I think both sides have some valid points. From the article,
"Supporters say gun restrictions only affect people who want to follow the rules because criminals will carry hidden guns regardless of the law. Nearly all adults can carry a weapon openly in Arizona, and they shouldn't face additional restrictions when they want to hide the weapon, supporters argue."
It's true that it seems somewhat pointless to argue that if you can openly carry a firearm why would you need a permit to hide it? It is also true that criminals are going to just ignore the laws anyway.
But to me that simply means that everybody should have to take classes and pass a background check before ever owning a gun. I think that operating a motor vehicle is significantly dangerous and care must be taken to ensure that those with poor judgment, reflexes, and emotional control do not drive cars. Guns are just as much of a deadly force as a motor vehicle.
I have mixed feelings about guns. On the one hand, I wish hand guns were only in the hands of the police, military, and state sponsored militias. Rifles and shotguns could be obtained by private citizens after taking courses and passing a criminal background check. As part of high school education, students would be required to become proficient in the use of firearms, so that our populace would be comfortable with guns, and know how to use them if the need arises. On the other, guns are already dispersed amongst the general populace. I have no confidence they could be removed effectively (Prohibition taught us as much) and even if we could, I think too many people would oppose the move legislatively.
While the legislation does make it mandatory for people who buy guns from gun shops to pass a background check, I think it still makes it easier for criminals to get their hands on guns. There is nothing inordinately inconvenient about requiring classes and a permit when it comes to owning a gun. Something else that really worried me in the article,
"The other bill declares that guns manufactured entirely in Arizona are exempt from federal oversight and are not subject to federal laws restricting the sale of firearms or requiring them to be registered."
After doing a quick look over of Arizona's firearm laws, it appears that if any sort of firearm including MGs, (I'm unsure what things like artillery pieces and RPGs fall under) can be bought and sold in Arizona if they are manufactured there. I think this can only encourage arms dealers to setup shop in Arizona, and really bad criminals with really bad intentions can get their hands on even more deadly weapons than hand guns and assault rifles already are.
There is talk in Utah of following Arizona's lead. I am sympathetic to my oppositions belief that the founding fathers intended for the general populace to be able to feel secure in their homes from attacks by Indians, war with other nations, and should violent revolution be necessary. Obviously attacks by Indians are not a real concern, were we being invaded I think new emergency measures regarding firearms would have to be employed, and I cannot deny that violent revolution will never be necessary here.
But I also believe the sorts of weapons we currently employ are far beyond the scope of what our ancestors dealt with. I don't think most people believe people should be able to carry around grenade launchers, but what about high powered assault rifles with extended clips? What about mounted machine guns? It seems like Arizona's laws tend toward permitting this.
I feel unconvinced that when violent crimes are committed, armed bystanders make a big difference. I'm sure there are instances where a store owner owning a gun prevented a robbery, or somebody shooting an invader in their home. But I think there are far more instances of pedestrians making mistakes with their firearms, or more likely nobody being in a position to do anything in a crisis.
I've gone on quite a bit, but I feel strongly that no less than a federal mandate about classes and background checks for those who wish to own guns should be implemented in all 50 states. Those with a felony convictions would not be permitted to obtain a concealed weapons permit. Carrying a concealed weapons without a valid permit would carry a stiff fine and possible jail time. I haven't sorted out how I feel about open carry yet.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
About the whole registration thing, here in AZ I could go to the gun show and buy a gun from a private dealer with cash and no paper trail. Pay a little more for that one handgun that is in case you need to do something untraceable, most gun collector have that emergency gun. It isnt hard to find an AK-47 around here, and they are actually pretty cheap.
Posts: 2302 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Which reminds me, whats the homicide rate in Salt Lake City? My Google-Fu seems to be failing this search.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Good Mormon girl growing up in AZ and I knew how to get an untraceable (well untraceable to me) weapon by the time I was like 13. It was pretty standard info.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nevada is a state that has open carry laws. If I owned a gun, I wouldn't even bother with a CCW permit.
There has been a problem lately with people calling the police when they see someone with a holstered firearm. I grew up here in Las Vegas and I'm used to it.
If someone is carrying a sidearm in open carry then I'm fine with it. The people carrying weapons in this way are your law abiding citizens. They aren't going to be robbing any banks or stores. I also see them as a deterrent. The people that are not supposed to own guns or that use them for illegal purposes are not going to be having a holstered fire arm. They are going to be concealing it.
As far as SMG and MG weapons are concerned, there really isn't a way to secure them on a holster, so the only way to walk down the street with one would be to brandish it, which is against the law. I'm ok with them for recreational use, as long as they pass a background check.
My father is saving for a new gun. It was shown on future weapons and sells for something like $6,000-$8000. It is the most powerful sniper rifle in the world, and shoots a 50 caliber round. I have no idea why he wants a gun that large since you have to fire it from the prone position. (It would break your arm if you tried to fire it standing up) Maybe he intends to hunt buffalo and elephant when the world ends. Who knows. They are being used in Iraq right now.
I don't really know why this weapon even exists to tell you the truth. It can saw a man in half at 2,000 meters. That is a little over a mile. I'm sure a regular sniper rifle would do just as good a job. Maybe you can take a tank out with it?
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: It is also true that criminals are going to just ignore the laws anyway.
Laws like this provide flexibility to police and prosecutors. In short, the more laws a criminal breaks, the easier it is to convict them of any one crime. You could argue that law enforcement shouldn't have as much flexibility, I suppose, but the laws are hardly useless.
quote:I feel unconvinced that when violent crimes are committed, armed bystanders make a big difference. I'm sure there are instances where a store owner owning a gun prevented a robbery, or somebody shooting an invader in their home. But I think there are far more instances of pedestrians making mistakes with their firearms, or more likely nobody being in a position to do anything in a crisis.
This is an excellent point. Trained men and women can have difficulty responding correctly to that kind of situation. The idea that an untrained, armed bystander is likely to help is pretty unrealistic.
I'd also like to add that in general, people fear the wrong kinds of crimes. We fear random crimes, but we are much, much more likely to be victimized by someone we know. This is important, because it's the random crimes that people tend to cite when they talk about wanting guns for self/home defense.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: We fear random crimes, but we are much, much more likely to be victimized by someone we know.
I worked in a privatly owned knife store for several years, and when people would get scared of all the tactical and razor sharp knives meant for nothing but combat we would tell them that they are much more likely to be stabbed with a fork by a family member. Kinda wish that wasnt true though.
Posts: 2302 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
