It seems most gun laws are just plain stupid

[General Geoff]

considering that all gun laws are based on the flawed premise that inanimate hunks of metal are somehow inherently dangerous and must be controlled, I submit that every single gun law on the books is just plain stupid.

Those the laws are intended to prevent from owning and/or using guns, are not inclined to follow the laws, and thus the laws are, even if not inherently useless, at best practically useless.

 

[9MMare]

If you have a license, "drivers license" you can buy a gun in FL, CCW is something else. But follow me for a minute.

.

Isnt the license just for ID purposes? They dont have to run a background check?

Sorry, not familiar with FL laws.

 

[9MMare]

...

 

[Owen Sparks]

General Geof said:

considering that all gun laws are based on the flawed premise that inanimate hunks of metal are somehow inherently dangerous and must be controlled, I submit that every single gun law on the books is just plain stupid.

Not exactly. Gun laws are based on the flawed premise that YOU are inherently dangerous and must be controlled. They treat you as a potential criminal before the fact based on your potential to misuse an inanimate object. There is really no such thing as gun control, gun laws are PEOPLE CONTROL. The law is simply a pre determined punishment to be used against you the minute you are caught with a forbidden object.

 

[eye5600]

Consider this: the first gun control laws arose in America right after Lincoln freed the slaves. The purpose of the laws were to restrict gun ownership to whites.

I'm not a historian of these thing, but I believe this is not completely correct. Some reconstruction-era gun laws were meant to guarantee the rights of blacks to own guns in order to defend themselves.

There are some gun laws that do make a lot of sense, e.g. serial number requirements. Recovered guns do get returned to rightful owners based on serial numbers.

I think the really stupid laws are the ones that are not only burdensome on the legal shooter, but ineffective for the stated purpose, like the AWB.

 

[KimberUltra]

gun laws are created to keep us gun wielding criminals in check.

 

[Owen Sparks]

Crime is an action not a tool.

 

[x_wrench]

you have to realize that these "gun laws" are written by the smartest criminals in america, congressmen and senators. they sit in their offices in dc, go golfing in privat country clubs, and do not have one flipping clue what is happening out here in the real world.they write laws on the basis of who gives them the biggest bribe. none of it has anything to do with protecting the american public, or serving the people. the only thing we are good for is votes, so they can keep collecting bribes. the government has not worked for the good of the poeople in well over 40 years.

 

[gym]

Good observation, plus the gun companys spen millions lobbying to keep the status quo. It's all just politics as usual.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

Why most gun laws are just plain stupid

James Wright and Peter Rossi (originally pro-gun control liberals, both of them)did the writeup on the DOJ felon survey in the 1980s Armed and Considered Dangerous, 1874 convicts in 18 prisons in 10 states. Most felons expected to easily be able to acquire weapons within a week of leaving prison.

o Half of felons cited dealers in contraband--smugglers and fences--as their main source.
o One quarter expected to be supplied a gun by a fellow criminal on the outside.
o One eighth expected to steal their own guns.
o One eighth (~13%) expected to get guns from pawnshops or gunstores, usually by having a friend or relative with a clean record buy for them.

Wright and Rossi ended up losing their blind faith in gun control, the more they studied the issue.

Sources of theft include gun shipments between gun makers and wholesalers or retailers (especially for full-time dealers in contraband, including drug dealers and fences). Theft, bribery or extortion from military or police with access to arsenals is a source of serious weaponry.

So, we have at most 400,000 firearms criminals in America, and 80,000,000 lawabiding gun owners. What should be the focus of laws aimed at gun violence? Why, of course, it is the 80,000,0000 that are the focus of gun laws, not the 400,000.

The CDC in 2003 and the NAS in 2004 conducted critical reviews of gun research and concluded that there is no evidence to indicate that any of the existing gun control laws have a measurable benefit.

How can they? I believe that controlling criminal violence through laws aimed at legal guns and their owners is comparable to controlling prostitution (illegal sex)by continually adding restrictions to marriage licenses (legal sex).


Wright and Rossi, Second revised edition described here:
http://www.amazon.com/Armed-Considered-Dangerous-Peter-Rossi/dp/0202362426/

 

[Carl N. Brown]

I think the really stupid laws are the ones that are not only burdensome on the legal shooter, but ineffective for the stated purpose, like the AWB.

The AWB was ineffective for its stated purpose (crime control) because it affected me as a sportsman, but not the criminals committing crimes in my hometown. The critical reviews of gun research by the Center for Disease Control and the National Academy of Sciences in 2003 and 2004 could find no measurable impact on crime by the gun control laws like the AWB.

But how about its unstated purpose?

After the expiration of the 75-year official secrets act seal, it turned out that what the British 1920 Firearms Act was about was not crime control: it was the fear by the British Government of a revolution after WWI like the one that happened in Russia. They were afraid that unemployed British WWI veterans would take arms against the Crown. The public stated purpose was crime control; the purpose behind closed doors was fear of revolution.

I suspect the unstated purpose behind the US 1994-2004 federal assault weapon ban was the fear of a Y2K uprising by millinneal "end-of-the-world cults" in 1999-2000-2001 as predicted by the Department of Justice "Operation Megiddo". (see the FBI report "Project Megiddo" http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/lps3578/www.fbi.gov/library/megiddo/megiddo.pdf ) I also suspect the expiration of the AWB was allowed because the Y2K conspiracy hoopla did not pan out.

 

[9MMare]

James Wright and Peter Rossi (originally pro-gun control liberals, both of them)did the writeup on the DOJ felon survey in the 1980s Armed and Considered Dangerous, 1874 convicts in 18 prisons in 10 states. Most felons expected to easily be able to acquire weapons within a week of leaving prison.

o Half of felons cited dealers in contraband--smugglers and fences--as their main source.
o One quarter expected to be supplied a gun by a fellow criminal on the outside.
o One eighth expected to steal their own guns.
o One eighth (~13%) expected to get guns from pawnshops or gunstores, usually by having a friend or relative with a clean record buy for them.

Wright and Rossi ended up losing their blind faith in gun control, the more they studied the issue.

Sources of theft include gun shipments between gun makers and wholesalers or retailers (especially for full-time dealers in contraband, including drug dealers and fences). Theft, bribery or extortion from military or police with access to arsenals is a source of serious weaponry.

So, we have at most 400,000 firearms criminals in America, and 80,000,000 lawabiding gun owners. What should be the focus of laws aimed at gun violence? Why, of course, it is the 80,000,0000 that are the focus of gun laws, not the 400,000.

The CDC in 2003 and the NAS in 2004 conducted critical reviews of gun research and concluded that there is no evidence to indicate that any of the existing gun control laws have a measurable benefit.

How can they? I believe that controlling criminal violence through laws aimed at legal guns and their owners is comparable to controlling prostitution (illegal sex)by continually adding restrictions to marriage licenses (legal sex).


Wright and Rossi, Second revised edition described here:
http://www.amazon.com/Armed-Considered-Dangerous-Peter-Rossi/dp/0202362426/

Good post. Thx

 

[dave284]

How can all of you say gun laws are stupid? All you have to do is look at the wonders of banning an item. Look at how all the drug laws keep drugs off the street,you can walk two blocks from the white house and buy crack all day.(not literally but not far off).If the Bradyites ban all guns then we could buy any gun we wanted from the local dealer,just like drugs are now. If they want to make us safer then ban all cars, I know more people hurt by cars than guns. The laws can only work if they can be enforced. Our law enforcement is overloaded with this type of mush from the politicos wanting to look good to the masses. I sure dont know the solution but its not more laws.

 

[KimberUltra]

That is indeed the problem. Gun laws like these magazine bands and assault weapon bands and rules and crap only hurt the law abiding gun owners. CT was trying to make anyone who owned a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds a class d felon. Luckily it didn't pass, but ok go ahead and ban the magazines. Now all the bad guys who don't follow the rules are using hi cap mags and the victims are stuck using stupid little single stacks to defend our homes and families.

It's impossible for the government to stop criminals from possessing drugs and illegally obtained guns. no law will stop a criminal from owning a gun. There's plenty of laws that hinder a law abiding citizen from owning a gun.

The best defense against criminals I think is an armed citizenship. Right now for the most part criminals are only afraid of cops(and even that's a longshot at best). If the government allowed us to adequately defend ourselves and others then criminals would be afraid of all of us.

 

[BigN]

Of course they're silly. Look at the people who think these things up and write the laws. The bulk of them are silver-spoon fed sissies who wouldn't know a shotgun from a handgun. The power these people have is by way of position, not by way of knowledge or merit.

 

[Neverwinter]

The best defense against criminals I think is an armed citizenship. Right now for the most part criminals are only afraid of cops(and even that's a longshot at best). If the government allowed us to adequately defend ourselves and others then criminals would be afraid of all of us.

Passing gun laws to prevent crime is using a beach umbrella to keep yourself dry at the bottom of a waterfall. It would be much more effective to affect the problem farther upstream with a dam. Does it make more sense to have trigger locks and magazine disconnects or educate people on gun safety to prevent gun accidents?

The best defense against criminals is to undermine the environment that produces criminals. Our drug laws ensure that the supply is restricted to the point where there is extreme profitability available to those willing to take the risks to distribute. Those profits are enabling the criminal element in waging war on each other with the rest of us caught in the crossfire. In Mexico, the violence contributes heavily to the motivation of people illegally crossing the border.
The consequences do not end there. Harsh penalties for even the smallest of possessions make it difficult for them to have a productive, lawful career afterwards as opposed to a criminal career.
Additionally, education would also assist in minimizing the number of criminals created by providing the opportunity to live a successful career inside the law.

 

[KimberUltra]

While I partly agree with educating people, some people would rather be criminals than work for a living. I know people who make more money with 3 kids on welfare than I do in a 40 hour week, and I make a pretty decent wage. Laziness and sense of entitlement is the reason a lot of people are criminals.

 

[Neverwinter]

While I partly agree with educating people, some people would rather be criminals than work for a living. I know people who make more money with 3 kids on welfare than I do in a 40 hour week, and I make a pretty decent wage. Laziness and sense of entitlement is the reason a lot of people are criminals.

Education addresses the example you gave of the single parent with 3 children on welfare. Yet another case of fixing the issue farther downstream from the origination and being less effective than preventing them from reaching that situation.
Gun companies recall products when they are found to be defective in a manner affecting safety, which is a better option than reimbursing the medical costs of the people harmed. Even more cost effective are QA process improvements that prevent defective products from being distributed to consumers.

 

[Owen Sparks]

Most of you still seem to be under the impression that gun control is about crime. Sure, crime reduction is the populist cause used to market more gun control more palatable to the gullible public, but that is not the real purpose. Many in government feel that the state should have a monopoly on the use of force and that the individual should never be allowed to use violence, even in self defense, or at the very least not in defense of his property.

Governments prefer docile passive cowards who never resist authority, even the illegitimate authority of a mugger. How many times have you heard police say “Never resist an attacker you might get hurt” or “Just give him what he wants” or some such hooey? The type of person who might forcibly resist a criminal is the same exact sort who might forcibly resists a tyrannical government and statists fear these people and want them disarmed.

 

[gym]

Owen, that fits in perfectlly with the theory of attack them from within. I think most of us know that in a matter of a decade or less there will be enough of the insurgents to just flip the script on us. If we have no way to defend ourselves, there truelly will be an overnight ,"for emphasis", turnover of the balance of power in this great country. They don't have to blow up of shoot down anthing. Just wait us out and pass a series of laws that strips us of any power to resist.

 

[Owen Sparks]

It is really not a conspiracy but a clash of two different personality types.

The statist sees the use of force as an exclusive privilege of the state while the individualist conceders the ability to use force as an extension of the individual’s right to defend his life, liberty and property and the state as no more than a hired guard who acts in the individuals absence.

The statist personality wants control over others and is naturally drawn to government.

The individualist personality simply wants to be left alone and expects no more out of government than he would from a private security agency.

This is the great conflict between those who desire rule over others and those who have no such desire to be ruled. In modern society no person can gain absolute power over others so the next best thing is to side with an existing authority. We are all familiar with the bossy little sister who sides with Mom. You can hear her now....
“Yea Johnny, do as you are told.” These are the tattle tales, the informers, the hall monitors at school, the busy bodies and the squealers. This is the personality type drawn to government especially the unaccountable and unelected bureaucracy. To people like this your gun is seen as a symbol of defiance to authority and they always side with authority.

 

[AlexanderA]

Owen Sparks wrote:

It is really not a conspiracy but a clash of two different personality types. ...

The statist personality wants control over others and is naturally drawn to government.

The individualist personality simply wants to be left alone and expects no more out of government than he would from a private security agency.

I think that most people show various combinations of the "statist" and "individualist" traits. Hardly anybody is purely one or the other. That's what makes political analysis so complicated and difficult.

 

[Black Butte]

All the politicians need to do is pass a bill that bans stupid gun laws.

 

[Owen Sparks]

A common attitude among statists is that the government should have a monopoly on the use of force.

The right of self defense is seen as a collective right rather than an individual right. Therefore, the individual has no business with a weapon because a weapon is a tool for a job that only the state may perform and "You can't take the law into your own hands". How many times have you heard that?