Alan wrote:I don't believe in vigilante-ism or revenge in real-life situations. It makes for good movies, but I don't believe it should or can form the foundation of society.
There's a difference. Self-defense generally involves responding to violence or the threat of violence within the first couple minutes. No police force in the world can react with that kind of speed. Obviously, I don't believe civilians should be using guns after the fact, but there is no practical defense (other than deterence) that is more effective in preventing a crime than a firearm used by a
trained individual. If the criminal hurts or kills a person in spite of the firearm, then you have to accept that they probably would have hurt or killed them without it.
Alan wrote:At the same time, I don't believe that arming the populace is the answer. Nobody should carry a gun who isn't fully trained to use it.
I agree with this. Ideally, I would require a prospective gun owner to take a series of training classes for several hours a week over the course of several months. I'd also require refeshers every few years. I believe that the courses should be offered regularly, with different schedules to meet the needs of most interested individuals. Finally, the entire thing needs to be offered free or at some negligeable charge. People should be encouraged to take the course even if they aren't planning to own a gun, just because understanding guns makes accidents much less likely. And this would be a federal law, so that no matter where you go in the country, your training is still accepted.
However, that ideal is impossible because of the anti-gun extremists. They would prevent the course from containing any useful content, make it cost thousands of dollars to enroll, offer the course only under Halley's comet at 3:30 AM, and ensure that every state, county, and town is free to ignore your training. There are anti-gun people who will sabotage any responsible gun-control legislation just to try to make it harder to own a gun. I have seen many examples of this, especially in Maryland. Maryland has a compulsory training law for handguns, but it doesn't actually require any gun training. Instead, it requires wathcing an anti-gun propaganda video. That's it. It provides no useful benefit, and makes it unlikely that any future law will ever be taken seriously.
Alan wrote:Nobody who walks into a bar should carry a gun.
Driving under the influence is responsible for far more damage, injury, and death than using a gun while under the influence. I suspect its proportional, but I'm sure its absolute. A more reasonable restriction would be prohibiting carrying a firearm with a blood alcohol level above some threshold, just like DUI. That way it applies to people who drink elsewhere, without affecting people who don't drink in the bar (like the bartenders), or who drink "responsibly".
Alan wrote:Nobody with untreated mental illness should carry a gun. Nobody who internalizes anger or grief should carry a gun.
Now here I have to absolutely disagree. Without compulsory medical and psychiatric exams, this would be impossible to determine, and even with the exams, these are highly subjective measures, largely determined by a doctor's opinion. An anti-gun doctor would manage to find symptoms of some mental disorder in every patient they came across. Currently, being commited to a psychiatric hospital (or being convicted of a violent crime) is the criteria for gun ownership. It's very clear cut and approximates objectivity, because any such decision is subject to review.
Any broader definition of mental incapacitation sets a very dangerous precedent. Consider, the numebr of firearm deaths is something like 40,000 a year. That includes accidents, suicides, self-defense, property motivated killings, and gang motivated killings as well as killings by people who just snapped (the only category that would be affected by denying guns to people based on nebulous psychiatric conditions). Say you manage to avert 15,000 (probably wouldn't be that many). Think about all the other health related restrictions and laws that would save more lives. Prohibit people with heart problems from working in high stress jobs. Sterilize people carrying recessive genes that trigger serious medical conditions (or at least restrict their choice of breeding partner). Prohibit consumption of certain types of food by people who are overweight or have certain cardiovascular conditions. Health-related laws should only be used when absolutely required, and when the health problem proves dangerous in a statistically significant portion of the afflicted population.
Alan wrote:Yes, maybe armed teachers could have taken down Harris and Klebold before they killed anyone.
Before? No. However, I suspect that the presence of several armed, trained individuals on the school grounds could have interrupted the spree and reduced the total casualties. Instead, the killing continued until most people had escaped the area and the police arrived.
Alan wrote:But do you want the guy you cut off on the freeway to be carrying? Do you want the guy you fire to have a gun?
There are tens of millions of non-criminal gun owners in this country. People cut them off and fire them on a daily basis. There are occasionally cases where someone who was a non-criminal snaps and commits an unjustified violent act with their gun. But those are the exceptions, and they're very rare relative to the number of people who refrain from such actions.
Alan wrote:I'm not saying that abolishing gun control would lead to an armed populace. That is of course silly. But in my view, the harder it is to get guns, the better. I don't want a gun. Joe and Jane Citizen don't want a gun.
Actually, something like a third or half of the adult population of the US have guns. I've seen varying numbers, but they tend to hover around there. If you doubt the number of gun owners, look at the election that lost the Democrats control of the House. Even the Democrats (including Clinton) agree that they lost most of those seats because of the assault weapons ban. Any lobbying organization can buy a politician once they're in office, but the NRA is one of the few that has a consistent record of getting them into office. They manage in spite of the fact that they only have one issue to appeal to voters with.
Alan wrote:And certainly I and they have no interest in buying assault weapons.
If you're using that term correctly (an assault weapon is capable of automatic fire), then I agree. I believe restricting ownership of automatic weapons is probably reasonable. If the government were willing to provide appropriate compensation to owners at true market value, I'd even support a total ban on ownership (But many models run as high as $50,000, and rare variants or historically significant guns can run much higher).
However, semi-automatic clones should not be restricted any differently than any other rifle. Assault rifle (and clone) caliber ammunition is actually less powerful than most hunting rounds. I chose the AK not only because it's cool looking. It's also a practical rifle for a novice. It's easy to maintain, it's durable enough to put up with mistreatment, it's cheap, ammunition is cheap (half the price of the .38 rounds I bought for my revolver), it's easy and cheap to modify, and it has simple internals which makes learning its function easy. Only a bolt-action .22 would have been a better option, and I didn't know at the time how to choose one.
The only issue I see with clones is removeable magazines. They really aren't necessary for home-defense, target shooting, or hunting. I like magazines, and think they add a great asthetic to the rifle, but I have to admit I can't justify them. The only thing I can say is that banning removeable magazines will remove a lot of guns from the market, thus reducing consumer choice and artificially inflating prices. Not a safety argument, but a legitimate one, proven by the effect of the assault weapon ban.
Alan wrote:I'll also agree that gun control represents a possible infringement of second amendment rights, and I'll agree that you have a right to challenge gun control for that reason.
I don't believe that any right (including gun ownership) is justifiable or defensible on the grounds that it's in the Constitution. Rather, I believe the Constitution lays out certain rights are justified on their own merits. If I didn't believe private firearm ownership had merit, I'd be in favor of stripping it out. The Constitution reflects society (and to some extent the current sitting judges) and changes as society does. Slavery, income tax, direct election of senators, voting age, etc.