What is it about guns that puts any attempt

[upaloopa]

to regulate them completely off limits?
As a society we do many things to try and reduce the negative impact of things we own and use.
The auto industry is the one that comes to mind. We have done much to reduce deaths in auto accidents by forcing the manufactures to adopt safety features that they other wise would not have adopted on their own.
We regulate the food and drug industries.
Just about every thing you touched today has some regulation in it's manufacture and use designed to lesson the occurrence of injury.
For some reason regulating the manufacture and use of guns and ammo is different. Why?

[kudzu22]

1. Because guns are meant to kill and injure?

That's kinda the whole point. There have been great safety advances to keep people from being hurt accidentally, but when it comes down to it, it's a dangerous object by its very nature. Kinda pointless to make a gun that can't hurt anyone.

[rrneck]

2. It depends on how the regulation will effect people's lives

Some regulation will be seen as benign or beneficial, others will be percieved as onerous. There are lots of regulations on guns already on the books and they got there because the voting public either percieved them as beneficial or at least not inimical to their interest.

Here's an OP on the universal background check legislation.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172118043

[ZombieHorde]

3. To be fair, many gun owners support some gun control,

however, many of the anti-gun control arguments I see actually argue against confiscation, so I think it is similar to conspiracy theories for some gun rights folks. All roads lead to confiscation.

[oneshooter]

7. There was a confiscation bill proposed in California

The plan was to confiscate all of the registered "assault weapons" in the state. It died a quick death, but still stinks up the air around gun control proposals.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172116120

[ZombieHorde]

8. "but still stinks up the air around gun control proposals."

Agreed. I would not support confiscation, and I would bad for police officers and their families if such a thing occurred. Cops piss me off to no end, but I do like seeing them get shot.

[Jenoch]

19. I have read your post several times.

I have been waiting for clarification. It has not come so here goes...

What is your point? You LIKE it when police officers getting shot?

[ZombieHorde]

20. Wow, that was a poorly written post by me.

"and I would bad for police officers and their families if such a thing occurred. Cops piss me off to no end, but I do like seeing them get shot."

this should have read:

"and it would bad for police officers and their families if such a thing occurred. Cops piss me off to no end, but I don't like seeing them get shot."

I had oral surgery recently, and I have been on painkillers that make my head foggy. I apologize for the extremely poorly written post. I'm on the pills right now, so I hope this post isn't as poor as the one that caused confusion.

I don't want to see anyone get shot.

[Jenoch]

21. Thanks for the clarification.

Cops sometimes piss me off too. Of course I'm specifically referring to my two brothers who are cops.

[ZombieHorde]

22. Thanks for giving me a chance to clarify.

I did not realize just how poorly I had written that post.

Cops sometimes piss me off too. Of course I'm specifically referring to my two brothers who are cops.

Ha!

[bowens43]

4. A misinterpretation and misunderstanding of the meaning of the 2nd amendment

, wealthy corporations who profit on death and fear and a bunch of people who get some twisted gratification from the idea of being able to easily murder the people around them....

[ProgressiveProfessor]

5. Take that tired meme to SCOTUS

[ProgressiveProfessor]

6. Due to radicals on both sides

There are pols and even posters here who lead with "ban them all" and "all gun owners have blood on their hands". That leads to entrenchment on the other side instantaneously. Then the war is on and reason is out the door.

There are rational things that could be done to tighten up illegal access. UBC are one, even though there are some infrastructure and details to be worked. Also cleaning up the data flow in support of those checks.

One of the problems is that in their zeal to ban things, those writing the rules are often clueless about the tech. The last AWB was like that and the new DiFi one was little better. What happened in CA is a good example. I could buy a full up AR today with all sorts of bells and whistles as long as it has a bullet button in CA today (if I could find one for sale). I can also legally own a bypass device for the bullet button, I just cannot legally store it on the gun. Yes, the pols are that dumb.

The gun tech is very mature. Generally speaking they are about as safe as we are going to get them for something that by design has to have a lethal effect. Owner ID schemes are not yet ready for prime time and most never will be.

The recent ammo regulation laws being discussed in CA are also silly. An online notification to the state from the vendor would do just as much, be cheaper, and be buyer transparent (just scan the license). Same with volume limits. If the transaction is recorded, the state knows how much you bought, and it still allows volume buys for who want it (22LR, competition etc). Criminals rarely go through a box of 50 in a lifetime. As usual the pols are not addressing real issues and going after the cosmetics.

[ManiacJoe]

9. Too many folks want to regulate the wrong side of guns.

Car safety regulations are great for the users of the cars. Lots of safety equipment helps the folks inside the car survive an accident. What the car safety regulations do not do is help the victims outside the car.

Similarly for guns. Lots of safety features and manufacturing requirements keep the gun safer for the user of the gun. (When was the last time you heard of a gun exploding? Manufacturers do not want to kill their customers.) What the safety features do not address is the user's inappropriate choice of target. For that we have laws against assault and murder and laws about who is allowed to own guns.

When it comes to regulating the ownership and use of guns by the wrong people, folks can either try to pass laws regulating the people (hard to get right) or regulating guns/accessories (affects mostly the legal users, not usually the illegal users).

[upaloopa]

10. That meme of effecting the legal user and not the illegal user is another

gunner canard. Belongs a on the scrap heap with all the other attempts at obfuscation.

[ManiacJoe]

11. Surely you can do better than that.

Try again.

[clffrdjk]

28. if it is such a golden oldie you should be well practiced and ready to disprove or argue against it.

Rather then dismissing or attempting to, lets see why it is wrong.

[kudzu22]

12. If gun controllers wrote the automotive safety laws

Then all cars would be limited to 15 MPH maximum speed. Nobody has to go any faster unless they're at a racetrack or in public safety (police/fire/ambulance). You'd need a background check to buy gasoline, and no more than 5 gallons at a time or the Department of Energy is notified.

[upaloopa]

13. Got give you credit for the most original post

[Robb]

23. Plus they'd require licenses and insurance

...and have arbitrary rules like "no driving if you're under 16." Make you take a test. And probably deny you the right to drive for various equally arbitrary infractions, like driving drunk or driving too fast too often.

Fortunately, none of that will ever come to pass, because it's all completely unenforcible.

[ileus]

14. There's way too much regulation already.

as for making products safer, have to ever looked a modern firearm....warning's everywhere, dozens of redundant safety's, so many lawyer and government requirements you can't find a pretty firearm to collect and shoot anymore. As we say in the coin collecting circle "modern junk"

[upaloopa]

15. Motor cycles were the same way. Stickers on the fuel tank, fenders and frame. It looks real tacky.

[ileus]

16. Yeah my CRF was pasted with them...

There's maybe 2 left.

[upaloopa]

17. I have a custom paint job no stickers no eblems

[ileus]

18. My dirt bike is all plastic, mostly scratches.

Speaking of....good riding season is almost here.

[Eleanors38]

24. In the interest of constructive discussion, consider this...

Open NICS to all. Even in a voluntary mode, I think 95% if gun-owners would go with it, esp. If SERIOUS comity is achieved. Gun groups might push for b.g. Checks, too. Perhaps states would push for required b.g. checks IF the obsession with registration is off the table, and the b.g. System ( whatever evolves) cannot be used as registration.

This obsession w/ registration was amply demonstrated by MSM's revelation of concealed carry permits over the years. They have a culture war on, and they have to get at gun-owners; shame, ostracizing, stigmatization -- all the components of traditional prohibitionism.

[sylvi]

25. Since guns are already regulated

Since guns are already regulated, the question, "What is it about guns that puts any attempt to regulate them completely off limits?" sounds like big honkin' strawman.

A better and more honest question would be, "Why do you draw the line at new restriction x?", most of which have been hashed and rehashed over and over here.

[Warpy]

26. Because a large and very vocal bunch of men

think of sensible firearms control as emasculation.

That's why.

[clffrdjk]

29. The old penis line always a big hit.

add in the incredibly vague "Sensible firearms control" and it is the standard anti post. Insult your opposition while offering nothing of any value.

Just what is you definition of sensible firearms control?

[Eleanors38]

30. And as many sd 20,000,000 women gotta have that emasculation, too.

[benEzra]

27. They are far more regulated than you realize.

So much so that ordinary gun owners are pretty much limited to non-automatic, non-sound-suppressed small arms under .51 caliber (plus over-.51 shotguns), unless you have the time and money to jump through a lot of extra legal hoops.

Under Federal law, only mentally competent adults with clean records can legally buy guns, and there are strict limits on where/how they can be carried and especially where they can be used. You have to pass a background check and fill out forms to purchase one from any dealer, and to get a carry license you have to jump through a lot more hoops. (I had to pass a Federal and state background check, a mental health records check, an FBI fingerprint check, demonstrate competence on a shooting range, and take a 1-day class on self-defense law.)

At the Federal level, we have the National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968, the automatic-weapon ban of 1986 (Hughes Amendment to the McClure-Volkmer Act), the armor-piercing ammo ban of 1986/1994, the ban on undetectable firearms, tracing requirements, dealer licensing requirements, restrictions on interstate sales, etc. etc. etc. Even more at the state level.

The reason you see pushback on the current proposals is that the gun control lobby is trying to outlaw the most popular civilian rifles in the United States, roll magazine capacities back to the 1850s, and make it a crime to leave a gun at home with your significant other or (in many cases) to teach your child to shoot on your own property. From a gun-owner perspective, those are not reasonable restrictions, IMO. (Disclaimer, I own guns and shoot competitively and recreationally.)

[Eleanors38]

31. Hey, benEzra! How you been doing? Hope you & yours are doing well.

[benEzra]

34. Doing well! Busy as heck though. Lots of life changes in the last year, but things are good. (n/t)

[rrneck]

33. Good to see you around. nt

[jeepnstein]

35. If you left anything out, I can't think of what it is.

Gun ownership has plenty of laws and regulation. And the overwhelming majority of Americans who exercise their 2nd Amendment Constitutional Right do it responsibly and safely. Americans, for the most part, are very good at handling freedom. This really bothers people who see freedom as a thing reserved only for the wealthy or entitled.

[aikoaiko]

32. Guns are regulated. Additional regulations are often fought...

...because its clear that anti-gun political interests have taken an incremental approach to eliminating firearms from society.

[Stretch714]

36. To me it is a matter of blame. And the gun always gets blamed.

Last edited Sun Apr 21, 2013, 12:03 PM - Edit history (1)

The car never gets blamed for the action of the driver. Drunk drivers kill many more people then guns every year. And the booze never gets blamed for it, the drunk idiot does. We had a guy beat another guy to death with a 2x4 a couple years ago and the 2x4 did not get blamed for it. The man who did the beating got blamed for it. When some asshole kills people with a gun the first thing people want to do is ban guns.


I wish there was a way to keep shootings from happening. I just don't see how to do it when the people doing the killing are not going to follow any laws.


I am a gun owner and hate what people do to each other with them.