As a gun owner, I have a few things to say.
First off, I'd like to clarify my position on what the laws should be. Overall, I'm pretty happy with the current laws in Washington state. You have to pass a background check if you want to buy anything from a dealer, and pistols have a 5 day waiting period. The waiting period seems foolish to me after you already have one or more pistol, but I can live with it.
With that out of the way, here are some of my reasons for owning firearms:
1) Excellent means of self defense. Guns are equalisers. I'm not a big guy, I don't know any martial arts, and without a weapon I'd probably be at the mercy of someone who entered my home until the police arrived. I live in a fairly rural area, so that's probably 10 minutes, not including the time I'd need to get on the phone with the police and explain the situation. With a gun I have the means of fending off an attacker. No, I don't sit up at night fantasising about fighting off home invaders with my 1911, in fact the very thought of taking another person's life is repugnant to me. I've read stories of people who have used their gun to defend themselves and the person defending themselves or their family never seemed to have enjoyed the experience, in fact, most were quite shaken up. In general, people don't want to kill other people.
2) I love guns. I like to shoot guns, I like to collect guns and I like to clean guns. Marksmanship is a fun skill to learn, and arguably a valuable one. "Fun" may seem like a poor reason in light of the rather sombre nature of the discussions thus far, but it is still a valid reason. Shooting for sport has been around for ages (there are even Olympic events centered on it) and millions of people engage safely in shooting sports every day.
3) Collecting. Guns have been the tools we have used to fight wars for generations, and if firearms could speak, many of them would have an unique story to tell. My friend has a Mosin Nagant that could have been used by a Russian soldier taking Berlin, or perhaps it was used in the streets of Stalingrad, or maybe it sat in a crate for 80 years. We don't really know, but it's cool that we get to use the tools that have had such a great effect on most of our lives.
I'd also like to clear up some misconceptions.
1) Automatic Weapons are readily available in the United States.This is generally false. Anyone wishing to obtain an automatic weapon (for those of you unfamiliar with the terminology, an automatic weapon is a weapon that will fire as long as you hold the trigger down) has to pay a $200 tax, and submit to an extensive background check before they are able to purchase the weapon. The check is much more extensive than what you get when you buy a non-NFA firearm, and has the fee and check must be repeated for every automatic weapon you purchase. Many states (such as my own, Washington) outright ban them. These weapons are also prohibitively expensive due to some rather "creative" lawmaking that made it impossible to register any automatic weapon after 1986. This pisses me off more than a little bit, not because it means I won't be able to own an automatic weapon unless I'm rich, but because of the circumstances in which it was passed. It should upset anyone, even if you support the legislation. More in the spoiler if you're interested.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act#Machine_Gun_Ban:_The_Hughes_AmendmentAs debate for FOPA was in its final stages in the House before moving on to the Senate, Rep. William J. Hughes (D-N.J.) proposed several amendments including House Amendment 777 to H.R. 4332 [4] that would ban a civilian from ownership or transfer rights of any fully automatic weapon which was not registered as of May 19, 1986. The amendment also held that any such weapon manufactured and registered before the May 19 cutoff date could still be legally owned and transferred by civilians.
In the morning hours of April 10, 1986, the House held recorded votes on three amendments to FOPA in Record Vote No's 72, 73, and 74. Recorded Vote 72 was on H.AMDT. 776, an amendment to H.AMDT 770 involving the interstate sale of handguns; while Recorded Vote 74 was on H.AMDT 770, involving primarily the easing of interstate sales and the safe passage provision. Recorded Vote 73 was the controversial Hughes Amendment that called for the banning of machine guns. On page 18 of the Congressional Transcript cited to herein, Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.), at the time presiding as Chairman over the proceedings, claimed that the "ayes appeared to have it." Nevertheless, Congressman Sensenbrenner demanded a recorded vote.
Record Vote 73 was taken by electronic device; the result was: ayes 124, noes 298, not voting 12.[5] The Hughes Amendment regarding the banning of machine guns was defeated in Record Vote 73. The bill, H.R. 4332, as a whole passed in Record Vote No: 75. Nevertheless, the Senate, in S.B. 49, adopted H.R. 4332 as an amendment to the final bill, which included the defeated Hughes Amendment. It was subsequently passed and signed on May 19, 1986 by President Ronald Reagan to become Public Law 99-308, the Firearms Owners' Protection Act.
There seems to be a common misunderstanding about what an "Assault weapon" is. I don't think it has come up specifically in this thread, but I'll address it anyway because it is relevant to the discussion. The term "assault weapon" is basically a term coined by anti gun politicians to describe guns that look scary. The definition varies, but usually it includes weapons that have one or more "military" features such as barrel shrouds (shoulder thing that goes up), pistol grips, and bayonet lugs. Most of these criteria have nothing to do with the actual effectiveness of the weapon and all assault weapon bans tend to do is create ugly, but functionally identical guns. Often the politicians proposing these bans don't even know what they're banning. Here's a rather famous video of one such politician
confusing a barrel shroud and a folding stock . Many of the
mistakes anti gun people make would almost be comical if they weren't misleading people into banning a hobby that I love. I'm not cynical enough to believe that these mistakes are being made intentionally, I believe they are innocent mistakes, but they have the same effect.
3) Guns cause crimeI'm not going to come out and say that guns prevent crimes or that they have no effect. My main objection to this line of thought is we simply don't know. Certainly guns are used to commit horrible acts of violence every day and can, in some cases, escalate situations. Then again, guns can also be an excellent detterant to crime, and can save lives. Nothing says "get out of my house" to a criminal like pumping a Remington 870. The fact is, we simply don't know. We could spend all day throwing statistics back and forth at each other trying to prove our point of view, but due to the cultural and demographic differences between countries, and even states in the US, comparing statistics isn't the way to gain meaningful results. My personal view on the matter are that the vast majority of people are good, and can be trusted with the responsibility of owning a firearm. I always err on the side of liberty when things are uncertain.
To sum up, I'll like to make a comparison of firearms legislation with a subject we are all familiar with: the Internet. The internet is an amazing tool for information exchange, and many people use it for work and pleasure every day. The internet can also be used for evil too, and in some cases, it has destroyed people's lives. Should we require the government to approve the content of anything we post online? After all, if you're afraid of the government knowing what you are posting, you must be up to something sinister. Should we limit the speed of uploads and downloads or cap information usage? Nobody needs to use more than 5gb a month, they must be infringing copyrights or hosting an unapproved webserver. Should we require every person who wants to use the internet pass a test and register with the government so that they can track your activities?
I'm sure many of these scenarios are disturbing to you, indeed the reaction from the technically minded to any regulation of the internet (such as government blacklists and isp caps) can be counted on. It's a similar feeling among firearms enthusiasts when ever a new regulation is imposed upon us. Even if you don't believe that the general public should have access to firearms, please try to look at it from our perspective.
If anyone has any questions on firearms terminology, firearms in general, or if you would like me to clarify anything, feel free to ask. It may be a while before I respond because I have work in an hour.
:edit: holy wall of text, did I really write all that?
Author
Topic: Gun rights discussion (Read 18615 times)