XPost: talk.politics.guns, uk.politics.guns, aus.politics.guns   
   From: murff@warlock.org   
      
   On Tue, 06 May 2014 20:51:51 -0400, Scout wrote:   
      
   > "Murff"  wrote in message   
   > news:lkb5n7$42j$1@dont-email.me...   
      
   >> My personal view is that private firearms ownership is perfectly fine,   
   >> either for recreational use or where social norms warrant it, for   
   >> personal defence. However such ownership and use carries with it a   
   >> responsibility much like that attendant on driving motor vehicles or   
   >> flying aircraft. And therefore that private firearms ownership warrants   
   >> some form of test to demonstrate competence and suitability.   
   >   
   > In theory I would agree with this. However, there are several issues   
   > with such a suggestion in actual practice.   
   >   
   > 1) Those opposed to guns have shown their willingness to distort,   
   > pervert, modify, alter or otherwise use such mandates to restrict,   
   > limit, prohibit firearms ownership even for suitable people right up to   
   > imposing de facto bans for everyone. (ref Chicago and Washington DC)   
   >   
      
   That is true. But what that lobby fails to recognise is that by such   
   distortions they're driving the polarisation of the argument as opposed   
   to persuading anybody. All that does is to convince the more paranoid   
   (and noisier) pro-gun lobbyists that their fears are well-founded.   
      
   > 2) The overwhelming issue of crimes with firearms are NOT from those who   
   > legally own and possess firearms, but rather by those who are already   
   > prohibited by law from such ownership or possession.   
      
   I know that. Those who legally own and possess tend to understand safety,   
   develop competence, take classes and so on. OTOH - reference above - anti-   
   gun hysteria threatens law-abiding owners with mis-targetted sanctions   
   that clobber them rather than the criminals. So law abiding owners have   
   no choice but to oppose those sanctions and get tarred as gun nuts by the   
   antis.   
      
   > 3) Statistically competence can be shown by the general population of   
   > gun owners by referencing the very low and falling accidental gun   
   > injury/death numbers and rates.   
      
   It can be experienced empirically by going among them at ranges, when   
   hunting, and so on and noticing safe behaviour.   
      
   > 5) Finally, it provides a mechanism by which the government can chose to   
   > eliminate our right to keep and bear whenever it suits them.   
      
   It doesn't have to. I don't know what shooters do regarding insurance in   
   the US. But it would be possible for example for a private initiative to   
   recognise classes and the like as part of an insurance scheme. That   
   happens here: in my pheasant syndicate you have to be insured, and you   
   have to display safe gun handling. Being insured and showing evidence of   
   qualifications in game handling gets me authority to shoot over other   
   peoples' private land, including at night, at no cost. The government has   
   nothing to do with it.   
      
   > No, the overwhelming issue is one of controlling criminals. Where   
   > existing gun control laws are strictly enforced, and punishments for   
   > violations actually imposed, criminals are quickly removed from the   
   > streets and violent crime rates of all sorts drop significantly. Ref   
   > Project Exile and similar programs   
      
   ... which looks very much like advocacy of anti-gun measures of the New   
   York variety. That is a far more direct threat to the Second Amendment   
   than your point 5 above.   
      
      
   > The issue isn't that legal owners are such a problem, but rather we   
   > generally refuse to hammer those who are the problem when they are   
   > caught misusing a firearm in crime.   
      
   I disagree. I think the problem is that you don't catch them. Or at least   
   that they don't believe you'll catch them. One of the reasons for the   
   decline of capital punishment was that whilst in theory its severity   
   should stop the crimes for which it is indicated, it didn't actually work.   
      
   That is because the deterrent isn't how beastly you can be to a criminal   
   once you've caught and convicted him. Indeed, *particular* beastliness   
   becomes a mark of honour. The deterrent is how likely they consider it is   
   that they're going to be caught.   
      
   That is why zero-tolerance policing works. On the one hand it lets the   
   little guys know that what they do isn't going to be overlooked. And on   
   the other it provides enough policing activity to help collect evidence   
   against the bigger guys.   
      
   >  Testing the 99.9% that aren't the issue won't impact the 0.1%   
   > who are   
      
   Entirely true, but not the purpose of the exercise. At the moment we have   
   legal firearms ownership under threat from lobbies which refuse to   
   distinguish between that and extant criminality; and from lawmakers who,   
   well, make laws that only the law abiding, abide by. Underlining the   
   distinction between legal owners and criminals undermines the outright   
   ban argument. To some extent - and imperfectly - the licencing regime in   
   the UK provides that distinction and shooting organisations recognise   
   that these days and are using it with some success to defend against ill-   
   advised restrictions.   
      
   Obvious UK-style legislation is way too far for the US. But the point   
   maybe warrants some thinking about nonetheless.   
      
   > You assume that gun control is actually interested in controlling the   
   > criminal misuse of guns.   
      
   I actually think that the majority of it is. But I also think that it has   
   a woeful record because its approach is based on flawed analysis and   
   badly-directed action.   
      
   > I hate to say it but by and large the legislative proposals advanced by   
   > gun control advocates, IMO, rarely actually address criminal misuse but   
   > rather seeks to either punish those who aren't criminals, or to   
   > generally impose restrictions, conditions, etc on even being able to own   
   > guns.   
      
   Indeed. As I said, flawed analysis. It starts with the gun used in a   
   criminal act rather than why that act is being performed. As for action,   
   lawmakers make laws: they can't really make a law saying "it is now   
   illegal to break the law we already had that says it is illegal to murder   
   someone".   
      
   Unfortunately, law-and-order politics rarely stretches to the   
   sophistication needed to understand that - or even begin to do something   
   about it. And the hysteria and noise from both sides of the gun argument   
   doesn't help.   
      
   > Actually, given the size of the respective forces the federal government   
   > couldn't impose their will on us unless we chose to allow it.   
      
   Actually, if the force multipliers involved don't give it overwhelming   
   capability, you might want to nip along to the Pentagon and ask what   
   they've been doing with all your tax dollars :-)  But we've covered that   
   elsewhere - reference respect for the Constitution as an ultimate defence.   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)