Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[lockedout]

from the guy saying that law abiding citizens would become criminals

From the stroke of a pen.

[TZucchini]

Really? 99.99% of firearm owners who don't use their firearms irresponsibly would beg to differ.

How do you know 99.99% of firearm owners use their firearms responsibly?

If I knowingly fail to register my 10+ round magazines, per state law, am I a responsible firearm owner?

If I negligently discharge a firearm, without hurting anyone, am I a responsible firearm owner?

If I brandish my firearm illegally, am I a responsible firearm owner?

If I consistently sweep my muzzle across a crowd of people while handling my firearm, am I a responsible firearm owner?

This unproven statement that "99.9999% of firearm owners are law-abiding and responsible" really needs to be backed up with some substance.

[lockedout]

How do you know 99.99% of firearm owners use their firearms responsibly?

If I knowingly fail to register my 10+ round magazines, per state law, am I a responsible firearm owner?

If I negligently discharge a firearm, without hurting anyone, am I a responsible firearm owner?

If I brandish my firearm illegally, am I a responsible firearm owner?

If I consistently sweep my muzzle across a crowd of people while handling my firearm, am I a responsible firearm owner?

This unproven statement that "99.9999% of firearm owners are law-abiding and responsible" really needs to be backed up with some substance.

Yes
No
No
Depends on the situation.

[Ghostpanther]

How do you know 99.99% of firearm owners use their firearms responsibly?

If I knowingly fail to register my 10+ round magazines, per state law, am I a responsible firearm owner?

If I negligently discharge a firearm, without hurting anyone, am I a responsible firearm owner?

If I brandish my firearm illegally, am I a responsible firearm owner?

If I consistently sweep my muzzle across a crowd of people while handling my firearm, am I a responsible firearm owner?

This unproven statement that "99.9999% of firearm owners are law-abiding and responsible" really needs to be backed up with some substance.

How many gun owners are there in the US? This figure is not completely known, but roughly 40 - 50 million would be a good estimate. And according to this report http://www.policyalmanac.org/crime/a...nd_crime.shtml it would appear the great majority ( 90+% ) of gun owners did not use one to commit a crime that was at least reported as such. So I think PhaelixWW's basic intent of his post is accurate in the sense the great majority of gun owners are responsible. Or you have to prove otherwise.

[TZucchini]

Yes
No
No
Depends on the situation.

Purposefully ignoring state laws regarding firearms doesn't render one irresponsible? How so?

In what "situation" is it not irresponsible to consistently point your firearm at individuals you don't intend on shooting?

- - - Updated - - -

How many gun owners are there in the US? This figure is not completely known, but roughly 40 - 50 million would be a good estimate. And according to this report http://www.policyalmanac.org/crime/a...nd_crime.shtml it would appear the great majority ( 90+% ) of gun owners did not use one to commit a crime that was at least reported as such. So I think PhaelixWW's basic intent of his post is accurate in the sense the great majority of gun owners are responsible. Or you have to prove otherwise.

There's no doubt that the great majority of firearm owners never use their firearms to commit crimes. That doesn't, however, mean that the great majority of guns owners "handle their firearms responsibly," or are "law-abiding." Those terms just get thrown around with absolutely no backing.

[Ghostpanther]

- - - Updated - - -

There's no doubt that the great majority of firearm owners never use their firearms to commit crimes. That doesn't, however, mean that the great majority of guns owners "handle their firearms responsibly," or are "law-abiding." Those terms just get thrown around with absolutely no backing.

But you are challenging his comment without any backing ( data, statistics, reports, etc. ) which would disprove his statement other than maybe nick picking about the 99.99% part. I did not think his 99.99% was technically correct, but the intent of his statement was. The great majority of gun owners are responsible and one can disagree with that statement, but it would be a opinion not backed up by any evidence to the contrary.

[vetinari]

Purposefully ignoring state laws regarding firearms doesn't render one irresponsible? How so?

In what "situation" is it not irresponsible to consistently point your firearm at individuals you don't intend on shooting?

Because "lawful" is not a synonym for "right" or "responsible".


"If I consistently sweep my muzzle across a crowd of people while handling my firearm, am I a responsible firearm owner?"

You didn't specify that you don't intend to shoot them.

[Mayhem]

But you are challenging his comment without any backing ( data, statistics, reports, etc. ) which would disprove his statement other than maybe nick picking about the 99.99% part. I did not think his 99.99% was technically correct, but the intent of his statement was. The great majority of gun owners are responsible and one can disagree with that statement, but it would be a opinion not backed up by any evidence to the contrary.

so we´re back to if i claim something you have to show prove that i´m wrong otherwise i´m right? where is tinykong when you need him, he would destroy that 99.99% comment with a bunch of "you´re wrong!!"

oh but wait, it´s only bad when one side backs up their side alone, right i forgot

[TZucchini]

The great majority of gun owners are responsible and one can disagree with that statement, but it would be a opinion not backed up by any evidence to the contrary.

No, that's not how this works. This is the statement that needs evidence:

The great majority of gun owners are responsible

I don't need evidence to disprove that statement, if none has been brought forward to prove it.

Furthermore, I'm trying to determine what it is that disqualifies a gun owner from being "responsible."

[Ghostpanther]

No, that's not how this works. This is the statement that needs evidence:



I don't need evidence to disprove that statement, if none has been brought forward to prove it.

Furthermore, I'm trying to determine what it is that disqualifies a gun owner from being "responsible."

The only evidence we know for sure favors the statement the "great majority of gun owners are lawfully responsible." If there are 40 - 50 million gun owners and less than 1 million cases of irresponsible actions by their owners reported which are known for sure, then it does favor the statement above.

It is the same principle we use for each citizen, which everyone is assumed to be responsible and not guilty of a serous crime until proven otherwise. I am sure you would agree most car drivers drive responsibly. The great majority do would be a safe assumption based on how many millions there are on the road in comparison to the number of accidents.

[TZucchini]

I've been over this before, but "not being in an accident" does not equal "safe and responsible driver." Hell, being in an accident does not preclude responsibility either. It could have been mechanical failure, solar glare, medical problems, etc...

And let me ask you this directly: If people are purposefully ignoring state laws concerning firearms, are they responsible gun-owners?

[vetinari]

I've been over this before, but "not being in an accident" does not equal "safe and responsible driver." Hell, being in an accident does not preclude responsibility either. It could have been mechanical failure, solar glare, medical problems, etc...

And let me ask you this directly: If people are purposefully ignoring state laws concerning firearms, are they responsible gun-owners?

Depends on the law.

[TZucchini]

Depends on the law.

You mean it depends on whether or not you agree with the law?

[Svifnymr]

So no. This isn't an accounting and paperwork issue. This is 20,000 to 30,000 firearms that go 'missing' each year from licensed firearm dealers.

We don't know what it is. The number would include both guns actually missing as well as accounting/paperwork errors. Just because the paperwork error was not discovered and corrected during the audit does not mean it's not there.

Furthermore, that's an audit on 10,000 of the 60,000 dealers in this country. I wonder what the "Number Missing (final)" would look like if every single licensed firearm dealer was audited.

Roughly the same, probably. Being audited is a requirement of renewing the license every 3 years. They can and do audit larger dealers once a year. The majority of "dealers" with an FFL are very small/ low-no volume folks with a license as a side business. Ammo makers large and small have FFL's, for example. Gunsmiths as another. The 10,000 number is most likely just the dealers large enough to bother with in their numbers, though I didn't look through it offhand. (If you relink it, I will, but don't feel like going through posts to find it.)

Seems like a serious problem to me.

It's a serious problem in some ways, certainly. Book keeping errors are still errors, lost guns mean there's obvious problems with security. One of the main problems is the "all or nothing" system currently in place. ATF either issues a warning or revokes your license. A warning is meaningless, a revocation is a legal process that will be fought. If you lose 10 guns a year and sell 10,000, ATF isn't going to try to revoke your license.

ATF has through the years attempted to get interim penalties instated, so they could say, assess a fine for each error to penalize the dealer without the revocation process, but both sides have shot it down.

[vetinari]

You mean it depends on whether or not you agree with the law?

No, it depends on the law itself.

I think disregarding many laws is perfectly responsible. Doesn't mean I disagree with them all.

[Saucexorzski]

I've been over this before, but "not being in an accident" does not equal "safe and responsible driver." Hell, being in an accident does not preclude responsibility either. It could have been mechanical failure, solar glare, medical problems, etc...

And let me ask you this directly: If people are purposefully ignoring state laws concerning firearms, are they responsible gun-owners?

When the populous deems laws wrong or unnecessary, they will ignore them. This has happened many times in American history. Considering the gun culture that is in the US, how many of those 40-50 mil do you think would be willing to become martyr if the removal of the 2nd amendment were to happen. How many would lay down their lives for this right? I believe this number to be rather high, and this is what i don understand. You really think that the AMERICAN gun loving nut are going to peacefully let this go because you passed a law? Its like you conventionally forgot about the mentally of people like Cliven Bundy because you dislike their culture.
Your ways of saving lives will only cause more deaths.

[Ghostpanther]

I've been over this before, but "not being in an accident" does not equal "safe and responsible driver." Hell, being in an accident does not preclude responsibility either. It could have been mechanical failure, solar glare, medical problems, etc...

And let me ask you this directly: If people are purposefully ignoring state laws concerning firearms, are they responsible gun-owners?

You assume too much. The law does assume they are until proven they are not.

And if a gun owner is purposely ignoring state laws, they are not lawfully responsible gun owners. And if caught, will be prosecuted I am sure. But like the car driver, the authorities have to assume the car driver or gun owner is responsible.

[Tinykong]

We're back to the old "well you can't prove all firearm owners are responsible" topic again...

Maybe we should conduct a telephone survey of a few thousand households and ask them if they've used their firearms illegally or irresponsibly in the last 30 days. Yeah, that'll work.

[Ghostpanther]

When the populous deems laws wrong or unnecessary, they will ignore them. This has happened many times in American history. Considering the gun culture that is in the US, how many of those 40-50 mil do you think would be willing to become martyr if the removal of the 2nd amendment were to happen. How many would lay down their lives for this right? I believe this number to be rather high, and this is what i don understand. You really think that the AMERICAN gun loving nut are going to peacefully let this go because you passed a law? Its like you conventionally forgot about the mentally of people like Cliven Bundy because you dislike their culture.
Your ways of saving lives will only cause more deaths.

Some good points. Which is why I believe if a national registry was introduced which required all guns owners have now to be registered, a large percentage would ignore it. The FBI tried that back in the 1930's and later dropped it because they found out it was a requirement they could not enforce.

The only effective national registry has to start at the point of sale by a licensed gun dealer. Even then it would take decades to have much impact. But it is the only realistic approach for those who wish for it.

[Svifnymr]

I've been over this before, but "not being in an accident" does not equal "safe and responsible driver." Hell, being in an accident does not preclude responsibility either. It could have been mechanical failure, solar glare, medical problems, etc...

And let me ask you this directly: If people are purposefully ignoring state laws concerning firearms, are they responsible gun-owners?

You are asking if someone ignores a state law if they're a responsible person, the gun part has no bearing. If someone goes over the speed limit, are they a responsible gun owner? Is the speeding law not as valid of a law as some other arbitrary law?

Generally the discussion of a "responsible gun owner" is in his usage and possession of a firearm. Is it safely stored? That's a question of responsibility with a gun. Is it safely handled? Also a responsbility question, but is he ignoring a state law that does not actually change the safe handling of his firearm? To me that has no bearing on the issue.

Someone practicing his spinning with his loaded SAA is irresponsible, where someone who has a 15 round magazine in NY is not.


For the numbers we have, we know that the vast majority of firearms are not linked to a crime or misuse. When someone says all guns are bad and you refute with "no, the vast majority are responsible", why must the second statement be proved with concrete data when the initial statement it's refuting is just fine?