What are reasonable gun laws in your opinion?

[M2Pilot]

General Geoff & Mr. Designer got it right in posts on the 1st page of this topic.

 

[hnk45acp]

If it doesn't solve a problem, then it probably isn't a legitimate government interest.

The government is in fact in the business of education whether it's public schools or driver's testing or public awareness campaigns. Now I'm NOT as stated in previous post advocating that the govt. should be teaching classes. Nor am I mandating everyone NEEDS to take a class, just that they should be able to answer basic questions about operating a gun and use of force (if carrying) or local hunting regs. (if hunting).

But in states with training requirements, how many people were "chilled" from exercising their right? How many poor people thought the classes and licensing were too expensive and never bothered? How many people were intimidated by all the paperwork and laws?

I never said anything about licensing and there would be very few laws and no paperwork. I don't think people are "chilled/intimidated" to get driver's licenses or boating licenses or registering to vote and so forth.
Like I said if someone wants to do something like driving, boating (which are more expensive) than guns, then they will find a way. They can get someone who knows to teach them or maybe the NRA could give free classes or their local gun shop could give free classes which would be mutually beneficially for both store and customer. As much as people on this board like to compare our rights to vote and speech and expression, the fact remains that if you leave your right to speech laying around no one's gonna pick it up and potentially harm themselves or others with it.

You have STATED that LAWS would be a desirable way to deal with firearms education, even though you admit there is no actual problem to solve. That definitely intimates that you automatically consider the owners to be dangerous if there is no mandatory training.

No problem as you define it, as I define it the problem is ignorance. Ignorance is dangerous, guns in the hands of the ignorant are potentially dangerous.

 

[poor_richard]

A better question would be "Who in their right mind would board the plane with a bunch of Sky Marshall wanna bees packin" Can only imagine how long the line up would be for pilots for the plane.

Sign me up for that airline. It sounds a lot safer that what is currently available. At least on that imaginary airline I would have my personal right to life (SD) honored. It is fact that, zones where the people are disarmed tend to be more open to those who prey upon others. IOW gun free zones facilitate crime rather that prevent it. That's why airliners made such good targets. The terrorists knew they would face little to no opposition. I try to avoid airports because anyplace where citizens are not allowed to arm themselves for SD is not a safe place. Further that they are enclosed spaces with less room for evading and escaping, and it's a place I'll avoid thank you.

That comment is nothing less, than more of the same "blood in the streets" fear mongering. Problem is, we've been using that theory for 30+ years, and it gets people killed.

 

[Intune]

frankie -

But even if they can get them, they will not be able to sneak them aboard the plane.

"Sneak"? Why? Those metal detectors must be working great then 'cause you FEEL safe. You/we aren't. Look at the security setup next time. Many airports, Nashville is one, have a wide point of egress for arriving passengers with a bored side-armed only cop sitting/standing there. I'm not going into details because we don't help lawbreakers on The High Road but the first gate is about twenty or thirty yards from that IP... Even with my bum knee I/we could be at the cabin door wayyy before the "troops" arrived.

Now, what do me & my "associates" want to do with this fully fueled airliner now that we're airborne? Pretty much anything we dang well please, eh? Oh, & we're not sorry one bit about that air marshal. She was neither good nor quick. There is only one thing, well, actually 138 on this particular flight, that could have stopped us but the metal detectors & laws took care of that large issue. Thanks for that & see ya on the news... BTW, the blackmarket guns worked great & were a heck of a lot cheaper. We don't pay retail for anything and being hot & stolen doesn't really affect our line of work.. Have a nice lawful day Citizen. :banghead:

 

[Soybomb]

What you're saying is that a black market makes it easier for criminals to get guns that a completely free, open, and unregulated market.

This is an obvious absurdity. You have to start making sense or I'm not going to bother to respond.

Even with a totally free unregulated market I'm not sure it would matter. The gun you steal is way cheaper than the one you pay for. Every small limitation makes it more appealing. Where I live there is no testing or purchase permit required for handguns. You have the state issued id card and a 3 day wait.Many would consider these reasonable restrictions. I wait 30-45 days to get my state ID when i decide I want to be a gun owner, pay $500 for a handgun, and wait 3 days to pick it up. The criminal that decides he wants a handgun can steal it from me the day after I bring it home for free or buy it from the guy who stole it from me for probably less than $500. It seems like the black market would be a much easier buying process to me.

A better question would be "Who in their right mind would board the plane with a bunch of Sky Marshall wanna bees packin" Can only imagine how long the line up would be for pilots for the plane.

Who in their right ming would want to live in a state filled with a bunch of pistol packing police wanna bees? It sounds absurd like that doesn't it? You can see statistically that people with concealed handguns are't a danger at all in their day to day life but you believe they turn into "wanna be's" when they board a plane and are suddenly going to be a problem? I don't see the logic.

 

[ksnecktieman]

Is a handgun a defensive tool, or is it a criminals weapon of choice? We each have our own opinion. I would be very happy living in a world where EVERYONE has a gun. I even want to include Yankie. He does not trust me to have one, I may be too old, or too young, or have skin the wrong color, or have the wrong religion. If you permit restrictions on ownership of firearms you have to have someone making those restrictions. young, old, rich, poor, black, white, disabled, female, convicted felon..... WHAT politician do you trust to not make YOU the next prohibited person, as a beer drinker, or a habitual speeder, or a user of sinus medicine (go to walmart and try to buy sudafed, and you get to sign a roster of buyers).
Does it matter if you get on a plane, no, tear down the gate, pitch the xray machine, forget the searches. Make us again a free country, and let us defend ourselves.

 

[illspirit]

The government is in fact in the business of education whether it's public schools or driver's testing or public awareness campaigns. Now I'm NOT as stated in previous post advocating that the govt. should be teaching classes. Nor am I mandating everyone NEEDS to take a class, just that they should be able to answer basic questions about operating a gun and use of force (if carrying) or local hunting regs. (if hunting).

Ah, that's not so bad then. I could live with asking people a few common sense (or what should be common) questions before purchasing. I would just have to draw the line at the use of prior restraint before "allowing" someone to exercise a right. While education itself may be a compelling state interest, mandating it when the less restrictive means of voluntary education seems to work wouldn't. But since that's not what you mean, that doesn't matter.

I never said anything about licensing and there would be very few laws and no paperwork. I don't think people are "chilled/intimidated" to get driver's licenses or boating licenses or registering to vote and so forth.

As above, I didn't realize you didn't mean some sort of formal state sanctioned training program. As such, I only mentioned licensing since some states require some sort of FOID to prove you've passed a course. Sorry about that.

As for the chilling effect on driver's licenses or voting, well, you don't need a license to buy a car and drive it on private land. And if I remember correctly, voting is technically still a granted privilege rather than an affirmative, natural right.

As much as people on this board like to compare our rights to vote and speech and expression, the fact remains that if you leave your right to speech laying around no one's gonna pick it up and potentially harm themselves or others with it.

But what if you leave your printing press laying around, and some would-be Hitler comes along and writes the next Mein Kampf? Or you leave a Bible out and the next Eric Rudolph picks it up and is inspired to blow things up? Or you leave your TV camera and microphone out, and some pundit or ratings-hungry newsman comes along and says something sensational which causes a riot?

Throughout history, there has seldom been a war that wasn't caused by political or religious speech. One person with the will and charisma to do so can cause much more chaos and destruction with words alone than any one person can do with a firearm.

 

[IA_farmboy]

What boggles my mind is if UNREASONABLE restrictions do not work then why would someone think that "reasonable" restrictions will? I have to wonder that if the criminals in the UK can get guns that if such a thing as "reasonable gun laws" even exist?

Someone help me out here, there is a certain island nation with very strict gun laws. Jamaica I think. Possession of even a bullet is grounds for some serious jail time. Crime is out of control. Rape is so common that 50% of children do not know who their father is and if a woman of 16 years of age is not yet pregnant they are suspected of being sterile. Oh, the most important part, someone said that the only people that do not have guns are those that do not want one. While no guns are sold openly it is not difficult to find one for sale.

I guess there are a few reasonable gun laws, but probably not like most people would expect. First one that comes to mind is with that town that required all homes to have a gun. I remember reading other laws I liked, from the early days of our nation. Laws like all men were to practice marksmanship on Sundays, it was expected that they would bring their muskets to Sunday services with a few hours at a local firing range afterwards. If a man of military age could not afford a proper weapon one would be provided by the government with the expectation the person would reimburse the cost over time.

There are many examples of failures of "reasonable restrictions" in the history of our own nation. The prohibition of alcohol brought about "bathtub gin" and moonshine (so called since it was best made under the cover of night). Drug control laws didn't prevent me from being invited to someone's house to smoke some marijuana a few years ago. (For the record, I didn't go.) It doesn't seem to keep meth labs from popping up all over Iowa. Let's not forget under aged drinking. (That is something I will admit to doing.)

I don't think all laws are wrong, just those "victimless crime" laws. If no one was hurt or threatened then I fail to see why something would be made illegal. Carrying a gun should be legal. Shooting someone unprovoked should be illegal. Drinking is legal. Drinking and driving is not, as it should be.

Let's not forget the unintended consequences of these so called "reasonable restrictions". Because of the Eighteenth Amendment the biofuel industry dried up. Because of the Controlled Substances Act there are some very promising medications that aren't getting the research they deserve. Because of NICS thousands of people are denied a firearm purchase over a clerical error.

What I am most confused about is what is the goal of gun control, even so called "reasonable" controls? Is it to prevent crime? There is little evidence to support that.

Also, there is much talk about "bad guys" in this thread. What, exactly, makes a person a "bad guy" and how do you propose we test for that?

 

[ronwill]

Also, there is much talk about "bad guys" in this thread. What, exactly, makes a person a "bad guy" and how do you propose we test for that?


IA Farmboy, a "bad guy" may be someone who misuses a given right. As an example, someone goes into a bar while carrying and gets blitzed. They go outside the bar and get into a very minor altercation with someone who has no weapon (this does happen on occasion) and decides to pull their gun. Now a very dangerous situation has happened. Without a law on the books no one could be punished. Laws should be made protecting the law abiding citizens right to carry and against those who misuse that right.

 

[frankie_the_yankee]

"Sneak"? Why? Those metal detectors must be working great then 'cause you FEEL safe. You/we aren't. Look at the security setup next time.

\

So you're basically arguing that since current security measures aren't perfect, we should let anyone carry whatever they want aboard airliners. And of course this includes Al Qaeda suicide death squads armed with MP-5's, right?

Because we can count on you to blow them away if necessary, right?

Brilliant. Why didn't I think of that?

 

[frankie_the_yankee]

Even with a totally free unregulated market I'm not sure it would matter. The gun you steal is way cheaper than the one you pay for. Every small limitation makes it more appealing.

Stealing a gun is a little bit tougher than buying one, IMO. If you believe otherwise, I would say we live in two different realities and there is no point in discussing the matter.

If BG's are limited to stealing guns, fewer of them will have guns than if they can just walk into a store and buy what they want like I can.

Who in their right mind would want to live in a state filled with a bunch of pistol packing police wanna bees? It sounds absurd like that doesn't it?

No. Because under our current regime, you need a license to carry in public (VT, AK excepted). And to buy a gun at a store you need to pass a background check.

It's not perfect but it's better than nothing.

And there is a tactical difference between a relatively small and confined area like an airliner or a courtroom, and the much larger "rest of the world". It is feasible to create small "sterile" areas. It is not feasible to create and maintain large ones. (The UK is a good example of this.)

You can see statistically that people with concealed handguns are't a danger at all in their day to day life but you believe they turn into "wanna be's" when they board a plane and are suddenly going to be a problem?

I see no such thing.

I don't see the logic.

Any document, including a CHL can be faked. It is more feasible to implement a total ban on guns in the passenger cabin than it is to allow guns for some and not for others.

When you're dealing with real life instead of a cherished fantasy you have to take account of little details like this.

Is a handgun a defensive tool, or is it a criminals weapon of choice?

From what I can tell, it is clearly both.

What boggles my mind is if UNREASONABLE restrictions do not work then why would someone think that "reasonable" restrictions will? I have to wonder that if the criminals in the UK can get guns that if such a thing as "reasonable gun laws" even exist?

The fallacy here is holding that because something is not perfect, it is therefore no good at all.

Logically, "reasonable" restrictions are different than "unreasonable" ones. So they have to be evaluated on their own merits. Is that so hard to grasp?

 

[robertbank]

Soybomb

Having untrained (the original poster suggested handguns be given out as you board the plane) passengers blasting away within the confines of a relatively small space such as an airline at 30,000 feet would be insanity in the extreme. To compare this suggestion with firearm ownership within the general community is nonsense. That said I can't imagine any pilot in his right mind wanting to fly the plane under those circumstances so I guess the question is moot.

"Infidel dog take this bus to Cuba" - so much for putting air in bus tires.

Take Care

Bob

 

[IA_farmboy]

Logically, "reasonable" restrictions are different than "unreasonable" ones. So they have to be evaluated on their own merits. Is that so hard to grasp?

With even the strictest of controls the criminals still get the guns. How can a a more "reasonable", less strict, set of gun control laws even hope to keep the guns out of the hands of criminals. Any gun control law only serves to disarm the innocent, is that so hard to grasp?

Many in this thread oppose the regulation of private sales of firearms, calling them "unreasonable". Without regulating every single sale the door is wide open to allowing criminals to get their hands on guns. With millions of guns and millions of people in this country do you really think it would be difficult for the few thousand with ill intent to find someone willing to sell a firearm? This is especially motivated by the economics involved, it's profitable to sell firearms to those that wish to avoid the background check one would have to get with an established firearm vendor.

Sure, selling to a known felon is against the law but the enforcement of that law is nearly impossible. Missouri had a law that required all firearm sales to have a background check. That law was recently taken off the books since no one in years was actually charged with the offense. An article I read stated that few people even knew a private sale was illegal.

So, please explain to me how you would enforce a law that would require a background check on every firearm sale.

 

[robertbank]

"So, please explain to me how you would enforce a law that would require a background check on every firearm sale."

Well you asked! Spend $2Billion on a Gun registry and then pass a law similar to Bill C 68 up here. That is how. The more important question is "WHY would you".

When it doesn't stop criminals from getting guns then whine that you need even tighter laws. Fortunately what the idiot anti gun crowd up here forgot is the Canadian taxpayer eventually gets ticked off and when that happens their anti gun comments begin to fall on deaf ears.

Take Care

Bob

 

[MakAttak]

When you're dealing with real life instead of a cherished fantasy you have to take account of little details like this.

Then perhaps you can stop propping up your strawman argument about MP-5s on and airplane and deal with real issues.

You cite basic economics. Allow me to summarize: Demand curves slope downwards. As the price of a good rises, demand for this good falls.

Thus, you say, placing small increases in price on legal guns (price is also opportunity cost of time and trouble) is worth it because now ciminals face HIGH prices for legal guns.

That would be a PERFECT means of preventing criminals from getting guns... EXCEPT you mistake your economic theory.

When the price of one good, i.e. legal guns, increases, criminals then move to a substitute: ILLEGAL GUNS. You posit that illegal guns are more expensive and more difficult to attain. However, you have no evidence to support this assertion. Herein is a fault in your logic.

Another problem with your logic is you assume legal guns and illegal guns are perfect substitutes. In this, again, your logic is flawed. Illegal guns come without a paper trail that will in any way tie the criminal to the gun. (Pre-emptive response: Despite your claim that I will want no evidence such as a background check for gun buying either, RECIEPTS AND STORE VIDEOS will place anyone in a store and what type of gun has been purchased. Even if the government is not tracking it, YOU ARE BEING TRACKED) Thus, illegal guns are more desirable then legal guns to a criminal.

Combine this and the fact that stealing a gun is far less costly than PRODUCING a gun with the fact that a stolen gun now must almost exclusively be sold to a criminal, the supply of illegal guns will be much more elastic than that of legal guns, LIKELY producing a lower price than that of legal guns.

This is the fault in your logic: you missed ceteris paribus Frankie. You picked a simple argument and failed to take it all the way through your economic reasoning.

I applaud you for following economic logic. Take it a bit further though.

Lastly, you wish to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Beyond all the arguments I have just made to say that your restrictions are unlikely to achieve this goal, I need to ask another question: Is our goal to keep guns out of the hands of criminals or TO REDUCE CRIME. Again, do not mistake a means for an end. Those wanting to ban guns are under the false impression that either crimes committed with guns are worse than other crimes (they aren't) or that reducing the amount of guns will reduce crime (it doesn't). Are you making either of these false assumptions?

(Fake Edit: Wow, I thought this thread was over days ago)

 

[frankie_the_yankee]

Having untrained (the original poster suggested handguns be given out as you board the plane) passengers blasting away within the confines of a relatively small space such as an airline at 30,000 feet would be insanity in the extreme.

You got that right.

To compare this suggestion with firearm ownership within the general community is nonsense.

Right again.

That said I can't imagine any pilot in his right mind wanting to fly the plane under those circumstances so I guess the question is moot.

If this were hockey, I'd say you just scored a "hat trick".

 

[Intune]

Frankie-

So you're basically arguing that since current security measures aren't perfect, we should let anyone carry whatever they want aboard airliners. And of course this includes Al Qaeda suicide death squads armed with MP-5's, right?

“…aren’t perfect…”? Ha, thanks for the morning laugh. I just presented you with a viable scenario in which six or so determined people armed with nothing more than pistols (much less a highly-trained Al Qaeda suicide death squad) could have an airliner at their disposal in seconds yet you continue your mantra of “AQ & MP5’s, AQ & MP5’s.” They don’t need friggin’ MP5’s to defeat the pabulum security Frankie. They only need us to be unarmed.

Because we can count on you to blow them away if necessary, right?

Us, Frankie. Us. As much as it frightens you, all of the honest, legal, gun-toting us. You know, the ones you distrust with weapons as much as the Al Qaeda suicide death squads. Why don’t you want us to be on equal footing? They have them, we don’t.

Brilliant. Why didn't I think of that?

I don’t believe it’s a matter of thinking Frankie. It’s a matter of dismissing.

Stealing a gun is a little bit tougher than buying one, IMO. [BOLD]If you believe otherwise, I would say we live in two different realities and there is no point in discussing the matter.[/BOLD]

My bold. Yep, but buying a stolen one is a piece of cake & cheaper too. Discussion is great frankie, it just needs to be done without personal attacks on an individual’s pov.

If BG's are limited to stealing guns, fewer of them will have guns than if they can just walk into a store and buy what they want like I can.

Not only do they have the same selections, it will be cheaper & the thief does the shopping for you!

 

[hnk45acp]

Throughout history, there has seldom been a war that wasn't caused by political or religious speech. One person with the will and charisma to do so can cause much more chaos and destruction with words alone than any one person can do with a firearm.

Unfortunately all too true however you're still comparing things that are much more complex and evolve over time to something that has pretty immediate physical consequences.

 

[glummer]

What you're saying is that a black market makes it easier for criminals to get guns that a completely free, open, and unregulated market.

I’m saying there are MORE criminals when there is a black market, and more TOLERANCE/ACCEPTANCE of criminals as well, and it is not possible to truthfully claim that you know that the enhancing effects of those developments will not offset the repressive effect of the “burden” you speak of.

This is an obvious absurdity.

Untrue – it happened during Prohibition.

I'm saying that restrictions that impose a small burden on GG's while imposing a larger burden on BG's are "reasonable", beneficial to society, and can pass constitutional muster.

Your description overlooks a number of significant factors:
There are many more GG’s than BG’s, so the “small burden” still imposes a great total cost, even considering only the GG’s who persevere, and there is no balancing benefit from imposing the “larger burden” on the far fewer BG’s who persevere.
There will similarly be a significant number of GG’s who will be deterred from purchase, even with the “small” burden, simply because the initial numbers are so much greater. That is a cost you ignore.
There will be significant number of “false positives” in the check process, and for those people involved, the burden will be quite large, indeed.
Any efficient background check process will require a bureaucratic infrastructure of a sort easily transformed into a registration scheme. That is a serious risk, and must be counted as a cost.

Our current regime is far from the "no restrictions" environment that you seem to be advocating for.

In what relevant way? Are the things I called legal not really legal?

In fact, from what I can tell, it is filled with (what are to you) unconstitutional gun control laws.

Please name the ones that suppress the “ops” I described.

Some of these laws just might make it more difficult for AQ to run ops like that.

How?

And you have still dodged the question of why your imaginary jihadists want so badly to die in airliner gunfights, but not in airport/mall/crowded_street ops.
If they want to hijack, they will fail every time in the “no restrictions” situation.
If they just want to kill people, why are they not doing it already, in simpler ways?
Perhaps because they don’t exist, except in your mind?


Regarding the gun handout for air passengers, I agree it would be a bad idea as described. My own preference would be for large fighting knives, and a short film before take-off showing how a group of attackers can stop a man with a gun as long as he has no eyes in the back of his head, and his gun shoots in only one direction at a time.

 

[robertbank]

"My own preference would be for large fighting knives, and a short film before take-off showing how a group of attackers can stop a man with a gun as long as he has no eyes in the back of his head, and his gun shoots in only one direction at a time."

This simplistic solution is only marginally better than handing out handguns. Has it occurred to you that our mythical hijackers might enjoy the benefits of watching the same film? Only thing is our hijackers will have the benefit of having free knives to arm themselves.

Seems to me blowing up airplanes, running them into buildings etc is rather low tech and not particularily efficient. Why not just draw the infidels into a civil war and bump them off one or two at a time? You then have the added benefit of playing hell with their economy and destroying the value of their currency by forcing them to borrow money to fund their ever incresing deficits caused in part by the resulting war. Better yet encourge other "enemies to buy the debt". Can anyone say China?

Meanwhile back on the airplane...hey Abu this yankee wants to take a knive to a gun fight, didn't he watch the Untouchables on the last flight?

Take Care

Bob

 

[MakAttak]

Seems to me blowing up airplanes, running them into buildings etc is rather low tech and not particularily efficient. Why not just draw the infidels into a civil war and bump them off one or two at a time? You then have the added benefit of playing hell with their economy and destroying the value of their currency by forcing them to borrow money to fund their ever incresing deficits caused in part by the resulting war. Better yet encourge other "enemies to buy the debt". Can anyone say China?

Way off topic, but if this was their plan... wow, I guess 10 deaths on their side to one on ours is a possible plan... no one ever called Al Queda rational

 

[Soybomb]

No. Because under our current regime, you need a license to carry in public (VT, AK excepted)

Alright so there's two examples out of 50, are there problems there?

And there is a tactical difference between a relatively small and confined area like an airliner or a courtroom, and the much larger "rest of the world".

I'm sure people with concealed carry permits are in small confined spaces all the time in day to day life.

It is feasible to create small "sterile" areas.

I think we've been trying that and we wind up with planes hijacked with box cutters, people slaughtered in safe courtrooms, and students executed in the confined spaces of class rooms.

Having untrained (the original poster suggested handguns be given out as you board the plane) passengers blasting away within the confines of a relatively small space such as an airline at 30,000 feet would be insanity in the extreme.

The OP and I take seperate paths there, I think it should be a byog flight. If you're sufficiently motivated to pack one I'll trust that you know what your doing. It seems to work in vermont and alaska.

 

[frankie_the_yankee]

frankie said:

I'm saying that restrictions that impose a small burden on GG's while imposing a larger burden on BG's are "reasonable", beneficial to society, and can pass constitutional muster.

glummer replied:

Your description overlooks a number of significant factors:

There are many more GG’s than BG’s, so the “small burden” still imposes a great total cost, even considering only the GG’s who persevere, and there is no balancing benefit from imposing the “larger burden” on the far fewer BG’s who persevere.

There will similarly be a significant number of GG’s who will be deterred from purchase, even with the “small” burden, simply because the initial numbers are so much greater. That is a cost you ignore.

This is nonsense of course. The elasticity of demand for a given item bears no relationship whatsoever to the total number of persons who make up the "market" for the item.

What matters is the slope of the elasticity curve. And in this case, we are looking at two different groups (GG's and BG's) with different elasticity curves with different slopes.

We know that highly restrictive schemes result in most GG's not owning guns while BG's make more of an effort to continue to do so. So demand is more elastic among GG's than BG's.

Outright prohibition puts an equally large burden on both groups. So you would expect that more BG's than GG's would make the effort to own guns.

So outright prohibition shifts the balance of power between GG's and BG's in an unfavorable direction.

That's why I do not advocate prohibition or anything like it. And that is why making comparisons between what I have proposed and what happened under Prohibition (of alcohol) is not relevant, and why people who wish to make sense should stop doing it.

That's why it is important to craft "reasonable" measures that put a much larger burden on BG's than on GG's.

frankie said:

What you're saying is that a black market makes it easier for criminals to get guns that a completely free, open, and unregulated market.

glummer replied:

I’m saying there are MORE criminals when there is a black market, and more TOLERANCE/ACCEPTANCE of criminals as well, and it is not possible to truthfully claim that you know that the enhancing effects of those developments will not offset the repressive effect of the “burden” you speak of.

Let's try again.

In a totally free market, anyone could walk into a gun store and buy whatever they wanted no questions asked. GG's, BG's, mental defectives, dope addicts, violent felons who have served their time, terrorists - it doesn't matter. You point to what you want, cough up the money, and you're done.

I cannot conceive of any market in guns that could be more accessible to more people than that.

And note that we do not have such a market now. Not by a long shot.

Now let's look at the current regime in a state with reasonably good gun laws like TX. If you can pass a background check (or have a CHL), you walk into a gun store, point to what you want, they do a background check or look at your CHL, you cough up the money, and you're done.

A background check is no burden for someone who can pass it. So it is a reasonable assumption that practically no GG's will be prevented from buying guns by this requirement. (Paranoid psychotics who are afraid to submit to a background check might be deterred, but it is arguable that they may fall into the "mental defective" catagory and so shouldn't buy them anyway.)

But if you're a BG, this avenue (the gun store) is closed off to you. You either have to find a private seller (and risk them recording your ID information) or go through the black market.

No one can reasonably hold that it is easier for BG's to get guns with a background check in place that it would be in a completely free and open market as described above.

Small burden on the GG, larger burden on the BG.

Not perfect. Some BG's will continue to get guns but fewer than if there were no restrictions. But with so light a burden on the GG's, no GG who wants to own or carry guns is prevented from doing so.

So the balance of power is just about as good as it could be.

And what about a "repressive" state like MA?

Well, to buy a gun, you need an FID card (shall issue) and a Class B LTC that you get from your local police chief (may issue). There are laws regulating storage. When being transported, guns have to be locked up. There is a lengthy "prohibited list" of guns that are not allowed to be owned. All guns are registered with the state. To carry on one's person requires a Class A LTC that is also may issue, but harder to get than the Class B (which only allows for transport).

So here there are large burdens on GG's. All kinds of little traps in the law where you could make a mistake and wind up in prison. As a result, many GG's elect to simply not own guns.

For BG's, these burdens have little effect. They could never pass a background check to purchase a gun and could never get a license to carry it. In this case, the black market is actually easier to negotiate than the highly restricted "white market".

So we see that in a highly restrictive regime the BG's are actually better off than the GG's. Again, as with outright prohibition, the balance of power is shifted in the wrong direction (towards the BG's).

********************************************

Then there are reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions. Certain areas designated as "secure" like airplanes, courtrooms, etc. Again, not perfect. But far preferrable to the frequent hijackings of the 60's (before guns were banned on airplanes). And even more preferrable to the suicide squads we would likely see today.

Some people have mistaken me for a prohibitionist. This is utter nonsense and only indicates that such people can't read.

In keeping with the original purpose of this thread, "What are 'reasonable' restrictions?", I am listing what I think is reasonable and would pass constitutional muster below.

First off, I believe the 2A is an individual right. Any restrictions on the exercise of that right should be subject to the standard of strict judicial scrutiny, and be as narrowly tailored as possible.

I support shall issue carry with full reciprocity.

I am opposed to registration.

I support licensed concealed carry in workplaces, schools and most public accommodations, even though most are technically private property.

I support carry in national parks and other government property with VERY narrow exceptions.

I support background checks.

I support narrowly defined secure areas such as courtrooms and airliners where carrying would not be allowed.

I would prohibit violent felons, non-resident aliens, dope addicts, and adjudicated mental defectives from possessing guns.

I support shall issue licensing for the purchase and possession of full auto weapons, including brand new ones.

If people still don't get it, I will copy the above into a new message in a larger font.

 

[frankie_the_yankee]

"Sneak"? Why? Those metal detectors must be working great then 'cause you FEEL safe. You/we aren't. Look at the security setup next time.

Blah... blah.... blah.....

Look at how rare airplane hijackings are these days compared to how common they were in the 60's when there was no passenger screening.

Back then, people were pulling guns on pilots and forcing planes to land in Cuba almost every month.

Try to keep it in the real world.

 

[IA_farmboy]

That's why I do not advocate prohibition or anything like it. And that is why making comparisons between what I have proposed and what happened under Prohibition (of alcohol) is not relevant, and why people who wish to make sense should stop doing it.

It is very relevant. What it does is, as a friend of mine puts it, turn up the contrast. It demonstrates how resourceful people become when they want something bad enough. The only difference between what you propose and a prohibition is the definition of a "bad guy". A prohibition means that "bad guy" = "not a cop".

You want background checks to keep criminals from getting guns? Evidence shows that they do not work. Gun control does not work.

Take a look at the following website, it's an eye opener.
www.GunFacts.info

Here's a few relevant tidbits from that site.

90% of terror attacks involve bombings. Only 2% involve firearms, the most popular is the fully automatic AK-47. I doubt a background check was involved in any attack on US soil with a fully automatic weapon.

90% of violent crimes do not involve firearms. 93% of the guns used in crimes were obtained illegally. Two-thirds of the victims of a fatal shooting are criminals shot by other criminals. Less than 1% of all firearms were ever used in a crime.

Of those illegally obtained firearms 39.2% were from illegal street dealers. I assume most of the balance was stolen.

You claim that a NICS check is a small burden on the good guys. I disagree. What does the background check cost? I heard it was $50. Now the price of every single firearm is increased by $50. That is a lot of money considering how many firearms there are in this country. Considering that 15% of federal prisoners were caught with a gun it doesn't seem that NICS is worth all the money we are spending.

What about errors? With a database as large as NICS must be there has to be a lot of erroneous data in there. A false positive means a good guy cannot buy a gun. A false negative means a bad guy just got a gun. Considering how many criminals there are in the USA, and how many of them seem to get guns despite it being illegal for them to own them, and considering that (according to a federal report) 4 out of 100 NICS checks are false positives I fail to see how NICS is effective in doing what it is supposed to do.

Let's not forget that even the government doesn't know how many false negatives there are in the NICS. That is because the criminals have to actually be caught before they can get into the database. The thing is, that if they are caught they should be in jail where they cannot go out and buy a gun anyway.

What I see happening by removing background checks is that more good guys can afford to be armed. By removing the requirement that good guys needing a permit to carry a concealed weapon (because bad guys don't seem to need one) it makes the bad guys think long and hard about committing their next crime.

So I'll wrap this up by saying... Let the bad guys buy guns. That way they aren't going around stealing them.