General Question

Strauss's avatar

Will this work for gun regulation (see details)

Asked by Strauss (20294points) January 16th, 2013

If I say “Automobiles don’t kill people, people (using automobiles) kill people,” most people would not disagree with a system of registration, licensing and insurance in order to ensure that people who operate automobiles would be properly trained and held responsible for the safe operation of automobiles.

However, if I say “Firearms don’t kill people, people (using firearms) kill people,” and I propose a system of registration, licensing and insurance in order to ensure that people who own and operate firearms would be properly trained and held responsible for the safe operation of said firearms.

What is the difference?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

27 Answers

WestRiverrat's avatar

There is no constitutional right to drive an automobile, there is a constitutional right to bear arms against a tyrannical government.

majorrich's avatar

That would once again only affect law abiding firearms owners

Kardamom's avatar

Another difference at least with regards to a car and a gun, is that a car is not meant to kill anybody or any animal (although clearly, that sometimes happens when a human is driving a car) but guns are in fact made for people to kill other people and animals. That is their whole purpose, and that is why I have a problem with guns being in the hands of anybody except the police and the military. But realistically, I don’t think you could ever take away most guns, legal or otherwise, because they are too widely distributed in the U.S. and there’s no real way to know where they are or who has them or how many anyone has. It’s too late for that now.

ETpro's avatar

If I say guns don’t vote, people vote, then the “Nothing can be done.” types better get the message. In a recent poll Republican “say it this way” expert, Frank Luntz found, “82% of gun owners support criminal background checks for gun purchasers (74% of NRA members voiced support for background checks). Sixty-eight percent of NRA members believe that individuals who have been arrested for domestic violence should not be eligible for gun permits. And 75% of NRA members believe that concealed weapon permits should not be available to people who have committed violent misdemeanors.”

@WestRiverrat Another bogus argument, unless you would be perfectly OK with legislation to limit or ban the right to own an automobile, or anything else that isn’t specifically mentioned in the constitution. There’s not right to have shoes in there either, or pants. We don’t ban cars, and the current rate is NOT about banning the right to bear arms. It’s about the part of the 2nd amendment that talks about “well regulated” and if you care a hoot about the Constitution, that’s part of the 2nd amendment too.

@majorrich Not so. That’s tantamount to claiming that anyone willing to break the automobile laws is immune to prosecution when they break them. Laws often let us stop and prosecute people who casually disregard the safety of others before they kill anyone. If you say you are against infringing 2nd amendment rights, I am 100% with you. But it you then claim that because of that, it’s impossible to stop lunatics and terrorists from being legally able to buy truckloads of assault rifles and 100 round clips, I am 100% convinced that’s lunacy.

CWOTUS's avatar

We could turn that around a bit (the way I like to turn things around in general) and ask, “What good is automobile registration, really?”

Has it really added value to your driving experience? Okay, it makes some users easier to track when they’ve committed a crime, because observers can say, “I got the license number right here!” And it aids the police in tracking some (marginal) number of stolen vehicles. But I don’t think it helps all that much.

I’m glad to have mandatory insurance, but many drivers find ways around that, even at the risk of breaking the law. When they have no assets and net worth in negative numbers, then what’s it to them if they break another law that results in a fine they can’t pay? So the car may be confiscated, if they’re skating on the edge of bankruptcy (or below) then they don’t have much equity in that anyway.

I’d say, “Let’s do away with automobile registration while we’re abolishing gun registration.”

WestRiverrat's avatar

@ETpro I would be fine with banning automobiles.

The truth is most of the restrictions you want are already in place. It is already against the law for anyone to buy a truck load of assault rifles. It is already illegal for felons and individuals accused of violent misdemeanors to possess firearms, you don’t even have to be convicted to be inelligible. Making it against the law won’t do a damn thing about it until the DOJ decides to prosecute the people arrested for these violations instead of just dropping the charges.

CWOTUS's avatar

I think that’s the point that many of us have been making for years, for decades, even, @WestRiverrat. We have plenty of laws on the books against the misuse of weapons by anyone, and even simple ownership / possession by some. But those laws are not very well prosecuted.

My finger of blame goes to “The War on (Some) Drugs”, because there’s a lot more money and fame in it (many prosecutors have made their bones by being “tough on drugs”, and many large police and sheriff’s departments are very highly funded through asset forfeiture that “drug laws” permit). Plus we’re locking up people for doing drugs and letting violent criminals out early, and in addition to all of this, because “drugs are illegal”, the dealers use weapons to protect their turf, to fight violently against arrest, and to maintain smuggling routes.

We’d be a much less violent nation if we simply surrendered in this stupid war.

ETpro's avatar

@WestRiverrat Sorry, but that simply isn’t the truth, it’s the propaganda of the NRA, which is not an organization representing America’s gun owners. It’s a trade lobbying group funded by, and answering to the weapons industry. The NRA and the CEOs of the companies they lobby for could care less how many kids get slaughtered as long as their profits keep going up. I’m not anti gun. I like to shoot. I’m glad I can do so. I’m not anti gun industry. But I am anti lunacy. And insisting the 40% of all gun sales go without any background check so that convicted felons, homicidal maniacs, and even people on the terrorist watch list can buy all the guns they want is lunacy.

The truth is the program the President laid out today will reduce (not eliminate) gun violence. It will give law enforcement valuable tools to stop at least some criminals and maniacs before they strike. And at the same time, it will do NOTHING to infringe on law abiding citizens rights to bear arms.

WestRiverrat's avatar

@ETpro Sorry, I will believe my own eyes over your propoganda.
I have done ride alongs with the BIA police where they have arrested felons on parole with guns. They were released from the jail before the cops got the reports written, not bailed out, released.

I would also like to know where I can legally buy this truckload of assault rifles you claim any maniac can get.

Deshi_basara's avatar

@ETpro Any kind of regulation as to the types of weaponry or accessories you can purchase legally infringes on the right to bear arms. The program Obama implemented just reinforced old laws that people had gotten relaxed on. And as for the rest of the crap that has been formulated due to the rampant abuse of your finger tips, how about you go off on a rant about the bushmaster AR used in the Sandy Hook shooting and try to get a job at MSMBC…

@Yetanotheruser There is no true difference. In the end the actions committed are the result of people. Machines cannot act on their own, they can only fulfill tasks as defined by human interfacing. The problem here is that people aren’t using their brains anymore. They’re flying off half cocked and full of emotion.

Nullo's avatar

That’s called a concealed carry permit, particulars variable by state.
So far as I know, you are not required to register or insure a car that you don’t drive on the roads. This car would not require a license to operate, either. So it is with firearms. The home defender, the backyard plinker, the varmint chaser, and the deer hunter (hunting has its own permit system) are not operating on the road, as it were. The guy who’s carrying concealed is, and in most states must be licensed to do so.

ETpro's avatar

@WestRiverrat Perhaps you’d feel differently if you had ridden along the day police responded to Adam Lanza’s murders and had to clean up the bullet riddled corpses of 20 beautiful little children. In the face of that, insisting that nothing can possibly be done to cut down some on the killing makes the gun fanatics look insane. It would serve the cause of protecting legitimate 2nd Amendment rights better if the NRA and the far right would talk about what can be done short of banning weapons and bringing rights. Intransigence and name calling isn’t going to win the day when polling shows that 92% of Americans favor universal background checks for all gun purchases.

@Deshi_basara I can type for myself. You don’t have to tell me what I think before I say it. The first gun I owned was a semi-automatic. I am not a gun hater. I just happen to see no reason short of warfare for 100 round clips like the Batman Movie shooter legally bought even though he was a raving loonie. Nothing good can come of allowing that.

WestRiverrat's avatar

@ETpro I support New Yorks new gun law as written. If limits on magazine capacity are acceptible, then they should be made for everyone with no exceptions for law enforcement or politician’s security details. After all if larger than 7 round capacity is not needed for civilians then cops should not need them either.

Nullo's avatar

@ETpro I thought that D.C. v. Heller clarified that the bit with the “well-regulated militia being necessary to a free state” was window dressing.

ETpro's avatar

@WestRiverrat Then we’ve been arguing with our false perceptions of what the other guy believed, because I’m on board with that. I thought the plan the President laid out made good sense, with the exception of banning semi-automatics, which ain’t going to happen anyway.

@Nullo Not even close. That was a rather limited response to a clearly infringing law. See this.

Deshi_basara's avatar

@ETpro “100 round clips like the Batman Movie shooter legally bought even though he was a raving loonie”. Does that not scream better mental health care instead of higher gun restrictions though?
I don’t want to tell you what to think. I don’t want that kind of responsibility, nor do I like raising sheep. I merely want you to question more than the obvious and to open your perspective.

Also, simply owning a gun and gun magazines doesn’t make you any more versed in gun enthusiasm or regulation. If that were the case I would be certified OBGYN by now…...

ETpro's avatar

@Deshi_basara I’m actually quite open on the question of gun safety. I applaud the idea of better mental health care, though I wonder just what that means in public policy changes and how effective it might actually be given our current ability to assess who is dangerous and whi is not.

Clip size is an entirely different matter. There is no legitimate hunting or sporting reason to want a 100 round clip, or a belt feed for an AR-15. You would want that if you plan to fight the police and want to at least match them in fire power, or if you want to kill a whole lot of people quickly. That’s an easy restriction to enact that would actually reduce the carnage at mass shootings without restricting anyone’s 2nd amendment rights.

majorrich's avatar

If the AR can accept belt feed, it must be a top secret thing I’ve never seen, or it is some (extremely unsafe) cluge cobbled together in someones garage. The 100 rd Magazine for the AR is so heavy and unwieldy only a lunatic would buy one, 30 is about the optimum and it balances the feel of the weapon. As far as I know, the really high capacity mags aren’t particularly reliable either. But I have no experience with them either. Just sayin’.

Nullo's avatar

@majorrich I saw an AR clone once that could indeed accept belts – but it was something of a custom job.

WestRiverrat's avatar

Stoner, who designed the AR15/M16, also made a belt fed version to be used as a Squad Automatic Weapon. It did not get accepted for general distribution, but did see limited service in Vietnam with the Seals. It was never available to the general public.

CWOTUS's avatar

I want a drone now, anyway.

majorrich's avatar

Belt fed would make it pass NY legislation though right? No Magazine! XD

ETpro's avatar

@majorrich Here’s where to buy the conversion fully set up. Google AR-15 belt feed and you’ll also find links to the receiver and feed parts needed. Here’s video of what it can do.

If people argue that denying them that firepower infringes their 2nd Amendment rights, then why not PRGs, Mortars, tanks, chemical and biological weapons. Why not nukes?

majorrich's avatar

Tres’ cool but a terrible waste of ammunition.added to the tedium of clipping al lthe rounds together to belt them up. Did you note the technique used to simulate full auto? I’ve not tried that either, but have been told about it. that’s why you see a lot of rail-equipped m-4 clones with the forward grip to make bump fire easier. Works on pistols too! I agree belt feed is not necessary and insanely expensive, but it shouldn’t be illegal for some fool to blow 2–300 dollars of ammo at the range to look cool in front of his buddies. (probably because of TD (tiny dick) syndrome). plus 3500+ for the modification that mills a big slot in the lower receiver.

ETpro's avatar

@majorrich I heard that. Blowing $300 in a 20-second burst of adrenalin pumping fun ain’t my idea of a great use of my limited time and resources. Also, while it’s legal to buy all the parts to make it happen, without special, very difficult to obtain permits; it isn’t legal to modify a firearm for full automatic fire. The parts manufacturers get around this by making you buy one critical part from another company. But once you trick the AR-15 out to be an M-16 on full auto and take it to the range, good luck. You’re going to need it.

Nullo's avatar

@ETpro Indeed, why not? I do know, though, that most of those things are miserably expensive.
Have you ever considered the geopolitical ramifications of going back to a militia system?

WestRiverrat's avatar

@ETpro You will only make one trip to the range with it. Once they fire it off, if it is not a range with a license for fully automatic fire, their next visitor will be from the ATF.

If it is a range with license for fully automatic fire, the firearm will still be checked to make sure it was legally acquired.

Answer this question




to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther