Ashcroft mocks librarians opposed to PATRIOT act

Rspaight · Postby **Rspaight** » Mon Sep 22, 2003 3:32 pm

I honestly don't want to see any form of registration wherein it is noted that serial number X belongs to person Y. I don't want any kind of list where Dianne Feinstein or Michael Moore can come knocking on my door and say "You own a gun. You're an evil person."

I guess that's where we part ways, then. I think it's absolutely essential that law enforcement knows who owns what guns. Even in a case where a stolen gun is used to commit a crime, knowing whom the gun was stolen from would be very valuable information.

I don't have a problem with the right to bear arms, but the Second Amendment doesn't say anything about a right to bear arms secretly.

And, less seriously, wouldn't you think that knowing you have a gun would make it less likely that someone would come to your door to insult you?

Ryan

Postby **lukpac** » Mon Sep 22, 2003 3:34 pm

balthazar wrote:And therein lies the crux of the issue. Making guns illegal in an attempt to keep them out of the hands of people who acquired them illegally to begin with doesn't make any sense, and certainly won't do anything but deny citizens a means of protecting themselves.

While banning all guns is perhaps not the best solution, I think your argument is flawed. Sure, such a law wouldn't make all guns go away (right away), but it would certainly make things head that way. Get caught with a gun? That will be a fine and your gun, please. Use a gun in a crime? More jail time (and your gun, please). And where would a new influx of guns come from if they were only produced for law enforcement and the military?

Also, FWIW, the second amendment says nothing about *guns*. Arms could technically mean anything from squirt guns to rocket launchers and missiles. What makes guns so unique?

Postby **lukpac** » Mon Sep 22, 2003 3:41 pm

Rspaight wrote:I guess that's where we part ways, then. I think it's absolutely essential that law enforcement knows who owns what guns. Even in a case where a stolen gun is used to commit a crime, knowing whom the gun was stolen from would be very valuable information.

I was about to write "I can see both sides of this", but the more I think about it, I guess the more I agree with Ryan. Yes, there is the "big brother" aspect (which is kind of what started this thread), but on the other hand, we have to register our cars, do we not? How would registering gun SN's be that different from registering VIN's?

Patrick M · Postby **Patrick M** » Mon Sep 22, 2003 3:47 pm

lukpac wrote:I was about to write "I can see both sides of this", but the more I think about it, I guess the more I agree with Ryan. Yes, there is the "big brother" aspect (which is kind of what started this thread), but on the other hand, we have to register our cars, do we not? How would registering gun SN's be that different from registering VIN's?

You would think in this Patriot Act environment of fear ("wore on terra"), the gubment would be intensely interested in knowing who owned which guns. I guess not.

“I’d be happy to entertain that notion. I don’t want to say that I’m absolutely for ‘cop-killer’ bullets. I’m clearly not.”

Dick Cheney, LA Times 7/31/00

Well, *that's* reassuring.

balthazar · Postby **balthazar** » Mon Sep 22, 2003 3:56 pm

Pragmatism and moderation should be the keys.

Agreed. Unfortunately, extremism on one side means that in order to be pragmatic and moderate, it is necessary for the other side to be extreme, as well.

Bush, as governor of Texas, repealed the ban on carrying concealed weapons. He also made it safe to carry concealed weapons in church and at amusement parks. That's nutty.

Is it? Is it nutty to carry a concealed weapon in a restaurant? One of the vocal people in the debate on pilots carrying a pistol in airline cockpits was a woman who watched as a gunman murdered many people in a restaurant, including much of her family, a gunman she'd have been able to stop had she been able to legally carry a concealed weapon.

While amusement parks could in theory screen its visitors to prevent this kind of thing, who's going to screen people visiting a church? Indeed, why should either need to be screened at all?

NRA VP Kayne Robinson

Kayne Robinson is now the NRA president following Charlton Heston's resignation.

balthazar · Postby **balthazar** » Mon Sep 22, 2003 4:15 pm

And, less seriously, wouldn't you think that knowing you have a gun would make it less likely that someone would come to your door to insult you?

Precisely my point. Who's more likely to be the victim of a crime? The person known to be armed, or the person known to be unarmed?

While banning all guns is perhaps not the best solution, I think your argument is flawed. Sure, such a law wouldn't make all guns go away (right away), but it would certainly make things head that way. Get caught with a gun? That will be a fine and your gun, please. Use a gun in a crime? More jail time (and your gun, please).

I recommend doing some research on Project Exile, because that is exactly what it is all about. Harsher, truthful sentences for people convicted of a crime commited with a gun.

And where would a new influx of guns come from if they were only produced for law enforcement and the military?

Smuggled in, or stolen from law enforcement and the military. Our "controlled" border with Mexico doesn't stop illegal aliens, drugs, and other contraband. Why would it stop guns? And in the meantime, the honest, law-abiding citizens have been disarmed.

but on the other hand, we have to register our cars, do we not? How would registering gun SN's be that different from registering VIN's?

No one is trying to ban automobiles because of the millions of people that are killed in accidents every year, deaths that far outnumber deaths due to firearms. How is registering guns going to cut down on crime when registering VINs does nothing to stop cars from being stolen or killing people in accidents?

Postby **lukpac** » Mon Sep 22, 2003 4:20 pm

balthazar wrote:Is it? Is it nutty to carry a concealed weapon in a restaurant? One of the vocal people in the debate on pilots carrying a pistol in airline cockpits was a woman who watched as a gunman murdered many people in a restaurant, including much of her family, a gunman she'd have been able to stop had she been able to legally carry a concealed weapon.

It's true that she *might* have been able to stop the guy. However, how often does this happen in comparison to, say, a bar fight situation? "Fuck you." "No, fuck YOU." Etc. Who needs fists when you have a gun?

balthazar · Postby **balthazar** » Mon Sep 22, 2003 4:28 pm

It's true that she *might* have been able to stop the guy. However, how often does this happen in comparison to, say, a bar fight situation? "Fuck you." "No, fuck YOU." Etc. Who needs fists when you have a gun?

Most rational, law-abiding people aren't going to carry a gun, concealed or not. But why deny them the choice?

Most laws that allow concealed-carry have permit/license requirements that also require screening and firearm training.

Postby **lukpac** » Mon Sep 22, 2003 4:34 pm

balthazar wrote:No one is trying to ban automobiles because of the millions of people that are killed in accidents every year, deaths that far outnumber deaths due to firearms. How is registering guns going to cut down on crime when registering VINs does nothing to stop cars from being stolen or killing people in accidents?

Comparing firearm deaths to auto deaths is a bit silly. Cars aren't designed to be weapons; guns are. The purpose of a car is to get around; the purpose of a gun is to scare/wound/kill someone/something. Deaths in car accidents outnumber those from guns (I'm taking your word for it) simply because there are a LOT more cars used every day than guns. If everyone used guns to open beer cans and turn off lights ala Homer Simpson, I'm sure those numbers would be a *lot* higher.

Nevertheless, registering SN's won't directly cut down on stolen guns, just as registering VIN's doesn't directly cut down on stolen cars. However, in both cases, registration makes for an easy way to determine if something is stolen or not. Is it a be all and end all measure? Of course not. But it is a step in helping to make sure the people who have guns are supposed to have them, and the people who aren't don't.

You've framed the argument in a way that implies that those without guns would be at greater risk since you could easily tell who did and didn't own guns. Well, even if such a list were easily accessible (something I'm not sure would be the case), as a person who doesn't own guns, I'd be happy to take that "risk".

balthazar · Postby **balthazar** » Mon Sep 22, 2003 4:51 pm

Comparing firearm deaths to auto deaths is a bit silly.

Just as silly as the belief that banning guns will keep them out of the hands of criminals.

England and Australia have both effectively disarmed their citizens. It started with registries, wherein all law-abiding citizens listed their guns and their serial numbers to the governments. This did little if anything to affect the rate of violent crime in both of these places.

Next, semiautomatic weapons were confiscated, thanks to a handy checklist created from the same registry supposedly designed to protect citizens. Next it was all pumpguns, regardless of how many rounds they held. Now, the honest people have been disarmed, their weapons sawed up and melted down, and violent crime (robbery, rape, assault, murder) rates have skyrocketed.

It's pretty easy to figure out who does and doesn't own a gun, and the crime numbers show it.

mikenycLI · Postby **mikenycLI** » Mon Sep 22, 2003 5:12 pm

We just don't "get", what the war on Terrorism is, and we probably NEVER will.

Basically, we are "soft" on the subject, because we don't, really, know what it is to defend our own homes, and neighborhoods, against people, who HATE our way of Life, and our wealth, to the point of wanting to destroy it.

What we know about War, can fill a thimble......maybe.

We fight our Wars in distant, lands, we don't have the vaguest idea of where they are, geographcally, only, until we send our soldiers, great distances from this country, to fight, wars of attrition, that, don't mean ANYTHING to our survival as a culture and society.

It's no wonder Bush had to stretch the Truth, and get us, committed to Iraq and Afghanistan. That's the length someone has to go, to just make the numbers, ring up in the popularity polls.

Also, it isn't any wonder, that other nation states, chuckle at our naivte' about Terror, and they don't have ANYTHING to do with, what turn out as, badly planned, misadventures.

What WILL it take for us to take this seriously ? Perhaps, if SOMEONE, takes out our cable Tv, will we EVER, give it the serious attention, it deserves...but by then, it will be too late. Or is it "too late", already ?

Patrick M · Postby **Patrick M** » Mon Sep 22, 2003 5:17 pm

balthazar wrote:Just as silly as the belief that banning guns will keep them out of the hands of criminals.

I don't think anyone on this thread has suggested a ban on guns.

balthazar · Postby **balthazar** » Mon Sep 22, 2003 5:29 pm

I don't think anyone on this thread has suggested a ban on guns.

Luckily everyone here seems to be rational, much more so than the extremists on either side of this issue.

Rspaight · Postby **Rspaight** » Mon Sep 22, 2003 5:29 pm

Precisely my point. Who's more likely to be the victim of a crime? The person known to be armed, or the person known to be unarmed?

Precisely *my* point. If being armed makes you a less desirable target, then why is it a problem for it to be known that you're armed?

How is registering guns going to cut down on crime when registering VINs does nothing to stop cars from being stolen or killing people in accidents?

The point here isn't to cut down on crime, it's to make stolen guns easier to trace and make identifying stolen guns faster and easier.

(However, if the barrel pattern of each gun could be tied to the registration, you could theoretically trace the gun from the bullet, instead of hoping to luck into the gun. Now *that* might be a deterrent.)

England and Australia have both effectively disarmed their citizens. It started with registries, wherein all law-abiding citizens listed their guns and their serial numbers to the governments. This did little if anything to affect the rate of violent crime in both of these places.

Again, that's not the point. The point is to make it easier to apprehend criminals who use guns.

Next, semiautomatic weapons were confiscated, thanks to a handy checklist created from the same registry supposedly designed to protect citizens. Next it was all pumpguns, regardless of how many rounds they held. Now, the honest people have been disarmed, their weapons sawed up and melted down, and violent crime (robbery, rape, assault, murder) rates have skyrocketed.

Being against registration because it would make confiscation easier is like being against the space program because it might attract hostile aliens.

That aside, I'm more or less in agreement that a gun ban won't prevent crime. (The *causes* of crime are economic and social. The mere existence of guns doesn't cause crime, though it certainly can make crime more violent and deadly.) But just for the sake of argument, has anyone been able to prove the cause-and-effect of the gun ban and the crime stats? (And are any stats available to support this other than that one Dutch phone survey I see cited everywhere?)

Ryan

Rspaight · Postby **Rspaight** » Mon Sep 22, 2003 5:33 pm

Basically, we are "soft" on the subject, because we don't, really, know what it is to defend our own homes, and neighborhoods, against people, who HATE our way of Life, and our wealth, to the point of wanting to destroy it.

They don't hate our wealth and way of life. They hate our support of Israel and our military presence in the region.

Ryan