gun control - WHY?

[Dark&Good]

It's not that I can't think for myself. I'd like to hear everybody's personal opinion on the reasons for controlling guns legally.

Here's my personal opinion:
Criminals will get guns anyway - gun control is useless for decreasing crime rate. Everybody else - I would require some basic education in guns, including a minimum 2 hours of shooting; a minimum grade of B, in a public K-12, or a similar private school, at least in physics/kinetics and biology/anatomy; a minimum age of 18 years; then let them have whatever guns they want. I would also consider younger people's requests, depending on their responsibility level and circumstances.
The current "gun control" is BS.

[hawk1]

Simple, helps to control people...

[Captain Evilstomper]

it is BS. it's because some people are afraid of guns, and don't want other people to have them, because then they can't lord their 'superiority' over them quite as effectively. and they know that criminals will do whatever they will, laws or no. and they cry safety for our society, and 'it's for the safety of the children'
legislators really need to not get all their gun related knowledge from hollywood. and maybe be not quite so reactionary?
if you look at the assault weapons ban, it seems like somebody watched a Schwarzenegger movie and said ,'yeah all of that, bad. what's that? ar-15? bad. uzi? super bad. tec-9? that's just evil bad. illegal!'

[532Fastback]

Why do you want a school grade of B? Just because someone is school smart, doesn't make them real life smart.

[ivsamhell]

i don't understand the logic at all. gun control lowers crime? crime is obviously illegal, it still exists. how about prison systems/sentencing that focus on reform, not just cater to people who already choose not to function progressively in society.

[yellowfin]

It's an imaginary boogeyman for politicians to claim to be the "good guys." If you have a fictitious enemy, you can't be held accountable for the results. The only logic is they push this stuff and they stay in office and get more power. If they'd lose power and/or suffer punitive consequences for it, they'd stop.

[Vonshliken12]

I've heard stories about people who picked up Tech 9's with silencer's in Oakland and it's absolutely ridiculous that we as law abiding citizens can't purchase scary looking weapons and have handicapped magazines.

[M. Sage]

Everybody else - I would require some basic education in guns, including a minimum 2 hours of shooting; a minimum grade of B, in a public K-12, or a similar private school, at least in physics/kinetics and biology/anatomy; a minimum age of 18 years; then let them have whatever guns they want. I would also consider younger people's requests, depending on their responsibility level and circumstances.
The current "gun control" is BS.

Can you imagine the screaming if we demanded B average or better in English and Composition or Journalism classes for people to exercise free speech? Or a B or better average in social studies to exercise 3rd, 4th and 5th amendment rights? What kind of requirements should we put on voting?

Your idea of "gun control" is no better than the one already being pushed.

+1 to bad grades not meaning someone is dumb, or good grades meaning someone is smart. My grades were horrible, but I'd bet a lot of money that I'm smarter than my HS valedictorian...

[Window_Seat]

Can you imagine the screaming if we demanded B average or better in English and Composition or Journalism classes for people to exercise free speech? Or a B or better average in social studies to exercise 3rd, 4th and 5th amendment rights? What kind of requirements should we put on voting?

Your idea of "gun control" is no better than the one already being pushed.

+1 to bad grades not meaning someone is dumb, or good grades meaning someone is smart. My grades were horrible, but I'd bet a lot of money that I'm smarter than my HS valedictorian...

Agreed... Not all Police Officers got a "B" average or better in school, so under that control situation, many LAGOs would now have to give up their guns, myself included.

Erik; thinks that needs to be "rethunk"...:rolleyes:

[rrr70]

Gun control is not about guns, it is about control.

[oddball]

I would require some basic education in guns, including a minimum 2 hours of shooting; a minimum grade of B, in a public K-12, or a similar private school, at least in physics/kinetics and biology/anatomy

Sorry to say, this is one of the most bizarre ideas I have seen for "gun control".

[Dark&Good]

Why do you want a school grade of B? Just because someone is school smart, doesn't make them real life smart.

True. But also read in which subjects... and try to figure out why I'd do that.

(One hint: even if somebody is not "life smart" enough yet, it would at least prevent accidents knowing some physics and biology)

[Dark&Good]

I don't need to explain my opinion any further than that; everybody can post their opinion here and not be questioned about it's absolute perfection, as far as I am concerned. Instead of hooking into others' opinions, just reply (or not) with your ideas on gun control.

[M. Sage]

Actually, I feel that I should be able to defend my opinions after putting them out there for others' consideration.

My opinion on gun control: the 2A says "shall not be infringed". So it is written, so shall it be done. :cool2: If a person is a free person, they should be able to do whatever they please so long as they're not hurting anybody (or obviously about to hurt someone).

Putting prerequisites on a right causes the right to become a privilege. Is the right to keep and bear arms a right or not?

I'm sorry if it seems like I'm jumping on you, I'm not trying to be mean. It's just that your ideas for controlling guns are just as bad as the ones our current politicians are pushing. One of the reasons Calguns has been successful in the RKBA fight in California is that we question things. We question the opinions of our "leadership", whoever that may be at any given time. Without that, we'd be much worse off.

[oaklander]

There should not be limits on guns. Your idea of requiring a certain GPA is elitist, to say the least. Guns should not be subject to "permits" like you suggest.

Rather, what we have now is about all that we need (actually it's more than we need). The way it is now, in California - you are entitled to acquire, possess and use your guns if you are not a felon, or a crazy person, or have committed certain misdemeanors. There should be no further restrictions.

The AW laws should be repealed in this state, and CCW should be shall issue.

[oaklander]

Some opinions are worthless.

EDIT: you might be interested in *this* article:
http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/cramer.racism.html

"The Racist Roots of Gun Control"

In much the same way, gun control has historically been a tool of racism, and associated with racist attitudes about black violence. Similarly, many gun control laws impinge on that most fundamental of rights: self-defense. Racism is so intimately tied to the history of gun control in America that we should regard gun control aimed at law-abiding people as a "suspect idea," and require that the courts use the same demanding standards when reviewing the constitutionality of a gun control law, that they would use with respect to a law that discriminated based on race.

I don't need to explain my opinion any further than that; everybody can post their opinion here and not be questioned about it's absolute perfection, as far as I am concerned. Instead of hooking into others' opinions, just reply (or not) with your ideas on gun control.

[Pvt. Cowboy]

It's not that I can't think for myself. I'd like to hear everybody's personal opinion on the reasons for controlling guns legally.

Here's my personal opinion:
Criminals will get guns anyway - gun control is useless for decreasing crime rate. Everybody else - I would require some basic education in guns, including a minimum 2 hours of shooting; a minimum grade of B, in a public K-12, or a similar private school, at least in physics/kinetics and biology/anatomy; a minimum age of 18 years; then let them have whatever guns they want. I would also consider younger people's requests, depending on their responsibility level and circumstances.
The current "gun control" is BS.

You're an interesting fellow.

I think I understand what you're trying to do, but I don't know what problem you're trying to help solve in doing it.

[Dark&Good]

"It's just that your ideas for controlling guns are just as bad as the ones our current politicians are pushing."
That's surprising to hear.
Would you let a 5 years old kid have a real gun of his own? Would you let somebody who is obviously mentally ill to the degree that he pisses himself every 2 hours? Or a serious alcoholic, or drug addict?
There are no absolutes on this planet. There are gradients to everything. I was looking for a minimum gradient here... I wouldn't affect negatively the majority of good people, as the current gun laws do. "Just as bad..." You really don't see any difference?

[oaklander]

Violent criminals and the seriously mentally ill should not have access to guns. But requiring a "B" average and certain school classes smacks of the literacy tests they used to give to folks in the South. A right isn't a right if you make people jump through hoops to attain it.

"It's just that your ideas for controlling guns are just as bad as the ones our current politicians are pushing."
That's surprising to hear.
Would you let a 5 years old kid have a real gun of his own? Would you let somebody who is obviously mentally ill to the degree that he pisses himself every 2 hours? Or a serious alcoholic, or drug addict?
There are no absolutes on this planet. There are gradients to everything. I was looking for a minimum gradient here... I wouldn't affect negatively the majority of good people, as the current gun laws do. "Just as bad..." You really don't see any difference?

[Dark&Good]

You're an interesting fellow.

I think I understand what you're trying to do, but I don't know what problem you're trying to help solve in doing it.

The minimum control, as my previous post states that in other words...

[Dark&Good]

About the "B" grade: I could agree to lowering that if somebody knew enough not to get in accidents because of lack of knowledge in those areas.

[Dark&Good]

"Sir, I didn't know that shooting somebody in the shoulder could kill him..."

[oaklander]

Grades mean nothing. Guns are a fundamental right. They are the expression of the fundamental right to self protection. This right is given to us by our Creator.

There should be no requirements to exercise that right. However, as I've said above, certain people may lose that right by way of being criminals or being insane.

It's simply wrong to create hoops for people to jump through. It's like voting. You don't have to pass a test to vote - but you can LOSE your right to vote by being a felon.

EDIT: the mistake that you are making is that you are trying to equate guns with a "privilege" - like driving. Guns are not a privilege - again - they are a constitutional right. Also - the rights outlined in our constitution are not "granted" to us. They are "enumerated" to us - that's a big difference. They are pre-existing rights that inhere with being a free citizen. The constitution simply spelled them out. The government does not GIVE us those rights - they are our rights to begin with.

About the "B" grade: I could agree to lowering that if somebody knew enough not to get in accidents because of lack of knowledge in those areas.

[Dark&Good]

There should not be limits on guns. Your idea of requiring a certain GPA is elitist, to say the least. Guns should not be subject to "permits" like you suggest.

I didn't say "permits". If you passed these minimum requirements, you wouldn't need a paper to "prove" yourself. "Cool, here's your gun". I would put a gun shop in all these malls.

[Dark&Good]

oaklander, I see what you mean and basically agree with you there. But would you let all 4-10 years old kids who want a gun have one? Or the smiling guy who is a known junkie, flying high most of the time?

[oaklander]

I think we agree on the main issues - sane, law abiding adults can have guns.

Young kids probably shouldn't have guns, and people who are addicted to drugs should not have guns.

But that's about where the line should be drawn, IMHO.

It's just not right to make people take tests, classes, or whatever in order to exercise a fundamental right.

oaklander, I see what you mean and basically agree with you there. But would you let all 4-10 years old kids who want a gun have one? Or the smiling guy who is a known junkie, flying high most of the time?

[Dark&Good]

I'm cool with that.

[Dark&Good]

Any other opinions?

[Dark&Good]

What do you guys think the result would be if we put together a declaration about our right to bear arms, get it signed by 100000 people, and send it "up"?

[yellowfin]

The people it would go "up" to would maybe read it and throw it in the trash. It's pretty clear that those elected to office here have little regard for us when they don't want to.

[BillCA]

Gun Control Is a Failure

During the last 40 years we have seen the collective policies known as "gun control" expand into a complex web of laws which have done almost nothing to curb violent crime.

Statistically, there is no proof that "gun control" has any effect at all on crimes involving firearms, nor on suicides or accidental shootings for that matter. Multiple studies conclude that there is no measurable benefit to most of the laws and enforcement of ineffectual laws only serves to drain tax dollars from state and federal treasuries.

If "gun control" was effective in any manner, we would expect to see a decline in violent crimes, especially those involving guns. But we saw almost the opposite trend for 25 years as violent crime and homicide rates dramatically increased. In short, it didn't work.

Imagine for a moment that you are a director in your company and you give a subordinate manager 40 days to solve the problem of expensive errors in his department. But instead, in the next 40 days, the errors increase by double the previous number. After 40 days, his error rate is still 25% higher than when he started. Would you consider this a success? Of course not. But "gun control" proponents claim it is a success with statistics like this. This is exactly the case with violent crime in California in the last 40 years.

Only one type of law has shown any impact on the number of violent crimes committed. It isn't waiting periods, registration, or bans on certain weapons. It is the advent of "shall issue" concealed carry permits. Several studies have indicated that these laws tend to shift crime from violent offenses towards property crimes which does lower violent crime statistics. Nor does it increase violent crime. The programs are surprisingly cheap to administer when compared to the cost of interdiction of violent offenders.

Almost every push for new gun-control laws have been supported with the line "This new law will give law enforcement the tools they need to..." Unfortunately the police "toolbox" now looks like a $38,000 roll-around chest of tools that is seldom opened or used.

There are very few laws to come from "gun control" may be worth keeping. The prohibition against mentally ill persons is one as may be the same against persons convicted of a felony. The current "instant-check" system is a compromise between the exercise of one's rights and public safety which could be retained with a few minor changes. A low-cost basic safety test may be prudent for first time gun buyers as well.

Most of the other "gun control" laws form a barrier only to those willing to obey the laws in the first place. A criminal who ignores serious laws about robbery, rape or murder feels no need to follow any laws. It will not matter to him if his pistol magazine holds more ammo than is allowed by law. Nor will he care if the shotgun he uses is below the legal length. The only people who will obey the laws are non-criminals.

To sum this up, the current approach to gun control is a failure. Almost anyone would agree that this 40 year "experiment" has failed to live up to its promises. It has succeeded in only one thing - it has created a legal atmosphere that makes it harder for a law abiding citizen to defend himself without fear of prosecution for some obscure or arcane technical felony. Most of the laws enacted should be removed.

Let's look at ways to punish the criminals, not the citizen.

[Dark&Good]

That's a great communication, thank you.

[MindBuilder]

It would be nice for defensive gun users have more skill and knowledge than they typically do now. But as far as I know, there is no significant problem with law abiding defensive shooters hitting their targets. Well at least there is relatively little problem i.e. neither well trained nor poorly trained defensive shooters can hit anything very well with a pistol in a gun fight anyway. And I don't think stray bullets from defensive shooters have been too big a danger to those in the vicinity either.

Also I'm not aware of any significant problem with people's lack of knowledge of physics or anatomy. While there might have been a couple of cases of someone thinking a shoulder shot would be non-fatal, or other problems from lack of knowledge, I think they are rare.

Whatever gains are had from gun restrictions have to be weighed against the innocent people who will die because they didn't have a gun to defend themselves due to the legal hurdles of training and testing and such.

But the biggest reason to oppose such regulations is that every extra fee or test or training course or whatever, will reduce the number of gun owners and reduce the number of young people exposed to gun ownership and therefore ultimately reduce the number of voters protecting gun rights. With fewer voters protecting gun rights, more little restrictions will be passed, training courses will get longer, fees will get larger, and hassles will be increased and so on, until in a spiraling vicious circle these measures will result in there being not enough gun voters to keep guns legal.

While training and testing and permit requirements for concealed carry are probably a good idea for now to keep the concealed carrier crime rate extremely low while the public gets used to the idea of concealed carry, think of how many lives and rapes and such could be saved in places like Chicago and Washington DC if people could carry without having to overcome the hurdles of permitting that keeps the current carry permit rates in the single digit percentage points.

[Dark&Good]

Good points there...

[Sutcliffe]

The idea that lawmakers can deny you the right to protect yourself when there is no other alternative is ridiculous. Guns are merely a tool that criminals can use to further their careers. Remove guns from a criminals armory and they will find some other tool to prey upon the public.
As somebody earlier posted, gun control is very effective at controlling people. guns have little to do with it.

[M. Sage]

I think we agree on the main issues - sane, law abiding adults can have guns.

Young kids probably shouldn't have guns, and people who are addicted to drugs should not have guns.

But that's about where the line should be drawn, IMHO.

It's just not right to make people take tests, classes, or whatever in order to exercise a fundamental right.

Exactly. However, I'd leave the children w/guns issue up to the parents. My brother's stepson got his first rifle, a Chipmunk .22, at about age 7. His mother and father were fine with it, and the boy never uses it when he's not being supervised. I got my first firearm at 14, as did my brother. Many people back home would get their first gun in their late pre-teens to early/mid teens as a birthday present. Hunting culture was pretty big.

That and at the end of the day, parents are responsible for the safety and actions of their children.

[Bad Voodoo]

Simple, helps to control people...

Mods! You can lock the thread right here!

+1

[Dark&Good]

I realized that I was (unawarely) mixing at least two problems: gun control and an often sh*tty educational system. Guys up there should improve that system rather than "gun control".
Thanks for all the input. It's really... hehe, educational.

[yellowfin]

The one major mechanism that needs to be fixed is the political mechanics of anti gun laws and political power. The only dynamic of interest to politicians at all is power: as it stands, if they take a position with the antis they get votes. Doing their job as a representation of the interest of the people would dictate that they oppose gun restriction for reasons mentioned above, but there is a schism between serving our interest and serving their other political interests. The improvement needs to be in disrupting the political dynamic that breeds our problem.