gun controls

I just want to take a moment and point out that there are some gun controls that I think are good. These are just a few that come to mind:

"Shall Issue" Conceal Carry Permits: I'm a big fan of these for several reasons. First, to get the permit you have to go through an FBI background check, which prevents people with any sort of felonies from getting the permit. Second, you have to complete a gun safety class. When I took the class, most of the time was spent on the legality of carrying a weapon, and when it is legal to use it. This is very good information to have if you're going to be carrying a weapon, as using your gun in the wrong way will land you in prison, even if you have a nice permit. The "shall issue" part refers to a difference in state licensing. May issue states require that you have to prove a 'need' to carry a gun, which usually means that the local sheriff can deny you the right based on whatever excuse he makes up. Not the right race? Not a politician? Not a celebrity? Don't count on getting one. Shall issue states are far more democratic, in that as long as you pass the background check and take a safety class, then you can get one. Alaska & Vermont do not require any sort of permit at all to conceal carry. I'm not a fan of this, as I think that preventing criminals from legally carrying a weapon is a good thing. Oh, one more thing. You have to be 21 years old, which again, I think is a good restriction.

One gun a Month laws: I'm going to take some flak from other gun owners on this one, but I think it's a good law. We have it in Virginia, and it helps to prevent gun trafficking. The law basically says that you cannot buy more than one handgun a month (rifles & shotguns are not restricted because they are not used in crime as much). The law is good at preventing trafficking, but not good at stopping madmen, as we saw in the VT shooting where Cho was willing to wait another month to buy a second handgun (which also proves why waiting periods for handgun purchases are worthless).

Background Checks: I'm a firm believer that if you commit a felony, that you should loose your right to vote & own a firearm. These rights can be reinstated over time if the former felon proves that he or she has corrected their ways, but I think it should be a difficult process. All Federally licensed gun dealers are required to perform a background check when they sell a gun, even at gun shows. This process works for the most part. It does a great job of preventing felons from buying guns, but it is currently doing a lousy job of preventing nutcases, but this is mostly because there is a problem with the mental health bureaucracy reporting its info in a timely manner to the system. As far as the so-called gun show loophole, this pertains to the fact that sales between individuals are not regulated the same way. I am in favor of providing a method that people can use at gun shows to perform background checks, but I have not seen it proposed in a good way yet. In short, I would be in favor of closing the loophole if it is done in a way that is fair and doesn't create de-facto gun registration.

Regulation & licensing of Class III Firearms: Did you know that it's totally legal to buy a full auto gun in the USA? Well, it is, but you have to license & register it with the government, and pay a tax. I generally think this is a good idea. The people who buy these weapons tend to be upper-middle class people who have lots of money to spend on a hobby. Criminals don't use this method, as they can just buy these types of weapons on the black market instead.

Strawman Purchase: if you buy a gun for your buddy who is a felon because he can't legally buy the weapon on his own, you both deserve to go to jail. 'nuff said.

And now let's flip the coin around a bit. Gun Controls that I'm not in favor of:

Gun Free Zones: with the possible exception of courthouses (where I think only lawyers, judges, and the police should be armed) I don't think that there should be any gun free zones. Why? Because these zones do nothing but disarm the people who follow the law, and give criminals and maniacs unarmed victims. Massacres happen this way.

Assault Weapon Bans: the problem with these bans is that they focus on cosmetic features, most of which deal with the ergonomics or even safety of the rifle itself. These features are focused upon by anti-gunners because they are ignorant of and scared of these features. For instance, what purpose does a barrel shroud serve, and why do anti-gunners want them banned? Well, they make the weapon look menacing, but they are actually a safety feature: they keep you from burning your hands if you touch the weapon the wrong way after shooting it a bunch. Collapseable stocks, flash suppressors, bayonet lugs, etc. Why do these features make the weapon so much more dangerous? When was the last time you've heard of a 7-11 being held up by somebody carrying a rifle with a bayonet attached? Again, most of these features just make the gun look menacing. I've seen some military weapons enthusiasts do things like paint their weapons neon pink as a way of jokingly mocking the anti-gun crowd's fear of these weapons. Ted Nugent owns a pink tiger striped AR-15. The only feature that makes these weapons more dangerous than common hunting rifles is their magazine capacity size. If the antis were serious and understood weapons, they would focus on that feature alone (not that I'd agree with them being banned though).

Banning of all semi-auto weapons: Yes, with a semi-automatic weapon you can fire the gun faster than you could with a bolt action, but the rate of fire isn't that much more than with a lever action, or a pump action, or from a revolver. Plus the semi-auto mechanism also reduces felt recoil, which makes the weapon easier to control (which is a huge factor for women). Banning semi-auto weapons would remove a huge section of firearms that are legitimately used for hunting as well. Furthermore, it is counter productive. The US Government routinely sells off old surplus WWII & Korean war semi-auto rifles to members of the Civilian Marksmanship Program. The US Government has a vested interest in making sure that its populace (or at least a percentage of it) already knows how to shoot, and how to shoot well. Why? Because in the case of invasion, or of a really big war (WWII levels) what we would need is lots of people who already know how to use a weapon properly.

Gun registration & licensing: I'm totally against the registration of firearms, as it does nothing to prevent crime. As John Lott has pointed out repeatedly in his research, these controls do not affect violent crime. What they do create, is a list of guns which can be confiscated at a later time.

Gun owner registration & licensing: I am generally against this on purely Libertarian grounds, but it is one of those things that I could probably live with if I had to. I've stated before that I'm in favor of conceal carry licensing. In a way this creates a list of gun owners, and if things got really bad, this means that the government has a list of people to round up guns from. On the other hand, a weapon is a dangerous tool. Shouldn't we require people to go through training and licensing as we do with cars? This is probably one of the few gun control measures that I might be able to give some ground on, if the licensing was done correctly. Some states require you to get a license to own a handgun. If this license were combined with conceal carry ability, then I'd be fine with it. Good arguments can be made on both sides of this particular issue. In either case, I think that this should be something left up to the states to experiment with, and that the Federal Government should let the states experiment with systems in this case to see what works best.