Greg Laden says:
January 17, 2012 at 6:43 pm
Charlie, how many guns do you own again? You really shouldn’t be allowed to own any.

Dozens.

And some of them are absolutely stunning examples of the gunsmith’s art.

For example, a beautiful Winchester Model 70 Featherweight in .243 Win with Grade IV wood, highly polished metal, and a Leupold telescopic sight, manufactured in 1982. I have another Model 70 Featherweight in .300 WSM, similarly equipped, but this one manufactured in 2008.

For upland shooting there’s the handy little Sabatti over-under in 20 gauge, 3-inch. It has single, selective trigger, high-grade European walnut stock, scroll engraving, automatic extractor-ejectors, full-length vent rib, full and modified chokes, and weighs only 5 lbs-12 oz. It is a pleasure to carry in the field, quick to the shoulder, and a positive joy to shoot. I’ve used it for trap and skeet as well as hunting.

I have another Sabatti in 12 gauge that is very similar to the 20, but weighs about a pound more.

Then there’s the Remington 700 Varminter in 22-250. It has a heavy-profile barrel, 25x benchrest ‘scope, and a retrofitted Choate stock. This little rifle will put three rounds of Sierra HPBT benchrest bullets into a group the size of a quarter at 300 yards on a still day.

Even you would appreciate my Steyr Mountain rifle in 30-06 with its polished and spiraled, hammer-forged barrel, highly-figured European walnut stock with hand checkering and oil finish, and a high-gloss Leupold VX-L 4.5-12x50mm ‘scope. Although the barrel has a lightweight profile, this rifle will put my 165-grain handloads into a half-inch at 100 yards every time.

Then there’s my little CZ model 455 Mannlicher-stocked .22 bolt action rifle. It, too, mounts a Leupold ‘scope, has up-graded walnut, polished blue metal, and shoots a cloverleaf group at 100 yards with match ammo.

But I think my favorite is the Remington Model 798 mauser-action bolt rifle in .458 Winchester Magnum. It has the best regular production walnut available in a reinforced stock, mounts a Leupold ‘scope in Leupold quick-release scope mounts to allow use of the iron sights if the ‘scope is damaged. Sighted-in at only 50 yards, this rifle is intended for dangerous game. Although I’ve never hunted with it, I take great satisfaction in consistently hitting a 6″ iron silhouette at 100 yards without flinching.

Oh, I almost forgot my matched pair of Armalite AR-180 rifles in 5.56x45mm NATO, both produced by Sterling in England circa 1975. They are identically mounted with Leupold AR ‘scopes on original Armalite mounts. These rifles are the semiauto version of Eugene Stoner’s M-18, the successor to the M-16. I had the pleasure and privelege of spending several days with Mr. Stoner in 1969 when he visited Aberdeen Proving Ground. At that time I was assigned to the BRL, Ballistics Research Laboratory, and Stoner was there to sell his new rifle to the Army.

I am particularly proud of my Savage Model 24 .22/.410 over-under combination gun given to me at Christmas following my sixth birthday. I fondly remember carrying my little gun to the corner to catch a bus that would take me out to my great-aunt’s farm the summer before my eighth birthday. I still use that little gun to pop the odd garden-raiding rabbit.

I’ve got several neat handguns, too. Would you like to hear about them?

Greg, you are getting too predictable. When confronted with rational discourse, proven data, and cold logic, you respond most often now with unsupported assertions and ad hominem attacks.

But after all, it is your blog, and if you wish to shutout opposition, that’s your prerogative. It’s just not the most forthright action, particularly for a scholar who is assumed to be skilled in academic disputation.

Posted by Greg:
The Youth Handgun Act does not require locks with ever handgun sold.

You’re right, I was wrong. It is the Child Safety Lock Act which requires locks. Locks are now also furnished with long guns. I cited the wrong law, and I stand corrected.

There is no federal regulation regarding gun safes, etc.

So? Greg, a lot of people could not afford to have a gun if some idiotic law forced them to buy a safe, too. And a gun locked in a safe would be of little use for self-defense. Try to be a little realistic, please.

But you’re wrong about the safe, too. The Child Lock Act provides for either a secure storage device (a.k.a. safe) or a lock.

I’m not sure that all accidents are avoidable,

You’re not sure? You got any idea what an accident is? Like in this case, if it ain’t an accident it’s a crime? Figured that out yet, Greg?

…but I’m pretty darn sure that auto and chainsaw accidents were the subject of a different post, not this one.

Yeah, so?

And we can increase the percentage of accidents by decreeing the murder rate.

Say what? Typo?

Charlie, you are insulting the people who read this blog.

By expecting them to think? To learn the facts? I certainly hope not.

I’m pretty sure you don’t know anything about tagging because what you are saying about it is entirely wrong.

I’d really like to hear the facts about tagging from you.

Greg, asserting that I am wrong and demonstrating my error are two different things. So far, you’ve failed at the second every single time. Well, you got me on the Youth Handgun Act. But every other time you goofed.

However, consistency is good. Wrong (most) every time. At least it’s something to count on.

By the way, would you like to buy my knife sharpener? I’ll make you a real good price.

I’m not sure I follow you here. Firearms must go through extensive testing before they can be sold to the public

Which regulations under consumer protection law do you refer to here?

All accidents are avoidable: auto accidents, chainsaw accidents, cooking accidents, falls, drownings, electrocutions, and firearms accidents. Of the examples I just gave, firearms accidents are the smallest number.

I’m not sure that all accidents are avoidable, but I’m pretty darn sure that auto and chainsaw accidents were the subject of a different post, not this one.

In 1999, there were 824 unintentional (accidental) shootings; that is less than 3% of the total gun deaths.

And we can increase the percentage of accidents by decreeing the murder rate. Charlie, you are insulting the people who read this blog.

High-capacity magazines were banned once. The ban accomplished nothing. Therefore, it’s obviously a waste of time, money, and effort to try again. Let’s move on, huh? … Let’s move on, huh?…

I’m sure you would very much like to move on from any discussion of banning your toys.

I’m pretty sure you don’t know anything about tagging because what you are saying about it is entirely wrong.

…. and so on and so fort.

Posted by Greg
I believe there are no regulations at the moment that have anything to do with how guns are secured. I would like to see that.

Actually, there are. Federally, there is the Youth Handgun Act which requires FFL dealers to furnish child-safety locks with every handgun sold. There are others.

I would like cities to have the option of being gun-free zones (or having more limitations on what guns can owned there) with corresponding locker systems for people to keep their sports guns.

Gun-free zones may also and validly be described as victim disarmament zones. New York City has been a gun-free zone since the passage of the Sullivan Act in May, 1911. It has been a marked failure.

Locker systems? Now what would that accomplish? Do you imagine that sports guns are factors in many crimes? How much of my money are you willing to spend on hare-brained ideas such as that?

People who plan to overthrow the government with “second amendment solutions” can move to gun-friendly cities or get a place in the country.

Oh, Greg, can’t you resist the histrionics just once? How about you and all the other GGAs move to gun-hostiles venues like California, Illinois, New York and Chicago?

Why is it that GGAs try to force their beliefs on everyone else? Hell, Greg, gun owners don’t try to force you to own or carry a firearm.

It’s just totally unrealistic to suggest that an American citizen should have to move to another state in order to exercise a natural right, especially one that is guaranteed by the Constitution.

I’d like to see guns treated like toasters, or cars, or some other dangerous machinery;

I’m not sure I follow you here. Firearms must go through extensive testing before they can be sold to the public. Each and every firearm is proof-tested before leaving the factory. Firearms manufacturers, like automobile manufacturers, track their products by serial number, and conduct recalls just like auto companies.

Accidents are only a small proportion of gun deaths, but they are avoidable with better training (required, regulated) and with safer guns (or are all those guns that went off by accident really homicides?)

Yes, indeed, accidents are only a small proportion of gun deaths, and they are avoidable.

All accidents are avoidable: auto accidents, chainsaw accidents, cooking accidents, falls, drownings, electrocutions, and firearms accidents. Of the examples I just gave, firearms accidents are the smallest number.

In 1999, there were 824 unintentional (accidental) shootings; that is less than 3% of the total gun deaths. Only 158 of those involved juveniles. Accidental shootings have been decreasing in number since 1993. Training is already required before an individual can secure either a hunting license (in all states) or a concealed carry permit (in all but one state).

Finally, since 1994, it has been a federal offense for any nonlicensed person to transfer a handgun to anyone under 18-years-of-age. It has also been illegal for anyone under the under 18 years-of-age to possess a handgun.

In most states, the wildlife resources agency, or whichever governmental organization is responsible for hunting licenses, also oversees hunter safety training.

The Boy Scouts also conduct firearms training. Many schools conduct firearms training. The NRA conducts firearms training. There are several hundred commercial firearms training businesses in the US.

The National Rifle Association initiated a child safety program in 1988; entitled the Eddie Eagle Program, it is aimed at children considered too young to safely handle firearms. It has probably been the single most significant factor in the reduction of gun accidents involving juveniles.

Vermont permits her citizens to buy a gun and carry it concealed without any special license or training. There, if a resident meets the Federal requirements for purchasing a firearm, he also meets requirements for any legitimate use of that firearm. By the way, Vermont boasts one of the lowest violent crime rates in the country, yet Vermont also adjoins Massachusetts which has one of the highest crime rates. Go figure.

Curiously, none of the anti-gun, pro-gun-control organizations conducts or even supports any firearms safety programs. Lacking sincerity, perhaps?

I would like to see all large capacity gear banned, and more restrictions otherwise on what kind of gun can be owned, registration and tagging of ammo.

High-capacity magazines were banned once. The ban accomplished nothing. Therefore, it’s obviously a waste of time, money, and effort to try again. Let’s move on, huh?

Registration of ammunition was tried once under the 1968 Gun Control Act. It didn’t work. Let’s move on, huh?

Banning of certain types of firearms has been tried before, and is in effect in a couple of states today. It doesn’t work. Let’s move on, huh?

Tagging ammo would simply price it beyond the reach of most people. Chemical tags in explosives have been ineffective; why would anyone think that tagging ammo would be any different?

I would like to see a better job done than we are doing now on keeping guns out of the hands of people who we know are more likely to use them inappropriately.

So would I. So far, none of your ideas would accomplish that.

Your list of regulations suffers from lack of documentation, though I know some of those things are true.

Greg, the Gun Control Act is available on the Internet. See http://www.atf.gov

You will also find a summary of state laws and ordinances there.

I expect you to read thoses documents, the ones you have asked for, and familiarize yourself with their provisions. There will be a test.

But are they really in effect, really enforced?

They are selectively enforced at the pleasure of the various government bureaucracies (i.e., the lawyers and politicians). More regulation will only result in more selectivity, a.k.a. more inequity, more discrimination, more inequality, more abuse, more oppression. Since you already hate all those things, you should automatically oppose any more regulation.

Very importantly, state by state differences in rules obviate many of these things especially in certain areas.

No, they don’t. State laws universally increase or augment gun control. It’s against Federal law for a state to “obviate” a Federal regulation. That’s known as nullification, and it’s not tolerated by the Federal government. I am surprised you are not aware of something that basic.

Gun regulation should be more federalized (though with urban home-rule).

Well, that’s your unsupported judgement. I believe most of the information I’ve furnished proves the impracticality of your opinions.

You keep saying that we have lots of rules, and you keep saying that the rules haven’t worked. Try putting two and two together.

I once bought a knife and scissor sharpening machine. Like your suggestions, it was touted as being the solution to all my problems. It didn’t work. The salesman who sold it to me claimed it would do everything, but it still didn’t work.

I did not go back and buy two more of the damned things.

Greg, try a little common sense.

If you try something and it doesn’t work, more of it is only going to be a bigger failure.

I promise you that everyone reading your comments knows you are full of it.

Hell, Greg, most of what you think you know is nonsense, incorrect, or just plain lies. You haven’t supplied a single datum; your entire argument is based on supposition, emotion, and ignorance, yet you have the audacity to criticize my documentation. It’s obvious which one of us is full of it.

For instance, the famous “assault weapon ban” was (relatively) ineffective because it didn’t ban very many assault weapons (yes, I’m sure you can now produce a long-looking list of what was banned, but that would not be the point). The ban was too limited.

The ban had no effect on crime. None. Zip. It was a bust. Ditto the magazine ban. Those laws were not relatively ineffective, they were complete and utter failures, TOTALLY ineffective.

Greg, when you find yourself in a hole, the way out is not to be found by digging deeper.

Frankly, I doubt if you could name a single gun that you think should be added to the ban. You just “feel” that the ban was too limited and “think” it should be expanded.

What does long-looking mean?

Have a look at how they do this in the UK. That would be a good place to start, but mix in the German rules about storage of weapons.

In case you haven’t noticed, neither the German nor the British governments are based on the Constitution of the United States.

German laws? You really don’t know, do you? Unbelievable that you give the appearance of making learned comments and are really so ignorant!

The German laws were nearly as liberal as ours until they reunited with East Germany. Their current laws are based on fears that the Communist Germans would try to stage a takeover ala the Communist Revolution in Hamburg in 1923. All of the Bundestag debates around that time are available on the Web.

German hunting laws and regulations are based on the simple fact that there isn’t that much land available where the average German can go to hunt, so they limit the number of hunting licenses by upping the requirements.

Greg, I am sure that there are some subjects about which you are well informed, even expert. Guns and gun control are not members of that group.

I believe there are no regulations at the moment that ave anything to do with how guns are secured. I would like to see that. I would like cities to have the option of being gun-free zones (or having more limitations on what guns can owned there) with corresponding locker systems for people to keep their sports guns. People who plan to overthrow the government with “second amendment solutions” can move to gun-friendly cities or get a place in the country. I’d like to see guns treated like toasters, or cars, or some other dangerous machinery; Accidents are only a small proportion of gun deaths, but they are avoidable with better training (required, regulated) and with safer guns (or are all those guns that went off by accident really homicides?)

I would like to see all large capacity gear banned, and more restrictions otherwise on what kind of gun can be owned, registration and tagging of ammo.

I would like to see a better job done than we are doing now on keeping guns out of the hands of people who we know are more likely to use them inappropriately.

Regarding sales of guns, I’d like to see us follow the obvious recommendations that would stem from the report cited here.

Your list of regulations suffers from lack of documentation, though I know some of those things are true. But are they really in effect, really enforced? Very importantly, state by state differences in rules obviate many of these things especially in certain areas. Gun regulation should be more federalized (though with urban home-rule).

You keep saying that we have lots of rules, and you keep saying that the rules haven’t worked. Try putting two and two together. I promise you that everyone reading your comments knows you are full of it. For instance, the famous “assault weapon ban” was (relatively) ineffective because it didn’t ban very many assault weapons (yes, I’m sure you can now produce a long-looking list of what was banned, but that would not be the point). The ban was too limited.

Have a look at how they do this in the UK. That would be a good place to start, but mix in the German rules about storage of weapons.

… would you hold [the dealer] responsible if that gun was subsequently diverted to criminal purposes?

Reply by Greg:
No, of course not.

So what more regulation would you suggest?

For your information, the current background check references eight different databases: 1&2) Federal and State criminal convictions, 3&4)arrests, 5&6)indictments, 7)terrorist watch list, 8)mental adjudication lists, including any and all military PTSD diagnoses. In several states, the state and federal stolen/missing firearms lists are also referenced for the firearm being transferred.

If a person has a juvie arrest/indictment/conviction for possession of marijuana, he will be denied, even after he reaches his majority. Ditto for an adult. Ditto assault. Ditto any other felony. Ditto any misdemeanor for domestic violence. Ditto any restraining or protection order. Ditto multiple DUI offenses. Ditto less-than-honorable discharge from the military. Ditto any offense for which the sentence could be one year or more regardless of the actual sentence.

In North Carolina, an order of protection is automatically issued against the male spouse in every divorce case effective until the divorce is final.

Federal law requires all local and state law enforcement agencies to notify the NCIC within 24 hours of any disqualifying event: i.e. arrest, indictment, conviction, etc.

Federal law requires that FFLs report any multiple purchases of handguns (2 or more within five business days) to the BATFE National Tracing Center by the end of the business day.

Federal Firearms Licensees are also required to deny a transfer to any individual they even suspect of any illegal activity including strawman purchasing. FFLs have been accused of civil rights violations and subsequently sued for refusing to sell to minority buyers despite this regulation. (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives refused to testify in any of these suits.)

All of these regulations are in effect now, and have been for the last fifteen years or so.

So, once again, what more would your suggest and how do you think it would affect crime?

No, of course not.