OP
toddler
Gold Member
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2001
- Messages
- 407
- Location
- North Carolina, USA
- Tractor
- Previously: Kubota B2710. Now Deere 3520
Hi Heehaw,
Wrote this earlier, but couldn't post it because the server was down.
Re. signs that say no firearms. There's nothing you can do if it's private property. The odds that someone carrying a gun will save them in the event of a robbery/shooting is very small, and if nothing else, the sign might lead to one more charge if the perp gets caught??
As to gun control laws changing the outcome of a crime, I'm confident they have. There is, however, difficulty in measuring this.
Can't comment on the effect of the National Firearms act of '34 or the Federal Firearms Act of '38. Don't seem well written, but I don't know the historic aspects to them. The Gun Control Act of 1968 has definately had some impact, if not in preventing crimes, then in giving the police and FBI another way to track down and prosecute the perpetrators. Even legallly purchased guns have been used in crimes after all.
I also suspect te Law Enforcement Protection Act in 1986 did some good, in making it more difficut for street gangs and such to obtain armor piercing bullets. In addition to protecting the police some, it probaly saved a few innocent bystanders too.
The Firearms Owners Protections Act, also passed in '86, is one you should like. It eased restrictions on dealers and increased the penalties on crimes involving a firearm. Seems to me that's what everyone on this board is advocating, so let's not disparage "Gun Laws" in general.
The Crime Control Ac tmade it a crime to have a firearm in a school one. While it clearly can't stop the guns from going in, it does allow for prosecution of people who take guns into the schools, who are found before they actually do harm.
The Brady Act??? Given the provision that the 5 day waiting period be changed once the Instant Check got up and running, doesn't bug me much. It appears to have prevented gun sales to several people who aren't supposed to get guns. I know there aren't good stats to say it's done much, but there are too many confounding variables to really figure that out. In any event it doesn't ultimately impinge on the second.
<font color=red>Now the kicker!</font color=red>
<font color=blue>The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, 1994.</font color=blue>
<font color=red>This one I despise</font color=red>
While I can't argue with not allowing juveniles to sell handguns, and I like that it give the A.G. the power to evaluate juvenile gun laws, the rest sucks. The prevention of civilians from obtaining military style weapons is, IMO, in direct violation of the 2nd ammendment. If it had made it more difficult, I'd be ok with it, but to ban the guns for the public??? That does seem to violate the second directly.
In addition, prohibiting the sale of "large capacity ammunition feeding devices" also seems to violate the 2nd. It also seems to defy logic. If you want to buy a handgun for self protection, and we know that under pressure you'll only hit your target less than 40% of the time, and that it may take 3+ shots to stop a single assailant, then the 10max means you'd better be good and not get attacked by more tan one person. Also, as I briefly touched on above, it you're waffling between say a safe-action Glock or a safe-action Steyr, and the availability of the large capacity magazines for the Glock cause you to get it over the probably superior Steyr, then the law restricts a free and competitive market. It favors an older gun over a potentially safer or improved newer model. It's also pushed the market towards smaller, more concealable, and more difficult to control handguns, since there's no longer a reason to make the grip full length. This part of the law seems to impinge on fair competition which really bugs me, and looks like it shot itself in the foot. So to speak.
Anyway, YES, I think guns laws have impacted crime, and probably in a possitive way. But the most recent one is still pretty screwed up.
Todd
Wrote this earlier, but couldn't post it because the server was down.
Re. signs that say no firearms. There's nothing you can do if it's private property. The odds that someone carrying a gun will save them in the event of a robbery/shooting is very small, and if nothing else, the sign might lead to one more charge if the perp gets caught??
As to gun control laws changing the outcome of a crime, I'm confident they have. There is, however, difficulty in measuring this.
Can't comment on the effect of the National Firearms act of '34 or the Federal Firearms Act of '38. Don't seem well written, but I don't know the historic aspects to them. The Gun Control Act of 1968 has definately had some impact, if not in preventing crimes, then in giving the police and FBI another way to track down and prosecute the perpetrators. Even legallly purchased guns have been used in crimes after all.
I also suspect te Law Enforcement Protection Act in 1986 did some good, in making it more difficut for street gangs and such to obtain armor piercing bullets. In addition to protecting the police some, it probaly saved a few innocent bystanders too.
The Firearms Owners Protections Act, also passed in '86, is one you should like. It eased restrictions on dealers and increased the penalties on crimes involving a firearm. Seems to me that's what everyone on this board is advocating, so let's not disparage "Gun Laws" in general.
The Crime Control Ac tmade it a crime to have a firearm in a school one. While it clearly can't stop the guns from going in, it does allow for prosecution of people who take guns into the schools, who are found before they actually do harm.
The Brady Act??? Given the provision that the 5 day waiting period be changed once the Instant Check got up and running, doesn't bug me much. It appears to have prevented gun sales to several people who aren't supposed to get guns. I know there aren't good stats to say it's done much, but there are too many confounding variables to really figure that out. In any event it doesn't ultimately impinge on the second.
<font color=red>Now the kicker!</font color=red>
<font color=blue>The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, 1994.</font color=blue>
<font color=red>This one I despise</font color=red>
While I can't argue with not allowing juveniles to sell handguns, and I like that it give the A.G. the power to evaluate juvenile gun laws, the rest sucks. The prevention of civilians from obtaining military style weapons is, IMO, in direct violation of the 2nd ammendment. If it had made it more difficult, I'd be ok with it, but to ban the guns for the public??? That does seem to violate the second directly.
In addition, prohibiting the sale of "large capacity ammunition feeding devices" also seems to violate the 2nd. It also seems to defy logic. If you want to buy a handgun for self protection, and we know that under pressure you'll only hit your target less than 40% of the time, and that it may take 3+ shots to stop a single assailant, then the 10max means you'd better be good and not get attacked by more tan one person. Also, as I briefly touched on above, it you're waffling between say a safe-action Glock or a safe-action Steyr, and the availability of the large capacity magazines for the Glock cause you to get it over the probably superior Steyr, then the law restricts a free and competitive market. It favors an older gun over a potentially safer or improved newer model. It's also pushed the market towards smaller, more concealable, and more difficult to control handguns, since there's no longer a reason to make the grip full length. This part of the law seems to impinge on fair competition which really bugs me, and looks like it shot itself in the foot. So to speak.
Anyway, YES, I think guns laws have impacted crime, and probably in a possitive way. But the most recent one is still pretty screwed up.
Todd
