I mean, my god, you Americans just really fucking love yourselves don't you. Serious question: does banning weapons work or not? We have decided already that if weapons (or a subset thereof) are banned, only law-abiding citizens will be punished and illegal weapons will flourish. Fair enough, I agree with the principle, especially as it applies to the U.S. currently. So either everyone is going to be meagre little sheep just waiting for the King of England to come back and re-civilize your asses, or there are still going to be weapons around to use in defence against the redcoats. It cannot be both.
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.assaultweapon.info/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.assaultweapon.info/</a> This is a slideshow (?) filled with the history of the terms in question, results of the previous bans and statistics on crime. Worth flicking through.
Banning (in this case guns) in the US will not work for a very simple reason: US citizens demand access to firearms, and are not going to react positively to having that access taken away. To be honest, the whole notion of "If you ban guns only law-abiding citizens will be affected while criminals won't be" is not quite the truth - there are plenty of otherwise law-abiding citizens that would not surrender their guns, even though they have no intent to commit other crimes and non-compliance would technically make them criminals. Just like the war on drugs hasn't resulted in recreational users giving up their drugs, or prohibition stopping casual drinkers from patronizing the local speakeasy. Guns are no different than any other economic good. If there is demand, supply will be available in one form or another, regardless of any legal status.
This is exactly what I was trying to say earlier in the thread. Banning assault weapons makes no sense, and is precisely the kind of feel good- do nothing policies we should avoid. So called assault weapons represent a role in a small fraction of gun crimes committed. What makes the ban really useless too is that it would still leave guns of similar functionality available. For a start we should standardize gun laws. Stop letting states take their own approach, and decide what weapons Americans can buy, how they can be used, purchased, stored, and transported. Having a shift of policies every time a state line is crossed is a total cluster fuck. Secondly, on concealed carry licenses. These should be hard to get and the person requesting should provide a good reason. 'I really like my guns', or 'I don't feel safe going to the grocery store' would not count as good enough reasons. If the person has any history of violent crimes, or mental instability they should be denied. Have strict grounds for denial for persons with a history substance abuse. For example, it would be acceptable to have been caught with marijuana when you were 19, but not acceptable to have DUIs, or a history of drug addiction. A more lenient approach could be taken for retired police officers, military veterans, or others who have a background in firearms training. Then, if a person is able to obtain a concealed carry license, they should be able to carry their weapons in establishments as they please with very few exceptions, such as businesses where the majority of their sales involve alcohol, and public schools. Stop allowing people to carry guns, but not in churches, movie theaters, parks, etc. This has been a long winded way of saying make concealed carry licenses harder to obtain, but extend more freedom to those who can get them. As for just purchasing firearms, make all states require a permit, and a thorough background check. Make it illegal to sell at gun shows to anyone without a permit. Of course people could still get away with selling to someone who doesn't have a permit, but high enough fines could act as a deterrent.
Agreed that it's a pain in the ass, but necessary. Minus the "good reason" part (which I wholeheartedly disagree with, the Second Amendment is my reason) this is all mostly already the case. Why not public schools?? A guy with a CCL is not going to shoot up a school, and if he plans on it then designating the school a "gun-free zone" is not going to stop him.
Because like it or not, the general public is NEVER going to ok guns in schools unless they are carried by school employees. I'm not saying it makes sense, but folks have been decrying reactionary policies. Parents tend to be very reactionary about their kids. And NO politician is suicidal enough to run "unknown unaccounted guns in schools" up the flag pole just to see who salutes.
Um, why the fuck not? Why are you so convinced that CCL holders are the moral cream of the crop here?
Care to elaborate? That's not a good reason to me. If we as a country were to find ourselves in a situation where that amendment needed to be invoked to rebel against the government, citizens would still be armed. Whether they had their gun on them last Tuesday at the mall would have no bearing on that scenario. I don't like the idea of people getting concealed carry permits 'just because'. Here's the thing, if people are armed altercations and fights are more likely to end in bloodshed. I would rather leave those permits to those who can demonstrate necessity and responsibility. Also, the 2nd amendment is not some get out of jail free card be all end all argument winner, ok? Because schools are where parents drop their kids off and they aren't there to supervise. I can understand a parent not wanting to have a stranger having guns around their kids at times the parent can't be there. Is that one little concession too much to ask? Jesus. I never made any claims that this would be some ending to gun crimes, not by a long shot. I do think however, we could at least attempt an approach towards controlling who gets those guns.
Utah requires schools to allow concealed carry, but it appears that hasn't caused problems there. Four more states allow concealed carry on public postsecondary campuses too.
Because by definition they're law-abiding citizens (minor misdemeanors, traffic issues, etc. not withstanding) without known mental illness. Now it's true that most of these mass shooters have no prior criminal background, but a "gun-free zone" sign on the school's front door isn't going to stop them anyway. Same reason laws on most other issues vary by state to state. What the people of New Jersey want may not be what the people of Wyoming want. Incidentally this is a good thing for gun control advocates, if we had one national uniform law it would look a lot more like Wyoming's than New Jersey's. How many gun crimes are committed by CCL holders as it is?? Don't have the numbers in front of me, but it's not very many. And yes, the Second Amendment is in fact a be all end all. I have the right to carry a firearm unless you can demonstrate why I shouldn't be able to exercise that right (criminal history or mental illness). The burden of proof is on you. You don't think the parents of the children at Sandy Hook wish there had been a law-abiding adult with a concealed handgun there that morning?? Might not have made a difference, but it might have. I don't disagree but most of what you suggested either is already in place (you have to undergo a background check when you buy a gun and most gun advocates would have no problem closing the "gun show loophole" IF we didn't know that that would simply be giving the gun grabbers an inch after which they would take a mile) or violates the Second Amendment.
You have just made my point for me, and I rather agree with what you say. This thread had just veered into "banning guns is going to result in a totalitarian takeover of our government and a foreign invasion of our shores" territory, all predicated on the basis that banning guns would actually result in no guns, when the rest of the thread was based on the much more reasonable proposition that bans would not. Well, it was also predicated on the nonsense that the average U.S. gunowner, and not Atlas, bore the sphere of the heavens.
That's my point. Your assertion basically depends upon the assumption that CCL holders wouldn't kill anyone because they are universally good, sane people. Which is both unfounded and contrary to my personal experience. I'm not suggesting CCL holders are necessarily bad people or crazy (One could make the argument that feeling the need/desire to arm yourself to go to Dunkin Donuts indicates that something might be off, but I think that's going to veer into idle speculation). But there are some bad and/or crazy people out there with CCLs, and in this way, they're a lot like the rest of the population. Many of these school shooters either obtained their guns legally, or did not having any actual reason why they were legally barred from doing so. When they did, the only barring category was usually age. The difference between a CCL holder and these mass shooters is that CCL holders took the time to fill out some paperwork.
I'm sure you understand that there's a bit more to it than that, but whether they have a CCL or not is irrelevant. If someone has decided to go on a spree shooting, a sign that says "Gun Free Zone" won't do shit to stop them.
Yes, I'm fully aware. However, Mantis threw that bit in out of no where. I'm merely challenging the suggestion that a CCL is a reliably measure of likelihood here.
Cowbell has a point though. The requirements for obtaining a CCL varies greatly from state-to-state. In CT, it took finger printing, an extensive background check with the FBI, local police chief approval, and 5 months of waiting (which is unusually long, but the wait is town by town). In Arizona, you don't need a permit, just a two week waiting period and you can get a handgun. This is the gap, as a gun owner, I would like to see bridged. It is way too easy for people to gets in some places than others.
So this is, in part, my point. But it goes beyond that: surely we should not allow weapons to someone who fails this sort of background check, but additionally, there are all sorts of people who will not fail this background check who also should not have guns. The sort of checks we are running are quite low minimum bars in terms of predicting whether someone is unduly likely to commit a crime with his or her gun. It's a start, but we should never fool ourselves into thinking that we've screened out the maladjusted.
Just to add some numbers to that:the DOJsays that when looking at violent felons, 30% have no prior arrest record, and 43% have no prior felony arrests. Looking at convictions rather than arrests, it is 44% and 62%. Looking at just murders, 33% had no prior arrest record and 42% had not been convicted of a felony. So yes, we can prevent gun crimes by stopping felons from getting guns. But it's an incomplete measure, so we shouldn't give us too much comfort.
I'm not really implying anything. I'm merely suggesting that CCLs don't fully solve any problems. CCLs are not anywhere near strict enough or their necessity enforced stringently enough to have a meaningful effect on crime prevention, so we should stop treating them as serious and helpful law enforcement tools. The sorts of measures I would favor for pragmatic reasons are all politically or logistically unfeasible for reasons discussed extensively already (namely, near-religious reverence for the 2nd Amendment, delusions of fighting a tyrannical government, and the sheer number of guns actively in circulation), so I lean towards treating the entire question as intractable. I envy Japan for the ease with which they were able to essentially eradicate shooting deaths.
That's your right to disagree, but my right to self preservation trumps your opinion, not to mention the law is on my side. Where the hell are you people getting the idea that an armed society is going to turn into the wild west? Look at Kennesaw, Georgia where it is mandated every home own a firearm. Why do they have some of the lowest crime rate and people not acting like heathens?