[HTML1]

I found this comment by girlswithguns underneath the post Enumerated Rights: No Training Required. She needs help, and I reckon TTAG’s Armed Intelligentsia are just the folks to provide it. If you could dispel her misconceptions, there’s hope for fence-straddlers everywhere. I’d appreciate it if you could give it a shot.

“I live in the real world, where unfettered access to guns for everyone in the country is never going to happen. I would be a lot happier if they just kept violent felons in prison, but as long as that isn’t going to happen I’d prefer that people known to be prone to violence not have legal access to weapons that can be used to inflict damage on multiple persons and from a distance. That way there remains a clear distinction between ‘legal’ gun ownership and ‘illegal’ gun ownership, which gives law enforcement more wiggle room to actually prevent crimes, and at least somewhat appeases the gun grabbers.”

Recommended For You

42 Responses to TTAG Commentator girlswithguns Silent Cry for Help

  1. This is a case for a mental health hotline. More than two logical fallacies per comment is grounds for transfer to professional assistance.

    • This sort of condescension is entirely inadequate. If we want to “reach out” to fence-sitters, we need to have cogent answers that don’t insult them and don’t rely on pedantic appeals to the rules of formalized rhetorical logic.

      Even if we persist in thinking that the liberals and fence-sitters are “irrational” or “illogical” or plagued by “misconceptions”, we need to acknowledge that they analyze issues through their own worldview, which is logical and coherent according to its own terms. Whether you like those terms or not is up to you, but you should recognize that your own opinion is formed according to a worldview that is coherent and logical but is still particular to you.

      For my part, this girlswithguns’s comment identifies the crux of the issue; its a reasonable comment and is a stumbling block for lots people. I appreciate the thoughtful comments below. Still, I think Robert would do well to devote full posts to authors who approach this with tact, good reasoning, and a concerted effort to engage meaningfully and respectfully with different worldviews.

  2. Playing nice with others is a requirement for legal gun ownership. Filling out form 4473 and a background check filters out those who don’t know how to get along with others, so there is a clear distinction.

    Perhaps your biggest misconception is this idea if appeasing gun grabbers. It ain’t gonna happen. Look to the history of gun control in England if you don’t believe me.

    Also, the police are largely reactive not preventative. Most people like it this way because we don’t really want the police to come looking for trouble where we live. I mind my own business and they don’t bother me, and that is as it should be.

    Finally, you can take the long distance killing tools away but that won’t stop people from violent behavior. It just gives the advantage to the biggest, meanest guy in the room. Not good.

  3. “I’d prefer that people known to be prone to violence not have legal access to weapons that can be used to inflict damage on multiple persons and from a distance.”

    Myth: Assault weapons are a serious problem in the U.S.
    Fact: Even weapons misclassified as “assault weapons” (common in the former Federal and California “assault weapons” confiscations) are used in less than 1% of all homicides. Police reports show that “assault weapons” are a non-problem

    Myth: High capacity guns lead to more deadly shootings
    Fact: The number of shots fired by criminals has not changed significantly even with the increased capacity of handguns and other firearms. Indeed, the number of shots from revolvers (all within 5-8 round capacity) and semi-automatics are about the same – 2.04 vs. 2.53. In a crime or gun battle, there is seldom time or need to shoot more.

    Not counting the apparent current trend towards those new .9mm guns the media keeps talking about criminals tend to want and use handguns. It is not very easy to sneak across a parking lot and into a store with a rifle, let alone flee the scene and avoid attention and arrest. That is why the majority of guns used in crimes are small, usually low caliber, easy to conceal handguns. As we have seen over the years none of the various, and often ridiculous, anti-gun laws has had any real effect in preventing this. What will prevent it, as you stated, is not removing the guns, but removing the criminals from the streets.

    Also how would we determine if they intend to use the rifle for a crime rather than hunting or sport shooting or other lawful pursuits? If you think the weapons are different, you are wrong. Many current and ex-military rifles are used in competitions (M1 Garrand, AR-15, 1903) and many are also used as hunting rifles. Then you also have the hunting rifles that have been adopted by the military and law enforcement community such as the Remington 700 series.

    “law enforcement more wiggle room to actually prevent crimes”

    Unfortunately that is not what police do. Police react to crime. Just like they write you a ticket for speeding not sit on the side of the road with a sign that reminds you not to speed, they do not and cannot show up before the crime happens. Best case, they can show up while the crime is happening but reality is that they will show up after the fact. You do not need to take my word in that, ask any honest cop and he will tell you the same.

    By the way the only time I will fight harder than when someone is trying to take away my handguns, is when they are trying to take away my rifles. I am and always will be a rifleman. My handguns are used to buy me enough time to retreat to my rifles.

  4. The context of this is a training requirement with regard to ownership (and/or CCW) of firearms. The second amendment does not impose such requirement. It states, quite simply, that a right of the people shall not be infringed. Period. Not most of the time, not after dark while holding a pair of scissors and hopping on one foot, not only with a given certification, test or gold star– it shall not be infringed. Ever. The idea of doing so against any innocent citizen should be as morally repugnant now as it was when the document in question was written. Unfortunately, a great many people for a very long time have elected to ignore that essential liberty in the name of some temporary and entirely subjective sense of “safety”, having ignored what Franklin had to say on that very subject.

    Now, when you’re convicted of a felony, federal law requires you forfeit that particular right. That law exists, and has for some time, making the entire concept of preventing legal access to firearms to someone “known to be prone to violence” moot. It is already illegal.

    The real issue is what, exactly, “known to be prone to violence” means. My assumption in this context, based on the “appeasement” language, is that it is not intended to mean “someone who has been convicted of a violent crime”, but rather, someone suspected in some way shape or form of a predisposition towards violence. That should be a bridge too far for any rational person. We have the second amendment for a reason. We have due process for a reason. We have a presumption of innocence for a reason. Those rights, and their reasons for existing, are monumentally more significant than some generic sense of “preventing bad things”.

    I, for one, will not trade liberty for safety. While it is a tragedy when someone goes postal and murders innocents, the attempted prevention of such events does not justify the denial of liberty to those not convicted of a crime. We have paid a very great price in blood and treasure for that liberty, and I consider the concept that it should be simply given away under a flag of “appeasement” and “reasonable controls” and other such mindless drivel to be grotesque in the extreme. Anyone suggesting such should think long and hard as to exactly what liberty is, what has been done to achieve it, and how easy a thing it is to lose.

    • +1. Absolutely correct. Britain is already experimenting with identifying children in grade school “who have a propensity for criminal actions” – based on their family history, I guess. Isn’t that a wonderful example of pro-active policing, and trying to keep “people known to be prone to violence [to] not have legal access to weapons that can be used to inflict damage on multiple persons and from a distance.” Lock ’em up when they’re 5, before they hurt someone! Due process? Presumption of innocence? Those are outmoded concepts from an outmoded Constitution, according to the NYT and our Glorious Leader.

  5. She will be reassured to know that the problem she is worried about doesn’t actually exist, there is a very clean line between legal and illegal gun ownership. Convicted violent criminals and/or felons do not have legal access to firearms… and no one including dealers and legal gun owners want to aid criminals in doing criminal things… the point of gun ownership is defense/sport/fun.

    In fact you get the same kind of federal background check performed on you every single time you buy a handgun as you do when you apply for a LTCF or CCW permit.

    If you are a convicted violent criminal, a felon, have a PFA order or restraining order against you, have any drug related DUI or general drug misdemeanors, or have any court-acknowledged psychological issues (been ordered for psych treatment/evaluation)… you will not pass, and therefore can not legally purchase a gun.

    If you want to get a handgun from someone else, you must do a transfer through a dealer with an FFL. To do this the both parties involved in the transfer are subject to the same background check criteria. If the recipient does not pass, they can’t legally obtain the handgun. If the initial owner doesn’t pass, the gun is confiscated and they will be visited by nice men in uniforms shortly.

    The only other way to do a gun transfer legally without paperwork is if it is a rifle or a shotgun and between family members, like from father to a son, however if the son happens to not be eligible (i.e. they couldn’t pass the background check = not legally allowed to own a gun) then the transfer is illegal and the son illegally possesses a gun.

    Also, unlike any other kind of sale, a gun dealer can refuse to make a sale based on their judgement/instinct regarding the person trying to buy a gun. For example if someone comes in emotionally distraught, behaves suicidal, is angry/behaves homicidal, or otherwise appears a threat to themselves or others. The other common reason for refusal of a sale is if the dealer suspects it is a straw buyer (someone with a clean record buying a gun for someone else). Most interactions which lead to a refusal get reported to the police and the person is investigated farther.

    -D

    • There is a lot of wrong in your post. To clarify:

      “If you want to get a handgun from someone else, you must do a transfer through a dealer with an FFL. To do this the both parties involved in the transfer are subject to the same background check criteria. If the recipient does not pass, they can’t legally obtain the handgun. If the initial owner doesn’t pass, the gun is confiscated and they will be visited by nice men in uniforms shortly.

      The only other way to do a gun transfer legally without paperwork is if it is a rifle or a shotgun and between family members, like from father to a son, however if the son happens to not be eligible (i.e. they couldn’t pass the background check = not legally allowed to own a gun) then the transfer is illegal and the son illegally possesses a gun.”

      Very few states prohibit “third party sales”, i.e. sales from one person to another. States that do require FFL involvement run a check on the purchaser and the firearm itself (reported stolen, used in a crime, etc.). I have not heard of any state running the check on the seller and there are no legal grounds for that.

      Almost all of the states (the free ones atleast, I don’t know about CA, NY, NJ, or MA as I will not live in a state that ignores the Bill of Rights) allow you to sell a long gun to anyone (some do require them to be a resident of the same state as you) that you do not know, or have reason to believe is legal prohibited from owning a firearm. Exceptions of course are made for Class III weapons, and some states and thier technically inaccurate list of “assault weapons” but just as you can sell your car without involving a car dealer, so can you sell your personal property that is a firearm. Many people will CYOA (Cover Your Own A$$) and only transfer firearms through FFLs or through State Police, but it is not required.

      (Check your own local laws, they are readily available online, but for about 45 of the states this is an accurate summary)

      • You are indeed correct about only the purchaser is subject to the background check though. I misspoke on that point, though I would contend that this doesn’t constitute as “a lot wrong”.

        There is nothing wrong with the rest of my post if you note the careful use of “handgun” vs “gun”.

        i.e.

        “If you want to get a HANDGUN from someone else, you must do a transfer through a dealer with an FFL.”

        In my state (PA) you can of course transfer long guns without getting an FFL involved.

        -D

        • ““If you want to get a HANDGUN from someone else, you must do a transfer through a dealer with an FFL.”

          In my state (PA) you can of course transfer long guns without getting an FFL involved.”

          That is PA law, not federal law. Other states allow third party sales of handguns as well. It all depends on what state you are a resident of.

        • Yes, that is PA law. I made no claim that my statements were universal to all states. Since it is well known that gun laws vary greatly by state i assumed that a reader would most reasonably assume my perspectives were from my perspective… i.e. relative to wherever I live.

          The spirit of my post was to illustrate that her presumed problem with violent criminals legally accessing handguns was not actually a true premise. I responded because other posts talked about assault weapon bans and were generally just griping about what’s not allowed, which doesn’t actually address her concern. I fear the point is becoming totally obfuscated by debating tree branches when the discussion is about the forest. She will likely be either more confused, or not know what to believe now, and in reality she doesn’t need a detailed and comprehensive understanding, just enough of a general sense (but still a true general sense) that she realizes her fears are unfounded. Instead, by our exchange, we have given her an anecdotal example she could easily interpret in a way that supports the (generally/hopefully wrong) stereotype that gun people are obsessive and thrive on conflict.

          -D

        • In summary, continuing this nitpicking is doing more harm than good. I’m bowing out of what has become the usual internet fustercluck… serves me right.

          -D

        • I had already decided not to continue the tangent farther.

          I must say however that your point about her referring to handguns is enlightening. I took the “from a distance” to mean rifles, since that is what it means to me, and she did not say rifles. She may very well mean handguns.

          (edited to fix paraphrasing of girlwithguns’ quote)

    • Sorry not picking on you, I swear, but I couldn’t let the little things go either.

      “In fact you get the same kind of federal background check performed on you every single time you buy a handgun as you do when you apply for a LTCF or CCW permit.”

      Not true. To get a permit a full fingerprint set is taken and run, to purchase a firearm your name and social are run. There is a difference, you can memorize someone’s social and get a fake id, you cannot feasible fake someone’s fingerprints in the presence of the LEO printing you. Also some states have dropped the background check for those licensed since they have passed the more accurate background check to get licensed.

      “like from father to a son, however if the son happens to not be eligible (i.e. they couldn’t pass the background check = not legally allowed to own a gun) then the transfer is illegal and the son illegally possesses a gun”

      And more importantly the father broke the law and will be at club fed since he cannot claim that he did not reasonably know that his son was precluded from firearms ownership.

      “Also, unlike any other kind of sale, a gun dealer can refuse to make a sale”

      Anyone has the right to refuse to due business with anyone else. For either of my jobs I have every right to tell someone to F off and refuse to do business with them. Fortunately FFLs are very inclined to use the right.

      For what it’s worth the spirit of your post was good, if I had to guess I would say that you live in one of the unfree states I mentioned so your local laws apply to what you posted. Fell free to call me an a$$hole, you won’t be the first, or the last, I promise you. 🙂

      • On point 1, in my state (PA), false. to get a carry permit you need about 15 minutes and between $19-$27. Background check only. No fingerprints. Also valid without photo. (A side note, fingerprints are not “run” for things like this they are just kept on record.)

        On point 2… I don’t see this as a refutation, so skip.

        On point 3… right to refusal of sale? false. note the careful use of the word “sale” in the statement “unlike any other kind of sale” It is generally illegal in the USA to refuse selling something to someone which is “for sale” in a store according to The Federal Civil Rights Act, relative to the arbitrary discrimination which gun dealers are allowed to exercise with protection.

        You were right that only the prospective purchaser of a handgun in a person-to-person transfer gets a background check.

        -D

        • Re point 1: Awesome! Good for PA, I see Phili collects prints, I did not know the good parts of PA did not.

          Re point 3: Walk into a bar drunk and belligerent and insist they “sell” you more liquor. Walk into 7-11 and start knocking things over, then walk to the counter and try to buy a bag of chips. Walk into a car dealership stoned and try to buy a car. In any of those cases they have every legal right to insist that you leave and have the police remove and arrest you if you do not. They have that right no matter what you do and what they sell. They do not have a legal obligation to sell to you. The Federal Civil Rights that you are referring to apply to FFLs as much as anyone else and that is about discrimination, i.e. I won’t sell you this (drink, car, bag of chips, gun) because of your (race, sex, sexual preference, religion, disability, etc.). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964

        • on point 2. the example of the bar is really a false analogy to this since it is illegal to sell someone a drink when they are visibly intoxicated. The example of 7-11 is a misdirected analogy, because you can kick someone out of a store for what you describe is committing property damage. While it is tempting to armchair lawyer the implications of the Federal Civil Rights Act, we should probably refrain since laws are dynamic, not absolutes, and this one has usually needed to be interpreted on a case by case basis. But more importantly, we are again totally missing the point for the sake of the thrill of conflict. The point is that an FFL dealer is explicitly granted the authority to discriminate without obligation to explain themselves, and with protection… I raised this point to explain that there are multiple levels of protection against illegal gun ownership, the last line of defense even so extreme that is forgives allows dealers to use their judgement without having to fear cries of “discrimination”. Keep in mind, the whole point was to make the original commenter realize that it is not a free-for-all by giving her general but true information relating to her concern. Trying to simply summarize the complicated and sometimes contradictory history of the Federal Civil Rights Act does not contribute to doing that.
          -D

        • on re: point 3. the example of the bar is really a false analogy to this since it is illegal to sell someone a drink when they are visibly intoxicated. The example of 7-11 is a misdirected analogy, because you can kick someone out of a store for what you describe is committing property damage. While it is tempting to armchair lawyer the implications of the Federal Civil Rights Act, we should probably refrain since laws are dynamic, not absolutes, and this one has usually needed to be interpreted on a case by case basis. But more importantly, we are again totally missing the point for the sake of the thrill of conflict. The point is that an FFL dealer is explicitly granted the authority to discriminate without obligation to explain themselves, and with protection… I raised this point to explain that there are multiple levels of protection against illegal gun ownership, the last line of defense even so extreme that is forgives allows dealers to use their judgement without having to fear cries of “discrimination”. Keep in mind, the whole point was to make the original commenter realize that it is not a free-for-all by giving her general but true information relating to her concern. Trying to simply summarize the complicated and sometimes contradictory history of the Federal Civil Rights Act does not contribute to doing that.
          -D

        • HI Don,
          Just my .02.
          I have purchased handguns on four (4) different occasions and given them as gifts. After checking state law of course.
          Also in my state if you have a CHL you can purchase a new handgun through a FFL dealer without any further background check. Just show your CHL when you pick it up.
          In fact I once purchased a handgun on line and was unable to pick it up from my transfer agent, so I had another CHL holder pick it up for me.
          Again not taking sides, just my .02.

  6. Okay, I’m going to grind my axe a little more. Some people are far more likely to be targeted by the police for non-violent (usually drug-related) crimes than others. These people lose their Second Amendment rights, while middle class white people generally don’t, though certainly some do. The LE culture of selective enforcement is just that – selective, and therefore discriminatory.

    Mental health is a tough one. A lot of vets with issues are afraid to seek help for the very reason that they may lose their guns, or be otherwise stigmatized. I would say that someone voluntarily seeking mental health care is a positive sign, not a reason to take their guns. Again, it’s a tough nut. Jared Loughner was pretty much screaming out the warning signs, but at what point do we declare someone crazy?

    • Anyone that voluntarily and consistently seeks mental health help should absolutely keep their Second Amendment rights. They prove responsibility and fortitude and the law recognizes that as it should. Those adjudicated by a judge are a different story. They are in need of help but are not self-aware enough to know or accept it.

      The mental health/2A issue is about as complicated as it gets. Anti-depressants are the third most prescribed medication in the nation. A CDC report last year stated 11% of the nation takes some form of anti-depressant. Pizza guys, tradesmen, politicians, law enforcement, firemen, emt’s, bankers, doctors, scientists, the list goes on. Out of all human ailments mental health is the least understood and most hard to predict. As someone with 25 years experience with the issue I will say that an individual’s history is the best predictor of future behavior. Is the individual quick and open to seek help? Good to go. Is the individual slow and resistant to seek help? Not so much. I can say with absolute conviction that folks requiring mental health help are the single most stigmatized group in modern America.

      • Supporting your point, I would contend that the sometimes ephemeral nature of mental healthiness is precisely why it is important that access to effective tools for self-defense should be considered a human right.

        -D

      • “Anyone that voluntarily and consistently seeks mental health help should absolutely keep their Second Amendment rights.”

        +1. If you’re seeking help, and not exhibiting any violent/dangerous behaviour, you should keep your guns.

  7. “That way there remains a clear distinction between ‘legal’ gun ownership and ‘illegal’ gun ownership, which gives law enforcement more wiggle room to actually prevent crimes”

    There are very clear laws on the books regarding those who use guns wrongfully and those that do so have fully met your “clear distinction” already. Law enforcement and the judiciary have more than enough tools to prosecute and jail those that shouldn’t have firearms. “Wiggle room” is a slippery and completely redundant slope. Which leads me to….

    “I would be a lot happier if they just kept violent felons in prison, but as long as that isn’t going to happen”

    So you allude to the fact that violent felons aren’t kept locked up as long as they should be yet that is the answer to your problem. The majority of crimes are committed by a minority of recidivist criminals. How about putting time and effort into ensuring these felons are prosecuted and stay in prison to the fullest extent of the law rather than bowing to the “status quo” and lying down to appease the gun grabbers. To me it seems pretty straightforward that we as a society aren’t being nearly harsh enough on recidivist criminals yet even in light of that many people’s nonsensical response to criminals’ inevitable aftermath after early release is to penalize law abiding folks in the hopes that it will somehow affect law breakers. It doesn’t make a damn bit of sense to me. The same thought process would penalize hunters that buy tags and abide by the seasons for the actions of scumbag poachers. Might as well penalize all drivers for the carnage drunk drivers cause too. How about a breathalyzer in every single car just in case? Freedom isn’t free.

    Just to be sure, I’m not writing this out of spite or with ill will. I’m just trying to convey my thoughts and if they come across negatively I assure you it wasn’t my intent.

    • This reminded me of a great quote I read the other day.

      “The philosophy of gun control: Teenagers are roaring through town at 90MPH, where the speed limit is 25. Your solution is to lower the speed limit to 20.”
      – Sam Cohen (inventor of the neutron bomb)

  8. Don has brought up an interesting point. Is girlwithguns around? Can we get a judges ruling? What is the definition of “weapons that can be used to inflict damage on multiple persons and from a distance”. My interpretation initially was rifles, Don’s that it was handguns, and it could have been referring to all firearms.

  9. I don’t know how many posters here are a student of history but I for one have always loved history. In my short history I have seen firearms gone from being tools often sold from the local hardware store to now being sold “ostracized” in only “Gun Stores”. I can remember when my Junior High principal had a 22 rifle in his office for stray dogs and wildlife to protect “his kids” from and most High School pickups in the parking lots had a gun rack and several guns in those racks. They used to have shooting teams in many schools. Now none of that is even considered by a school board or a State dept. of education.
    Years ago if someone was incarcerated in the Texas Penal system it was the cheapest cost of all 50 states because they raised and processed their on beef, vegetables and cotton, made their own clothes and uniforms right along with license plates and rehabing school buses for school districts to save the state tax money. A prisoner typically served 50-90% of their sentence given by a judge and jury. Then the whole game changed with law suits against prisons, “War on Drugs” laws filling prisons beyond capacity so they have to build more prisons or they have to release prisoners so fast it has become a revolving door.
    I listen to a scanner to keep informed of what is happening locally that is not published in the paper, I hear background checks of people stopped for traffic law violations and other crime investigations have very violent criminal conviction histories including muder convictions, assaulting peace officers, major drug violations and armed robberies and these men and women are out in my city with little observation so it seems. No wonder officers are arming themselves up with military style rifles against these types of criminals.
    From the days of an armed polite society when I was a kid to today where we are arming ourselves for protection from these loose criminals I think we have to look very carefully at our Law Makers and stop voting based on who will bring us the most money back home to who will make the major changes we need to change society where we don’t have to be armed 24-7 365 because we all know police are only minutes away when only seonds count.

  10. “I live in the real world, where unfettered access to guns for everyone in the country is never going to happen.”
    –Nobody’s saying it should.

    “I would be a lot happier if they just kept violent felons in prison, but as long as that isn’t going to happen I’d prefer that people known to be prone to violence not have legal access to weapons that can be used to inflict damage on multiple persons and from a distance.”
    –It’s already illegal for felons to have guns.

    “That way there remains a clear distinction between ‘legal’ gun ownership and ‘illegal’ gun ownership, which gives law enforcement more wiggle room to actually prevent crimes, and at least somewhat appeases the gun grabbers.”
    –There already is a distinction, in most states. And the gun grabbers will never be appeased.

  11. The fundamental flaw with the perspective of girlswithguns (which she, incidentally shares with anti’s), is that you can influence and change people’s behavior by manipulating their environment.

    All you have to do is look at prisons to recognize that philosophy is emphatically incorrect. Drug abuse, beatings, rape, murder, etc… all still occur within the highly sterilized and meticulouslly controlled landscape of our prison system.
    Additionally, most here recognize that training and familiarization with guns is much more effective for safeguarding children against “playing with guns” than hiding them, locking them up, and pretending guns don’t exist.

    Attempting to sanitize the environment will hardly ever actually change a violent person’s behavior and it seriously hinders non-violent people from freely exercising their rights and going peaceably about their business. The goal should then be to influence society through discourse and community relationships, not through artificially imposed mandates (which actually end up hurting society in the long run).

  12. Since I’m interested in debating differences of opinion and not just getting “you’re stupid,” especially in a post of its own, I almost didn’t come back here. But I decided to see if anyone more reasonable posted, and many did, so I’ll respond even though this is probably a dead thread.

    My comment was in response to a comment that basically advocated doing away with ALL gun control laws, although I can see in retrospect that I didn’t express myself very well. (I was going for brevity). I see that as completely unrealistic (as is the hope of any brevity in THIS comment.) I don’t disagree that most, if not all, gun control laws are unconstitutional, but until the SCOTUS agrees we’re stuck with them, in some form. The best we can expect for right now is to minimize the damage.

    That’s where I favor background checks that deny legal gun sales to felons, but not as they are currently written, at least not in CA. CA law denies gun sales to any and all convicted felons for the rest of their lives. I think that’s overly broad and that it should apply only to violent felons, and have a clause that allows them to eventually make their case to a judge that they’ve stayed out of trouble for X number of years and can now be trusted with firearms. They can regain their right to vote, so they should be able to regain their second amendment rights also.

    I’m in favor of keeping some gun control laws on the books, at least for now, such as denying legal gun sales to violent felons, because it gives the police a tool to help prevent crime (yes, the police DO prevent crime, even though most of their work is geared towards justice after the fact). I work with law enforcement and I see many many people get arrested and convicted or have probation revoked because they are found, on mundane things like traffic stops, to be in unlawful possession of firearms. 99% of the time those guns are loaded and chambered, and I seriously doubt that they’re on their way to help granny against some thugs. They’re either on their way to cause violence or are prepared to defend a drug deal or even the slightest insult with deadly force (yes, I’ve seen many of those cases). There are too many shootings around here between such fine citizens that result in bystanders being hit, including children. These people just have no qualms against settling their scores when children are around! So I believe that a great many shootings are prevented by these arrests, although obviously there are no statistics that can back up a claim of future, and not immediate, prevention.

    I’m sure that, if guns weren’t available, these people would still find ways to hurt each other, but at least they would be limited to weapons that require closer proximity (except arrows, although I believe both the regular bow and a crossbow require quite a bit of practice). It’s being able to fire a weapon (any firearm) from a distance (anything outside of arm’s length) that creates the hazard for bystanders. We know full well that they’ll still get guns illegally, but at least law enforcement has tools that will help get those people off the streets (since people kill people).

    Yeah, we all know that there are those people who will never stop until all private ownership of firearms is prohibited, but most people, even a great many here in CA, believe that the best solutions lie somewhere in the middle of unfettered ownership and full ban. Those people can indeed be persuaded that 1) certain gun control laws restrict only law abiding citizens and not criminals, and 2) that criminals DON’T get most of their guns by stealing from legal owners. That’s the #1 error that I run into. When I looked that up recently I
    found that most sources agree that criminals get firearms through theft only about 12% of the time. Straw purchases are by far the most common means, and again, those with moderate opinions can be persuaded to limit regulations on gun dealers by 1) having SOME regulations on gun dealers, and 2) learning how some of the laws intended to control the dealer actually violate the rights and privacy of the buyers.

    I’m sure many of you will disagree with me. If you want to convince this moderate, then make your case with facts and reason. Actually, one thing I don’t understand (since I’ve never heard the arguments against) is why so many gun owners oppose things like gun locks and empty chamber indicators.

    • I don’t know if you’re gonna read this but since I live in cali i’d like to comment on your last paragraph there.

      “Actually, one thing I don’t understand (since I’ve never heard the arguments against) is why so many gun owners oppose things like gun locks and empty chamber indicators.”

      To be honest, I LIKE the loaded chamber indicator on my XD pistols because it gives me a way of making sure there’s a round in the chamber even if it’s dark. But if i want to make sure its unloaded i NEVER rely on that indicator, i check for myself as anyone should. You cannot legislate a way for people to not hurt themselves or other NO MATTER WHAT. If you make something foolproof, society just comes up with a better class of fool.

      What I (and i’m sure most of us as a group) despise is the California REQUIREMENT to have these features. This blocks us from getting any new pistols that don’t have a magazine safety or loaded chamber indicator (it has to be a certain size too), yes even though some pistols like the XD HAVE an LCI, it’s not big enough to be valid for the “Safe” list. Fortunately the XD was grandfathered in so it’s allowed but BECAUSE of these requirements we don’t have access to many of the better pistols out there right now. We can’t get the newest Glock, XDm (and i’m sure the XDs), FNX, FNP45, Beretta NinetyTwo, etc. In fact when i was shopping for an XD-9 5″, i was surprised to find out that i could get it in any color i wanted as long as it was all black. The stainless slide version wasn’t on their “safe” list. Many places where I might find great deals on pistols don’t even deal with California residents because of these issues so we rarely have access to any good deals and have to pay more as a result.

      Yes the California “Safe handgun” list has NOTHING to do with safety, we know this because Law Enforcement is exempt from this list. Why should the guys carrying guns strapped to thier hips every day in public be allowed to have “Unsafe” guns? Even the grandfathered handguns drop off the list if the manufacturer doesn’t pay the annual extortion fee to California for that specific model to remain on the list, hence the reason i could get an XD-9 5″ in ALL black but not with a stainless slide (the manufacturer didn’t want to pay an annual fee for another color variant). Here’s the list of handguns that have recently dropped off the roster to give you an idea (it’s 23 pages long) http://oag.ca.gov/sites/oag.ca.gov/files/pdfs/firearms/removed.pdf

      The point of the list is to slowly whittle down possible legal handgun choices to the civilian population until they are zero. That is what all CA gun owners can clearly see through. Yes there ARE ways around the roster by doing single shot exemptions or by buying from an LEO, but in fact a number of law enforcement officers are getting busted by the ATF as we speak because they were using their “exempt” status to purchase pistols in demand and sell them for a profit and by definition, dealing without license. This arbitrary list has created such an artificial demand that it baited Police officers into breaking the law to profit off of it. Where’s the good in ANY of this?

      I’m sure it sounds like a great slogan to say that we are creating a list of Safe handguns “for the children!” but safety had NOTHING to do with it.
      There are evil individuals would would like to see a society of disarmed peasants to do the will of those in control and these are the one’s making the “control” measures, they will never be satisfied with any compromise. Then there are the average people who really want what’s best for everyone. Unfortunately the average Joe’s are easily mislead by these promises of protection and safety so they will support them unless they are educated on the reality of things. The battle for their minds is being fought every day.

      Never give the ones wishing for control of you and everyone else an inch…

    • Pathetic, if you’re really serious and not making a childish joke. Especially considering you claim to know the content of the minds of millions of people with many of your vast claims. Apparently the admins don’t savvy ridicule through parody either.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *