America’s conflicts over gun control

[SecularMotion]

Freethought groups generally don’t take positions on gun control and the right to bear arms. What freethinkers try to do is understand the evidence about various propositions and draw rational conclusions about those propositions based on the evidence.

For many years, debate has raged between those who oppose gun regulation and those who believe that the government has a role in regulating guns. Much of that debate has been based on myth, legend, erroneous history, and beliefs supported by little, if any, evidence.

Now, thanks to the work of Adam Winkler, a professor of constitutional law at UCLA, we have a book based on careful research that can help us separate fact from fiction when we discuss the right to bear arms and the regulation of that right. Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America makes a seminal contribution to the discussion. It will make the most vocal advocates in this debate, no matter their views, either enlightened or angry or both.

Winkler has found that some of our most persistent ideas, especially about the American Wild West, are false. Gunfights were not everyday occurrences, for instance. They happened now and again, but were not the norm, although almost everyone in the west during its developing years owned and carried guns, both rifles and hand guns. They needed to do so because there was danger all around – from outlaws, desperate men, Indians, and wild animals. But most western towns required that guns be checked when the owner came into town. Dodge City, Kansas, for example, prohibited the carrying of firearms in the 1870s. Most western towns had no murders during those days. The reason for these gun control regulations, according to their advocates (the predecessors to our modern-day Chambers of Commerce), was to create a civilized town that would grow and prosper.

http://smmercury.com/2012/09/24/freethought-san-marcos-americas-conflicts-over-gun-control/

[holdencaufield]

1. No conflict ...

... control freaks want to take them away ... American people say "No, thanks" -- conflict resolved.

If only all political issues were solved so easily.

[safeinOhio]

3. The SCOTUS in the DC case has made that a non issue.

Perhaps you wish to overturn that so you can keep your talking point about control freaks being able to take your guns away? While some radical gun right people may wish to take away legal guns, the court has spoken, making that a non issue. So, that horse died in 2008.

[Kolesar]

9. ^Flame bait with no sentence structure

Just drop some hot words into the conversation and watch the fight
"control freaks"

[Clames]

14. Like you care.

Pot calling the kettle black in your case.

[safeinOhio]

2. Looks like an excellent, balanced book.

I'm sure the extremist on both sides will find fault.

more

Winkler’s research demonstrates clearly that Americans have always had the right to bear arms and the government has always had the right to regulate guns. The biggest problem he found is that much gun control is ineffective, in that only about .5% of guns in America are used for illegal activities. This is why total gun bans, such as the one struck down in the nation’s capitol, don’t have a rational foundation.

Whether you are for or against gun control, Winkler’s book should at least help clarify the issues, so that arguments are not wasted on unfounded ideas and beliefs. We should be debating what gun control regulations will have a positive societal benefit and which are just regulation for regulation’s sake, or are put in place for unsubstantiated reasons. For example, Winkler has suggested background checks for all gun purchasers, not just for those guns bought from licensed dealers. Such a step would make it harder for criminals to get guns, and would make it clearer how law-abiding citizens with personal guns they want to sell can follow the law.

Recent news suggests that another regulation or law that would be beneficial to society is to prohibit multiple sales of rifles to the same person during a set period of time. The practice of buying 10 or 20 or more semi-automatic rifles at one time has been used in Arizona to smuggle vast quantities of such rifles into Mexico, contributing to the extreme wave of violence that has been going on there for the past year or so, with its blowback on Americans.

Further, a requirement to register all guns would be of great help to law enforcement when they are investigating gun-related crime. If a gun is stolen, law enforcement will have good records about it. Such registration could be no more intrusive than the census. Some will argue that this will be the first step to confiscation of guns by the government. After the Supreme Court decision in 2008, such an argument should be given no credibility. It is preposterous to argue that the government could confiscate guns when it is now clear that all of us have a constitutional right to own them. It is about as likely that the government will close all the churches. In either case, massive insurrection would ensue, so this is a far-fetched, if not absurd position.


I love the part about the Supreme Court decision in 2008 making the fear of government confiscation a non issue anymore. Good point.

[Reasonable_Argument]

4. A couple things

Further, a requirement to register all guns would be of great help to law enforcement when they are investigating gun-related crime. If a gun is stolen, law enforcement will have good records about it. Such registration could be no more intrusive than the census. Some will argue that this will be the first step to confiscation of guns by the government. After the Supreme Court decision in 2008, such an argument should be given no credibility. It is preposterous to argue that the government could confiscate guns when it is now clear that all of us have a constitutional right to own them. It is about as likely that the government will close all the churches. In either case, massive insurrection would ensue, so this is a far-fetched, if not absurd position.

Canada is shutting down their long gun registry because it did nothing substantial to solve crime and was horrendously expensive. Second, no matter how preposterous it's a chance I'd rather not take. Also, since only about .5% of weapons are used illegally and gun control is ineffective then why don't we start tearing down gun control since it's only purpose is to disarm law abiding citizens?

[Kolesar]

10. So anybody can own any firearm

Wow, what a great idea!

Says you: "...why don't we start tearing down gun control since it's only purpose is to disarm law abiding citizens?"

[Eleanors38]

16. Wrong. Again. Criminals and those adjudicated mentally incompetent? No.nt Rt

[Kolesar]

24. Complete sentences are nice, Eleanor...eom

[friendly_iconoclast]

25. And strawmen are not nice, Kolesar...eom

[Eleanors38]

26. Sentence construction is all you got? Try doing this on a smart phone in the tub. nt

[safeinOhio]

12. since only about .5% of weapons are used illegally and gun control is ineffective then why don't we

start tearing down gun control since it's only purpose is to disarm law abiding citizens?

Your statement. I think it proves something else. It proves that gun control is working. I also think most gun control laws are aimed at disarming those that are not law abiding citizens. I think the author is correct in saying your position is far-fetched, if not absurd.

[Atypical Liberal]

19. "Societal benefit"

The biggest problem he found is that much gun control is ineffective, in that only about .5% of guns in America are used for illegal activities. This is why total gun bans, such as the one struck down in the nation’s capitol, don’t have a rational foundation.

Well, good to hear someone say that, at least.

We should be debating what gun control regulations will have a positive societal benefit and which are just regulation for regulation’s sake, or are put in place for unsubstantiated reasons. For example, Winkler has suggested background checks for all gun purchasers, not just for those guns bought from licensed dealers. Such a step would make it harder for criminals to get guns, and would make it clearer how law-abiding citizens with personal guns they want to sell can follow the law.


We need to understand that "societal benefit" is not just about reducing the unlawful use of firearms. Societal benefit also means preserving the intent of the second amendment - keeping military-grade small arms in the hands of civilians so that they can function as infantry in an emergency - including fighting against oppression from our own government.

Any registration scheme undermines that intent.

It is preposterous to argue that the government could confiscate guns when it is now clear that all of us have a constitutional right to own them.

It's even more preposterous to argue that the government could confiscate them if they don't know who owns them.

Any gun control measure that eliminates anonymous firearm ownership is a non-starter.

[GreenStormCloud]

28. How would registration help the police?

Usually criminals don't leave the gun at the scene of the crime. So registration data on all the guns in the country would be of no help because you won't have the gun's SN and other data to do a trace with.

When you do capture a criminal's gun it is usually because you have just caught the criminal with the gun. Frequently they will have drilled out the SN.

Criminals and other forbidden people can't be required to register their illegal gun because of the fifth amendment. So criminals would not be in the registration database.

How will registration help when a gun is stolen? The police won't know where the stolen gun is.

[virginia mountainman]

5. Thank you for debunking the gun controllers .....

Wild wild west meam, that gets trotted out almost daily when talking about ccw!

[safeinOhio]

6. Thanks for debunking

the myth that registration could lead to confiscation.

[Reasonable_Argument]

7. Uhh

You're on thin ice with that one. Many countries who have completely, or to a great degree, disarmed their subjects started with registering who had what weapons.

[safeinOhio]

8. The law of land according the Supreme Court

in both Chicago and DC is that the right for a legal individual to own a gun is a right. If you don't like that, try to get them overturned. Until then it would be illegal to confiscate a gun in the home in this COUNTRY. That argument is dead. It would be against the law for any U.S. government to confiscate a legal firearm. That is now the law, so enough of this bs. As long as gun ownership is an individual right, there can be no confiscation of legal weapons. You can't have it both ways.

[Eleanors38]

17. Sorry, but registration is wide open to abuse...

By any party or cabal who thinks like Feinstein. There should be NO registration for a legal, constitutional right.

[Atypical Liberal]

20. You are making a HUGE assumption.

As long as gun ownership is an individual right, there can be no confiscation of legal weapons. You can't have it both ways.

If your argument is that we no longer need to fear for our constitutional right to keep and bear arms because of a couple of Supreme Court cases, you are nuts.

You are making some huge assumptions. Namely, that the court might not reverse its position. And that the government just might choose to ignore it.

Am I glad that we have had DC vs. Heller and Chicago vs. McDonald? Sure. Am I willing to trust that the government will always abide by law in the interest of its people? No.

[krispos42]

23. But the government can change what the definition of "legal weapon" is.

If semi-automatic rifles are outlawed, for example, then confiscating registered semi-automatic rifles would not be illegal. Ditto for handguns, semi-automatic shotguns, or even manual-action guns. There is no inherent reason the government cannot outlaw all repeating firearms, thus limiting "legal weapons" to guns like double-barreled shotguns or single-shot rifles.

The government can outlaw all rifles and handguns that have a barrel diameter larger than 0.200 inches, for example, and thus legally confiscate the vast majority of firearms in the country.

If a $500 a year registration fee is required to own a weapon legally, then confiscating weapons with expired registration would also be perfectly legal.



There's LOTS of room to play with here. Don't try to pretend there isn't.

[virginia mountainman]

11. It's not a myth, its a PROVEN FACT....Case in point, California....

Legally obtained, and registered SKS rifles WHERE confiscated...





Letter sent to law enforcement officers....



Their are dozens of examples....

[safeinOhio]

13. According to both Heller and McDonald

local governments have the right to ban some weapons. Note, they did not confiscate legal, for that state, weapons and in reality they went to few, if any homes to remove the illegal weapons.

If you agree with the Supreme Court on Heller and McDonald, please go back and read the majority decisions as written by Scalia. Having a gun in the home is protected by the 2nd and states and local government have the right to regulate weapons beyond that.

Most of the other dozens of examples have been thrown out as illegal.

[slackmaster]

15. Actually, the state of California was unable to prosecute that confiscation order

Because every individual who received that letter had previously received a letter from the Department of Justice saying that their rifles did not fit the state's definition of "assault weapon" and therefore did not need to be registered.

The state would have looked very foolish had it taken anyone to court.

The point is that the state used registration data as the basis for a confiscation order. The owners of the rifles in question had acted in perfectly good faith. They tried to comply with the law, and were put in a very uncomfortable position as a result.

[Eleanors38]

18. So the trick is to make a type illegal...

Then another type. Then another. Then another. Then another...

[Atypical Liberal]

21. I have no problem with that.

Having a gun in the home is protected by the 2nd and states and local government have the right to regulate weapons beyond that.

I have no problem with that, so long as such regulations to not undermine the intent of the second amendment.

[aikoaiko]

22. And there is the rub.

[GreenStormCloud]

27. It is an outstanding book. I bought it a few months ago. N/T