The Constitutionlity of Gun Control

[Publicola]

Billmanweh,
I'm afraid your cause & effect is a bit confused.

Ya see, it's not because the 120,000+ machine guns are registered that their owners didn't use them in a crime - it's because those 120,000+ people didn't want to commit any crimes with them.

The registration itself does nothing other than register those people. It does not prevent someone on the verge of robbing a bank from doing so.

Neither does an unregistered weapon cause the owner to rob trains.

It's not a coincidence, but neither is it a causal relationship.

But the reason so many full auto owners do not violate the law is not because their squirt guns are registered & they couldn't get away with something (this would be fallacy - no way to trace a bullet accurately to a specific gun, & unles caught red handed the gun would not be very helpful in establishing guilt): it's simply because they have no desire or need to commit such violent crimes.

You seen the price for full auto guns lately? A grand might get you something cheap & homely. Mots full auto's are in 4 figures real close to 5 figures. Usually if you have enough cash to buy the things, then economics isn't going to be a compelling reason to rob a liquor store.

Not that it couldn't happen - but most violent crime committed with full auto weapons can be more readily attributed to a desire to steal money (or earn money through murder) than anything else - which will leave most people who can afford one or two or a dozen full auto weapons without the most common motive.

& this is just a guess - but I'd assume that there are at least as many unregistered machine guns as there are registered ones. Yet you don't hear about shootings with a full auto every day. In fact they're fairly uncommon nationwide. So for every unregistered full auto out there, I wonder how many there are whose owners don't have any violently criminal intent?

One last thing - of all the unregistered machine guns whose owners are charged with crimes, I'll again go out on a limb & wager that the majority (if not the vast majority) of those charges are merely for possession. To be more clear I'd assume that most people charged with crimes concerning unregistered full auto weapons have committed no other crime than possessing them contrary to the government's wishes.

 

[Billmanweh]

The registration itself does nothing other than register those people.

the tight registration is absolutely keeping those guns from being used in crimes.

the 120,000+ owners of machine guns aren't committing violent crimes, you're right. in fact, I would guess as a group they are some of the most law abiding people in the country. one way we know that is because they've been through a two month long fbi background check.

and secondly (and I think this is just as important), it holds you accountable for your gun. if your legally registered M60 is used in an armored car robbery, you can't just say "oh, that M60, I think I sold it some guy a while back" if your legally registered M60 is used in an armored car robbery, the atf/fbi is going to be crawling up your backside.

I'm saying that the title ii system proves both sides are partly right. it's the perfect microcosm to look at this issue. it's obviously not the guns, because there are tens of thousands of the nastiest, full automatic, belt-fed black guns that would make chuck schummer and hillary clinton pee their pants. and people are dropping like flies, right? nope, not a single violent crime committed with one in 70 years. but if you want one, you'll go through a two month long fbi background check and be held accountable for it's use 24/7.

I don't believe my cause and effect is confused at all, I think it's spot on.

(and the prices are irrelevant. the high prices have only come in the last 10-15 years, and only on full auto)

 

[nualle]

Billmanweh asked: is there anyplace in the world that has tried this? no restrictions on arms of any kind?

jimpeel answered: Yes. The United States of America prior to 1934.

Uh... that'd have to be some of the United States of America prior to 1934. Many states had gun-control laws long before then. No more just then than they are now.

 

[Wildalaska]

Billman dont be reasonable, thats not permitted in this type of discussion...

It upsets just the sheeple/blissninnies and the ninjaninnies...

WildwouldliketoseemorevotesAlaska

 

[Publicola]

Billmanweh,
Lemme try it like this:

The registered machine gun owners are not law abiding because they got registered. They got registered because they're law abiding.

Understand the difference?

& like I said - registration if any kind of weapon will not aide in catching someone who used it in a crime. well, not unless a witnessed snapped a pic of the gun's serial number.
No way to trace a bullet back to the gun 100% positively. & w/o the serial number then all you can do is narrow it down to registered owners of that type of weapon.

But generally speaking I doubt any of the registered owners of machine guns have thought about robbing banks but decided against it because they wer registered. They probably decided against it because they're moral.

& background checks simply mean you haven't been caught or you have been caught. they in no way give us any isnight into a person being trustworthy or good. Likewise a failed background check doesn't necessarily mean a person is not trustworthy or that he/she has a violent intent.

& again I must point out that the vast majority of unregistered full auto's aren't used in crime either (from my estimates that is).

& if I recall there were two crimes committed by those with registered full auto's. I can't recall the details but I do remember hearing about those two exceptions.

& expense is nto something recent. In 1935 it took a $200 tax to buy a $175 Thompson (or a $10 shotgun). That $200 was a lot of money back then. By the time it became more reasonable in relation to the prices of the items Congress screwed things up again.

But prior to 1968 it was legal to own a full auto as long as it was disassembled. No tac stamp or registration for a disassembled firearm. Common practice (from what I hear) was to keep it disassembled unless you were taking it to shoot, then if the cops came up you took it apart again. Kept you off the registry & kept 200 hard earned dollars in your pocket.

So there was a smaller number of registered full auto's prior to 1968 - which is consequently when the expense started going up on the items themselves.

In any case, registration is not a very effective deterent as those with harmful intent will simply not register - thus leaving the registered owners with an impeccable record of lawfullness.

Think of it like this: if you had to get a license for sex, would that stop people from cheating on their partners? If those so licensed had a high monogomy rate would you say it's because they would have been faithful with or without a license or would you think the license caused them to not stray?

registration has one purpose & one purpose only. It's very effective at that purpose but it absolutely sucks at all others. The one thing it excels at is making confiscation easier.

 

[Geech]

Billman, NFA may have kept those guns from being used in crime, but by your own admission it could not stop other automatic weapons from being used in crimes. Whether or not NFA 34 actually made is less likely for automatic weapons to be used in crime is anyone's guess, because we have no reliable evidence either way.

 

[dustind]

the fact that 120,000+ legally owned and registered machine guns are in civilian hands and not a single one has ever been used by it's owner in a violent crime, and every machine gun used in a violent crime over the last 70 years has been an unregistered gun...

Lets change register to "thrown to the bottom of the sea"

the fact that 120,000+ machine guns are at the bottom of the sea in an undisclosed location and not a single one has ever been used in a violent crime, and every machine gun used in a violent crime over the last 70 years has been spared from destruction...

Sure registration (in some cases, not others) and destroying an object guarantees it wont be used in a crime. The fallacy is believing that because you have kept an object from being used in a crime, that you have prevented the crime. I could with 100% certainty guarantee that any object, be it gun, car, or knife would never fall into the wrong hands by either destroying it, or to a lesser extent by raising its value and making it hard to get.

If I took a desirable class of cars, and barred civilians from owning newly built ones, and made it difficult to transfer or own one, would that lower the number of cars used to flee banks after robberies? Yes if you are talking about the group that was restricted, no if you look at total cars in general.

 

[Stinkyshoe]

No offense Bill St. Clair.....but

I don't agree with you. I think that the only restriction on guns should be age(referring to someone too youthful) Maybe your son is an exceptional young man who is responsible and thinks about how his actions affect others. But the fact is, most 12 year olds don't have the mental discipline to act responsibly(atleast most 12 year olds I've met). So should a 12 year(no referring to your son,but 12 year olds who never took hunter safety or went shooting with dad) that barely knows which end the bullet comes out of be given the same fully automatic as a soldier/police/responsible member of society. Children are the exception to this. Especially most children in this country. This kids raised my Batman, Ninja turtles, Britney Spears and Bill Clinton.

I made the mistake of allowing an a guy I know come to my farm to go shooting. The first thing his son did went they got out the van was stick a 30 round clip in "his" sks and start blasting off toward town. He was shooting into the ground and the bullets were bouncing off. Who knows how many other farm houses or farmers were out there that could have been hit. I was all I could do to keep from slugging the little **** head and breaking off his trigger finger. They have not been invited back. This kid was about 12 at the time.

If this were a different day and age, where kids had to grow up faster and take on more responsibility, then maybe 12 year olds could have a FA. Until then, cross our fingers to keep the rights we do have as sane, patriotic, upstanding, and productive members of society.

 

[tyme]

bill,
"my point has nothing to do with the usefulness of full auto fire"

Oh, but it does. If full-auto weapons are not any more useful than semi-auto, then it's silly to breaking down stats using those categories and to say "Look at how great it is that registered full-autos aren't being used in crime."

And there are logic problems with even that statement taken alone, as has been pointed out.

Maybe we should register alcohol thermometers, then praise the registration system when nobody dies as a result of breaking them open and drinking the alcohol, even while people are dying from breaking open mercury thermometers and drinking that. And while unregistered alcohol thermometers are available on the black market and are still causing deaths.

See the problem?

 

[Bill St. Clair]

Stinkeyshoe,

Sounds like that guy with SKS was not a responsible gun owner. I submit that there is only a very loose correlation between age and responsibility. My son happens to have been brought up with the four rules since he first shot a BB gun at age 8 or 9. He now shoots traps with the rest of the guys and is as safe as anyone. Some people are never that safe. So picking an age out of a hat makes no sense. And having the government issue "safe gun owner" cards doesn't work either; too much opportunity for abuse of power. I maintain my position as stated.

 

[Billmanweh]

Oh, but it does. If full-auto weapons are not any more useful than semi-auto, then it's silly to breaking down stats using those categories and to say "Look at how great it is that registered full-autos aren't being used in crime."

I'm using full autos as an example because there is a clear subset of guns and owners that are tightly regulated, and then there is (possibly an equal number even) another subset which are illegal and outside of any control or regulation. It's irrelevant that they are full auto.

 

[Billmanweh]

Billman dont be reasonable, thats not permitted in this type of discussion...

Well, I think part of my argument is that neither side can be reasonable. And for good reason, pardon the pun. If you made this same argument to a group that is anti-gun, they'd still say that no one needs a machine gun and they cause crime. Even when you clearly point out that it's not the case.

 

[Geech]

If you made this same argument to a group that is anti-gun, they'd still say that no one needs a machine gun and they cause crime. Even when you clearly point out that it's not the case.

One thing you haven't done is show that these regulations prevented crime, though. When you yourself admit that full auto crime still happens with illegal weapons, than what on earth are you trying to prove here?

 

[biere]

I have been doing some thinking while reading this thread. And what I have come to stands with my earlier post pretty closely. The federal government should not be able to restrict my ability to purchase firearms.

If certain states or cities wish to vote in restrictions, let them have all the sheeple they can handle.

As for visitors to this country, I think anyone on the soil of the USA should be able to call up a gun manufacturer and buy a gun. No need for an ffl since we are unloading restrictions. There will still be gun stores so someone can go in and look at different items and what not, but no paperwork needed to become a store that sells an inanimate object.

That is what I consider a gun. It is an object. All harm comes from the user.

Users need to be restricted, if they prove unsafe then lock them away until such time that they are either safe for public consumption or they are dead.

And that is all the restriction to users, either they are part of the public or they are locked up or they are dead.

Nothing that creates classes of people is acceptable when it is the government doing the enforcement. And don't that that statement to mean I think all should make the same amount of money. I simply dislike laws being applied in an unequal way because someone has a certain label.

 

[jimpeel]

Billmanweh

just so that I'm clear what you're saying...

the fact that 120,000+ legally owned and registered machine guns are in civilian hands and not a single one has ever been used by it's owner in a violent crime, and every machine gun used in a violent crime over the last 70 years has been an unregistered gun...

that's just a coincidence?

The fact is that the machine gun hobby is very closely held. The firearms cost in the tens of thousands of dollars and some cost over $1,500/min to run. They are not a cheap date.

Yes, we have wealthy people who abuse firearms, Menendez Bros., etc.

When was the last time you heard anything about the North Hollywood shootout between the cops and the bank robbers armed with real, honest-to-God AK-47s?

Another question for you:

Why haven't you heard anything about it?

The answer:

The reason that the anti-gun crowd does not mention the North Hollywood shootout is because that one singular incident exists as the most credible evidence of the failure of gun control.

Are AK-47 (Avtomatica Kalashnikova-47) sub-machine guns legal in America?

NO

Did those firearms come into America legally?

NO

Did those firearms come into America through a port-of-entry?

NO

Did those firearms come through customs?

NO

Did they pay a customs duty on those firearms?

NO

Did they pay the required $200.00 transfer fee, required since 1934, on those firearms?

NO

Did they register those firearms as required since 1934?

NO

Did they fill out any paperwork on those firearms?

NO

Did they go through a background check?

NO

Did they get them anyway?

YES

Why? because gun control is a failure and those who think that it is the answer are being duped by others or are duping themselves.

 

[Billmanweh]

The registered machine gun owners are not law abiding because they got registered. They got registered because they're law abiding.

Agreed.

& like I said - registration if any kind of weapon will not aide in catching someone who used it in a crime. well, not unless a witnessed snapped a pic of the gun's serial number.

I'm not talking about catching someone who used it in a crime, I'm talking about nipping it in the bud and it not being used in a crime to begin with. And in 70 years, registration has accompished that 100%.

But generally speaking I doubt any of the registered owners of machine guns have thought about robbing banks but decided against it because they wer registered. They probably decided against it because they're moral.

We agree again, 100%. I've already said I would bet title ii gun owners are among the most law abiding people in the country.

& background checks simply mean you haven't been caught or you have been caught. they in no way give us any isnight into a person being trustworthy or good. Likewise a failed background check doesn't necessarily mean a person is not trustworthy or that he/she has a violent intent.

We disagree here. How many people who walk into a bank with the intention of robbing it could pass the fbi's background check that's required for title ii ownership? Close to 0% would be my guess. I'm not saying background checks are foolproof, far from it. And I'm not even debating whether or not felons should be able to own firearms. But don't try and tell me that background checks aren't keeping criminals from purchasing guns through legal means.

& again I must point out that the vast majority of unregistered full auto's aren't used in crime either (from my estimates that is).

I completely agree, but the percentage is irrelevant to this discussion. Not one legally registered machine gun owned by a civilian has been used in a violent crime, and every violent crime where a machine gun was used involved an unregistered gun. We're not comparing minority/majority, we have a totality.

& if I recall there were two crimes committed by those with registered full auto's. I can't recall the details but I do remember hearing about those two exceptions.

One that I have ever heard of.

"On September 15th, 1988, a 13-year veteran of the Dayton, Ohio police department, Patrolman Roger Waller, then 32, used his fully automatic MAC-11 .380 caliber submachine gun to kill a police informant, 52-year-old Lawrence Hileman. Patrolman Waller pleaded guilty in 1990, and he and an accomplice were sentenced to 18 years in prison. The 1986 'ban' on sales of new machine guns does not apply to purchases by law enforcement or government agencies."

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcfullau.html

As a police officer, he would have unfettered access to machine guns anyhow, so it seems immaterial that it happened to be registered to him personally.

& expense is nto something recent. In 1935 it took a $200 tax to buy a $175 Thompson (or a $10 shotgun). That $200 was a lot of money back then. By the time it became more reasonable in relation to the prices of the items Congress screwed things up again.

What I was saying (I think) is that the really exorbitant prices are recent. Up until 17 years ago, a $700 M16 would cost $900. Pricey, but not ridiculous. But I agree with you that Congress screwed it up big time.

In any case, registration is not a very effective deterent as those with harmful intent will simply not register - thus leaving the registered owners with an impeccable record of lawfullness.

I don't think I completely agree with you. Having your gun registered and being responsible for it's whereabouts deters that gun from being used in a crime. Sort of like capital punishment may or may not deter anyone else from committing a crime, but it sure as hell deters the guy with the needle in his arm. But I agree that the guy who is getting his gun legally registered is not being "deterred", he's just less likely to begin with.

registration has one purpose & one purpose only. It's very effective at that purpose but it absolutely sucks at all others. The one thing it excels at is making confiscation easier.

Agree and disagree. In the real world, yeah, registration has been used as a precursor to confiscation. But other people in this thread have pointed to Switzerland as a gun haven because every household has an assault rifle. Check again on high tightly registered those assault rifles are.

Once again, 120,000+ legally owned and registered machine guns are in civilian hands and not a single one has ever been used by it's (ok, civilian) owner in a violent crime, and every machine gun used in a violent crime over the last 70 years has been an unregistered gun. All correlation and no causation huh?

 

[Billmanweh]

That is what I consider a gun. It is an object. All harm comes from the user.

So should we remove any restrictions on handling or disposal or radioactive material or hazardous waste? Punishment is nice, but wouldn't making sure they are handled safely to begin with be a better bet in the long run?

 

[Geech]

Once again, 120,000+ legally owned and registered machine guns are in civilian hands and not a single one has ever been used by it's (ok, civilian) owner in a violent crime, and every machine gun used in a violent crime over the last 70 years has been an unregistered gun.

But what does that prove?! The tax law hasn't stopped crimes from being commited with full autos, so what good is it? I can't believe how many times you've just ignored this point.

 

[ksnecktieman]

Bill? I am sorry that your brain was damaged, do you know when it happened? If you have been in a car accident in the last ten years you should hire a liar,,,, I mean a lawyer, to try to make you rich........... guns are just tools, fast or slow does not matter,,,,,, they have to have a MAN(WOMAN) holding them to hurt anyone. Guns are not evil, only people can commit crimes, with guns or knives or newsprint, the tools are only tools.

Gun control does not help with crime control, it only makes it harder for citizens to defend themselves, from criminals or government.

 

[dustind]

I don't think I completely agree with you. Having your gun registered and being responsible for it's whereabouts deters that gun from being used in a crime.

And that makes the world a better place how?

I'm not talking about catching someone who used it in a crime, I'm talking about nipping it in the bud and it not being used in a crime to begin with. And in 70 years, registration has accompished that 100%.

That does not prevent crime at all, if you take away a firearm before someone can get it, they will get a different one. If I could go back in time to where you got your last firearm or car from, and buy it before you did, would be unarmed or without a car? I am willing to bet no, you would have gotten another just like it. If I go out and get a random firearm and destroy it I am not doing a thing to the crime rate at all.

 

[Billmanweh]

But what does that prove?! The tax law hasn't stopped crimes from being commited with full autos, so what good is it? I can't believe how many times you've just ignored this point.

It doesn't "prove" anything. It's just a fact that's part of a larger argument. No one here is going to prove anything, we're just discussing the issue.

And whether or not gun regulations are stopping crime in general has got nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

Hypothetical. You manufacture 100 guns. 50 are sold to registered users who pass background checks and the other 50 are sold to anyone who has the cash. The first 50 are never used in a crime over the course of several decades and the second group are used to commit several violent murders. Have you proven that registering the first group has lessened the overall crime rate? No. Apples and Oranges. But would you just pass it off as a coincidence and continue to sell your guns to the unregistered group?

 

[Billmanweh]

Bill? I am sorry that your brain was damaged, do you know when it happened?

From the house rules;

4.) Spamming, trolling, flaming, and personal attacks are prohibited. You can disagree with other members, even vehemently, but it must be done in a well-mannered form. Attack the argument, not the arguer.

Unless you can't attack my argument and must attack me personally to make a point?

 

[Billmanweh]

And that makes the world a better place how?

Who said anything about making the world a better place? Or lowering the overall crime rate? It wasn't me.

 

[ksnecktieman]

Bill? I apologise for my attack on you. It is my opinion that registering guns (fully auto, or otherwise) has no effect on crime. it is a control issue, of guns and citizens, not of crime. If someone is going to commit a crime with a gun, the possibility of the gun being illegal is trivial. How can it matter that a gun is not legal, maximum penalty five years, if someone wants to kill someone with it(maximum penalty 20 to the chair). You can lock up twenty people for breaking gun control laws, and not affect crime. If you lock up three career criminals (whether they use guns or not) that will affect crime. The fact remains, that criminals = people that break laws. Will one more law keep them from armed robbery, murder or aggravated assault?

 

[Stinkyshoe]

Bill S. C.
I think what you just said makes sense. You are absolutely correct that at the age of 25, some people are still unsafe with firearms. I think fundamentally we agree. I guess I'd be concerned if a 12 year old bought a FA without the permission, guidance and supervision of his parents. My father taught me to shoot at the age of 5, and kept an eye on me until I was 14. I really appreciate him teaching me gun safety and looking out for me. I not saying that a 12 year old shouldn't own something like that, I guess I just doubt the seriousness of most 12 years today.

"He now shoots traps with the rest of the guys and is as safe as anyone. Some people are never that safe. So picking an age out of a hat makes no sense. And having the government issue "safe gun owner" cards doesn't work either; too much opportunity for abuse of power. I maintain my position as stated."

I agree that age means nothing when it comes safety but are you saying that they should lower the age of purchasing shot guns, rifles and handguns? Should 12 year olds also be allowed to drive cars, or is the reasoning because the constitution doesn't say anything about cars, then it can be regulated?

Thanks for replying and discussing,
Ss