The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has been without a permanent director for six years, as President Obama recently noted. But even if someone were to be confirmed for the job, the agency’s ability to thwart gun violence is hamstrung by legislative restrictions and by loopholes in federal gun laws, many law enforcement officials and advocates of tighter gun regulations say.Wouldn't it be common sense to give the authorities all the proper tools necessary to investigate crime? Combined with closing the private sale loophole, a national registry of gun transactions would be the right thing.
For example, under current laws the bureau is prohibited from creating a federal registry of gun transactions. So while detectives on television tap a serial number into a computer and instantly identify the buyer of a firearm, the reality could not be more different.
Fear of gun confiscations is the usual excuse, but I don't think that's reasonable. I think many gun owners oppose this simply because they want the freedom to fly below the radar and do what they want with no interference. What that means, of course, is they're not as law-abiding as they say.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
Actually, what it means is that we simply don't care to ask anybody's permission while to do whatever it is we feel like doing so long as we're not harming anybody. Sometimes that means buying a gun. Sometimes that just means getting something for our intolerable hay fever. It's the same type of attitude that drove many of our ancestors into the unsettled parts of what's now the US as it was growing. We figure that government is a nice thing to have around as long as it is punishing those who harm others and leaving the rest of us to go about our business.
ReplyDeleteAs for the confiscation fears, that is probably the primary reason most of us oppose registries--even beating out the above mentioned independent spirit.
We have seen how other nations registered guns and then either confiscated them en masse, or went after them piecemeal the way Canada did. First, their system was only to be a registry, but over time, they would ban one model after another, and the cops would go around taking up all of that type of gun.
This is why we will not accept any registration scheme. Experience shows us that those who do want to ban all guns will use the registries that other's, who don't want to ban all guns, push for to slowly achieve their goal one piece at a time.
"Actually, what it means is that we simply don't care to ask anybody's permission while to do whatever it is we feel like doing so long as we're not harming anybody."
ReplyDeleteBut, some of you are harming people. That's the point. If every single gun owner were as responsible as you are, we'd have no problem. But it ain't like that.
A tiny few--less than one tenth of one percent. And the crimes committed with "assault rifles" are a tiny fraction of all gun crimes. You demand the impossible and then call for the intolerable.
DeleteWhy should the rest of us be placed in a registry that can be used to pick off our guns one at a time?
DeleteThe answer is not to pile regulations onto those of us who are responsible. It is to come down with a hammer on those who harm others or destroy their property.
Discourage crime with better prosecution and stronger penalties that include hard labor to pay off any damage done. As for the undeterrable spree shooters, encourage attitudes and mental preparedness that will help respond to them and stop them. Yes, I think allowing concealed carry in many places can (not will, but can) lead to bringing these things to a stop sooner if a carrier or an armed guard is nearby. For example, see the recent Oregon shooting where the attacker was confronted by another man with a gun while his own gun was jammed. He reportedly ran off and ended his spree.
However, guns are not the sum total of how we stop these things. A concealed weapons will not do anything without the will to use it. It is this will to act that must be cultivated. Not the will to use a gun, but the will to use whatever is at hand to fight for one's own life and the lives of one's charges.
Several of the hero teachers of Newtown displayed this courage and willingness to act, but they unfortunately failed. There have been other examples--the group of boy scouts who tackled Kip Kinkle; the congregants who took down the shooter at the Unitarian assembly in Knoxville, TN; the heroic professor at Virginia Tech who died trying to keep Cho out of his classroom; and many more that I do not have time to post about.
All of these sprang to action. Some succeeded, some failed. However, some of those who failed might have succeeded, even if they themselves died, had others joined them in a concerted effort--e.g. if the students that the professor at Virgina Tech was protecting had used the time he bought them pulling out books, breaking off chair legs, etc. and bludgeoned Cho when he came into the room.
Whether we choose to own guns or not, we need to acknowledge that life is dangerous and be prepared to fight off these types of maniacs because Damnit, we want to live.
Ask Canada why they are discontinuing their gun registry.. (overbudget and useless)
Deleteshall not be infringed. I know you really don't like that part of the amendment but it exists. You want it changed then contact your congressman. Oh wait you don't even live in the states so kindly butt out.
ReplyDeleteThe "shall not be infringed" part of the 2A is already obsolete. With the Supreme Court's blessing, "reasonable restrictions" are already sanctioned. Soon, the rest of the amendment will be relegated to the scrap heap of obsolescence where it belongs.
DeleteKeep dreaming, Mikeb. And if your foolish proposals become law, it would be best to stay in Italy.
DeleteHave you seen the latest from Gov. Cuomo and Sen. Feinstein? They're both talking about new laws requiring owners of semiautomatic rifles to sell them to the government at well under market rates--in other words, a confiscation. Gun registries are the necessary step for confiscation to work. You refuse to acknowledge this because you don't see gun ownership as anything important or even reasonable.
ReplyDeleteGreat. This is absolutely the correct step.
DeleteAnd if you want to go down in a blaze of glory to protect your Holy Gun, so much the better. This country would be a far better place with the gun owners all dead.
Anonymous at 1:27,
DeletePlease, don't send others to take our guns. Come yourself. It's pretty cowardly to cheer for the demise of gun owners without putting some personal skin in the game.
Molon Labe, asshat.
Don't worry, the ones really willing to go down in a blaze of glory are too few to worry about.
DeleteI foresee voluntary compliance. The results will be good enough without ruffling the feathers of the truly paranoid.
You foresee a lot. Time to go to the eye doctor.
DeleteMike, does that mean that you are willing to push the matter to the point that those people do wind up going out in a blaze of glory?
DeleteAm I doing the pushing? What are you talking about? I already said I don't think it will ever come to home visits and forced confiscations. Only the truly paranoid think that.
DeleteThen how do you expect the government to get our guns? We're not turning them in.
DeleteMike,
DeleteDo you seriously think the government would just allow voluntary compliance and ignore when 50% of "assault weapon" owners either turn nothing in, or don't turn in all of what they own, and start passing the guns on to their children?
Ignoring this would make the registry and the ban a joke. Enforcing it would require the home visits and forced confiscations. Not in the form of going door to door (which would be more efficient) but in the form of raiding a couple of suspected homes every few nights. This would be effectively the same thing.
Isn't the deal that they'd either be turned in or registered? That would bring the compliance rate way up. Australia's was quite high.
DeleteMike,
DeleteLike I've said before, this is not Australia. In Australia, there wasn't a run on guns that were possibly going to be banned. Do you think all these people will register these guns so that they can be taken up later when another shooting happens and the government decides that they're too dangerous to leave in people's hands?
If you think so, you're sadly mistaken. Large numbers of people will not turn their guns in or register them. I would guess that 50% would not be too high an estimate after much of the talk I've heard and buying I've seen.
The lack of tracking is because the gunsucks want to sell guns to criminals. Remember that the only important thing to the NRA is moving merchandize. Any notion that the NRA cares WHO buys the guns is false. They need to sell 100 million guns per year, and that means that the purchaser is not important.
ReplyDeleteMOVE THE MERCH.
For the record, what guns does the NRA manufacture and sell?
DeleteYeah, and for the record, just about every single gun used in crime or in criminal hands right now, started out the lawful property of one of you guys. You have done such a shit job at curtaining the gun flow into the criminal world that the government is now going to do it for you.
DeleteProbably not. You're forgetting the Republicans in the House. Besides, criminals will always be able to import guns just like drugs. Why can't you understand that, and why do you want to disarm good citizens?
DeleteThat is a non argument, as almost everything anyone owns started off legit. The constant attempts to demonize inanimate objects and law abiding Citizens is pathetic.
DeleteMike. You may believe that gun registry is a proper step for the US and can argue that as much as you want. That's fine. But please don't pretend like gun confiscation could never happen here. It has happened before and, as you know, some are proposing exactly just such a thing right now. Maybe it won't pass, maybe it will.
ReplyDeleteBut it doesn't matter. Confiscation is a legitimate concern and to down play it as a paranoid fear with no basis is fact is 100% disingenuous and you know it.
The other side of the coin is the evidence that it would be very expensive (as Canada discovered) and would do practically nothing (as Hawaii discovered). Add to that likely increase in gun-thefts and you have a situation of dishing out more harm than good.
The words "gun confiscation" are a lot like the word "ban." You guys use both of them to exaggerate and add an inflammatory touch to the discussion. Then when called on it, you claim that a single incident of gun confiscation proves that it can happen and the banning of any firearm ever proves that it can happen.
Delete"Gun confiscation" is used to conjure up government swat-like officers going door to door nation-wide collecting guns by force. You know this. And you know that's not possible. What happened of a few days in New Orleans one time does not lend any credence to the possibility of "gun confiscations" in the future.
Actually, we don't typically think that it will be a door to door collection. This would be too obvious and create too much backlash.
DeleteAs I noted above, the equivalent would be a less efficient attempt to intimidate gun owners to turn in their assault weapons by having the occasional high profile raid where they hit a house thought to have assault weapons and make an example of the residents by giving them long sentences.
As for our concern that a ban on one gun can be expanded, I gave explanations for a couple of examples of why we think that could happen. You have not explained why I was wrong.
Yes, I do. And I hope it goes just like that. The last AWB was a joke and you guys rightly mocked it. This one should "have some teeth in it." Door to door searches don't necessarily have to follow.
DeleteMike, if I just understood you correctly, you like the idea of passing the AWB and then expanding it to ban double action revolvers and any semi-auto? This doesn't really jive with your statements that you don't want to ban our guns or take them away seeing as this would affect Most guns presently used.
DeleteI think banning any semi-auto is going too far. That would be almost all guns, wouldn't it? I'm not for that.
DeleteYou are correct that banning all semi-autos would ban most guns out there. The thing is, there is almost NO functional difference between an "Assault weapon" and many semi-autos that you would not like to ban.
DeleteWhen I say "almost" what I am referring to is the fact that there are differences in the actions that reload the rifles--direct gas impingement, gas pistons, straight blowback, etc. All of these have different pros and cons, and all can be found in "assault weapons" and "hunting weapons."
The features that make something an "assault weapon" do not (with one possible exception) make it a more dangerous weapon for a spree shooter to use. Since I don't have the new bill to look at, I'll go by the features under the old ban--for length, I'll just do the rifle section:
--Folding or telescoping stock: The one possible exception is for folding stocks--not because they make it easier to shoot, but because you can shrink the package. I say possible exception because you'd be walking funny if you tried to conceal it, and even without such a stock, it's easy enough to walk in anywhere with a guitar case holding a full length gun like the shooter in Oregon did. As for Telescoping stocks--e.g. the collapsible stocks most of us have on our AR's, they only change the length by 4-5 inches which is intended to set the length to what the shooter is comfortable with without having to permanently shorten the stock. Also, if someone had ill intent, they can always remove or shorten the stock on a legal semi-auto.
--Pistol Grip: This is just a personal preference thing. They are present on many "hunting" guns, and not present on many "assault weapons." The reason usually cited for their inclusion on the list was that they "allowed spray firing from the hip." However, if you think about it, this is bunk. It's easier to shoot from the hip with a traditional monte-carlo stock than a pistol grip since you don't have to bend your wrist at such an extreme angle.
--Bayonet Mount: I have yet to hear about a killing with a bayonet in modern times. I'm not even going to bother saying anything else about these because the little info available on the new AWB says that these aren't included.
--Flash hider or threaded barrel that can attach one: These aren't included in the new one either, at least according to Feinstein's website. However, even if it were still included, it wouldn't make much sense. A flash hider just dissipates the gasses coming out of the muzzle in different directions so that it doesn't make as bright of a flash. It makes such a little difference that I didn't put one on the custom AR I built for taking care of farm pests at night.
Delete--Grenade launcher: This is not what you think. The grenade launcher you are probably thinking of is regulated as a destructive device under the NFA and was legal all through the AWB of '94. What this covers can be seen on the end of this SKS:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Yugo_SKS.jpg
Here's a page showing development and pictures of them in use:
http://benandbawbsblog.blogspot.com/2012/01/revisiting-rifle-grenade.html
They're old technology; the grenades would be regulated under the NFA; and I'm not even sure that there are any live ones still in existence. It's a silly looking feature; few guns other than the Yugo SKS's still have them; and they don't do anything for the spree shooter.
Finally, the semi-automatic rifles used for hunting are often just semi-auto, prettier versions of old military semi-autos, or even machine guns. E.g. there is a long line of browning hunting rifles that are nothing but dolled up BAR's (Browning Automatic Rifle) that are semi-auto only. Another old favorite that you sometimes find is one of the guns used to gun down Bonnie and Clyde. In the case of the former, it's a military rifle that was sold to civilians, just like the AR. In the case of the second, it was a civilian rifle that was adopted by lawmen.