New US president & effect on laws

[Smith2013]

This is probably a strange question and it probably wont happen, but with the up coming US election, there is fear of harsh new gun laws, and I am afraid of an outright ban. I was wondering if there are any countries out there that have as good if not better gun laws than the US, or is it legal to ship your guns off to another country for storage until a good president takes office?

I have heard switzerland has good laws but i'm not sure on what they entail.

Just wondering, it's always good to have a plan B.

[AAlex]

1. Support NRA, as it probably the only force stopping feds from "reinterpreting" the 2nd amendment.

2. Banning in the US would be logistically impossible given the number of people that own firearms. Encourage your friends to own a firearm (I'm not talking ISSF type). If people don't exercise their right, it will be easier to take it away. Thats why I own a 9mm for no reason other than because I can.
Your suggestion is the opposite of this. Stand up for your rights instead of showing them your belly.

3. Vote for pro-2nd-amendment representatives that would never pass this bill.

[methosb]

I don't see a problem with a tightening of the laws in the US (not a ban). I don't really see why everyone and their grandma needs to be able to own an M16... just because.

I'm a gun owner and I completely agree with laws here in the Aus that say you can only use weapons for club shooting or for hunting and to do so you require the correct licencing for each. And laws that say you can only use weapons that are practicle for those situations. We aren't any worse for wear. If people here want to use the biggest and baddest guns they can join the army reserves.

[JohnD]

I don't see a problem with a tightening of the laws in the US (not a ban). I don't really see why everyone and their grandma needs to be able to own an M16... just because.

I'm a gun owner and I completely agree with laws here in the Aus that say you can only use weapons for club shooting or for hunting and to do so you require the correct licencing for each. And laws that say you can only use weapons that are practicle for those situations. We aren't any worse for wear. If people here want to use the biggest and baddest guns they can join the army reserves.

At first I was hoping this was just an April Fool's post, but I don't think so.

Why is it that everyone on the side of gun control assumes that the NEXT gun law is the compromise, and that the thousands of existing laws are not already compromises? And what makes them think that the next law is the one the criminals will obey?

As for everyone and their grandma owning an M16, that compromise was made in 1934, when severe restrictions on fully-automatic firearms were put in place. Since then, incidentally, there has been virtually NO criminal activity involving lawfully-owned automatic firearms. Perhaps you've fallen for the anti-gunners subterfuge of treating semi-automatic AR15's and SKS's as though they were fully automatic M16's and AK47's.

Our Constitution states that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. When you look at the hoops one must jump through in my state to own a pistol, you start to wonder just where the anti-gun people think infringement begins.

Glad you're happy with your current situation. The Australians I spoke to at Camp Perry a few years ago definitely were not.

[Jose Rossy]

I don't see a problem with a tightening of the laws in the US (not a ban). I don't really see why everyone and their grandma needs to be able to own an M16... just because.

I'm a gun owner and I completely agree with laws here in the Aus that say you can only use weapons for club shooting or for hunting and to do so you require the correct licencing for each. And laws that say you can only use weapons that are practicle for those situations. We aren't any worse for wear. If people here want to use the biggest and baddest guns they can join the army reserves.

We don't care what foreigners think of our "lax" gun laws. But I will humor you.

In fact, I have a feeling that the case currently before the US Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of the handgun ban and storage restrictions in the District of Columbia will go our way and even more gun laws will begin to fall around the country in the coming years.

The President of the US cannot make law. And with new clarifications that the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental individual right, the Congress will be even more reluctant to touch this issue.

In my state, Ohio, there is no licensing to own or purchase firearms. No restrictions regarding the type or number of firearms you may own. No restrictions on the quantities or type of ammunition you may have or buy. No restrictions on the magazine capacity of your firearms. And I can sell and buy guns from other private individuals without government permission.

There is only one kind of license in Ohio regarding fireams and it is for the sole purpose of carrying these on your person while going about your daily business (which I do). In order to obtain a Concealed Handgun License all I have to do is apply. If I do not meet any of the statutorily defined disqualifications set by the Ohio General Assembly, the Sheriff of my county MUST issue me the license. And nowhere on the license application am I asked why I want to carry a handgun.



For the record, most US gun owners think, rightly so, that Australia's gun laws suck worse than a Hoover.

And just to piss you off a little more, I have one of these "just because I can":

[alb]

I don't see a problem with a tightening of the laws in the US (not a ban). I don't really see why everyone and their grandma needs to be able to own an M16... just because.

I'm a gun owner and I completely agree with laws here in the Aus that say you can only use weapons for club shooting or for hunting and to do so you require the correct licencing for each. And laws that say you can only use weapons that are practicle for those situations. We aren't any worse for wear. If people here want to use the biggest and baddest guns they can join the army reserves.

You say that you "... aren't any worse for wear." Perhaps you should apprise yourself of the facts. See the following links that I found by doing the following Google search (violent crime statistics Great Britain):

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/artic ... E_ID=15304

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/artic ... E_ID=15304

and this one:

http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/fact ... s_2007.pdf (see pg. 12)

In the 5 years following the 1996 gun ban, Australia went from having a relatively low violent crime rate to having the highest violent crime rate in the world -- congratulations. Great Britain, after their 1998 gun ban, also saw a dramatic increase in their violent crime rate.

You might also want to read the works of John Lott, an economist who has done the most comprehesive study ever of violent crime and gun control.

Lott's study confirms the fact that economic principles apply to crime just as much as they do to any other human endeavor. I.e., when you raise the opportunity cost of commiting a violent crime, people do less of it. When you lower the opportunity cost, people do more of it. Lott found that two things raise the opportunity cost of violent crime, more and better police, and more people with guns. More and better police raises the opporunity cost by increasing the risk of being caught and prosecuted. More people with guns raises the opportunity cost by increasing the risk that criminals will get shot.

I live in Pennsylvania, near Philadelphia. Philadelphia has a fairly high violent crime rate. Pennsylvania has a non-discretionary concealed-carry licensing law, and well over 5 percent of Pennsylvania's adult population is licensed to carry concealed firearms (the rate is considerably lower in Philadelphia because the city government does everything it can to drag its feet on issuing licenses). Across the river from Philadelphia (less than a mile away, and connected by bridges) is Camden, N.J. New Jersey has very strict gun control laws, and virtually nobody in New Jersey is allowed to carry firearms. Camden's violent crime rate is about 50 percent higher than Philadelphia's. For the official statistics, see:

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/

Disarming law-abiding citizens does nothing to reduce violent crime, since law-abiding citizens don't commit violent crimes. Disarming them simply makes them more vulnerable to predators. It also makes the victim selection process easier and less risky for predators.

Regards,

Al B.

[Quest1]

I don't see a problem with a tightening of the laws in the US (not a ban). I don't really see why everyone and their grandma needs to be able to own an M16... just because.

I'm a gun owner and I completely agree with laws here in the Aus that say you can only use weapons for club shooting or for hunting and to do so you require the correct licencing for each. And laws that say you can only use weapons that are practicle for those situations. We aren't any worse for wear. If people here want to use the biggest and baddest guns they can join the army reserves.

Here is a person that has fallen into the socialistic brainwashing that has occurred in England and every other country that incrementally got a ban on their citizens owning guns. Their are governments, especially where there are in the beginning a large established number of gunowners, where they go about banning guns in a slow and incremental process. The governments first task is to restrict ownership to the point where people want to even own a gun and at the same time convince the people that the government will protect them by passing these restrictions. When this occurs in a democracy there are so few voters that believe in gunownership that when the governments finally decides to implement a ban there aren't enough voters for them to worry about. This was echoed by some of the gunowners that had to turn in there guns when England put through there ban.

I wish people would just look at history and they will see that giving governments more and more control over there people only leads to a gold lined cage. The gun control restrictions in England have only guaranteed the protection for the criminals. They did some interviews with some of the street scum in England and they to a man echoed the same theme. They all said that for them obtaining a gun is no problem because apparently the Russian mobs now sees a lucrative market. Home invasions in England, which were at one time where rare are now a common occurrence after the ban was instituted.

The government makes no guarantee that they will protect you your property. The politicians may make all sorts of promises, but promises made by many politicians are not bankable. There are to many politicians that crave the power and will tell you anything you want to hear to stay in power and this applies democracies and dictatorships. I remember some words that an old couple had to say after they heard a speech made by Ted Kennedy and after the speech the words they uttered after the speech was "Communist". The old couple had fled from Hungry when Stalin came when in with there tanks and guns to stamp out their attempts for freedom.

The Supreme Court in this country made that very clear several years ago when they ruled that the police are under no obligation to protect people. That case involved two women who heard some men break into their house. They managed to call the police after they managed to crawl outside on the roof of their house. The police arrived and since they didn't see anything wrong they went away. They called the police again and the same thing happened. However, sometime after the police left the men found the women and they had there way with them the rest of the night. The women sued after this and it went all the way to the Supreme Court where they made the ruling that the police are not obligated to protect you.

The most dangerous element for a ban to occur is complacency among gunowners and not the Sarah Brady groups. I worked in a gun store and I have talked to many customers about the future of gunownership all the time and 90% of them just plain don't care or worry about the issue until they pass a new law or regulation and to a man these same people will complain. These people will not vote or support programs for the next generation of shooters. There are cowboy shooter groups in this area where the average age is in the mid 60s. The average among different shooting sports varies with all the shooting sports, but the end result will be inevitable if the complacency continues.

The founding fathers of this country wanted the people to be able to determine their own individual future because they know what can happen when you give to much control to the government. A lesson that has been lost to many people, especially in most democracies.

[methosb]

Like I said. I am not for any kind of full ban on all guns. I just see no reason for civilians to have these crazy military weapons.

For civilians to have access to these weapons, it certainly doesn't make it harder for criminals to get a hold of them does it? If the weapons are somewhere that someone can steal them, does it not increase the risk of criminals getting these weapons?

What about these lawfully gun owning nutcases that have access to these weapons? Not that not having access to these weapons would stop someone from hurting others, but they sure do help and make said acts easier and more effective. Surely there is some slack somewhere in the laws that can be tightened to help prevent this?

The issue isn't so black and white. I am not some "gun's are bad mmmk" kind of activist, but I don't understand how the people on the other side of the fence can not see that there can't be some kind of improvement.

Maybe, coming from the city and from a country where people aren't so diehard patriotic, I just don't understand that kind of mind-set that those from the US have about the Constitution and guns. I guess I never will.

I'm sure nowadays in the US it really wouldn't make a difference anyways, the guns are already out there.

[Chris]

Methosb,

Here is the black and white.

If we could somehow keep the people locked up who seem to have a problem fitting in and contributing in a positive way to society then then we would not have people wanting to put a band aid on the situation and try and take away our guns.

I still have yet to see a gun commit a crime.

I think everyone knows what the problem is. The trouble is they do not want to try and fix the problem they want to band aid it because it is easier to pass laws making things more restrictive for the people who will follow the laws.

[Dogchaser]

Like I said. I am not for any kind of full ban on all guns. I just see no reason for civilians to have these crazy military weapons.

For civilians to have access to these weapons, it certainly doesn't make it harder for criminals to get a hold of them does it? If the weapons are somewhere that someone can steal them, does it not increase the risk of criminals getting these weapons?

What about these lawfully gun owning nutcases that have access to these weapons? Not that not having access to these weapons would stop someone from hurting others, but they sure do help and make said acts easier and more effective. Surely there is some slack somewhere in the laws that can be tightened to help prevent this?

The issue isn't so black and white. I am not some "gun's are bad mmmk" kind of activist, but I don't understand how the people on the other side of the fence can not see that there can't be some kind of improvement.

Maybe, coming from the city and from a country where people aren't so diehard patriotic, I just don't understand that kind of mind-set that those from the US have about the Constitution and guns. I guess I never will.

I'm sure nowadays in the US it really wouldn't make a difference anyways, the guns are already out there.

Quite a bit of our target shooting here in the states is based on those "crazy military weapons. At least we aren't limited to air guns that are regulated to super low power and in some cases no air pistols.

I have several of those "crazy "guns and mostly varmints hunt with them. They are very accurate and highly reliable with great ergonomics.

A gun is a gun no matter how scarry it looks.

[Freepistol]

Like I said. I am not for any kind of full ban on all guns. I just see no reason for civilians to have these crazy military weapons.

This is how liberties are taken away-- a little at a time. The media repeats obsurdities so many times that it becomes accepted as the truth.

For civilians to have access to these weapons, it certainly doesn't make it harder for criminals to get a hold of them does it? If the weapons are somewhere that someone can steal them, does it not increase the risk of criminals getting these weapons?

If I was a criminal, I would not want to try to take fireams from one house knowing that the neighbors have firearms in their house that could take me out while I was loading the loot in my stolen vehicle. More home owners with guns is crime prevention.

What about these lawfully gun owning nutcases that have access to these weapons? Not that not having access to these weapons would stop someone from hurting others, but they sure do help and make said acts easier and more effective. Surely there is some slack somewhere in the laws that can be tightened to help prevent this?

I'm not sure what "nutcases" you are referring, but I have seen the medical system fail when legal drugs were used to control "abnormal" individuals who then stopped taking the medication. If an individual goes on a rampage, then I want to have my gun nearby to stop it. The government cannot stop psychos with legislation just like they can't stop illegal drug use by making it illegal to use those drugs.

The issue isn't so black and white. I am not some "gun's are bad mmmk" kind of activist, but I don't understand how the people on the other side of the fence can not see that there can't be some kind of improvement.

You come across to me as one who thinks that "guns are bad" because the only idea you present to stop crime is to get the guns out of the hands of the common man (woman).

Maybe, coming from the city and from a country where people aren't so diehard patriotic, I just don't understand that kind of mind-set that those from the US have about the Constitution and guns. I guess I never will.

Maybe your country needs to get some partriotism.

I'm sure nowadays in the US it really wouldn't make a difference anyways, the guns are already out there.

[Jose Rossy]

Like I said. I am not for any kind of full ban on all guns. I just see no reason for civilians to have these crazy military weapons.

For civilians to have access to these weapons, it certainly doesn't make it harder for criminals to get a hold of them does it? If the weapons are somewhere that someone can steal them, does it not increase the risk of criminals getting these weapons?

What about these lawfully gun owning nutcases that have access to these weapons? Not that not having access to these weapons would stop someone from hurting others, but they sure do help and make said acts easier and more effective. Surely there is some slack somewhere in the laws that can be tightened to help prevent this?

The issue isn't so black and white. I am not some "gun's are bad mmmk" kind of activist, but I don't understand how the people on the other side of the fence can not see that there can't be some kind of improvement.

I'm sure nowadays in the US it really wouldn't make a difference anyways, the guns are already out there.

The problem with you is the same as the anti-gun campaigners. You cannot see the other side at all. Therefore you cannot begin to understand that we have compromised too much already.

You do not even understand the kind of firearms you portend to oppose? Just what is a "crazy military weapon"? Are they crazy because they are black in color? Or because they can load more than one cartridge in their magazine? Or is five the magic number? Do they look "scary" to you?

Criminals get their guns in the black market just like illegal drug users do. Many drugs have been illegal in the US since the early 1900s and yet dealers of said drugs have no trouble at all making them available for sale. Your argument that guns in the hands of the law abiding are a source for criminals is shallow and intellectually bankrupt.

Maybe, coming from the city and from a country where people aren't so diehard patriotic, I just don't understand that kind of mind-set that those from the US have about the Constitution and guns. I guess I never will.

I guess that is the difference between a citizen with bedrock guiding principles that transcend government and one that just bends whichever way the wind blows, shrugs his shoulders, and says "oh well, I will give up my freedom and independence for the common good".

[Steve Swartz]

This has *got* to be a prank!

Or at least a blatant troll . . . well, maybe some pre-teen kid . . .

Steve

[Jose Rossy]

This has *got* to be a prank!

Or at least a blatant troll . . . well, maybe some pre-teen kid . . .

Steve

Believe it or not this is not the first guy from a Commonwealth country that has expressed such opinions about our "crazy gun culture".

[alb]

What about these lawfully gun owning nutcases that have access to these weapons? Not that not having access to these weapons would stop someone from hurting others, but they sure do help and make said acts easier and more effective. Surely there is some slack somewhere in the laws that can be tightened to help prevent this?

Actually, owning a machine gun is illegal in the U.S. For a number of years, we also had a federal ban on semi-automatic "assault weapons" as well. After this ban was lifted, there was no statistically significant effect on the violent crime rate observed for this law, either when it went into effect, during the time it was in effect, or after it was recinded.

In the U.S., only 24 percent of all violent crimes involve the use of a weapon of any kind. Only about 9 percent of all violent crimes involve the use of a handgun, and considerably less involve the use of a long gun of any kind.

The fact is that owning an "assault weapon" doesn't really make assaults or murders any easier than using a kitchen knife or a tire iron, for example -- both of which are just as lethal at close quarters as a high-powered rifle, and far more lethal than a handgun. Armed robbery, rape, murder and assault simply aren't military applications suited to the use of this type of weapon.

Close to 90 percent of the people who commit violent crimes in the U.S. have prior criminal records that make them ineligible to own a gun anyway. It doesn't stop them from committing crimes.

A violent criminal simply doesn't need a gun to rob, rape, beat or murder my wife or daughter or my mother-in-law. A kitchen knife, a blunt object, a piece of chain, or even a leather belt will do just fine. On the other hand, my family would almost certainly need a gun if they were to have any reasonable chance to resist an attack. If you could somehow wave a magic wand and make all guns disappear from the planet, all you would accomplish is to force violent criminals to switch to a more lethal alternative.

And not resisting doesn't work either. This has been studied by Gary Kleck, a professor of criminology at Florida State University. He found that men are 1.3 times as likely to be injured or killed by not resisting a violent crime as those who resisted with a gun. And women who didn't resist were 4 times as likely to be injured or killed.

You own guns -- and it hasn't turned you into a criminal. Gun ownership doesn't turn any other responsible law-abiding citizen into a criminal either. All owning a gun does is make a law-abiding citizen somewhat less vulnerable to predators. Consider the reality that the violent crime rate has gone through the roof in Australia and Great Britain since they banned guns, before you advocate more gun control.

Regards,

Al B.

[alb]

This has *got* to be a prank!

Or at least a blatant troll . . . well, maybe some pre-teen kid . . .

Steve

Steve, it may well be a troll, but it's also a serious issue. Unfortunately, both Obama and Clinton seem to be in agreement with this guy. If either one of them gets to be president, then a simple majority vote by our democratically controlled congress will be all it takes to enact more gun control laws.

[Jose Rossy]

Actually, owning a machine gun is illegal in the U.S.

Actually, it is not.

If your state has not outlawed the possession of an automatic firearm, you can purchase one by applying for a tax stamp from the ATF. The process includes background checks and there are significant restrictions on the interstate transport of such a firearm, but legal it is.

[David Levene]

Consider the reality that the violent crime rate has gone through the roof in Australia and Great Britain since they banned guns, before you advocate more gun control.

Just to set the facts straight, at least for the UK, the increase in violent crime has nothing to do with the banning of cartridge pistols. It is pure coincidence, but at least proves that legalised ownership was not the cause of the illegal use.

[alb]

Actually, owning a machine gun is illegal in the U.S.

Actually, it is not.

If your state has not outlawed the possession of an automatic firearm, you can purchase one by applying for a tax stamp from the ATF. The process includes background checks and there are significant restrictions on the interstate transport of such a firearm, but legal it is.

Technically, you are correct. But the bar to ownership of such weapons is so high that they are 'effectively' illegal anyway.

[Jose Rossy]

Just to set the facts straight, at least for the UK, the increase in violent crime has nothing to do with the banning of cartridge pistols. It is pure coincidence, but at least proves that legalised ownership was not the cause of the illegal use.

Regardless of the cause of the rise in violent crime, your laws have left the citizenry stripped of the best way to defend themselves.

We shall never end up in that predicament.