Gun Ownership Rights

[Harlan Huckleby]

guns don't kill people, it's the bullets

[Partial]

I think the Tech situation has more to do with the confusion. You can blame the campus for handling it poorly but that's just not something a college should have to worry about. Wasn't it like 20 minutes before anyone even knew what was going on? I don't know that it would have made much difference having armed people on campus.

Still I feel that it is already illegal to do illegal to commit violent crimes with guns... what good does it do to make owning guns illegal? So criminals have to break two laws instead of just one?

I don't want to see any more gun control laws. Try enforcing the ones we already have instead. I don't see how anyone can see this as anything except slowly taking away people's rights. People seem to be stuck in an anti-gun mentality but guns are not a bad thing. They are not just for criminals and they are not just for wackos who go to weekly militia meetings.

I agree. In addition to this, imagine how many lives could have been saved if just one of those students had a weapon on them.

If everyone can have a gun, they become much less of a threat imo.

Are you anywhere near blacksburg?

[3irty1]

I think the Tech situation has more to do with the confusion. You can blame the campus for handling it poorly but that's just not something a college should have to worry about. Wasn't it like 20 minutes before anyone even knew what was going on? I don't know that it would have made much difference having armed people on campus.

Still I feel that it is already illegal to do illegal to commit violent crimes with guns... what good does it do to make owning guns illegal? So criminals have to break two laws instead of just one?

I don't want to see any more gun control laws. Try enforcing the ones we already have instead. I don't see how anyone can see this as anything except slowly taking away people's rights. People seem to be stuck in an anti-gun mentality but guns are not a bad thing. They are not just for criminals and they are not just for wackos who go to weekly militia meetings.

I agree. In addition to this, imagine how many lives could have been saved if just one of those students had a weapon on them.

If everyone can have a gun, they become much less of a threat imo.

Are you anywhere near blacksburg?

I'm like 2 hours East. Most of the other engineers I work with went to Tech.

[hoosier]

Re: Gun Ownership Rights

When DC passed its handgun ban in 1976 it did experience a 25% decline in gun-related violence (but not other violent crimes), which suggests that the ban did have a positive effect on reducing violence.

Which is why I'm absolutely in favor of firm restrictions on who can own and register a handgun. In essence, what those bans did was make it harder for criminals to access guns...which is why you saw a brief decline in crime, then eventually saw it rise back up again as criminals ADJUSTED. Did this really protect innocent civilians long term? I don't think so. It took guns away from them LONG term...while it only took guns away from criminals SHORT term.

There are just as many studys and examples where INCREASING the ability of law abiding citizens to own and carry guns also curtailed violence and crime in a community. The thugs aren't entirely stupid...they will target those they know don't have the ability to defend themselves.

I'm all in favor of making it damn near impossible for someone with a criminal record or history of mental illness to own a gun. I also find the need to possess automatic weapons illogical and a danger to society when they fall into the hands of those who wish to kill dozens of innocent people.

However, I do not believe that taking guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens looking to have a way to defend themselves and their family against those who will disregard the law at all costs is part of the answer to reducing violence.

Your plan to limit handgun ownership to "law abiding citizens" sounds great, but there's one problem: according to a 1992 Dept of Justice report, two-thirds of people arrested for using guns in violent crimes had no prior felony convictions--in other words, they would be legally able to own a handgun under your system.

[3irty1]

Re: Gun Ownership Rights

When DC passed its handgun ban in 1976 it did experience a 25% decline in gun-related violence (but not other violent crimes), which suggests that the ban did have a positive effect on reducing violence.

Which is why I'm absolutely in favor of firm restrictions on who can own and register a handgun. In essence, what those bans did was make it harder for criminals to access guns...which is why you saw a brief decline in crime, then eventually saw it rise back up again as criminals ADJUSTED. Did this really protect innocent civilians long term? I don't think so. It took guns away from them LONG term...while it only took guns away from criminals SHORT term.

There are just as many studys and examples where INCREASING the ability of law abiding citizens to own and carry guns also curtailed violence and crime in a community. The thugs aren't entirely stupid...they will target those they know don't have the ability to defend themselves.

I'm all in favor of making it damn near impossible for someone with a criminal record or history of mental illness to own a gun. I also find the need to possess automatic weapons illogical and a danger to society when they fall into the hands of those who wish to kill dozens of innocent people.

However, I do not believe that taking guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens looking to have a way to defend themselves and their family against those who will disregard the law at all costs is part of the answer to reducing violence.

Your plan to limit handgun ownership to "law abiding citizens" sounds great, but there's one problem: according to a 1992 Dept of Justice report, two-thirds of people arrested for using guns in violent crimes had no prior felony convictions--in other words, they would be legally able to own a handgun under your system.

And what fraction of legal gun owners commit violent crimes with a gun?

[swede]

Re: Gun Ownership Rights

Your plan to limit handgun ownership to "law abiding citizens" sounds great, but there's one problem: according to a 1992 Dept of Justice report, two-thirds of people arrested for using guns in violent crimes had no prior felony convictions--in other words, they would be legally able to own a handgun under your system.

Yes, until they actually became a felon.

[hoosier]

Re: Gun Ownership Rights

And what fraction of legal gun owners commit violent crimes with a gun?

I don't think that really matters. The argument against handguns isn't that gun owners are likely or unlikely to commit crimes, it's that handguns are guaranteed to make any crime committed much worse.

[The Leaper]

Re: Gun Ownership Rights

I don't think that really matters. The argument against handguns isn't that gun owners are likely or unlikely to commit crimes, it's that handguns are guaranteed to make any crime committed much worse.

So, if handguns and concealed carry laws are bad and produce more crime and worse crime, then why are most of the states that have the lowest percentage of gun crimes in the nation ones which tend toward offering more gun rights to their citizens?

Certainly, there is no dismissing that handguns are the primary weapon used in gun violence. My point is simply that creating a law that only good citizens will abide by will do nothing to deter criminals from possessing handguns. The goal should be to reduce the number of handguns available on the secondary street market, which is where the vast majority of guns are purchased that are used in crimes. A greater emphasis by the society at large, as well as the black community in particular, needs to be made toward the fact that 50% of gun crime and victims relate to the black community, which is less than 15% of the population. Gun rights have nothing to do with that discrepancy.

[hoosier]

Re: Gun Ownership Rights

I don't think that really matters. The argument against handguns isn't that gun owners are likely or unlikely to commit crimes, it's that handguns are guaranteed to make any crime committed much worse.

So, if handguns and concealed carry laws are bad and produce more crime and worse crime, then why are most of the states that have the lowest percentage of gun crimes in the nation ones which tend toward offering more gun rights to their citizens?

I think you answered your own question in your earlier post. Gun violence tends to be most common in urban areas that have concentrated pockets of poverty and desparation. If that's true, it also follows that rural areas (where gun laws tend to be less popular) also happen to see less gun related crime--not necessarily because the criminals know law abiding citizens are packing but because there's less concentrated poverty and therefore less violent crime in general.

[Partial]

Re: Gun Ownership Rights

And what fraction of legal gun owners commit violent crimes with a gun?

I don't think that really matters. The argument against handguns isn't that gun owners are likely or unlikely to commit crimes, it's that handguns are guaranteed to make any crime committed much worse.

I disagree with that. If the person being robbed has a gun or if the robber thinks he has a gun, he might think twice. Also, if this robber is going around causing mayhem, maybe he deserves to get shot.

I think if anything it makes the world safer. Criminals are going to have guns regardless.

[The Leaper]

Re: Gun Ownership Rights

I think you answered your own question in your earlier post. Gun violence tends to be most common in urban areas that have concentrated pockets of poverty and desparation. If that's true, it also follows that rural areas (where gun laws tend to be less popular) also happen to see less gun related crime--not necessarily because the criminals know law abiding citizens are packing but because there's less concentrated poverty and therefore less violent crime in general.

Exactly.

In other words...legislating gun rights will have no real impact on gun violence if the social conditions causing the gun violence remain. The only REAL way to solve the issue of gun violence is to address the conditions in society that contribute to it.

I'm not seeing how laws restricting handguns do anything in this regard. Where are the efforts to combat the glorification of guns and violence in rap music and pop culture? Instead, we make a law to take rights away from citizens...which I think is a dangerous precident.

[Zool]

Re: Gun Ownership Rights

I think you answered your own question in your earlier post. Gun violence tends to be most common in urban areas that have concentrated pockets of poverty and desparation. If that's true, it also follows that rural areas (where gun laws tend to be less popular) also happen to see less gun related crime--not necessarily because the criminals know law abiding citizens are packing but because there's less concentrated poverty and therefore less violent crime in general.

Exactly.

In other words...legislating gun rights will have no real impact on gun violence if the social conditions causing the gun violence remain. The only REAL way to solve the issue of gun violence is to address the conditions in society that contribute to it.

I'm not seeing how laws restricting handguns do anything in this regard. Where are the efforts to combat the glorification of guns and violence in rap music and pop culture? Instead, we make a law to take rights away from citizens...which I think is a dangerous precident.

Rappers aren't citizens?

[3irty1]

Re: Gun Ownership Rights

And what fraction of legal gun owners commit violent crimes with a gun?

I don't think that really matters. The argument against handguns isn't that gun owners are likely or unlikely to commit crimes, it's that handguns are guaranteed to make any crime committed much worse.

Well I'll agree that committing a crime using a gun makes the crime worse... what kind of point is that?

I'm saying that it is unfair to treat anyone who owns a gun or wants to own a gun and is legally able as if they were all going to one of the first time offenders who commit 2/3 of gun crimes. At least not on a national level.

[hoosier]

Re: Gun Ownership Rights

I think you answered your own question in your earlier post. Gun violence tends to be most common in urban areas that have concentrated pockets of poverty and desparation. If that's true, it also follows that rural areas (where gun laws tend to be less popular) also happen to see less gun related crime--not necessarily because the criminals know law abiding citizens are packing but because there's less concentrated poverty and therefore less violent crime in general.

Exactly.

In other words...legislating gun rights will have no real impact on gun violence if the social conditions causing the gun violence remain. The only REAL way to solve the issue of gun violence is to address the conditions in society that contribute to it.

I'm not seeing how laws restricting handguns do anything in this regard. Where are the efforts to combat the glorification of guns and violence in rap music and pop culture? Instead, we make a law to take rights away from citizens...which I think is a dangerous precident.

I agree that gun bans alone aren't the answer, and I'm sympathetic to a degree with your position against viewing legislation and government as cures for social problems. But while addressing the societal causes instead of the effects is necessary, it's also a long-term strategy that isn't going to bear fruit immediately, assuming we could ever agree on what the root of the problem is. What happens in the mean time? I don't think it's clear cut that restrictions and bans have no real effect. In fact, I think the evidence we do have suggests the contrary.

[hoosier]

Re: Gun Ownership Rights

And what fraction of legal gun owners commit violent crimes with a gun?

I don't think that really matters. The argument against handguns isn't that gun owners are likely or unlikely to commit crimes, it's that handguns are guaranteed to make any crime committed much worse.

Well I'll agree that committing a crime using a gun makes the crime worse... what kind of point is that?

I'm saying that it is unfair to treat anyone who owns a gun or wants to own a gun and is legally able as if they were all going to one of the first time offenders who commit 2/3 of gun crimes. At least not on a national level.

Nobody's talking about a national ban on handguns. The issue was whether the constitution allows a single locality (aka the crime capital of the US) to ban handguns.

You think it's "unfair" that the law labels all handgun owners as potential criminals, but that's really not the point. The law has to weigh individual liberty against collective good. The rationale for the handgun ban is that individual liberty (the right to own guns) is in this case outweighed by the public good (the right to be free from gun violence). If gun violence in DC weren't so ubiquitous (like in much of the rest of the country), individual rights might well outweigh the concern for public safety.