asking me the benefits of such, since I dont agree with it. What I am saying is that the complete deregulation and control of firearms will not only do nothing to affect the status of violent crimes with firearms, but will only make attainable said firearms to those wishing to perfrom such acts. Its the age old question. Because someone is finding away around a rule means we should drop the rule? No, the answer is to uphold those other angles and rules that support this one. >>

I'm not sure how requiring mandatory education is not creating increased regulation on law abiding citizens. How do you reconcile those seemingly conflicting positions? Why create new rules, rather than enforce the current ones strictly?

 

[Laeticia]

Keep in mind, that criminals in the US or elsewhere do not purchase their weapons in a lawful stream of commerce

That's absolutely true.

One reason that I personally don't feel as concerned about the whole thing (regulation/no regulation/who has a gun) is that the "criminal scene" is different between here and the States. There are some shootings reported in the papers), but the "stereotype" would still be a drunk with a knife or a mugging, not shooting.

It's interesting to read about what really happens/is thought about this in the US, as opposed to the popular (in Europe) stereotype of "trigger-happy nutcases".

(All this talk has made me really miss my Walther that I had to leave in Finland...)

Cheers,
Laeticia

 

[7starmantis]

I'm not sure how requiring mandatory education is not creating increased regulation on law abiding citizens. How do you reconcile those seemingly conflicting positions? Why create new rules, rather than enforce the current ones strictly?

Um, because mandatory education is currently required. I'm not for creating "more" or "new" from what is allready in place.

7sm

 

[modarnis]

Um, because mandatory education is currently required. I'm not for creating "more" or "new" from what is allready in place.

7sm

Mandatory education may be required in states for concealed carry of handguns. To my knowledge, mandatory education is not required for the purchase of firearms in general. Do you have a source you can point me to for these already existing education requirements?

 

[7starmantis]

Mandatory education may be required in states for concealed carry of handguns. To my knowledge, mandatory education is not required for the purchase of firearms in general. Do you have a source you can point me to for these already existing education requirements?

OK, I can see your really wanting to press this point. You can purchase a gun without said education, thats true. What I'm interested and talking about is when that gun affects other people (from yourself). What you do in the privacy of your home is not my business (although it could be argued that the potential of a firearm reaches beyond the four walls of your house). Are you going to use your gun for anything other than collecting? If so you will be fased with education courses. Concealed carry courses, hunter education courses, even gun clubs and ranges require you to act on at least the very basic of firearms etiquette. Sure you can go out and shoot in your backyard, but unless you live in the right area that is illegal and you will asses heavy penalties if you destroy the propety or life of someone else in the process.

7sm