Reasonable gun control: what does that mean?

A bill passed by the NY State  Senate last night 43-18 is being considered by the Assembly now.  I spoke to my Assemblyman's office a while ago to find out some of the particulars.  The bill seems to be focused largely on banning so-called assault rifles and limiting magazines to 7 rounds, but the bill is massive and definitions are muddied.  According to the aide I spoke to the bill will probably be passed today by the Assembly and signed by the governor by the end of the day.  The info I have, although sketchy, appears to be a pretty pervasive clamp down and invasion of individuals' privacy and rights.  I am not happy.

Doug

Doug,

IIRC, back in the 1980s, there was an "assault weapon ban" passed in NJ.  An assault weapon was defined as any semi-automatic rifle with a magazine capacity greater than 5 rounds.  Only a few hundred were turned in, however.  The rest of the gun owners (hundreds of thousands) simply refused to comply.  The law was eventually rescinded because the government was made to look foolish.  Not that NJ is a bastion of gun freedom.  It obviously isn't.  That's one of the reasons I moved from there.

Your post and Tim's absolutely cut through all the dysfunctional anti-gun propaganda I have thus far seen.

Out of frustration, I am no longer interested in arguing about the topic with screamers.  I will explain my point of view to someone who is genuinely uneducated on the matter, and in fact I do teach Concealed Handgun classes.  Otherwise, I am not inclined to participate in any "bans" at this time or in the future. Since civil disobedience was a noble undertaking for the civil rights movment and for OWS, then I guess it might be OK for me too.  Anyone want to do a sit in with me?

Rector

I find it hard to take a position on that poll; 5 years ago I'd probably say enforcement of existing laws (excepting the extreme cases in NYC, Wash DC, and Chicago) is best.  But ever since then what little confidence in the rule of law I had has been lost and I see that the government has turned into something that I can no longer support in any fashion, so at this point I would feel hypocritical in endorsing the federal government to do ANYTHING.  They no longer represent the people, and just about everything they touch turns to s#*!, even the few good ideas and good bills.  So I'm kinda partial now to just saying "no confidence" and thereby leave it all to the states.  It's far from an ideal solution since I'm sure that some states would take gun control to a level some of their residents would find disturbing, but at least it keeps the decision making at a more local level.  And you always have the right to move to a state more aligned to one's ideals and priorities, without needing to leave the country. 

Of course it's hard to use that argument with most of the public, since many still think of their government and their country being one and the same, and the idea that you can support one and not the other is usually considered foreign (or frightening).   

Excellent point & rationale, Nickbert.  This is why I've become a Libertarian in the past 5 years and will never go back to the 2-headed-1-party monster that is nothing but compromise and selling out.  I don't intend to get political, but my point is that you stick to principles and that is what sets you and keeps you free.

The reason you do so even though a lot of time emotion may tug at you as well as "common sense" to just give a little here or there.  It's not about being hard-nosed when you refuse or that you are a principled idealist.  It's because you have learned to understand the world, human nature and how things work.  Giving a "little" here and there takes you path the inevitable slippery slope that has been proven over and over again throughout history in a variety of topics (a little central bank here, a little regulation/tax there, a little special interest here, a little executive privelige there).

There are saints in the world, but the world is also full of mediocre people and even some that are downright disturbed/evil/weak/whatever descriptor you like and represents your views.  Supporting and voting for your principles will always be the right answer, eventhough sometimes it will be quite tough.

I appreciate the wanting to cave, but through resolve that comes from believing in principles and why they are critical, we can maintain those things that are precious or even sacred.

Discourse is always great, but it also depends on the audience.  I get frustrated at the pro-gun folks that don't seem to want to understand and repeat tired phrases like "guns don't kill people", "hammers kill far more people a year than rifles", etc. etc.  These are useful things to say, don't get me wrong.  But, it depends on the audience.

The people that are bringing forth such stupid legislation don't care and/or already know the facts & figures.  They are doing this due to:

1. Personal agenda (slanted view, ideology)
2. Past history/personal negative experience
3. To get ahead in the world / further their careers

All of the above factors mean that the politicians (or anyone else that fits in the above mold) are useless to argue with and to present facts & figures.  Only those (the minority) that are truly interested in the topic, ignorant and willing to change their opinions are wortwhile to have a facts & figures conversation with.  The others have already made up their minds or have their agenda and aren't going to budge.

Ultimately, Nickbert said it very well.  Leave it to the states and that will always be the right answer.  It's not a perfect world, it never will be and perhaps it was never meant to be.  But, via our amazing original principles of government (as small as possible, as weak as possible and as much the hell out of the way as possible), we can get the right outcomes we need/want.

Last and not least, the real issue here is that society is sick and especially the people that kill are sick.  We need to take a hard look at them, the root cause of why they do what they do, massive pharma influence in our society today, why are those that want to exercise their Natural right to defend themselves can't and have those national discussions.  Not some nonsense about the tools used (clubs, knives, guns, fires, poison, etc.).

Yesterday I visited a couple local gunshops whose owners I've dealt with and known for a few years to guage the reactions to the NY gun law that was passed by both houses and signed by the governor in one day.  The bill is large with many different provisions that can be confusing, depending on what area of law each section addresses.

Each of the shops is located in slightly different demographic areas, but the range of political thought goes from Republican to rock rib Republican.  Democrats and/or liberals are considered evil incarnate.

Phones are ringing off the hook in both shops with people trying to order assault type weapons and ammo, or finding out the status of existing orders.  One of the shops has stopped taking any orders, but has a large number of orders already placed.  By the proprietor's estimation about 90% of those orders are from police officers, so will probably be filled at some point.  But, due to confusion in the language, even that isn't certain.  However, the suppliers are tapped out and afraid to deal with New York dealers because of the law.  A late news report in the afternoon stated that the law would not go into effect for 60 days, an apparent fact neither of the dealers was aware of at the time I visited the shops.  If that's true, it should give the dealers a little more certainty, but it has yet to be finally settled.

Both shops were crowded with people when I was there.  Due to the large police clientele of one of the shops, people were guarded in their conversations.  They generally discussed the availability of guns and ammo within the context of the law.  Mostly, nothing is available.  Because magazines larger than 10 rounds are already illegal in NY, that shop has not sold larger mags for a long time, even the pre '94 mags that are currently grandfathered.  The general attitude was trying to figure out what the new law says and how to interpret it.  It was general confusion with underlying frustration.

The other shop was populated largely by guys about my age, many of them Vietnam vets, and they are angry.  They aren't survivalists, just blue collar guys in a poor rural region.  Hunting is a way of life, most of them have CC permits and owning guns is the norm.  Because gun laws, particularly handgun laws, are largely locally administered, there has been little problem with gun availability in the past.  And, with the exceptions of a few eruptions of a political nature and mentally unbalanced shooters, there is almost no gun related crime, although there have been a few episodes of B&E of homes with large gun collections.

These are just my observations of local reactions to the new NYS gun law.  The governor apparently  wanted to be the firstest with the mostest in the wake of Sandy Hook.  He has presidential aspirations.  It will be interesting to see how things shake out in the next few months.

BTW, here is a video I stumbled across that clearly demonstrates the diffferences between real assault rifles, banned since 1986, and look alike semi-autos that are the subject of current banning efforts.

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="

Good morning AKG,  I can't agree more with your phrase that 'the country is entering into the hospice phase....'

Looking back just a few years we have the Bernie Madoff Ponzi scheme under the nose of the SEC, the Zeeks Rewards Ponzi scheme from North Carolina, the Management Solutions Ponzi scheme targetting members of the LDS church, the John Corzyne and MF Global fiasco where assets held 'in trust' by MF Global were confiscated by the solicitator who is working on behalf of the affected acounts, and recent Supreme Court decisions such as SpeechNow.org v Federal Election Commission and the ObamaCare decision.  I mean do I really need to pay a fine because I am unemployed due to the lack of financial regulation on uncontrolled financial risk management and can no longer afford health insurance???

I simply tell friends and family who have asked about why I own firearms it is a lack of trust and a history of poor judgement on behalf of our leadership.  I have seen the video's that came out of Katrina.  I have seen a pattern where our government is NOT doing their job that we hire them for.

Providing semi-automatic assault rifles WITH high-capacity magazines to the Mexican Drug Cartels apparently is completely legal for our Attorney General, Eric Holder, but I cannot own one to defend myself from drug addicts who travel into the rural areas of our state to burgle and ramshack our homes?

We've all heard Too-Big to Fail, where billions or OUR TAX DOLLARS went to major corporations that were being completely mismanaged by over-paid executives.  We have an entire section of our law that is set up just to deal with personal and corporate bankruptcy proceedings.  Why was it not used?  The justification is that these institutions were too big to fail.  So?  Why don't you make them smaller?  It has been done before with Ma Bell.  Why?

Have you heard about the settlement with HSBC?  Have you heard about 'Too-Big to Prosecute?'  The following link will take you to Matt Taibbi's discussion on this issue: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/outrageous-hsbc-settlement-proves-the-drug-war-is-a-joke-20121213.   There was a series of criminal acts that was directed from the very top of the huge international bank HSBC.  Nobody was prosecuted!  Again!

John Adams has been quoted as saying 'A government of Laws and not of men.'  You can even find that same phrase in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Bill of Rights, Article 30, circa 1780.  That was the goal, that was the ideal, and that is the ultimate betrayal that has created a lack of trust in our government.  Our leaders aren't.

IMHO, Jonathan Allen

Keep in mind too that the government wants to always to have superior capability to even the "good" people in case they were to rise up and try to do something "bad" to the government. 

In addition to firearm safety training, there needs to be training in when the use of deadly force is legally authorized.  That varies from state to state.  My state (Georgia) requires a licence to carry any handgun (open or concealed) but does not require ANY training at all.  That seems short-sighted to me.  I have a license and several hand guns and long guns and have never received any training except in the military and from my dad.  That was probably good enough back in the day but or society/population seems to have evolved into a bunch of morons for the most part. 

Tim_P: Keep thinking!  You're on the right track...

Thanks Shawns for clearly discussing the deeper issues.

Travlin 

Doug – Thanks for the local reports.  Things are much the same here.  That video is terrific.

Here is a similar video by a cop.  At 5:54 he changes a stock on camera to demonstrate that appearance does not define function.

Jim – You are getting downright eloquent.  I’m impressed.

Travlin

From no less than a former criminal prosecutor from Washington, DC.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324081704578235460300469292.html?mod=WSJ_hps_sections_opinion

" I dislike guns, but I believe that a nationwide firearms crackdown would place an undue burden on law enforcement and endanger civil liberties while potentially increasing crime."

"The urge to drastically restrict firearms after mass murders like those at Sandy Hook Elementary School last month and in Aurora, Colo., in July, is understandable. In effect, many people would like to apply the District's legal philosophy on firearms to the entire nation. Based on what happened in Washington, I think that would be a mistake. Any sense of safety and security would be a false one."

I read this earlier today; I think it fits with this string of conversation.

This is a column from Walter Williams at TownHall.com.

He wrote:

When I attended primary and secondary school -- during the 1940s and '50s -- one didn't hear of the kind of shooting mayhem that's become routine today. Why? It surely wasn't because of strict firearm laws. My replica of the 1902 Sears mail-order catalog shows 35 pages of firearm advertisements. People just sent in their money, and a firearm was shipped.

Dr. John Lott, author of "More Guns, Less Crime," reports that until the 1960s, some New York City public high schools had shooting clubs where students competed in citywide shooting contests for university scholarships. They carried their rifles to school on the subways and, upon arrival, turned them over to their homeroom teacher or the gym coach and retrieved their rifles after school for target practice. Virginia's rural areas had a long tradition of high-school students going hunting in the morning before school and sometimes storing their rifles in the trunks of their cars that were parked on school grounds. Often a youngster's 12th or 14th birthday present was a shiny new .22-caliber rifle, given to him by his father.

Today's level of civility can't match yesteryear's. Many of today's youngsters begin the school day passing through metal detectors. Guards patrol school hallways, and police cars patrol outside. Despite these measures, assaults, knifings and shootings occur. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, in 2010 there were 828,000 nonfatal criminal incidents in schools. There were 470,000 thefts and 359,000 violent attacks, of which 91,400 were serious. In the same year, 145,100 public-school teachers were physically attacked, and 276,700 were threatened.

What explains today's behavior versus yesteryear's? For well over a half-century, the nation's liberals and progressives -- along with the education establishment, pseudo-intellectuals and the courts -- have waged war on traditions, customs and moral values. These people taught their vision, that there are no moral absolutes, to our young people. To them, what's moral or immoral is a matter of convenience, personal opinion or a consensus.

During the '50s and '60s, the education establishment launched its agenda to undermine lessons children learned from their parents and the church with fads such as "values clarification." So-called sex education classes are simply indoctrination that sought to undermine family and church strictures against premarital sex. Lessons of abstinence were ridiculed and considered passé and replaced with lessons about condoms, birth control pills and abortions. Further undermining of parental authority came with legal and extralegal measures to assist teenage abortions with neither parental knowledge nor consent.

Customs, traditions, moral values and rules of etiquette, not laws and government regulations, are what make for a civilized society. These behavioral norms -- transmitted by example, word of mouth and religious teachings -- represent a body of wisdom distilled through ages of experience, trial and error, and looking at what works. The importance of customs, traditions and moral values as a means of regulating behavior is that people behave themselves even if nobody's watching. Police and laws can never replace these restraints on personal conduct so as to produce a civilized society. At best, the police and criminal justice system are the last desperate line of defense for a civilized society. The more uncivilized we become the more laws that are needed to regulate behavior.

Many customs, traditions and moral values have been discarded without an appreciation for the role they played in creating a civilized society, and now we're paying the price. What's worse is that instead of a return to what worked, people want to replace what worked with what sounds good, such as zero-tolerance policies in which bringing a water pistol, drawing a picture of a pistol, or pointing a finger and shouting "bang-bang" produces a school suspension or arrest. Seeing as we've decided that we should rely on gun laws to control behavior, what should be done to regulate clubs and hammers? After all, FBI crime statistics show that more people are murdered by clubs and hammers than rifles and shotguns.

I am a very strong supporter of your right to not own a gun.

I for one have never loved my neighbor with one of my guns either.. but I did love one with one of my chainsaws!..  the recent widow who lives behind me was very happy to see me post Sandy in order to blast through the four large trees that had fallen across her driveway.  

I for one have no special fear of people at this time.  When the inflation comes, the store shelves are empty due to price controls, and the social fabric of society begins to tear... my outlook might change.  Your depiction of the mindset of a gunowner is quite extreme - it describes none of the gun owners I know, but every subculture has its nutjobs, right? 

This is an interesting read and I agree philosophically with some of the things that this gentleman says. That we have lost our moral compass is something I wholeheartedly agree with. I also tend to agree that a return to more traditional ways, such as a one income family (and I don't much care which sex is the bread winner), simply because this would go towards solving many of the 3E issues.

However, I cannot completely buy into the customs, traditions and moral values argument for a few reasons. The biggest is the question of whose morals, and whose customs and traditions? In this vast, eclectic global village there is great disparity in these values, largely stemming from underlying religious faiths. So out of the hodge podge of choices, which values should we subscribe to?

For example, there are societies that have as a tradition honour killings, when it is felt that a family member, usually a woman, has brought the family name into disrepute. In yet another culture, sex selection and infanticide is routinely practiced due to a one child policy. In yet another, diversity is celebrated in all its glory, giving those who (some think) fall outside of the bounds of "tradition" equal footing to live their lives as they see fit.

There is no one set of morals or traditions that can be an umbrella for all of us. But that is not a reason for despair. On the contrary, I think it is cause for celebration. If we are all cut from the same cloth, if we all think and act the same, how will we evolve? If we cannot respect and revel in cultural and genetic diversity, how can we call ourselves an enlightened species?

What I personally see is a serious decline in the lack of respect shown to others and their property, a lack of respect for authority, and a lack of overall integrity, something that is just so crucial to a civilized society. There are no half measures - either you have integrity, or you don't. It is the most important pillar of civility.

What we see going on in this world right now shows a serious deficit of integrity across the board. Money and power does that to people. It corrupts. It debases values. It destroys morals and traditions.

I do believe in karma, and what goes around comes around. The bigger they are, the harder they are gonna fall...my biggest fear is that I (we) will be collateral damage.

The gun argument is un-winable (is that a word? sp?). Go back and re-read my essay that was posted just after Sandy Hook. Zero in on the point I make about letting go of personal agendas to find real answers to violence arising from gun use. Take a step back from your beliefs and resolve to get to the root of the problem.

My own answer is a combination of everything we talk about here. Live simply. Forget consumerism. Raise your kids well, without needless consumerist influences; know your neighbors, and their kids; make them your extended family. Embrace nature. Marvel at this great planet we call home. And as Treebeard says, love is the answer; as Organicveganraw says, all this stuff with guns and the associated paranoia must cause a lot of stress. Who needs it? I would much rather be able to walk to the store chatting people up along the way as opposed to fearing what they might do to me.

No brainer whatsoever. Peace.

Jan

I often feel this way as well until I think about the various interactions I have throughout the day - then I realize that most of the people I deal with don't exhibit those issues.  Either I'm incredibly blessed, or we are fed a lot of propaganda that leads us to the conclusion the world is dangerous and evil and we have to live in fear of our neighbors.  It's the same rational being used for the gun control debate.  100 million or so armed citizens and a few wackos a year are used to trample the rights of the rest of us.

What I do see is massive interference of risk/reward paradigm by government.  Without that interference many of the problems we have today would be eliminated or at least greatly reduced.   When you allow individuals to use government to force their will onto others, it breeds resentment, distrust and divides a society.  That is your money and power corrupting people.  But it's not necessarily the money or the power, it's the fact that it's stolen from citizens instead of being earned.

The lack of respect you see for others and property I believe occurs when you are given something instead of working for it.  After all, free things have no value.   This does not just apply to those receiving entitlements from government but to all of us (particularly in the US) that have been "given" lots of stuff (at least the last couple of generations) due to our having the reserve currency and the largest military on the planet.  When we no longer have that advantage, and things get harder, the next generation I believe will have a lot more respect for property and other people.

Hey when are you gun owners gonna take back our country. Facism is already alive and well. I think it is too late. 9/11, endless wars, 2008 taxpayers money given to corporations (fascism), big banks and FBI conspire against the occupy movement (fascism). Gun owners should have joined occupy. At least someone tried to start a movement. Ndaa, patriot act, dsh, etc, etc, etc. Obama and Bush were/are pawns. 

Good morning vegan raw,  Your viewpoint, while a bit raw, is shared by more than a few folks that I know.  Some of the nicest folks I know think that owning a firearm, going hunting, shooting and competing with my children is a bit over the top.  I love them all very much.  

It is because of that love that I carry two things in my car: a small pistol and a good size medical kit.  Both are able to be used in emergencies.  I've been first on the scene of a head-on crash, and I've seen too many close calls.  Never needed that pistol yet.

Personally, I don't think that we have to take back our country.  Having spent over 10 years overseas in Southeast Asia and Europe, I do not believe that there is a better country to live in that the USA.  We have an excellent governance model in the Constitution.  I know many get upset about this issue or that, this party or that party, the Executive Branch, Judicial Branch, or the Legislative Branch.  I know I do, but I do get quite frustrated at times.  I always feel better after having a rant against the machine.

I'm glad you posted!  Sincerely GMM

Anyone who hasn't, should consider reading Collapse by Jared Diamond.  If history is a valid example, some of the stages civilizations go through during population decline are unpleasant.

If the possibility exists that, at some point, I will be attacked or shot at, it seems prudent that I be prepared to defend myself, up to and including firing back.

I don't for a second believe that, in the short run, any form of revolution against a country with overwhelming military force is viable.  It's unfortunate that a lawless government, like ours has turned into, cannot be easily removed, but that is the situation we face today.

This all may prove moot.  From what I can see, the US Government is in the process of insuring that every citizen is bankrupt and unarmed before the government collapses of severe and sustained mismanagement.

You may infer from the above that I don't support gun control on law abiding citizens, imposed by a government that no longer abides by the rule of law.