A republican who supports gun control

[WinePusher]

Yes, I'm talking about myself. I'm a republican who supports gun control. This isn't a sudden change of heart on my part, I can honestly say that I've always supported some form of modest gun control. I find the arguments put forth by people on my side of the political aisle, such as the NRA, to be horribly illogical to say the least. I want to start a discussion in this thread concerning the arguments for and against gun control, and perhaps come a reasonable, fair solution to the problem of mass shootings. This is a thread to discuss various solutions to a horrible problem plaguing our society.

1) Members of the NRA and other gun zealots will constantly, and somewhat justifiably, cite the 2nd amendment in the bill of rights to rationalize their belief that the government has no right to control and regulate gun sales. This argument is persuasive to a large extent, as the framer of the constitution did very clearly state that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon. However, the goal of our political system is to determine, exactly, what is meant by the word 'arms.' Do 'arms' include bombs, bazookas, grenades, and other forms of military style 'arms?' Does the 2nd amendment protect the right of members of the general public to freely buy bombs and bazookas? Some extremists will unsurprisingly say yes, but in reality the courts, in unison with the legislature, have every right to define and limit the scope of what constitutes an 'arm.' Bear in mind that fully auto and even semi automatic weaponry were non existent during the time in which the framers lived, and it is highly probable that if these iconic framers were alive today they themselves would reject the notion that the 2nd amendment protects the right of people to buy and sell high powered weapons.

2) A common economic argument made against gun control is that government mandated prohibition simply does not work and exacerbates criminal behavior. Again, this argument is also valid to a large extent. One need only look back 100 years to see the failure of alcohol prohibition, or simply turn on the news to see the failure of drug prohibition. In both cases, the prohibition of alcohol and drugs failed to reduce alcohol and drug consumption, but succeeded in creating a criminal black market for both of the respective goods. A similar argument is made by the pro choice crowd, who often claims that government prohibition of abortion will lead women to desperation, causing them to self induce abortions in a back alley.

So, given the fact that government prohibition of alcohol and drugs was a colossal failure, how can one reasonably think that government prohibition of guns will be any different? Well, the problem with this argument is that it completely misses the point. No one is talking about prohibiting all guns from sale, and I would absolutely fight against such a proposal. What I am arguing for is not gun prohibition, but rather gun control. Yes, gun control does necessarily imply the prohibition of certain high powered weapons that can cause massive damage and death, however it is highly foolish and naive to believe that prohibiting sales of fully auto weapons would subsequently lead to a criminal black market for fully auto weapons, in the same way that the prohibition of alcohol and drugs led to an underground black market for alcohol and drugs. The reason is simple, alcohol and drugs can be easily mass produced with relatively little effort and skill. The same is not true for gun manufacturing, which are complicated and highly technical machines to manufacture. Thus, there is no reason to believe that prohibiting sales of high powered weapons would cause a black market for high powered weapons to emerge.

3) Lastly, pro gun apologists claim that cities and municipalities that have strict gun control laws generally do not experience any reduction in gun related violence. The data on this issue is generally anecdotal and appears to go both ways, and is therefore highly inconclusive. In my opinion, regulating and prohibiting the sale of certain guns isn't intended to reduce the rampant gun violence in inner cities such as Chicago. The only thing that will even come close to reducing gun violence among low income, minority communities is stricter policing, but that is a topic for another thread. The purpose of gun control is to, ultimately, make it as difficult as possible for a prospective shooter to attain a gun. These gun control measures would include strict universal back ground checks, gun registration with the government, limitations on high capacity magazines and restrictions on the sale of guns to those with even a slight indication of mental health problems. I do not claim that this will solve the problem over night, but it is a step in the right direction.

Question for discussion: How do we solve the problem of mass shootings in America?

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to post 1 by WinePusher]

One interesting idea I have heard (I believe it was from California Lt Governor Gavin Newsom on June 10 episode of Chelsea on Netflix) is to add laws to control the sale of ammunition as well as firearms.

I certainly don't have all the answers, but there needs to be some controls on weapons. Like you mentioned in the OP, 'arms' can cover a lot of stuff. Should US citizens be allowed to own nukes? Why not, those are arms right? Most sane people would probably draw the line somewhere, rather than have a complete free-for-all.

The US has a hard road though. It's always easier to give rights than take them away.

[bluethread]

Well, maybe if someone has been questioned and released three times, after a history in school and work of antisocial behavior, that person could be denied the credentials to work for a security firm. Just a thought. Oh, he was Muslim. Sorry, that would have been racist profiling.

[Kenisaw]

As a gun owner and fellow conservative (yes some atheists are conservative) I think the biggest problem is that gun sales aren't tracked. Yes you go to a seller that is supplied by the manufacturer and that is tracked, but if you turn around and sell it to another private party that is not. This loophole is the single biggest issue. If every single gun were registered to an owner than these shoddy private sales couldn't be done so easily.

I know some gun owners thing a national data base means that the government can come and seize everyone's guns at once, but that is idiotic. How are they going to grab 200 million weapons, especially when every cop I know is a pro-gun rights enthusiast. It's not a real objection.

Create a national gun registry so that background checks are done every single time a weapon exchanges hands. It won't eliminate mass shootings, but some of them would have raised the right flags when these murderers obtained their weapons...

[Wootah]

The fear of prohibition drives the sales of course.

It's such an illusory topic - all the bad guys all over the world have guns. But apparently the good guys can't have them.

Also historically, across cultures, the peasant class were deliberately disarmed. This was not some form of maternalism but a way to keep them in control.

I also wonder what the genocide rate to small scale gun violence is.

[bluethread]

I know some gun owners thing a national data base means that the government can come and seize everyone's guns at once, but that is idiotic. How are they going to grab 200 million weapons, especially when every cop I know is a pro-gun rights enthusiast. It's not a real objection.

Yes, in many places that is the current case, but there is an increasing number of "gun free" zones. Does impracticality stop the government from confiscating weapons in those places? When we consider federal legislation, we have to consider possible future actions, like a creeping expansion of these "gun free" zones. Also, do you think the founding fathers would have trusted King George with such a list? The same argument was used with regard to school integration. George Wallace believed that there is no way the large number of schools could be integrated over the objections of a multitude of citizens and school employees that supported segregation. It only takes a few high profile cases, gradual creeping enforcement or both to make it happen. Some argue that we register motor vehicles, but that is only motor vehicles that use public roads. A motor vehicle that is used only on private property is exempt. In conclusion, this is not the simple gun rights equals pro mass killings equation that the left is making it out to be. It is yet another federal power grab, in a long trend toward massive centralized government.

[Wootah]

As a gun owner and fellow conservative (yes some atheists are conservative) I think the biggest problem is that gun sales aren't tracked. Yes you go to a seller that is supplied by the manufacturer and that is tracked, but if you turn around and sell it to another private party that is not. This loophole is the single biggest issue. If every single gun were registered to an owner than these shoddy private sales couldn't be done so easily.

I know some gun owners thing a national data base means that the government can come and seize everyone's guns at once, but that is idiotic. How are they going to grab 200 million weapons, especially when every cop I know is a pro-gun rights enthusiast. It's not a real objection.

Create a national gun registry so that background checks are done every single time a weapon exchanges hands. It won't eliminate mass shootings, but some of them would have raised the right flags when these murderers obtained their weapons...

The problem is why should the government have a national database on anything other than the bad guys.

If the problem is controlling the people then gun control is the solution.

If the problem is controlling government then gun control not part of the solution.

[Zzyzx]

.
I am not a Republican nor a Democrat nor any other political label; however, I am 100% in favor of reducing violence, including gun violence -- but ask how that can be accomplished.

NO laws will keep those of ill intent from acquiring whatever firearms they wish -- any more than laws keep people from acquiring drugs. Guns may become more expensive or slightly more difficult to obtain but "where there is a will there is a way" no matter what is made illegal. Criminals are not known for adherence to laws.

There are an estimated 250 to 300 million firearms in private ownership. No laws can control buying, selling, trading, stealing. An estimated 250 thousand firearms are stolen each year -- including many (uncounted number) from police, federal agencies and the military.

Banning high-capacity magazines may seem like a solution -- until one considers that many civilian firearms use magazines that hold perhaps ten cartridges AND can be very quickly and easily changed for a full magazine. Does it make any significant difference if a shooter has to reload after ten rounds vs. twenty rounds? The recent night club shooter was active for three hours -- and others for an hour or two. Plenty of time to reload.

A common pump or semi-automatic hunting shotgun can hold six rounds of 00 Buckshot -- which each contain 15 thirty caliber balls -- thus ninety potentially lethal projectiles. Many common semi-automatic handguns use magazines holding a dozen or so rounds -- and are very quickly changeable.

So . . . what can effectively be done to keep firearms (or certain firearms) out of the hands of those with ill intent?

I'd appreciate anyone offering a workable / applicable approach.

[Kenisaw]

I know some gun owners thing a national data base means that the government can come and seize everyone's guns at once, but that is idiotic. How are they going to grab 200 million weapons, especially when every cop I know is a pro-gun rights enthusiast. It's not a real objection.

Yes, in many places that is the current case, but there is an increasing number of "gun free" zones. Does impracticality stop the government from confiscating weapons in those places? When we consider federal legislation, we have to consider possible future actions, like a creeping expansion of these "gun free" zones. Also, do you think the founding fathers would have trusted King George with such a list? The same argument was used with regard to school integration. George Wallace believed that there is no way the large number of schools could be integrated over the objections of a multitude of citizens and school employees that supported segregation. It only takes a few high profile cases, gradual creeping enforcement or both to make it happen. Some argue that we register motor vehicles, but that is only motor vehicles that use public roads. A motor vehicle that is used only on private property is exempt. In conclusion, this is not the simple gun rights equals pro mass killings equation that the left is making it out to be. It is yet another federal power grab, in a long trend toward massive centralized government.

By "gun free" zones I assume you mean around schools? You still have a right to have weapons in your home if you live inside those zones. Your rights haven't changed. Some cities have tried to become "gun free zones", like DC and SF. They have been found unconstitutional and were removed because they said you couldn't have guns period.

Even if King a George had such a list, how would he go about getting them? The sheer time and expense of such a task would have bankrupted England. I don't see that comment as being a valid objection.

I often hear the "power grab" or "expanded federal role" argument brought up in this topic, yet no one can explain to me how this actually expands federal powers...

[bluethread]

I often hear the "power grab" or "expanded federal role" argument brought up in this topic, yet no one can explain to me how this actually expands federal powers...

The federal government doesn't have to take all guns to make this tyranny. In fact, unequal enforcement is much easier, when there is a law that dies not require intent. The government can choose only to take the guns of those who are not PC, i.e. the IRS and tax exempt PAC's. That is exactly what King George, and every other tyrant in history has done. An anti gun PAC has tried to pint out that when the 2nd amendment was approved, there were only muskets. However, less than one-hundred years ago a child could buy a Gatling gun or machine gun, and there were very few mass murders back then. That is why such things as the St. Valentines Day massacre were so notorious. 7 dead, all gangsters.