A discussion of Gun Control for schrafinator

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

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

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

V is right. "Well regulated" does not mean 'to control or direct according to rule' in this instance, I think it is pretty clear it has one of the other three meanings - specifically to adjust to a particular specification or proper functioning.This explanation supports this particular point of view:
http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/410/410lect11.htm

quote:

---

At the time when it was ratified in 1791, the Second Amendment was intended to have at least two security purposes other than a well-regulated militia: (1) a practical purpose, to protect people from thieves, bandits, Native Americans, and slave uprisings (the Jeffersonian position); and (2) a political purpose, to remind the rest of the world that the United States is well-armed (Hamilton and Madison's position in Federalist Paper #46).

​

Madison's original proposal read something like this:

​

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well-armed and well-regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of baring arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

---

Regarding Cfrog's argument about how the courts appear to rule on the textual interpretation, they are actually split, but seem to rule more often in favor of the collective approach vs the individual approach:

quote:

---

(same source)
These two approaches are a debate over textual interpretation.

​

1-a collective approach (sometimes called a states' rights or militia-centric approach)

​

2-an individual approach (sometimes called an individual, fundamental, or personal rights approach)

​

The collective approach is more consistently favored by the courts, and involves an insistence that the founding fathers clearly intended a "well-regulated militia", not a bunch of individual Americans possessing weapons that could only be used today against their neighbors.

​

The individual approach is that the amendment guarantees the rights of people, otherwise the founding fathers would have said the rights of states. It is further argued that well-armed individuals can defend themselves better from crime, citing an estimated 2.5 million defensive gun usages (DGU) a year. Gun ownership is a personal freedom because you can determine your own fate, and this right is near the top of the list of fundamental freedoms.

---

Obviously I lean more on the individual freedom side, since that's how I think this ammendment was intended.I don't buy into this argument by crashfrog: The gun is not a magic death weapon. One bullet from a gun will not instantly kill you any more than one stroke of a sword, one impact by a vehicle, etc. It may kill, it will certainly injure, but so will the car, knife, sword, baseball bat, etc. Crash, by his own admission, owns a sword. I can make the same argument that a sword swung in anger can take a life. Should his right to own a sword be restricted?No. And that is why there are laws to punish murder and criminal behavior regardless of the weapons used. Restricting personal freedoms so the least responsible people will be less likely to expose themselves and others to harm is wrong - that's the same argument used by the FCC's to restrict free speech.There is also a nice abbreviated list of the history of gun control on the same site near the bottom of the doc.This message has been edited by custard, 07-02-2004 03:18 AMThis message has been edited by custard, 07-02-2004 03:19 AMThis message has been edited by custard, 07-02-2004 03:20 AM

I'm not surprised you missed the point of the sword analogy (get it?). Range is irrelevant. I could have used a bow and arrow as an example. So is a gun. Do you know what is involved to actually get a gun to fire? You have to load it, aim it, usually disengage some sort of safety, then fire it.Just like a sword, you have to actually take deliberate steps to get it to cause damage or kill.Just like a sword can't wield itself, a gun won't go off by itself. Ergo, you are still responsible for a deadly weapon. Irrelevant. You should not regulate something merely because a tiny group of people might be reckless or misuse it. I've also heard plenty of stories of people accidentally setting themselves on fire cooking or smoking in bed; what should be done to prevent that, regulate charcoal and bic lighters?Misuse or reckless use of many things have dangerous and deadly results. You can recklessly hurt someone with your sword. You can recklessly hurt someone with your car. You can't save everyone from their own incompetence, and infringing on the rights of the majority of other individuals who can competently own and operate what you propose to restrict is certainly wrong.