What if Massachusetts is right??


PDA






depicts
March 5, 2006, 09:05 PM
this might get me banned from this forum, but I have to ask the question, what if Massachusetts is right about unregistered and unlicensed sales of firearms?

I know some of you are shutting me off already, but let me say that I have been a shooter in Mass for 50 years. I have a license to carry concealed, and I have a pretty good selection of guns.

Sometimes I have to wait a day or two to get what I buy. Sometimes certian models aren't sold here. It iritates all of us. I'd love to own some of the smaller concealed pistols that they won't sell in Mass.

But try to look at it another way, and remember, I'm no anti-gunner by a long shot. If in the states where it is legal to buy a firearm with no record of the transfer of that gun, what keeps that gun out of the hands of druggies and gangbangers??

I know some people who I wouldn't want shooting with me, who moved out of state and purchased handguns, plenty of them. If they move back here, what's to stop them from bringing the guns with them.

Admittedly they are criminals, so they won't mind breaking one more law. What if now their unregistered guns become very valueble for sale or trade for drugs or whatever. Now an even less trustworthy person owns the gun.

At least in Mass, when I see someone in a gun shop buying ammo or guns, I can pretty well tell he or she isn't a dangerous felon or a wanted criminal.

I know some of you think that the 2d ammendment gives the right to ALL people to carry and buy, even felons. Well thank you for your opinion, but I can't really buy that. If a person on drugs has taken a gun once, and robbed or shot another person, I'd say the chances of them doing it again are pretty good. I think it only makes sense to have some sort of "drivers license" for gun ownership just like we do for cars. A MUST ISSUE if you pass the test sort of thing, but really...I'd like to know that the guy buying all the AK rounds is legal.

I was hunting one day in a bird management area, and some clown came in with a Tech 9 blasting away. I'd guess he wasn't a really experienced bird hunter. It sorta ruined my day as I didn't want to be in the woods with him and his friends.

I know I can't be the only one who thinks some record of transactions and transfers could help stop some gun violence, without limiting our rights too much; but I may be the only one dumb enough to say so here.

I know I'm going to get flamed real bad for saying this. I know I shouldn't even post it because so many of you will vehamently dissagree with me, I can't help myself.

Some S&W .38 sold at a gas station in the South or South West without registration turning up in a robbery at a Stop and Rob in New England isn't my idea of the best laid plan. If all you folks who holler about the freedom to buy and posess guns for whatever reason, can give the world a few good ideas how we could stop the A##Holes, not the M???????s, from getting guns, I'd be right behind you.

OK gang, let me have it!!!! :confused: (Heading for cover)

If you enjoyed reading about "What if Massachusetts is right??" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Henry Bowman
March 5, 2006, 09:13 PM
If in the states where it is legal to buy a firearm with no record of the transfer of that gun, what keeps that gun out of the hands of druggies and gangbangers??Explain why the "problems" are in MA (and other highly restrictive states) and not in those other states.

KriegHund
March 5, 2006, 09:15 PM
If you could get rid of all unregistered guns in the US and never let any unregistered ones come in, ever, then it might work.

But its too unrealistic right now, and will probably never be a viable option.

depicts
March 5, 2006, 09:16 PM
Henry, are you telling me there is no gun crime in states that have no gun laws? No robberies, home invasions, carjackings? Where is that state?

MikeJackmin
March 5, 2006, 09:19 PM
I hope you don't get flamed for this - it's a fair question, and I think you are entitled to a thoughtful answer.

Personally, I see gun rights as being similar to the right to free speech - some reasonable restrictions (libel, copyrights, state secrets, and so on) are fair, so long as there is both a compelling need, and a minimum of harm done.

However, I have a big problem with the incremental erosion of these rights, especially when the courts have been so reluctant to draw a firm line for us. Too many of these reasonable-sounding restrictions are just incremental steps towards a total ban.

My bottom line is that some states - Vermont, I think, is one, and Utah another - have essentially no gun laws at all, and enjoy low crime rates, while strict gun laws seem to have little actual social benifit. This makes it easy for me to be something of an absolutist. I have lots to lose, and little to gain, even when something that sounds reasonable is proposed.

In a perfect world, I'd be happy to trade a day's inconvienience for a safer society. However, I certainly won't trade it for an increased risk of future gun bans and no improvement in the crime rate.

Third_Rail
March 5, 2006, 09:20 PM
Even if banning guns would reduce crime to zero, I refuse to let them be banned.


It is my right to own them, carry them, etc.



Interesting topic, though.

depicts
March 5, 2006, 09:25 PM
Mike, Vermont makes me scratch my head! Why does the lack of any gun laws work so well there? Is it becausse of the thin statewide population...lots of space and not many people? Is it the long winters with people stuck in their huses burning wood and waiting for summer? Is it the lack of many big cities? Could it be the lack of various large ethnic groups? I wonder what the demographics/economics/geography of the state teaches us that would apply everywhere else?

Vern Humphrey
March 5, 2006, 09:25 PM
Henry, are you telling me there is no gun crime in states that have no gun laws? No robberies, home invasions, carjackings? Where is that state?

Nope. We're telling you that there is not no gun crime in states that have "strict" gun laws. We are telling you there is not no robberies, home invasions, carjackings in those states.

And we are telling you that there is less "gun crime" in states that have liberalized concealed carry laws and less restrictive gun laws.

We are also challenging the presumption that when they say, "We're from the government and we're here to help you" that they're telling the truth. Gun laws are not meant to increase public safety -- they're meant to penalize and punish people for being politically incorrect, and to extend the power of government.

Vern Humphrey
March 5, 2006, 09:28 PM
Mike, Vermont makes me scratch my head! Why does the lack of any gun laws work so well there?

Sherlock Holmes said, "When you have ruled out everything else, whatever remains, however improbable, is the truth."

Or to put it simply, gun control doesn't make the streets safer. It doesn't reduce crime. No matter how much gun control you have, the bad guys are armed. Only the solid citizens are restricted from bearing arms. States with less gun control have less crime because the honest citizens are able to defend themselves.

asknight
March 5, 2006, 09:33 PM
The cold hard fact is that you'll never, ever be able to keep criminals from obtaining weapons. No matter how many laws you pass trying to keep that from happening, you'll fail. The cure is to punish the act of the crime, not because someone is "equipped to do the crime." There are numerous people, towns, cities, states, and even foreign countries who can't grasp the concept that firearms is just something we're going to have to live with. You sound like one of those. One of those who thinks that by limiting law-abiding citizens in some way will limit crime. You couldn't be more wrong.

"I know some of you think that the 2d ammendment gives the right to ALL people to carry and buy, even felons. Well thank you for your opinion, but I can't really buy that."

If you can't buy that, then can you buy the fact that if they're enough of a criminal then perhaps they shouldn't be on the street in the first place? If they haven't repaid their debt to society, why are they on the street procuring weapons, making law-abiding gun owners look like savage criminals?

depicts
March 5, 2006, 09:36 PM
Vern, it can't be that simple. I wish it was. At one time I believed it was myself. I am thankful I have a CCW and the tools to protect my family, but That just means I can take care of myself, which I think we all need to do. It doesn't keep the little shop down the street from getting robbed. I agree too, that if you took away all the guns, the scum would rob with knives or sticks or as we had happen here recently, kill a women with a frying pan to the head. She should have had a gun. But that being said, can't wwe find a better way to do it?

depicts
March 5, 2006, 09:43 PM
Not only do I accept the fact that there will be guns, I relish the fact! I'm a gun lover, have been since the first day I walked into Sears with my Dad when I was 5 and saw all the beautiful blue handguns at eye level in the display case. I encourage ownership, and encourage people around me to get licensed and train themselves.

On the other hand, I have known people personally who did jail time for some pretty serious stuff. As soon as they got out, they got right back into it. Their debt to society was paid. They didn't have to pick up guns and drugs and start robbing again. It was their choice, and that's the only reason that I say SOME felons can't be trusted with legal weapons.

Heck I'm not perfect, I've made a mistake or two in my life that I wouldn't want held against me forever, but some people never seem to learn...it's them I'm worried about!

Vern Humphrey
March 5, 2006, 09:46 PM
Vern, it can't be that simple.

Why not? There IS a positive correlation between crime and gun control -- the more gun control, the more crime.

States which have enacted "shall issue" laws have seen crime drop -- and that's more than 2/3s of the states.

Alaska has adopted "Vermont carry" and Wyoming is seriously debating it.


I wish it was. At one time I believed it was myself. I am thankful I have a CCW and the tools to protect my family, but That just means I can take care of myself, which I think we all need to do. It doesn't keep the little shop down the street from getting robbed. I agree too, that if you took away all the guns, the scum would rob with knives or sticks or as we had happen here recently, kill a women with a frying pan to the head. She should have had a gun. But that being said, can't wwe find a better way to do it?

How about we follow the Constitution? Everyone who can vote can carry. People who commit felonies get locked up for a long time, lose the right to vote and carry. And if we catch them carrying again, lock them up even longer.

Everyone else is free to do as they like.

geekWithA.45
March 5, 2006, 09:47 PM
The question isn't "what if {gun bigoted jurisdiction of choice} is right?" but "HOW can {gun bigoted jurisdiction of choice} be right?"

What would they have to do to fully realize their utopian premise, and would I want to live in that society?

Vern Humphrey
March 5, 2006, 09:51 PM
Imagine if this question was, "What if Hitler was right?":rolleyes:

The Goose
March 5, 2006, 09:56 PM
Depicts, as a fellow MA resident I would like to respectfully respond to your question. You sound like a good man and I have no intention of flaming you. However, choosing MA as an example for any sort of "reasonable" firearms regulation is absurd.

You live in one of the most restrictive states in the US and yet you mention the use of a Tech 9 in a bird management area. I guess the AG's restrictions did not help much there?

Do states with more "lenient" gun laws have less firearms related crimes? The answer is no.

The answer to firearms related crimes is never imposing more laws on law abiding citizens, but lies in punishing the criminals who commit crimes with firearms.

I remember the early 60's when JFK was assasinated and the big push on gun contol began. It was all posed as reasonable and fair. The stated goal was not to hurt the responsible and legal shooter and hunter, but to restrict the criminal element. Every attempt at any form of gun control since that time has been a complete and utter failure. "Reasonable" gun control went out the window a long, long time ago. That bird has flown!

Overall, MA laws are a travesty and have only led to increasingly higher violent crime rates. I certainly agree that I do not want gangbangers having legal access to firearms, but there is no evidence to support that restricting law abiding citizens will have any impact on that problem.

I understand your concerns, but feel that you are a bit off track. Again, I say that respectfully and in the spirit of debate.

denfoote
March 5, 2006, 10:00 PM
Is that gun control has very little to do with crime control or prevention.
It might even be said that there is little or no correlation between the two.
It DOES have EVERYTHING to do with people control.
Mao Tse Dong once said "Political power flows from the barrel of a gun and that gun must never be allowed to fall from the grasp of the Communist Party."

Liberals believe that. They (The Liberal/Socialist ruling class) fear an armed populace because their guns might be turned against the masters.

Husker1911
March 5, 2006, 10:00 PM
Depicts, "If in the states where it is legal to buy a firearm with no record of the transfer of that gun, what keeps that gun out of the hands of druggies and gangbangers??"

Are you referring to private party sales? Otherwise, ALL licensed firearms dealers are required to keep "records" of all sales. If you're referring to states that don't allow private party sales, except through licensed dealers, then aren't you (by inferrence) still regulating law abiding citizens?

If some form of gun control works, why don't we first require that it be proven by controlling the guns the criminals obtain? I hope this isn't considered flaming you. Regards from the Cornhusker state, which, BTW, STILL doesn't allow law abiding citizens the right to concealed carry!

Preacherman
March 5, 2006, 10:08 PM
Depicts, the problem is very simple - you, and the Mass government, are focusing on the instrument rather than the user of that instrument. It matters not whether you ban handguns, long guns, knives, spears, bows & arrows, clubs, etc. - the bad guys will ALWAYS find either a banned item, or an alternative, with which to carry out their crimes. Even in a maximum-security prison (such as the one I've worked in for some years), incarcerated inmates will manufacture weapons out of toothbrushes, air-conditioning plastic vents, old lengths of sheet twisted into strangulation cords, etc. - and these are guys who have only one another to fear!

The instrument is not to blame. You or I, as certified "good guys", can buy guns to our hearts' content, use them responsibly, care for them, and never do any wrong with them - but that's not the guns' responsibility, it's ours, as responsible gun owners. Exactly the same gun, in the hands of a hardened criminal, can wreak irreparable harm - but it's still not the gun's fault, it's the responsibility of the guy using it.

To make guns (or any other weapon) more difficult (or impossible) to obtain disarms only those who are responsible citizens and will obey the law. Those restrictions won't slow down the bad guys for a moment. They'll obtain either the banned or restricted items, or an alternative, and carry right on doing what they're doing. That's why states with the strictest weapons restrictions also have the highest crime rates - they disarm those who need to defend themselves, thereby emboldening the predators in their midst.

Standing Wolf
March 5, 2006, 10:08 PM
Laws don't prevent crime. Never have. Never will.

Laws empower law enforcement officers to arrest people and courts to try them and send them to prison if found guilty.

Laws do nothing to alter the behavior of law-breakers. They impinge only upon the law-abiding.

Massachusetts is a classic example of a monstrously intrusive, powerful state that has sacrificed the civil rights of the law-abiding in the name of controlling law-breakers. It has done little or nothing to control the law-breakers; indeed, it's clear the state has a vested interest in sustaining the level of violent crime to keep the law-abiding frightened and willing to surrender additional civil rights.

You couldn't pay me to live in such a socialist hell hole.

LooseGrouper
March 5, 2006, 10:09 PM
It all boils down to personnal responsibility. The criminal and only the criminal is responsible for the crime.

Suppose we did take this course of action. All us good ole boys decided to register our guns. Some still get up to MA or NY or DC or wherever due to theft or other nefarious methods. Well, the next logical step is to make certain types of guns illegal. Then when that doesn't work because criminals are improvising and using the legal weapons or stolen "grandfathered" weapons it becomes obvious that the only thing to do is start confiscating and banning all weapons to include glass bottles and pointy kitchen knives. Hey, it's worked in Europe.

I don't mean to flame you, but I refuse to toss my liberty onto that slippery slope so someone somewhere can try another experiement with what has continually proved to be a flawed hypothesis.

The answer is to give everybody equal footing. We shouldn't be thinking of ways to keep guns out of the hands of everybody that might wanted to go and rob a Mom & Pop. We should be finding ways to get guns into the hands of Mom and Pop.

LG

BTW, Vern, I might agree you on "People who commit felonies get locked up for a long time, lose the right to vote and carry" if it can be ammended to VIOLENT felony. There seems to be a trend of making everything a felony these days.

p230
March 5, 2006, 10:15 PM
depicts,

The main reason I would oppose it is I don't think such a program would ever be cover what it was intented to do. I know it would probably not stop the vast majority of illegal sales anyway. If you already have a felony and want to get rid of a gun/buy one you can find one. It would only encourage a black market. If we lived in Iceland or a similarly isolated country this might be possible. USA is too big, too many firearms allready and too many people who feel so strongly about this that they would just ignore it.
Another problem is that anytime government gets into something like this there is always "fees" for the service and the fees can be used to keep people from getting them, eg no new full auto registration. I guess we as responsible gun owners will just have to keep working to keep guns out of criminal hands, I buy as many as I can afford.

gezzer
March 5, 2006, 10:24 PM
You sound like the typical Elit, I'm ok to have firearms but I am not sure of every one else.

Do us a favor stay in MA.

Tory
March 5, 2006, 10:25 PM
We have someone who purports to be a gun-owner for half a century, yet who cannot fathom the futility of anti-gun laws. Are we to take these queries seriously? Some glaring examples:

" If in the states where it is legal to buy a firearm with no record of the transfer of that gun, what keeps that gun out of the hands of druggies and gangbangers??"

First, ALL sales through an FFL are registered on 4473s and many (if not most) states, including Massachusetts, require filing forms for even private sales. So, your assertion of "no record of the transfer is largely false. Second, as criminals, by definition, do not obey laws, in what way are the restrictions you accept, if not actively seek, protecting anyone from anything?

"I know some people who I wouldn't want shooting with me, who moved out of state and purchased handguns, plenty of them. If they move back here, what's to stop them from bringing the guns with them [?]."

Nothing. While this will obviously be hard for you to grasp, the mere fact that someone "moved out of state" is not a criminal act. Further, buying a gun in the new state of residence is NOT illegal and neither is bringing one's own property with one when moving to another state. Whatever guns a person owned prior to moving to Mass. they can bring with them when they (are stupid enough to) come - EXCEPT "post-ban, large capacity" magazines.

"Admittedly they are criminals, so they won't mind breaking one more law."

Thus admitting the utter failure of your exalted gun laws........:uhoh:

"What if now their unregistered guns become very valueble [sic] for sale or trade for drugs or whatever. Now an even less trustworthy person owns the gun."

So the mere fact that someone moves to Mass. with a previously acquired gun automatically makes it a criminal's gun? Can you say non sequitur? Suuuuuuuuure, you can!

You fail to grasp the fact that the gun laws proposed by Mumbles Menino which you now proffer as some sort of cure for crime are documented FAILURES.
They failed in D.C., they failed in New York, they will fail in 'Frisco just as they failed even in England and Japan, which are ISLAND NATIONS. That means customs checks for everyone coming in. Perhaps you want strip-searches....

Your arguments are as specious as your claims to have had your bird hunting disrupted by someone with a Tech-9. You are, at best, yet another hunter willing to whore out everyone's firearms rights in the delusion that your over-under will be spared; at worst, you are completely clueless. Which is it?:scrutiny:

Igloodude
March 5, 2006, 10:32 PM
Depicts,
What if Massachusetts isn't right? :uhoh:

Anyway, you ask:

Sometimes I have to wait a day or two to get what I buy. Sometimes certian models aren't sold here. It iritates all of us. I'd love to own some of the smaller concealed pistols that they won't sell in Mass.

Do you think the unavailability of the smaller concealed pistols has reduced crime in Mass?

But try to look at it another way, and remember, I'm no anti-gunner by a long shot. If in the states where it is legal to buy a firearm with no record of the transfer of that gun, what keeps that gun out of the hands of druggies and gangbangers??

What keeps the guns out of the hands of druggies and gangbangers in Boston, or NYC, or Chicago, or DC?

I know some people who I wouldn't want shooting with me, who moved out of state and purchased handguns, plenty of them. If they move back here, what's to stop them from bringing the guns with them.

Are those people felons? Because if they aren't, they won't be stopped from owning handguns in Mass, either.

Admittedly they are criminals, so they won't mind breaking one more law. What if now their unregistered guns become very valueble for sale or trade for drugs or whatever. Now an even less trustworthy person owns the gun.

What if they break "one more law" and file off the serial numbers on the guns, then sell them?

It seems to me that even Massachusetts' more restrictive gun laws are simply an inconvenience to Boston criminals, and I assume you're aware of the fact that despite Mayor Menino's statements, more than half of illegally-possessed guns in Massachusetts originated in Massachusetts. That being the case, I fail to see why law-abiding citizens should be inconvenienced purely so criminals can be inconvenienced as well.

Interesting question, though - thanks for provoking some discussion about it. :)

depicts
March 5, 2006, 10:42 PM
Thanks for your comments. I'm surprised no one has told me to take a leap yet :)

The Goose, I didn't really mean to set Massachusetts as an example of GOOD gun laws, as you and I know, it's the pits here. What I was trying to say was that some kind of control is needed, and maybe the answer is very strict punishment for crimes with guns.

It is supposed to be an automatic 1 year in prison in Mass if you are found with an illegal gun. That law was passed sometime around 1974 I beleive. To the best of my knowledge, due to plea bargianing ect, I don't think a half dozen people have ever been sentenced under that law. If they had been, I think that would have taken a serious bite out of gun crime.

Preacherman, I agree with you it isn't the gun. It's only a tool, a thing. The woman killed by three teenagers near hear is just as dead from being hit with the frying pan on the head. I by no means propose Massachusetts left wing thinking on anyone else. Maybe the solution is stricter enforcement of existing laws, and maybe even the elimination of redundant and useless laws.

I understand the slippery slope theory, and agree that that creep is happening in our country, and so some of us put up an "I won't give an inch" facade that I wish would work. I really do wish it would work. I said it a time or two myself.

It's too bad that with 72 million gun owners (estimate) in the USA, only 4 million jooin NRA and another million or so join GOA and other organizations to fight for these guns rights, and that we as voters keep putting back into office people who make these laws. The don't vote themselves in.

Thanks for the polite comments so far. Guess I won't have to move out of town yet :)

Jeff White
March 5, 2006, 10:42 PM
Depicts said;
Henry, are you telling me there is no gun crime in states that have no gun laws?

First, let's not concede the use of the English language to the antis. There is no such thing as gun crime. Guns are inanimate objects and as such they cannot commit crimes. We concede that guns are the problem, not people, when we use the anti-gunners term of gun crimes.

I am becoming convinced that guns are not a factor in crime rates one way or the other. Yes statistically, the places with the least gun control have the least crime. But why is that? Is it really because more guns in the right hands make the crime rate go down, or is it because the kind of people who won't accept gun control also order their society differently and with different values then the people who do think gun control is the answer?

It seems to me that the places with extremely high crime rates, use gun control as a cheap substitute for adequate police departments, courts, and jails. They place greater value in spending their tax dollars on income transfer schemes then they do on funding vital public services.

Trained, well equipped police departments are expensive, so are courtrooms, judges, prosecutors and public defenders. Prison beds are the most expensive of all. So in the places with the highest crime rates, and most gun control what is the likelyhood of a criminal being caught and actually doing some time, compared to the places with less gun control? I don't know. I'm just asking.

It seems to me that the places with the highest crime rates and most gun control also are the places where there are the most activists who will excuse most criminal conduct as being justifed for racial discrimination reasons or because more of the money that goes to the services the government is chartered to provide, isn't directly transferred to their constituants.

How many traditional families are in the areas with less gun control and less crime compared to the areas with more gun control?

I think that guns are pretty much neutral on the crime rate or at best have a small positive effect on lowering it when the law abiding have unrestricted access.

I say that because most of the victims of crime are the same people who live for the third of the month. The Great Society has bred the independence out of them. I don't believe that if you went into the inner city and issued every family a surplus M16A1 and a basic load of M193 ball, you'd see much change in the crime rate. I don't think many of those people would stand up for themselves. We've raised an enitre class of professional victims.

Jeff

Tokugawa
March 5, 2006, 10:54 PM
Depicts, trying to control criminal access to guns is sort of like trying to control thier access to drugs. We all know how successful THAT enterprise has been.
The only real choice we have has nothing to do with the actions of criminals. It is, simply, do we wish to DISARM thier potential victims.

Byron Quick
March 5, 2006, 10:54 PM
I'm one of the folks that think that all people should have the inalienable right to own firearms. However, there is a major difference between your stance and mine that maybe you should ponder. You take for granted that violent felons will procure guns if it were legal once they were released from prison. I take for granted that with less gun control and saner laws on self defense that the violent felon never made it to prison. Once a violent felon is dead, his right to keep and bear arms is moot.

You're for controlling felons after they get out of prison with laws that penalize everyone. I'm for controlling violent felons throughout eternity and leaving everyone else strictly alone.

depicts
March 5, 2006, 10:56 PM
Tory, I see in your profile that you sue police departments for gun rights. I've done the same. I'm not a hunter to speak of, the Tech 9 incident happend quite a few years ago. Mostly I'm into handgun shooting at paper, and self defense.

Since I don't own an over under for me to be a hunting gun whore, I guess I'm just clueless. Good thing there are folks like you out there to set me straight. BTW, thanks for correcting my spelling!!:)

Gezzer, I'm about as far away from an eleatist as you can be. (Heck I can't even spell it) I'll bet John Kerry could!!!! :evil:

Igloodude,no, not being able to buy what I want hasn't done anthing to prevent crime. I'm small,I want a small gun. Wish I could buy a Springfield .45 GAP, but they aren't leggal here.

Stand_Watie
March 5, 2006, 10:56 PM
Mike, Vermont makes me scratch my head! Why does the lack of any gun laws work so well there? Is it becausse of the thin statewide population...lots of space and not many people? Is it the long winters with people stuck in their huses burning wood and waiting for summer? Is it the lack of many big cities? Could it be the lack of various large ethnic groups? I wonder what the demographics/economics/geography of the state teaches us that would apply everywhere else?

Depicts, I'll give you a simple solution to your quandary - look at the border areas of Mass and Vermont and New Hampshire and compare their crime rates. Then compare their demographics, population density, winter length etc., and then ask yourself again "What have Massachussetts gun laws done for us?"

The answer is

Sometimes I have to wait a day or two to get what I buy. Sometimes certian models aren't sold here. It iritates all of us. I'd love to own some of the smaller concealed pistols that they won't sell in Mass.

That's it. That's the difference between border Mass and border Vermont and NH.

Stand_Watie
March 5, 2006, 11:01 PM
You're for controlling felons after they get out of prison with laws that penalize everyone. I'm for controlling violent felons throughout eternity and leaving everyone else strictly alone.

The middle ground would be to not let people who you can't trust with a gun out of prison to start with. Let's face it we don't prevent felons from buying gasoline and matches even though they're as dangerous as guns. The world is too full of pointy, sharp, explosive and hard things to regulate away potential harm by regulating objects.

depicts
March 5, 2006, 11:02 PM
Jeff, I think you said the same thing I was trying to say about Vermont vrs. Mass. Economics, and a society waiting for the third of the month has a lot to do with it.

Byron, I'm with you, if they end up dead they don't repeat their crimes.

I may be wrong, have been many times, but a friend of mine who has done some time, moved to Maine, where with just a drivers license he claims to have bought a .45 Automatic in a private sale, and a Ruger MKIII in a gun shop, with no backgroud check. He's the kind of guy I worry about comming back, but it may not be factual.

Telperion
March 5, 2006, 11:06 PM
... I'm no anti-gunner by a long shot ...Why is it everytime I hear this, an argument for more control and restrictions invariably follows?

I am thankful I have a CCW and the tools to protect my family, but That just means I can take care of myself, which I think we all need to do. It doesn't keep the little shop down the street from getting robbed. I agree too, that if you took away all the guns, the scum would rob with knives or sticks or as we had happen here recently, kill a women with a frying pan to the head. She should have had a gun. But that being said, can't wwe find a better way to do it?A better way to do what? We cannot secure the blessings of liberty to more people while at the same time seeking to further restrict it. The reason we codified in our Constitution a right to keep and bear arms, and continue to fight for our rights, is to counter the viewpoint that only people deemed worthy by the State should own guns. You are concerned about "untrustworthy" persons buying and owning guns -- but you (and all of us) are exactly the people who are untrustworthy in the eyes of the gun prohibitionists. Relocate to somewhere deep inside the 495 corridor and see what happens when you reapply for your CCW.

I can't help but read some serious conflict in your posts. Massachusetts' laws irritate you, but you favor instituting tighter restrictions on gun ownership. I think you need to choose what goal you want: fair and accessable ownership of arms, or the "right guns for the right people".

Manedwolf
March 5, 2006, 11:08 PM
Simpler comparison is to compare NH and MA. NH has only basic gun laws. Checks at the time of purchase, yes, but it's easy to get CCW and there's no gun registration.

NH and MA, in the radius north and south of the border, have multi-ethnic cities. Manchester and Nashua in NH, Lowell and all the other ex-mill cities in northern MA.

The crime rates for NH vs MA cities are nearly opposite ends of the scale. There's hardly any violent crime in NH, and if there is, it makes headlines for weeks. MA, on the other hand, keeping guns from the hands of its citizens...

depicts
March 5, 2006, 11:29 PM
You ask a good question because in fact I am confused about how I feel.

I want all us good guys to have guns, and I want the bad guys in jail. I hate the restrictive laws, and the battles I've had to renew permits and licenses. I live inside the 495 Corridor, and it's a pain in the butt.

I quess what it is that I'm asking is, since it makes so much sense to me, and us, to be able to own guns, why don't the anti's see it, and why can't we do something to resolve the problem. Why can't rational people (maybe that's the problem) find middle ground on this issue. Maybe not even middle ground....pro gun rights ground, and keep the blissininny's from jumping through their skins.

Heck I don't know...I was reading the threads about the Kennedys, and the one's about cops stopping motorists, and I just started thinking, between some of what those motorists said, some of what the cops are alleged to have said, and what some people think about Fat Boy Ted, people see things so differently. We each take our own predjudice and view the world through it. So I asked the question, what if Mass was right. Now I'm pretty sure Hitler wasn't, so I'm glad we didn't go off on that thread.

Bare with me folks, the worlkds a confusing place, and I've only had 56 years to figure it out so far! In the next 56 I'm pretty sure I'll know what I want :evil:

Byron Quick
March 5, 2006, 11:46 PM
depicts,

You're making an assumption here that I personally believe may be unwarranted. That assumption is that the gun control crowd and especially their top people are good upstanding citizens who happen to possess a diametrically opposite view than us. I've wondered for quite some time if that is true. Those people are as smart as I or smarter, they are as educated in history as I or better educated. I know what has happened throughout history to unarmed citizens from criminals, armies, and-most especially-from their own governments. I have to ask myself,"Could they want law-abiding people at the mercy of criminals? Nah. Could they want us under the heel of the army of foreign oppressors? Nah. Could they want our government to have the power to rule its citizens with no hope of opposition?"....Uhmmm. The jury's still out. I haven't made my mind up yet. But I certainly have difficulty accepting that they actually believe the drivel they spew has any chance of controlling the actions of criminals. And if they don't want to control criminals, who do they want to control?

Zen21Tao
March 6, 2006, 12:19 AM
If in the states where it is legal to buy a firearm with no record of the transfer of that gun, what keeps that gun out of the hands of druggies and gangbangers??

A single NIC phone call tells the owner of the gun store whether or not the purchaser is legal to own the weapon. From there having a record or not having a record of a firearm purchase isn’t going to effect whether or not it falls into “illegal” hands. If the gun does fall into illegal hands having a record of the gun isn’t going to matter much.

Admittedly they are criminals, so they won't mind breaking one more law. What if now their unregistered guns become very valueble for sale or trade for drugs or whatever. Now an even less trustworthy person owns the gun.

Like the statement above a criminal isn’t going to pass an NIC background check so the law abiding citizen is the only one is affected by registration. Criminals tend to steel their firearms themselves or they buy stolen guns off the street. Once a gun reaches the criminals hands it doesn’t matter whether the gun was originally registered or not. Let’s say the criminal kills some wipes prints from the gun and tosses it. The only thing registration would do (provided the serial number wasn’t destroyed, which is usually the case) is identify the original owner not the criminal.

I know some of you think that the 2d ammendment gives the right to ALL people to carry and buy, even felons. Well thank you for your opinion, but I can't really buy that.

Not to sound rude but I would suggest you take a couple law classes. The Bill of Rights doesn’t bestow right onto a group or individual it limits the authority of the government to interfere with inherent preexisting rights. In the case of the 2nd Amendment it specifically say the right (again… God given not man given) to keep and bear arm shall not infringed. There is a debate as to whether or not someone arrested lose their protection under the Bill of Rights. This is a debate way beyond the scope of this thread. (For example, why is freedom of speech for criminals protected if not the right to keep and bear arms? Best be consistent.)

I think it only makes sense to have some sort of "drivers license" for gun ownership just like we do for cars. A MUST ISSUE if you pass the test sort of thing, but really...I'd like to know that the guy buying all the AK rounds is legal.

First of driving is a “privilege” not a right protected by the Bill of Rights. I would say ok to a gun “drivers” license if you allow speech to be regulated the same way. How about applying for a license in order to practice your religion of choice? Oh, and we can’t forget that the beloved right to abortion that the left loves so much must also require a license. Again, be consistent in how you treat “rights.”

I was hunting one day in a bird management area, and some clown came in with a Tech 9 blasting away. I'd guess he wasn't a really experienced bird hunter. It sorta ruined my day as I didn't want to be in the woods with him and his friends.

I call BS. This just sounds like Troll Bait. “Blasting away” with a standard 9mm pistol (like a Glock 17) would be no different.

I know I can't be the only one who thinks some record of transactions and transfers could help stop some gun violence, without limiting our rights too much; but I may be the only one dumb enough to say so here.

Again, registration won’t affect criminals that are unable to pass the simplest background check that already exists independent of any registration. The only “rights” that would be limited by registration are those of law abiding citizens.

The_Ferret
March 6, 2006, 12:31 AM
I'd like to be the first (I think) to congratulate you. On a different thread, I myself started an open discourse because I was uncertain on a subject. I encourage everyone to do so when they cannot reason through a problem by their own wits alone (Heaven only knows the shape I'd be in if I had to rely on only my wits...). Normally, it is a good idea to get input from people on both sides of an issue. However, I'm not going to encourage you to go to a pro-gun-control board and ask this question. And I'll tell you why...

You have said:
We each take our own predjudice and view the world through it.
And you are quite correct. Each person views the world through his own eyes and interprets it with his own mind. This is probably due to the fact that taking someone else's eyes/mind from their body is illegal in most of the world, and it is somewhat common sense that using them for yourself after removing them will be even more difficult. :)
Now, on a more serious note, what you have said is reasonable. People will view the world with their own prejudices. However, some people will also consider logic. They will reason aside from their own prejudices as much as possible when they deem it important to do so. You yourself are doing this right now by admitting that you are undecided/conflicted, and desiring input.
Other people posess a trait called empathy. They are able to place themselves in the shoes of others. If it is a strong enough trait, they may even be able to imagine their enemy from the inside. This also allows one to bypass, so to speak, internal prejudices.

You have seen for yourself some replies that considered neither logic nor empathy on this board. Unfortunately, these two traits are not dominant in the human species, and we are part of that species... However, you've also seen people try to talk. You have undoubtedly seen threads like:
"I know this will sound stupid, but how to clean a gun correctly" in the General Forum, or even:
"Pros and Cons about Glock" in the Handguns: Autoloaders Forum.
In each of these, you can see that some people are being empathetic and logical.

Now, to apply that to this case here, you can probably trust what is said here with empathy and/or logic. And I would say that you could do the same with something that a pro-gun-control person said, if you could find one with empathy/logic for the gun-owning side. That is a very large if, though. Here, some people are presenting facts. I'm sure anyone who has presented a statistic in this thread will gladly give you information on it to back it up, and anyone who is willing will explain the position of an anti-gun person as empathetically as they can. I have yet to meet an anti-gun person who will do those things. They will reply with first-generation arguments, yes. But these are often, like many first volleys in a long-standing debate, old arguments with well-defined responses. A more troubling topic is falsified data, which is also apparently provided freely (See this thread (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=186812))...
You can now consider what you wish to consider, seek out as much information as you desire, and do the interesting part for yourself: decide. And please let us know how you come out feeling on this. After all, we're all just plain folks (with guns) trying to help each other out here, no?

-The_Ferret-

Maxwell
March 6, 2006, 12:36 AM
What keeps that gun out of the hands of druggies and gangbangers??

Obviously not strict gun laws, they ignore the the nature of this problem.

Those out to commit a crime will get the best tool they can. Before guns came we had a crapload of stabbings, slashings, and people getting their heads chopped off. The world was alot more dangerous back then, until guns made it so the common man and the weak had equal power to the criminals and tyrants.
You need to stop someone from wanting to hurt someone else. You need to arm the innocent instead of disarming a criminals next victem. You need to kill some thugs to save many more lives.

Fewer restrictions works in our favor. To quote penn&teller: "If 90% of people are good, more people with guns means more good people will be armed."
Its far more often that a gun control law has kept weapons out of the hands of a good person in need of protection, than it has kept a criminal from becomming armed.

So we have the counter-intuitive solution, Hit the gas instead of the brakes.
Provide more guns to the people, not less. This way every victem is more likely to have a gun.

We already know the criminals are armed despite our best efforts. Might as well even the odds a bit.

Husker1911
March 6, 2006, 12:44 AM
Depicts, "I know some of you think that the 2d ammendment gives the right to ALL people to carry and buy, even felons. Well thank you for your opinion, but I can't really buy that."

I'm aquainted with a man who became a felon selling marijuana. He suffers terribly from multiple sclerosis, and is practically disabled. He's a harmless soul. Although he's a felon, he keeps a single shot 20Ga shotgun hidden in the deep recesses of his bedroom closet. When I mentioned to him that it was illegal for him to possess that gun, he pleaded for me to understand that if worse came to worst, if his home were broken into, and should he be confronted in the last refuge of a corner of his own bedroom, would I deprive him the decency of protecting himself?

I've wrestled with that question for some time, and I must tell you, that I cannot fault the man for keeping that last bastion of human dignity.

Hawkmoon
March 6, 2006, 12:50 AM
I know I can't be the only one who thinks some record of transactions and transfers could help stop some gun violence, without limiting our rights too much; but I may be the only one dumb enough to say so here.
That's the problem in two words. Once you acknowledge that government has any authority to limit our rights, it becomes a game to decide how much is "too much."

The Constitution says "... shall not be infringed." It doesn't say "... shall not be infringed too much."

Manedwolf
March 6, 2006, 12:55 AM
>>I'm aquainted with a man who became a felon selling marijuana. He suffers terribly from multiple sclerosis, and is practically disabled. He's a harmless soul. Although he's a felon, he keeps a single shot 20Ga shotgun hidden in the deep recesses of his bedroom closet. When I mentioned to him that it was illegal for him to possess that gun, he pleaded for me to understand that if worse came to worst, if his home were broken into, and should he be confronted in the last refuge of a corner of his own bedroom, would I deprive him the decency of protecting himself?

I do sometimes wonder at the restrictions placed on wholly reformed NONVIOLENT criminals. To me, if someone just did something like that, a long time ago, there should be a review board for restoration of all rights.

Otherwise, if there is no such thing as a fully restored-to-rights nonviolent felon, what incentive are we really giving them to stay law abiding citizens, if they'll always be second-class?

ABTOMAT
March 6, 2006, 01:30 AM
I'm a (eatern) MA resident, too, so I figure I'll add a short opinion. And as much as you guys hate disclaimers, I'll say that my views on guns haven't grown out of our idiotic laws (or maybe I believe in ownership so much because of them!) and I have lived here my whole life. I'd appreciate not getting unreasonably flamed for anything.

I think there's a difference between "gun control" and "laws regarding guns." The rules on the books here are absurd--no way around that. With the FID and two LTCs, and the hi-cap restrictions, the transfer forms, the Boston stuff, and the mini AWB it's really quite an unpleasant situation.

But, and I know I'll get blasted for this, I honestly think there should be some laws. Off the top of my head, all first-time gun owners should undergo some kind of course. If they buy a gun from an FFL they should have to show proof of having completed it. Seems like a lot of new owners don't quite have a good feel down for handling. CCW would be a second, more specific class.

Another thought is maybe requiring (or encouraging) folks to keeps records of what guns they've bought/owned/sold. Not kept or maintained by the government, but it seems like if a stolen gun was used in a crime, the dealer records could find the first owner, and then LE could work down the chain of ownership from there.

I also don't think _violent_ felons should keep the RKBA. Being busted for grass or whatever, OK, but you go into the can for beating the ???? out of your girlfriend, no thanks. Just a personal feeling. You commit serious crime, you suffer the penalties. Background checks at dealers don't bother me. Background checks for private party sales do, since it's just not practical.

Keep the C3/NFA/AOW/DD/whatever laws as they are. I know it's fun to rock&roll, but even the military finds it wasteful, and quite honestly I don't feel like seeing some yahoo at the start of deer season go FA through a 40-rounder.

NO goofy "assault weapon" bans, NO (MA and CA style) "approved" lists or other restrictions except the basic standards of design and metallurgy introduced in the '68 GCA (?). I don't want any of that crap. Those always struck me as solutions looking for problems.

That's it for my feelings on the laws. I know a lot of folks will probably disagree, but that's fine with me and I'm not saying this stuff _should_ be done. I'd really like to hear any input you guys have.

OK, second. I think that states with low gun control and low crime are at least party (only partly, I know how well CCW works in many places) due to usually being more laid-back and away from huge cities. The towns in NH are still in NH, and farther from Boston then Lowell, etc. Vermont's a really nice place. Like it or not, you will get a hell of a lot more crime when you stuff millions of people into concrete boxes and put a percentage on welfare. Crime then tends to radiate out. And I just can't picture some of the wired, stressed-out Boston or NYC dwellers would do as well with CCW as, say, Utah natives.

And one more thing, I think all gun owners should make an attempt to discuss things in a calm, thought-out, and educated (or educated-sounding) way. No hidden meaning to that. Just that arguments about guns, whether between other gun owners or gun owners and anti freaks, frequently don't make us look very good. Nothing turns on an anti like seeing a pro-gun post from someone who sounds like a hick or a hothead. So far I think this thread's doing pretty well, although it could use fewer pre-judgements.

Gordon Fink
March 6, 2006, 01:38 AM
Depicts, you’re not really worried about guns. What you’re worried about is freedom.

~G. Fink

depicts
March 6, 2006, 01:39 AM
You have framed your answer very well. Put in the light of rights to free speech and rights to religion versus the privilidge of driving a car, a license for guns seems pretty dumb.

I no more expect to file a form or pay a fee to say what's on my mind, or to worship as I wish, than I do to breathe. It's an example I'll keep in my own mind when I have doubts. Remember, living in Massachusetts, all the press and TV and radio slants one way. Sometimes it's hard for us who want to stay strict constitutionalist to ever hear a word we agree with. Sometimes it just grinds you down.

To even question the right to own and buy what I want is foolish.

On the other hand, the incident with the hunter (???) with the Tech 9 DID happen. The guy came running through the woods like he was hopped up on speed wearing a London Fog sort of overcoat, and he asked me if I had seen any birds. I WAS afraid a shot from a non shotgun comming through the trees would possibly hurt me or my dog, so I went home.

I guess that's another reason I get confused, I've seen a lot of idiots with guns....but Shhhhhhh...we don't want to talk about them, can't give the anti's any ammo.

Husker1911
March 6, 2006, 01:48 AM
Abtomat, "Off the top of my head, all first-time gun owners should undergo some kind of course. If they buy a gun from an FFL they should have to show proof of having completed it. Seems like a lot of new owners don't quite have a good feel down for handling. CCW would be a second, more specific class."

Have you completed your course of instruction before posting this message on the internet? Have you obtained your Writer's License? No? Licenses for rights recognized in the Constitution are ludicrous.

Would you endorse waiting periods? They sound reasonable, don't they. Anything to help prevent "crimes of passion." What if your wife or daughter were being tailed by a perverted looney? Should they have to take classes and acquire a license before they'd have the right to purchase a firearm to protect themselves?

I'm not trying to flame you here, but it seems to me you should think for yourself, rather than suggest "reasonable" gun control laws. Control the criminal, not the instrument!

Edit: Abtomat, do you have a padlock on your kitchen drawer with the sharp knives? After all, these are weapons of mass destruction, and shouldn't be allowed in the vicinity of minors.

depicts
March 6, 2006, 01:52 AM
thanks for what sounds like understanding where I'm coming from.

Ferret, I was just trying to walk around this issue in my own head for a bit, and eveyone here helped with that.

Gordon, I AM concerned with FREEEDOM. As a 100% disabled combat vet, I feel I contributed to a long line of patriots who fought and died for those FREEDOMS. While I didn't fight in a popular war, my belief in my country and the good intentions of the American People were never in doubt.

ABBTOMAT, I think you're asking the same questions I am. Let me welcome you to our forum, and keep fighting the good fight here in Massachusetts.

Zen21Tao
March 6, 2006, 02:23 AM
On the other hand, the incident with the hunter (???) with the Tech 9 DID happen. The guy came running through the woods like he was hopped up on speed wearing a London Fog sort of overcoat, and he asked me if I had seen any birds. I WAS afraid a shot from a non shotgun comming through the trees would possibly hurt me or my dog, so I went home.

I guess that's another reason I get confused, I've seen a lot of idiots with guns....but Shhhhhhh...we don't want to talk about them, can't give the anti's any ammo.

Like I said about the "Tech 9" the guy would have been just as much of a problem if he had a Glock 17 9mm. There are idiots in every crowd. We shouldn't be forced to limit our rights because these idiots exist. As for hiding them from the anti crowd I couldn't disagree more. We should point out to the anti crowd that they too have their own idiots but they refuse to allow their cherished rights to be limited based on the actions of their idiot. For example, would they allow the Reverend that protests the gay lifestyle at military funerals or Nazis that preach hate be used as excuses to limit their free speech?

Gordon Fink
March 6, 2006, 02:49 AM
Gordon, I AM concerned with FREEEDOM. As a 100% disabled combat vet, I feel I contributed to a long line of patriots who fought and died for those FREEDOMS. While I didn’t fight in a popular war, my belief in my country and the good intentions of the American People were never in doubt.

If you didn’t still have doubts about freedom, you would not have asked this question. Try not to feel too bad about it, though, as the vast majority of Americans lives with these same doubts, without even realizing it more often than not. It took me nearly 30 years to shake the problem myself.

~G. Fink

U.S.SFC_RET
March 6, 2006, 03:40 AM
As antigun MA or CA is Maryland is the silent one of the three, not noticed too much by the rest of the nation while CA and MA receive all of the attention.

GruntII
March 6, 2006, 04:02 AM
You may be willing to "reasonably compromise" your Creator Endowed Right Constitutionally affirmed rights with "rational" people but I'm not. If faced with the restrictions you have in Mass I would become a a legal criminal (guilty of a crime against the law but a law that violates rights given by the creatoir and affrimed by constitutional decree).But then I would be in good company as the Founding Fathers were considedred criminals, as were the leaders of the civil rights movement were considered criminals(And this a civil rights issue) . I hold a hard line because I believe in it and because a heard line held will hold the evil motherless sons in charge of the gun control movement at bay longer than warm fuzzies and agreeing ot give rights away that aren't mine to give.
I pose a question to you, you freely admit conosrting with felons/criminals as friends. In many antis eyes that makes a a security risk.What do you think makes you immune from having a compromise in gun rights move you formthe good to bad guy column because of your associations or becuase tommorrow or next week a new standard of being okay is made law? The fight should always be to remove gun laws or restrict the government,not the people.The founders realized any government was the enemy of freedom so they placed common sense restrictions, that have been twisted to allow government to grow, on government in the form of the bill of rights.

I apologize for the rant but I truely believe the idea that more restrictions and government power are good things is insane.

GruntII
March 6, 2006, 04:06 AM
BY Jeff
I say that because most of the victims of crime are the same people who live for the third of the month. The Great Society has bred the independence out of them. I don't believe that if you went into the inner city and issued every family a surplus M16A1 and a basic load of M193 ball, you'd see much change in the crime rate. I don't think many of those people would stand up for themselves. We've raised an enitre class of professional victims.



MAybe ,Maybe Not but after say 2-4 noisy weeks the gene pool would be laundered and the crime rate would go down due to attrition and criminals seeking easier targets.Even the most hardened criminal will seek a soft target over a hard one.

BigFatKen
March 6, 2006, 04:15 AM
In WI, at least, there a law "No target shooting on State hunting land". This makes a lot of sense. If someone wants to shoot a lot, let them go to the State shooting range. One is located on most big parcels. If someone wants an otherwise quiet day hunting, they are not allowed to bring out their handgun and blast away.

If your State has a law like this, the man "blasting away" was a law breaker.

I found this out at age 18. I thought I would "pattern" my shotgun on a stump while hunting. However, an older man called out and then told me "What if everyone did this." and "didn't you figure out you could hit the stump in the first two shots? Did you really need to fire the remaining 20 shells in your box?"

I'm a little embarrassed to admit this, but I learned my lesson. I was young and stupid. Mark Twain once said "he was embarrassed at how stupid his father was when he (Twain) was 16, but proud at how much the father had learned by the time he had grown to age 21.

Majic
March 6, 2006, 06:47 AM
In WI, at least, there a law "No target shooting on State hunting land". This makes a lot of sense. If someone wants to shoot a lot, let them go to the State shooting range.
WI must have small tracts for their hunting preserves. Here in Va several of our state game management areas have shooting ranges and still have a lot of land where the gun fire can't be heard.

DunedinDragon
March 6, 2006, 07:15 AM
Vern, it can't be that simple. I wish it was. At one time I believed it was myself. I am thankful I have a CCW and the tools to protect my family, but That just means I can take care of myself, which I think we all need to do. It doesn't keep the little shop down the street from getting robbed. I agree too, that if you took away all the guns, the scum would rob with knives or sticks or as we had happen here recently, kill a women with a frying pan to the head. She should have had a gun. But that being said, can't wwe find a better way to do it?

The only "better way" I've ever come across has nothing to do with trying to prevent guns from getting into the hands of the wrong people, but rather harsh penalties for the misuse of guns.

Take Florida for example. That state has taken a leadership role in many cases for things such as a "shall issue" CCW and more recently with it's "stand your ground" law. As most states that have done so, Florida has seen it's crime rates drop. However, in addition to these laws and somewhat less publicized is Florida's 10-20-Life law which mandates penalties for using a gun in committing a crime. Basically all felony acts that involve guns involve manadatory sentencing. This sometimes seems cruel for the guy that is a legal owner and one day makes the mistake of brandishing a firearm while he's in a dispute with his unarmed neighbor and ends up being sent to prison (mandated) for 4 years. But on the other hand, I would rather that happen than have them try to register or control the distribution of guns which would be pointless.

Yes, in this state the criminals can get their hands on guns. But they also know there is a high likelihood they will encounter armed civilians (1 in every 50 people with a CCW), and they also know they will not be able to negotiate a reduced sentence. If they commit a crime and are simply in possession of a gun, they will go to prison for 10 years...no chance for reduction, no chance for early release.

To me, that's the only reasonable way to approach this problem.

1911Tuner
March 6, 2006, 07:59 AM
The problem with "Reasonable Gun Control" is that many laws are reasonable...at least on the face of it....or prima facia for the Legal Eagles amongst us.
I don't have a problem with pistol permits and background checks per se...but the main issue is that it fuels the antis if non gun related crime drops 1/10th of 1%, they scream that their gun control "plan" is working...and they immediately work to implement more "Reasonable Gun Control" measures...
and on and on until it becomes completely unreasonable.

First they wanted pistol permits. Then they wanted us to sign for ammunition. Then they wanted to us to wait for 3 days before we could take our pistols home. Then they wanted to restrict us to one per month. The next thing we'll see is one per year....and then limits on quantities of ammunition...and then limited quantities in our possession. Freedom and liberty aren't taken in one big bite. We lose it one tiny nibble at a time under the guise of reasonable restrictions that would tend to throw a politician in a bad light if he or she votes it down. Very few are as concerned with our rights as they are about their political careers. Don't forget that.

Unreasonable legislation will come under the heading of protection of the innocent. "It's for the sake of the children!" Who can slap that down without coming off as an ogre who doesn't care about children? So...we got
locks included with our guns that added to the price...and how long will it be until use of those locks is mandatory? How will they enforce that mandate? Random searches without a warrant?

Or..."No ammunition that will penetrate a bullet-proof vest!" Who can vote against something that'll protect our folks in law enforcement? Kiss just about all your centerfire rifle ammo goodbye. If sales are banned...how long will it be until possession of same follows suit? Bought a 30-30 Winchester
in the last 10 years? "Knock knock. "Mr. Jones, we need to take a look around to make sure that you don't have any armor-piercing ammunition in your possession."

The problem isn't one of gun control. Guns are properly controlled by the private owners. The answer to the "gun problem" lies in stiff penalties for the people who commit the crimes...both as a deterrent and to get them out of the mainstream and keep them there for a longer period of time.

I think that the 2nd Amendment should be rewritten to state:

Shall NOT, by God, be infringed! Get over it!

pharmer
March 6, 2006, 08:10 AM
Reasonable gun control? *** is that. And total gun control is even better. Sure is working out real well for the Brits. Handguns are totally outlawed there, so there is totally no gun crime. Yep real safe there since they "got rid of all the horrid guns".:confused: Joe

Tory
March 6, 2006, 08:45 AM
"But, and I know I'll get blasted for this, I honestly think there should be some laws."

No problem here. Unless one is willing to accept violent felons, children, drunks, druggies and the otherwise insane having unfettered access to firearms, a basic screening system is required.

"Off the top of my head, all first-time gun owners should undergo some kind of course. If they buy a gun from an FFL they should have to show proof of having completed it."

Mass. already has that, although our OP may not even realize it. ANY firearms license in Mass. requires completion of either a Hunter Safety Course or an approved safety course by an NRA-certified instructor. As a license is required for any purchase from an FFL, no further proof of a safety course is required at the time of purchase.

The RUB with such requirements is whether the safety course is:

1. Fair as statutorily written; and

1. Fair as APPLIED bo the police, which issue the licenses.

There is considerable abuse of licensing authority by local PDs in Massachusetts, an issue the OP wholly ignores. The fact that each local PD issues licenses means that there is not one fair, uniform standard in the state.

Thank God all these hoops and obstacles have made Massachusetts so safe! :rolleyes:

outofbattery
March 6, 2006, 09:22 AM
As antigun MA or CA is Maryland is the silent one of the three, not noticed too much by the rest of the nation while CA and MA receive all of the attention.


I don't understand that either.While the situation certainly isn't the most wonderful for gun owners in MA I easily obtained my CCW permit in less time and for less $ than in many "free-er" states and have fewer restrictions on where I can carry,don't have a limit as to how many firearms I can buy and there is no waiting period.I can't buy any "assault rifles" but could stock up with as many WASR-10's and their attendant high-capacity mags as I could carry if I wanted them and I really don't care if my new AR-15 doesn't come with a bayonet lug.It would be nice if I could buy a KelTec or a couple RIA 1911's but it actually bothers me more that people have to live with MD,NJ,NYC,Chicago,DC,NE,WI and CA's laws than I feel that I'm suffering under the MA thumb.

1911Tuner
March 6, 2006, 09:52 AM
Quote:

>No problem here. Unless one is willing to accept violent felons, children, drunks, druggies and the otherwise insane having unfettered access to firearms, a basic screening system is required.<
***********************

And that screening process will prevent the lawless from obtaining a gun exactly how? Children are properly denied access by their parents, and they alone should be responsible for maintaining vigilance over the possessions and activities of their children...and held responsible for the same. As for the others...So long as human beings have free will, they'll get whatever they want by whatever means necessary...including guns, drugs, kiddie porn, and all other forms of
contraband. If they're determined to have it, then have it they shall.
************************

Quote:

"Off the top of my head, all first-time gun owners should undergo some kind of course. If they buy a gun from an FFL they should have to show proof of having completed it."
***********************

A licensing statute is what is proposed here. That effectively hands the state the right to deny or revoke...at will...whatever we have handed them the power to restrict by licensing...and we do so by allowing them to change the Bill of Rights to the Bill of Priveleges. As we know, a right can't be denied. A privelege can be...at whim. The power to tax is the power to destroy...and so, the power to license the power to deny. That's about as slippery a slope as you can try to maintain traction on. The Brady Bunch would embrace that as though it were the Holy Grail. If they could just manage to get licensing passed into law...Yeehaa! Party time!

Consider carefully what such licensing in Great Britain eventually led them to. Are you ready to show "Legitimate Need" for your handgun? Hunting rifle?
Shotgun? More than 25 rounds of ammunition in your possession? No?
Get ready to hand'em over.

Master Blaster
March 6, 2006, 10:04 AM
The real problem is the crimminals.

Everywhere you have a large poor urban population, you have a significant population of crimminals. They were first arrested when they were 11 or 12, involved in drug dealing, carjacking, armed robbery, burglary, violent assault with a deadly weapon. By the time they are 18 or 19 they have been in the system for years and have committed numerous violent felonies. Then they shoot and kill folks with a gun, usually someone they know in their own hood, but sometimes innocent victims they choose to carjack or rob at random.

You have lots of these wonderful folks in every big city in the USA.

They are the problem.

NoVaGator
March 6, 2006, 10:21 AM
I jumped right to the end of this thread.

If MA had no gun-related crime whatsoever, you might have a point.

Vern Humphrey
March 6, 2006, 10:46 AM
I have an Arkansas CHL. Almost every state I visit, I can carry. And those places have low crime rates. But when I get to a state where I can't carry (and really need to), I can't.

Go figure!

ABTOMAT
March 6, 2006, 10:49 AM
Have you completed your course of instruction before posting this message on the internet? Have you obtained your Writer's License? No? Licenses for rights recognized in the Constitution are ludicrous.

My computer and my keyboard won't AD into my leg or someone else's back if I make mistakes while using them. There are a lot of new gun owners each year who don't know safe handling or basic shooting skills. I don't mean an actual license--just take a 1/2 hour course, get your diploma, and walk out. No records kept by big brother.

Would you endorse waiting periods? They sound reasonable, don't they. Anything to help prevent "crimes of passion." What if your wife or daughter were being tailed by a perverted looney? Should they have to take classes and acquire a license before they'd have the right to purchase a firearm to protect themselves?

I'm not a fan of waiting periods. The instruction thing would only have to be done once, and could be done quickly any place that did that. If someone was actually being tailed by a nutcase I'd honestly rather they go to the police firsst, then the gun shop.

I'm not trying to flame you here, but it seems to me you should think for yourself, rather than suggest "reasonable" gun control laws. Control the criminal, not the instrument!

Edit: Abtomat, do you have a padlock on your kitchen drawer with the sharp knives? After all, these are weapons of mass destruction, and shouldn't be allowed in the vicinity of minors.

That edit is the kind of reponse I was talking about. It makes no sense, even as sarcasm. I never said anything about locks or storage in my post. Now that you've brought it up in a weird way I guess I'll say something. First, forgetting the weapon issues totally, guns are a lot more valuable then knives and prone to be stolen. You want someone running off with your new Kimber custom? I think locked gun storage just makes sense when the guns aren't under the owner's "direct control." If you're in the house=keep guns where you want. Out of the house=lock 'em up. And I don't think it's smart for young kids to handle guns unsupervised.

Vern Humphrey
March 6, 2006, 11:02 AM
My computer and my keyboard won't AD into my leg or someone else's back if I make mistakes while using them.

On the other hand, you can pick up viruses, trojan horses and spy ware that will do as much damage as an AD.

Your computer can also be used to steal and defraud, to entice children into danger and so on.

There are a lot of new gun owners each year who don't know safe handling or basic shooting skills. I don't mean an actual license--just take a 1/2 hour course, get your diploma, and walk out. No records kept by big brother.

Define "a lot." Firearms accidents are very low on the list of dangerous instances, and have been declining for decades.

Henry Bowman
March 6, 2006, 11:03 AM
Personally, I see gun rights as being similar to the right to free speech - some reasonable restrictions (libel, copyrights, state secrets, and so on) are fair, so long as there is both a compelling need, and a minimum of harm done. I love it when this false comparison is raised. :evil: The "reasonable restrictions" on free speech (libel, copyrights, state secrets, and so on) are not pre-emptive or based on possessing the means to commit an abuse. In other words, we do not require that all persons refrain from speaking in a crowded theater or first obtain a license to speak about someone else or to have it checked by the government for copyright infringement prior to publication or to have a background check to determine it that person has a record of libel. Instead we simply hold tham responsible for their actions after the fact. Some think that we can't afford to take that "risk" with firearms because someone may be injured or killed. If imprisonment or the risk of imprisonment has no deterent or preventative effect, then we should abandon it. But it does. It has a great deterrent effect (when applied fairly and swiftly) and prevents those who are imprisoned from victimizing society while they are in prison.

depicts
March 6, 2006, 11:12 AM
Bigfatken and GruntII

Ken, our laws about target shooting on state preserves is the same, the guy WAS breaking the law shooting just for the sake of it. I wasn't about to tell him though, even with a .410 single shot in my hand, I didn't want any confrontation with the nut job!!! I live about half a mile from that preserve, and now I only go there off season to walk my dogs. It's gotten too dangerous during hunting season because of the amount of hunters who try to use the property. Out of season I have 600 acres to roam with my pups, and I love it.

GruntII, I guess I shouldn't have used the term "friends" to imply that the people I know are close or "Friendly" with me. Bad choice of words. For one thing, I've done volunteer work in homeless shelters and have met all kinds from herion addicts to murderers to pimps and whores. Some have done better than others reforming their lives, and I do sometimes refer to them as "friends". I also admitted that I've done things in my own past that I wouldn't want held against me...birds of a feather and that sort of thing. So the fact that I have known people of ill repute shouldn't sound unusual to you. I'll bet there aren't too many people who can say that they don't know someone they went through high school with, or some former neighbor or co-worker, who ended up convicted of a crime that was a felony, and I don't mean some piddle little thing like busted for a joint in a school zone.

The first time a friend of mine (went to school together for 9 years) was killed it was in my freshman year in high school. he was killed by a .22 he and another friend had stolen from Lechmere sales outside Boston. It was an accident, the shooting I mean. He got one bullet right through the forehead. Being a minor, the other guy got out of custody after about a year. Just because I know him doesn't mean I'm like him

The latest incident was this week. A 31 year old son of a close friend of mine committed suicide with an illegal gun. In between there have been 39 years for me to meet people. Sorry if that makes me a scumbag in your eyes.

I'll see you around the VA. I'm the strange looking one who laughs when I walk by the VA police desk :evil:

Gordon Fink
March 6, 2006, 12:06 PM
Unless one is willing to accept violent felons, children, drunks, druggies and the otherwise insane having unfettered access to firearms, a basic screening system is required.

I can understand why you and others want to restrict the access of these “undesirables” to firearms, but I resent that you would violate the Constitution and ignore our legal presumption of innocence to do so.

~G. Fink

MICHAEL T
March 6, 2006, 12:33 PM
Well we wouldn't have this problem today if those. Men in Lexington would have just turned their weapons in like good subjects. Instead of standing their ground and dieing for their rights. We could be living in a gun free country with no crime and still be under English rule.Oh course they had real men in that part of the world then . No Kerry's ,Kennedy and people that claim to be a gun owner but want to take my rights from me. #### you Go to England . They have no crime because they have no guns. Right!! :neener: That why they are now out to band Knives.

gezzer
March 6, 2006, 12:54 PM
Reading the Union Leader about crime in the lower half of NH 1/2 the time the addresses of the arrestee is from Lawrence or Lowell MA.

We should put in customs at the MA border to control this?

MA can do the same on their side and then they will be happy they can control the guns, alcohol, cigarettes, fireworks and any other un sales taxed items being brought into MA.

(Keep your stinking State troopers out of our Liquor store parking lots and your Fire Marshals from following cars leaving Fireworks outlets. We consider these actions HOSTILE acts of aggression against our state)

I was born in MA (not my fault) worked there in the PRC or Moscow on the Charles, left 20 years ago when I could not get my wife a carry permit when our lives were under threat from scumbags I was investigating.

Those of you who do not live free cannot appreciate what it is like to really do so. Believe me it was an eye-opener the first year or two.

Move back to MA? Ain’t no way my butt even crosses the border into that scum hole.

JCUMM2
March 6, 2006, 01:20 PM
Hello all:
I live in Vermont and would like to clarify a few things.

First of all I would like to make it clear that Vermont does have gun laws. These laws regulate what a person is allowed to do with a firearm. It is illegal to commit a violent act against a person except for self defense. It is illegal to hurt an animal with a gun unless it is specifically stated as being legal in the Vermont hunting laws. It is illegal to threaten or brandish a firearm in a threat against another person. It is illegal to carry in a federal building or school. In other words there are laws which tell Vermonters to behave appropriately in their use of a firearm. You do have to go through a NICS check to buy from a FFL dealer. Also I would NEVER sell a firearm to someone I did not know or had ANY doubt whatsoever regarding their character. If I was going to sell a firearm and did not have a buyer I would sell it through a consignment agreement with a FFL dealer.

I used to live in Toledo, Ohio. I have learned that people who grow up in large cities LEARN that guns are bad and only owned by criminals. I think this plays right into the problems that occur in big cities. When people grow up with firearms and are taught how to properly use them as children their attitude is completely different. There is no big fascination about them. Guns are just another tool like a hammer or a screwdriver. There is no automatic mental association between guns and crime. In big cities where people associate the two it reinforces the need to have a gun if you are a criminal. It’s a whole different culture. That’s the real difference between places like Vermont and Massachusetts. Also, having a gun does not give you so much of an advantage in a place where there are lots of firearms. In cities with highly restrictive gun laws having a gun is a distinct advantage because you know most other people don’t. In places like Vermont there is a good possibility the other guy also has a gun so your gun is less of an advantage.

Also I find the whole psychology is different in a place like Vermont. Here most people are easy to get along with and ready to help others. In big cities there is an attitude of suspicion against anyone you do not know. The pressure to compete is less in Vermont. The pressure towards crime is less.

The main difference is not the guns. The difference is the attitude of the people with the guns. In places like New York or Boston most of the people with guns are either law enforcement or criminals. In places like Vermont and New Hampshire most of the people with guns are just normal law abiding citizens.

Gun laws do not make people safe. The culture of the society in which one lives determines this. Making people fear guns and fear each other (something that the news thrives on) increases crime. Growing up trusting each other and helping each other and learning guns are just another tool which needs to be used appropriately decreases crime.

ABTOMAT
March 6, 2006, 02:01 PM
On the other hand, you can pick up viruses, trojan horses and spy ware that will do as much damage as an AD.

Your computer can also be used to steal and defraud, to entice children into danger and so on.

If I pick up spyware and viruses I can just run some scanners or at the worst reinstall the OS. Not digging a .45 JHP out of a body part. I was talking about the accidential aspects. I'm not going to accidentially defraud myself or attract teenage runaways.

Define "a lot." Firearms accidents are very low on the list of dangerous instances, and have been declining for decades.

Just because folks don't end up blowing a finger off doesn't mean that are safe or can shoot. How many times do you see at the range, or hear from guys on boards like these, that there were xx individuals that day who were joking around with a gun, or not sticking to loading/clearing procedure, or shooting like someone from a rap video? Or a new shooter whose posture/stance/grip/whatever is totally wrong and doesn't know it?

Vern Humphrey
March 6, 2006, 02:16 PM
If I pick up spyware and viruses I can just run some scanners or at the worst reinstall the OS. Not digging a .45 JHP out of a body part. I was talking about the accidential aspects. I'm not going to accidentially defraud myself or attract teenage runaways.

And I'm not going to accidentally shoot myself, or anyone else.

If you feel firearms accidents are a real problem, show us the statistics.

If you think "training" is the answer, lay out your course and give us your validation data. In other words, prove that your course will actually reduce accidents.

bumm
March 6, 2006, 02:46 PM
Actually, there is some undeniable logic to most gun control laws. It would seem that with some sensible regulation, guns would at least be a bit more difficult to obtain for those who shouldn't have them.
However, such things have been tried many times in many places, and just like the "noble experiment" of the prohibition of alcohol in America, they have failed to improve the situation, and have often even made it worse. All one has to do is look around the country, and around the world.
Gun crimes are committed my bad people, and bad people don't follow laws and regulations. It's a big step to take up a gun and use it against decent people to get something you want, and decent people simply don't do such things. Lock those people who DO these crimes away for a long time, and leave the rest of us alone to enjoy the rights endowed to us by our creator and recognised in the American Bill of Rights.
Marty

depicts
March 6, 2006, 02:55 PM
when you say OP, do you mean original poster? If you do, you're mixing me and another poster up.

BTW, I am fully aware of the rules for safety classes in Massachusetts, thank you for being so precise.

Tory, you seem like someone who would do a good job suing the police for a permit,...are you my lawyer by any chance??? :)

I agree that individual Chiefs of Police issuing permits is not the best way to go, especially if you live in a restrictive town. If you live in a town with a sensible chief, it's a world of difference, and I have seen both kinds.

When I said a MUST ISSUE license like a drivers license, I meant that you couldn't be denied if you met the criterea, no violent felonies, not on probation, not an addict and a few others. Otherwise, until proven not worthy of the permit, you should get it.

By the way, when Massachusetts instituted the law that said you needed a hunter safety course for a hunting license, the previous conditions were a course approved by the NRA, or a signed document for a reputable person who would affirm your ability to handle firearms. Someone like your Scout Leader or your Father.

Once you had your first license, you never needed to have that hunter safety course.

Same thing with a pistol permit. If you had one before the law that said you had to have training, you were grandfathered in with a permit. I'm guessing you'd have to be older than 50 to be one of these people, but they are out there. Not that it matters, it's just a point of interest.

MICHAEL T, BTW, I have in my possession a Brown Bess that a great great uncle picked up off the ground at the battle of lexington and concord that you speak of. Uncle Henry would be ashamed of me if he didn't think I was just as willing to fight for my rights as he was. My Greatgrandfater, and his Father, both lived beyond 100 years old, so when I heard stories about "how it was", they were pretty personal to me. My Yankee stock goes back a long way. I met my Greatgrandfather when I was 9 and knew him until I was 14. He passed at 106 years of age. The Kimballs and the Halls passed on their love of freedom and country to hundreds of their offspring, maybe thousands.

Vern Humphrey
March 6, 2006, 03:38 PM
When I said a MUST ISSUE license like a drivers license, I meant that you couldn't be denied if you met the criterea, no violent felonies, not on probation, not an addict and a few others. Otherwise, until proven not worthy of the permit, you should get it.

That's the law in 37 states nowadays. You take the course, pass the background check and they have to issue the license.

It strikes me that any other system (other than the Vermont/Alaska approach) is unconstitutional -- allowing authorities to arbitrarily discriminate among people who merely desire to exercise their civil right to be armed.

chas_martel
March 6, 2006, 04:11 PM
depicts,
>It is supposed to be an automatic 1 year in prison in Mass if you are found with an illegal >gun. That law was passed sometime around 1974 I beleive. To the best of my knowledge, >due to plea bargianing ect, I don't think a half dozen people have ever been sentenced >under that law. If they had been, I think that would have taken a serious bite out of gun >crime.

Why is this a good idea. Again, punishment for having a gun is IGNORING
the problem. The person.

ABTOMAT,
I am waiting for your links to the statistics backing up your assertion about
how big a problem, in terms of numbers, the problem really is. What
percentage of our population is really impacted by unsafe gun handling.

ibex
March 6, 2006, 05:44 PM
Didn't read the whole thread (yet), but just off the top of my hat:

If in the states where it is legal to buy a firearm with no record of the transfer of that gun, what keeps that gun out of the hands of druggies and gangbangers?
Not a darned thing. Which just happens to be exactly what keeps guns out of the hands of druggies and gangbangers in Massachusetts (and D.C.): Not a darned thing.

scout26
March 6, 2006, 06:04 PM
What if Massachusetts is right??

Then Chicago, Washington DC, New York, etc would be (to quote El Tejon) "The violence-free petting zoos that we know them as today."

I remember my dad telling me that in the 50's the politico's stated that if they could just ban the switchblade knife, the gang problem would go away.

They did and it didn't, in fact it's only gotten worse. Ergo, it's not the implement but the person(s) behind the implement.

Headless Thompson Gunner
March 6, 2006, 06:31 PM
If in the states where it is legal to buy a firearm with no record of the transfer of that gun, what keeps that gun out of the hands of druggies and gangbangers??The character of the person who owns the gun.

If the prospects of arming a criminal don't give you pause, then neither will some middling paper trail.

EDIT:
Why do anti's always assume that without laws, we'd all be evil, murderous thugs?

"Gee, I'd love to go shoot up that schoolyard, but damn, that'd be illegal. I guess I have no choice but to be a decent and upstanding father/neighbor/citizen instead." :barf:

GruntII
March 6, 2006, 07:18 PM
depicts wrote


The latest incident was this week. A 31 year old son of a close friend of mine committed suicide with an illegal gun. In between there have been 39 years for me to meet people. Sorry if that makes me a scumbag in your eyes.

I'll see you around the VA. I'm the strange looking one who laughs when I walk by the VA police desk


Illegal gun. You use that term like you are describing a the bad boy biker your sister was dating when she was raped by him and his gang. People commit legal and illegal acts the gun, torch, knife , hammer etc are just tools.Guns have no disposition to act one way or another. What you are doing is the same thing as the Wonderful People from Walt Disney did with Bambi and anyone of a half dozen of their films in attributing human attibutes to things that do not have them.The kid you mention it didn't matter if he had possessed thegun legally or not he had made the decision to kill himself a healthy dose of vitamin P(percoset) orleavign the gas oven going in a locked room could have been used. The gun did not seductively whisper into his ear sweet nothings about how great killing himself would be. You have the same problem many have you seek to blame the gun as you wish to not see o understand the deep black void of evil many people have in them or you realize it and just do not want to accept people can be that way. The key is controlling the bad people.

As for laughing by the desk Drive on I say.Read my sig line.:D

aaronrkelly
March 6, 2006, 07:35 PM
At least in Mass, when I see someone in a gun shop buying ammo or guns, I can pretty well tell he or she isn't a dangerous felon or a wanted criminal.


Why do you feel this way just in Mass., in EVERY state in order to buy a firearm at a gun shop you must pass a NICS check.....

Rockstar
March 6, 2006, 08:00 PM
Barney Frank. Ted Kennedy. John Kerry, etc., etc., ad infinitum. Nah, MA isn't right...about much of anything!

ABTOMAT
March 6, 2006, 08:14 PM
Guys, I'm not saying that firearm-realted injuries _are_ a huge problem. I'm saying that a lot of inexperienced owners out there are are not playing safe. I don't mean the people on this board, obviously, but the newbies out there who don't quite have a complete grasp on the whole thing. It just makes sense for someone to know what they're doing. A lot of folks turn up on boards like these and say they're just getting into shooting, what should they do? A popular answer is shooting or CCW (as the case may be) instruction. Now think about the people who are getting into shooting and don't know to ask, or think they know everything because they've seen all the Chuck Norris movies?

You know as well as I do that there aren't any statistics for that. It's like people who are awful drivers but haven't gotten into accidents yet.

You're making sound like as long as no one gets shot there's no reason for someone to know good procedure or correct shooting methods. That's a big change from what I'm used to hearing. You want someone talking to you at a range with their finger on the trigger?

depicts
March 6, 2006, 08:17 PM
Chas_Martel you replied
"Why is this a good idea. Again, punishment for having a gun is IGNORING
the problem. The person."
in response to a comment I made about mandatory sentencing.

It has been proposed here, by more than just me, that instead of restrictions, criminals with guns should be treated firmly by the law. I was mentioning that Massachusetts had such a law, but it was seldom used, a failure as a deterrent as far as I could see. It's not ignoring the problem, it's enforcing the law.

If someone is caught with an illegaly possesed gun, they go to jail. That gets the criminal off the street, an effective first step in reducing crime using guns.

GruntII, I don't want to set you off with the illegal gun thing, of course I know it isn't the gun that was responsible for the death of my friends son. He had problems that weren't treated. It just happens that the gun he used to kill himself was not legally purchased. Maybe if he had to try some other method, he might not have been successful. I do however, know what you mean, he could have choosen a thousand ways to go.

mmike87
March 6, 2006, 08:28 PM
Personally, I see gun rights as being similar to the right to free speech - some reasonable restrictions (libel, copyrights, state secrets, and so on) are fair, so long as there is both a compelling need, and a minimum of harm done.

Good point - it's also important to note that free speech and the free press are THE most LETHAL weapons on Earth - yet anyone can say most anything.

Consider radical Islam. The hate an intolerance is spread by charismatic individual spewing out lies and half truths - resulting in the death of countless thousands of people, year after year. Yet the individuals responsible never fire a shot.

Shall we limit free speech based on some subjective criteria?

Freedom is ABOSLUTELY more important that safety.

Consider that Mussolini may have made the trains run on time, but that didn't make Italy a nice place to live! Consider the true cost of absolute order and safety.

mmike87
March 6, 2006, 08:35 PM
Originally Posted by depicts
At least in Mass, when I see someone in a gun shop buying ammo or guns, I can pretty well tell he or she isn't a dangerous felon or a wanted criminal.

But you CAN certainly be sure they are a elitist liberals who know better what's good for you and all of us. Or, at the very least, folks whom the liberal elite find "acceptable" or "good enough" to own firearms. People worthy of protecting themselves.

Tory
March 6, 2006, 08:36 PM
"If someone is caught with an illegaly [sic] possesed [sic] gun, they go to jail. That gets the criminal off the street, an effective first step in reducing crime using guns."

In point of fact, the true criminals are NOT going to jail because they possessed a gun illegally, it is because they were caught using it in a really serious crime; A&B, armed robbery, rape or murder. This means that the mandatory 1-year in jail for unlawful possession is IRREVELEVANT. If you are serving 10 years for armed robbery, the 1 year for unlawful possession is served concurrently, meaning it adds NOTHING to the time served. So much for deterrence.

Now tell us again how this law you so favor is "an effective first step in reducing crime using guns"...... :uhoh:

So - who REALLY gets charged and serves time for THAT crime? Well, here's ONE example:

Guy moves to Mass from Out West where they still have some concept of Freedom. Yes, his mistake... He knows nothing about gun licenses; don't need them where he comes from. Shortly after moving to the Home of "The Shot Heard 'Round The World," he decides to take his boy to the local range. Quality Time and all that.....

Dad gets stopped because his tires extend past his fender. Cop sees guns, seizes guns, arrests Dad, tows truck.

Dad now has an arrest record, a big tow/storage bill and even bigger legal fees ahead because he is charged with the crime of illegal possession. But wait; there's MORE!

A new resident has 60 days in which to get the necessary license. Did the cops - seeing the out of state plates and drivers license - even ASK when he moved to Mass? NO. They just hit him with a criminal charge carrying a MANDATORY 1-year jail term.

So, now you're thinking, "Well, surely the Ass't. District Attorney will see how ludicrous this is and drop the charge." Dream on, Ace. This is a "Gun Case" and the ADA has ZERO authority to drop the charge. The only decision he/she makes is whether to get Coke or Sprite from the vending machine at lunch - THAT decision is made by the District Attorney himself.

So, the luckless new Mass. resident is facing prison time because he took his lawfully acquired guns to Mass and got stopped by police too ignorant, insolent, arrogant and/or incompetent to even ask when he moved here.

THAT'S the sort of deranged criminal the OP thinks he's being saved from by this moronic law. Probably voted for Kennedy, too.......... :barf:

Tory
March 6, 2006, 08:40 PM
"If someone is caught with an illegaly [sic] possesed [sic] gun, they go to jail. That gets the criminal off the street, an effective first step in reducing crime using guns."

In point of fact, the true criminals are NOT going to jail because they possessed a gun illegally, it is because they were caught using it in a really serious crime; A&B, armed robbery, rape or murder. This means that the mandatory 1-year in jail for unlawful possession is IRREVELEVANT. If you are serving 10 years for armed robbery, the 1 year for unlawful possession is served concurrently, meaning it adds NOTHING to the time served. So much for deterrence.

Now tell us again how this law you so favor is "an effective first step in reducing crime using guns"...... :uhoh:

So - who REALLY gets charged and serves time for THAT crime? Well, here's ONE example:

Guy moves to Mass from Out West where they still have some concept of Freedom. Yes, his mistake... He knows nothing about gun licenses; don't need them where he comes from. Shortly after moving to the Home of "The Shot Heard 'Round The World," he decides to take his boy to the local range. Quality Time and all that.....

Dad gets stopped because his tires extend past his fender. Cop sees guns, seizes guns, arrests Dad, tows truck.

Dad now has an arrest record, a big tow/storage bill and even bigger legal fees ahead because he is charged with the crime of illegal possession. But wait; there's MORE!

A new resident has 60 days in which to get the necessary license. Did the cops - seeing the out of state plates and drivers license - even ASK when he moved to Mass? NO. They just hit him with a criminal charge carrying a MANDATORY 1-year jail term.

So, now you're thinking, "Well, surely the Ass't. District Attorney will see how ludicrous this is and drop the charge." Dream on, Ace. This is a "Gun Case" and the ADA has ZERO authority to drop the charge- THAT decision is made by the District Attorney himself. The only such decision an ADA makes is whether to get Coke or Sprite from the vending machine at lunch.

So, the luckless new Mass. resident is facing prison time because he took his lawfully acquired guns to Mass and got stopped by police too ignorant, insolent, arrogant and/or incompetent to even ask when he moved here.

THAT'S the sort of deranged criminal the OP thinks he's being saved from by this moronic law. Probably voted for Kennedy, too.......... :barf:

depicts
March 6, 2006, 09:44 PM
:) :)
MMike87, I'm smiling thinking of my friends at the counter, the elite ones, with flannel shirts, workboots, bluejeans ripped and covered with paint, a tooth here and a tooth there.....LOL..we're not all Kennedy's here in Massachusetts my friend :)

Tory, what happened to the idea that ignorance of the law was no excuse? I'm not saying the scenario you describe is the way it should be, I just like hearing your opinion, you sound so official, and proper...ACE! :)

I know if I moved somewhere new, actually before that, I'd make sure I'd know what was legal and what wasn't in terms of my guns, because they are important to me and I want to keep them.

BTW Tory, thanks again for pointing out my bad spellin' [sic], all us elite Massachusetts folks didn't go to Harvard!!!!:evil:

Tory
March 6, 2006, 10:26 PM
"Tory, what happened to the idea that ignorance of the law was no excuse?"

Unlike YOUR excuses, it is still a valid precept. :scrutiny:

Those who read and comprehended my post realize that it was the COPS who failed to know and apply the law. As in, before you charge an obvious newcomer w/illegal possession, get your head out of your hindquarters, your hindquarters in gear and CHECK how long they've been here! If the 60 days aren't up, they are still in the statutorily protected period.

Another concept which, like spell check, you've utterly failed to grasp. :rolleyes:

mmike87
March 6, 2006, 10:26 PM
MMike87, I'm smiling thinking of my friends at the counter, the elite ones, with flannel shirts, workboots, bluejeans ripped and covered with paint, a tooth here and a tooth there.....LOL..we're not all Kennedy's here in Massachusetts my friend

Hey - I covered that.

Or, at the very least, folks whom the liberal elite find "acceptable" or "good enough" to own firearms. People worthy of protecting themselves.

You and the flannel shirt workboot crowd are still "acceptable" - the problem arises when the liberal elite start to erode who is acceptable.

Fine example: Diane Feinstein in CA supposedly has a carry permit - yet in many parts of CA it's impossible for a "regular" citizen to get one.

Hope I didn't offend you - I certainly wasn't trying to! :) Just trying to prove a point.

depicts
March 6, 2006, 11:20 PM
Tory, I guess I did miss your hypothetical point. (Or was that a real example?) I guess you were right, if the guy had a time limit to transfer, and could still legally use firearms during that period, the cops might have been wrong, in which case I'm sure you got them good.

As for the spell check, sorry, I don't have it, glad you're good enough to proof my stuff!!!:evil:

MMike87, I guess I just don't know what your definition of elite is then, because most of the people I meet at my gun club are pretty normal everyday folks. When I think elite, I too think Kennedy, Kerry ect, ect. It doesn't occur to me that the plumbers, janitors, tile layers, builders, deli workers and others in my club are ELITE! These and other "Elite" guys pay $100 a year to shoot in a sandpit owned by our club for over 75 years. We have open membership, anyone is welcome who follows the rules and pays their dues. I wish you could come to one of our dinner meetings, and see if the term "elite" still comes to mind.

When Ted Kennedy tries to stomp on gun rights, and he has bodyguards carrying machineguns with him all the time, now THAT I call ELITE. No you didn't offend me by calling me elite, but if I was, wouldn't I have spell check?? ;)

chas_martel
March 7, 2006, 08:31 PM
depicts, you said
>If someone is caught with an illegaly possesed gun, they go to jail. That gets >the criminal off the street, an effective first step in reducing crime using guns.

That makes no sense whatsoever. How can you illegally posses a gun
when the 2nd Amendment exist???

Now, if what you mean is that someone that is wanted for murder or
robbery is picked up and put in jail then great. Why is it not
enough to put someone in jail for a real crime and ignore the fact they
are exercising their 2nd Amendment Rights? Do you want to prohibit
convicted felons from being able to verbally defend themselves
in court?

I know, your thinking this chas_martel guy is crazy he wants felons
to be allowed to possess guns. But, your ignoring the main thrust
of my argument. Put people in jail for what they do, not for the fact
they possess a gun. Where this has ended up is that we ignore
punishing people for the real crimes. Face it - this nation is soft on
serious criminals and WAY to knee-jerkness on soft crime and people
exercising unpopular "rights". I for one think these points are
some how related.

If you enjoyed reading about "What if Massachusetts is right??" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!