I think these are fair points, though I disagree with some of them.
First, you're right that well-regulated has several meanings, although the most probable definition for the later eighteenth century means ordered. And ordered in turn means both working and moderated. However, the more important point is how the Supreme Court sees it; judicial precedent over the past 150 years has indicated well-regulated means that some impositions can be imposed. For example, you can't buy a bazooka (this is an extreme case, obviously). The government has the right to restrict that, according to the courts.
Well, I think that's kind of an apples & oranges comparison. But, you're not really wrong.
I don't disagree that hunting licenses may have more rules than car licenses. But you're perfectly able to own a gun in your house without having a hunting license. What I was proposing is a license in order to buy a gun, not just use it to hunt. And to get that license, a brief course on gun safety, gun handling, and a serious background check.
No, I know that's what you're suggesting. But, you're also perfectly legal to own a car at your home without any sort of license whatsoever. Only the
use of each is regulated universally, not ownership.
But, also know that's not the point you're trying to make. You believe the regulations should be strengthened, and you're perfectly within your rights to believe so.
As for background checks, most gun owners (and potential owners) are not opposed to them "in theory". That's why there was little opposition to the change in the law in the 90's applying the instant background check to all transactions involving dealers. The problem is there is no way to enforce that in the used market unless everyone registers all their guns. I mean seriously, if "Bob" (a non-dealer) sells his gun to "Jim" (also a non-dealer), how do we prove the transaction took place? And how do we prove a background check took place? It can't be proved without a record of some sort. And that's where the opposition stems. Because everywhere registration has existed, confiscation eventually resulted.
I don't think that Chicago gun crime is due solely to the ability to buy legal guns in suburban Cook County. (I think it has a lot more to do with socio-economic problems and a gun culture--combined with easy access to guns.) What I was saying is that holding Chicago up as a failed case for gun control isn't particularly fair; there may be strict gun control in Chicago, but the city's suburbs are little regulated. My whole argument is that it's more complicated than just gun control or culture or mental health or poverty--it's a dangerous cocktail of all of these.
It is.
Australia's gun crime has fluctuated, but it's still way below ours. As I said, I don't think it would have the same effect in America. But I do think that sticking our fingers in our ears and doing nothing hasn't accomplished much, so we should start trying to come together in the middle to get something done. If gun rights people could accept restrictions, and gun control people could accept that people want to own guns in some capacity, I think there is a rough bit of middle ground.
Part of the problem here stems from the fact that those who stand up and argue for "reasonable controls" are typically the absolute zealots who are on record as saying they'd be happy to ban ALL private ownership of ALL guns. Nobody wants to compromise with someone who has already made it a point of saying they don't agree you should have the rights you have.
The second problem is the "reasonable controls" suggested are almost always completely ridiculous if you know anything at all about guns and how they function. And that's the point. They count on people who know nothing about guns to get behind these ideas, and they count on these same people to be completely shocked that anyone would oppose such ideas. Almost all the gun-specific controls that have been proposed and/or passed in the past 2 decades have absolutely zero to do with how a gun actually functions, and mostly address how it LOOKS. Seriously, we go after things like pistol grips and flash suppressors - things that are strictly cosmetic. It's like saying you can't paint a number on the side of your car because that would make it a racecar that is not safe for operation on public roads. In some cases, they've even targeted specific models of rifles while omitting the same model of the same rifle if it is chambered in a LARGER (MORE powerful) caliber. Completely ridiculous. And it's hard to compromise with such nonsense.
I do agree you can't just fail to explore all options - same goes for the idea of arming staff at schools. Maybe it's a bad idea some places; maybe it's a bad idea ALL places. But to completely dismiss it because it's not the direction you'd choose is short-sighted at best.
But do you know what happened after Newtown? The gun first reported to be used, the Bushmaster, saw its sales skyrocket. Sales are up almost a third this year. People didn't move away from violence, they moved towards it. They were worried there was going to be a restriction, and instead of thinking about how they might engage in that debate, they decided to grab the semi-automatic gun used in the shooting. They didn't move away from violence, they moved towards it. I understand why they did it, I get the rhetoric, but I find it really disturbing.
Well, I wouldn't say it's moving "toward violence" in as much as trying to grab what they're afraid they may one day not be able to own. And the fears turned out to be real as there was (as you know) a very real attempt to outlaw such guns while at the same time leaving other guns that function EXACTLY the same way legal.
But, I do have to say there is no bigger gun salesman than the anti-gun politician of the moment (whenever the moment is). The AR15 was a joke among gun enthusiasts 20 years ago. Nobody wanted one, and frankly most of them were kind of junk. Now, people are plunking down $2,500 for a good one just as fast as they can be built. Why? The 1994 AWB made them "cool". There is nothing more desirable than that which you cannot have. And nobody benefitted more from that law than the manufacturers. Same for all the local laws passed since. Most of these are simply "feel good" laws with no teeth, and frankly somewhat appear to have been designed by the gun industry for the express purpose of selling more guns (most of which are manufactured in the "Blue" states of the Northeast, BTW). It makes one wonder. I can just hear the marketing meeting now:
Hey Bob, we're backed up on model ABC. How do you plan to move these things.
Well Jim, maybe we can get the folks in DC to propose a ban.....
But, if a gun is used to punch a hole in a piece of paper, it is a tool. And if a hammer is used to bash in a skull, it is a weapon. It's the use of the object that defines it as a weapon or not.
