A discussion of Gun Control for schrafinator

In one of the two F-9/11 threads we seemed to be wandering off into the subject of gun control. Instead of letting that continue OT, I thought it might be better to bring the Gun Control issue over into a new thread.I personally believe that Gun Control is both pointless and counter productive. I realize that others disagree. I would like to open this to discussion of either point of view but with the hope that it can be kept civil. I would also like to suggest that the number of claims in any one post be limited to a single point and that we try to stick with that one point until it is resolved before moving to other allegations.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Great idea.I think some things that might help facilitate productive discussion is if we can come to some agreement about what we mean by 'gun control' and 'guns.'1-Currently, even in the US, we have laws prohibiting gun use - by type, location, and purpose. Do we all agree that currently, there is gun control in the US, and it is the degree of control that we are discussing? (Granted arguments may range from 0% control to 100% control).2-I also assume we are restricting this discussion to modern 'guns' (or 'firearms' if you prefer) - not bombs, flame throwers, antique collectibles - what have you.3-Also, when we speak of 'gun control,' specifically, which types of guns are we talking about:1-handguns
2-handguns and 'assualt rifles'(AR15 type guns)
3-handguns, assualt rifles, 'hunting' guns (shotguns, rifles - to avoid confusion maybe we shouldn't include handguns as 'hunting' guns even though some people do hunt with them).
4-any type of gun including automatic weapons.I'm happy to address all four categories, but cat three seems to be the usual realm of discussion. It would be nice if people would take the time to make the necessary disctinction in their arguments whenever possible so we can avoid any type of "I never said HUNTING guns/automatic weapons" bickering.4-I think if someone uses the term 'guns/firearms' without qualifying a type, they should expect this to be interpreted as category three - all handguns, assualt rifles, and hunting guns.5-Please present data supporting your claims and assertions if they are statistics based - e.g. there are more deaths in the US than Canada from guns... etc. etc.This message has been edited by custard, 07-01-2004 06:43 PM

I'd favor technological solutions, but none seem forthcoming.For instance how about a national ballistics database? Or guns that won't fire except in their registered owners (or other registered shooters) hands?I'd support a 100% surcharge on guns to fund technological measures to reduce gun violence. I know that technology won't be perfect, but it usually works better than laws.The power to take a human life - and that is what guns represent - is an awesome responsibility. I don't think it's one you should be able to gain for less than $200. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect people who want a gun to contribute substantially to a fund for technological gun safety measures.AbE: Just to clarify the kind of guns I'm talking about - I think any gun that can hold more than one round is not a hunting weapon. If you can't take your quarry down with the first shot, no subsequent shot is going to get it.Anything that'll hold more than one round is a weapon meant to kill/defend yourself from things that can attack you.This message has been edited by crashfrog, 07-01-2004 07:29 PM

Well, in the spirit laid out in the Op, can we address as the first issue?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

For instance how about a national ballistics database?

---

The only problem with a ballistics database is that the rifling marks can be changed. This can be done by simply running a file through the barrel, or completely re-rifling the barrel. In other words, a ballistics database will not stop people who have the forsight not to get caught.

Ideologically, I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, we have versions of this for things like motor vehicles, but on the other hand I can't help feeling this is encroaching on my 2nd ammendment rights. Emotion aside, I can't reconcile why every gun manufactured shouldn't be registered and part of a database - like vehicles.I think it MIGHT lower the incidence of illegal gun resale, but I don't think there is any evidence that it would do so significantly; additionally, a national database certainly won't have much (if any) impact on people who use guns for criminal activities - they will just obtain their guns the same way they currently obtain their drugs.So while I see the possibility of a slight advantage for authorities which might help curtail blatant gun resale, I don't see this really addressing the issue of preventing crime and death due to firearms. I'm not deathly opposed to the idea, I just don't think there is any evidence that it will address the problems people ascribe to gun ownership.What would be much more effective is a national crime database.This message has been edited by custard, 07-01-2004 08:22 PMThis message has been edited by custard, 07-01-2004 08:23 PM

was the California study. Basically it determined that it would be unlikely to help much. California StudyIf it were implemented though, would the people most likely to commit crimes simply change the balistics?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Some of you seem to be mis-using the word ballistics. It is probably no fault of your own. I see it happening all the time on television and in the movies.Ballistics is the science of projectile (read bullet) motion. It has absolutely nothing to do with marks left on bullets from barrel lands.Ballistics would come into play if, for example, you are wondering where your new zero might be if you were to add an extra half-grain of powder to a particular load. Or maybe you might be wondering how much faster a 165 grain bullet might travel than a 180 grain bullet with the same powder charge. That is what ballistics is all about. It really doesn't have anything to do with solving crimes.And for the sake of this discussion, let's keep in mind that the Second Amendment states that our rights shall not be infriniged. That is a very important word they used back in the day and it is very far reaching. Any kind of registration is an infringement. In fact, almost any kind of restriction at all is an infringement. Basically, it means that if I have a place to keep them, I should be able to own a tank or an F-16 fighter plane if I so choose.Verzem

We are using the term Balistic as it is applied to the actual studies and databases. It is what the producers of the concept chose, not a term we chose.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Yeah, that's where the hairs on my neck start to perk up when I hear about national databases for non-criminals.Crash, curious, do you see a difference between a national database for everyone's fingerprints and pictures and a database for everyone's gun ID number and a picture of the lans/grooves marks left on a projectile from that gun?Finally, I think Jar's link provides more evidence substantiating the idea that it's too easy to change things about a gun that make it unique: difficulty in matching the round to the gun, ease of swapping barrels, filing serial numbers, changing/modifying firing pin and/or ejection mechanism. If a criminal wants an gun that can't be traced back to him, he's going to be able to get one - much as criminals do in countries with much stricter controls (UK for instance).This message has been edited by custard, 07-01-2004 08:53 PM

So are you saying that because it is widely mis-used, we should continue to mis-use the term ballistics? Why? I don't understand why anyone would want to continue doing or saying something that they have subsequently found out is wrong.I have no intention of stopping to correct everyone each time I see the word ballistics mis-used. The one time is enough. I'm not a dickhead about things.But usually, when someone points out a mistake I have been making, I change and do things the correct way henceforth. Why wouldn't I?Verzem

Of course.Language is dynamic. Words take on new meaning and old meanings drop by the wayside. That is how language evolves.In the link I posted and in the Legislation being discussed the term that is being used is Ballistics and so we need to use the same terms for clarity.It's similar to folk that jumped on me about my using clips for my 45acps. In my case, it was necessary to use the term clips for clarity and understanding. So, in this case, the term Ballistics is the appropriate term.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

And for the sake of this discussion, let's keep in mind that the Second Amendment states that our rights shall not be infriniged.

---

2nd ammendment: "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."Regulation, in and of itself, is not an infringement within the language of the 2nd ammendment. At least that's the way I read it.

Maybe we can get to the 2nd next but for the moment can we stick to the idea of whether a National Ballistic Database would be of value?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I thought it was already established that the national database would be totally worthless since barrel fingerprints (if you will) can be altered, barrels can be easily replaced, firing pins can be replaced and altered, etc.It would be like keeping a national database of fingerprints if they could be as easily altered as changing a pair of gloves.But it doesn't surprise me that some in government want to do it. We do need more government employees after all, don't we?And excuse me for being a hard ass about it, but I refuse to go along with the majority and start mis-using the term ballistics just because it has become conventional to do so. After all, I'm still one of the few holdouts who actually pronounces the "pre" in prerogative. That "per" thing really grates on me. I guess I'm just hard-headed. My apologies for that.Verzem