The "One gun a month" Debate

[mythaeus]

This is meant to be a serious mental exercise for me, and hopefully others so that we can argue against the claims and pushes better. Please don't patronize me with counter productive name calls or condescending remarks. Read on...

I've been spending a bit of time reading on this topic from the NRA's perspective, gun owners' perspective, and anti gun group's perspective. So far, the antis seem to produce a lot of statistics and studies to support that it does curb "illegal guns".

Here are some of those:
http://www.bradynetwork.org/site/Doc....pdf?docID=361
http://www.lcav.org/content/multiple...ases_sales.pdf

The second paper cited quite a bit of studies. Arguments seem to focus on the claim that if ALL states have the law, it will reduce straw purchasing and curb the illegal gun sale market. Most people don't buy more than 1 gun a month and those who do, like collectors, dealers, etc. are exempted.

SC had this law for 30 years, but repealed it. VA added exemption recently. MD, CA, and recently NJ have it.

Besides the 2A infringement (rationing of Consitutional right) and slippery slope (1 a month will lead to 1 a year) arguments, enforcing existing laws more harshly, what are some other facts and figures that prove/argue that this isn't going to work?

Al

[thefirstndsecond]

I can put you in touch with a man from NJ currently working on the lawsuit against the state for 1 gun a month.

In NJ, it gives sole responsibility to a man in the State Police. It hinders shooting teams, the gun owner with a broken gun, and being able to will guns to your children.

He will have stats and more concrete information.

http://www.anjrpc.org/

http://www.cjrpc.com/

I will PM you his information.


Second,

Why are you asking this question? Are you doing a report, getting ready for a presentation, looking for sources, etc...

What brings this question here for answers?

Not being hostile....... just wondering what prompted you and if you are up against something

[NikeBauer21]

Second,

Why are you asking this question? Are you doing a report, getting ready for a presentation, looking for sources, etc...

What brings this question to a gun forum for answers?

Looks like he just wants to be more prepared to refute anti's claims, as well as help anyone else be prepared to refute them.

This is meant to be a serious mental exercise for me, and hopefully others so that we can argue against the claims and pushes better.

[mythaeus]

I can put you in touch with a man from NJ currently working on the lawsuit against the state for 1 gun a month.

In NJ, it gives sole responsibility to a man in the State Police. It hinders shooting teams, the gun owner with a broken gun, and being able to will guns to your children.

He will have stats and more concrete information.

http://www.anjrpc.org/

I will PM you his information.


Second,

Why are you asking this question? Are you doing a report, getting ready for a presentation, looking for sources, etc...

What brings this question here for answers?

Not being hostile....... just wondering what prompted you and if you are up against something

Thanks for the info and got your PM.

Looks like he just wants to be more prepared to refute anti's claims, as well as help anyone else be prepared to refute them.

Yup, I am seeing this creeping up more and more as an argument from the antis. I just want to garner as much ammunition as I can for I can argue more effectively.

Al

[NikeBauer21]

Yup, I am seeing this creeping up more and more as an argument from the antis. I just want to garner as much ammunition as I can for I can argue more effectively.

Al

Nothing wrong with that... good idea Al.


The thing I need to work on most is, when debating, my mind goes into more of a "frustration mode"... Instead of debating more with facts, many times I revert back to rather simplistic statements that are more vague.

You can never have enough knowledge or practice.

[photoshooter]

OK, although this isn't exactly the stream of thought you're looking for but one of the first things that popped into my mind is the possible negative impact on the "gun economy".
If all 50 states limited sales to one per month per person I have to wonder if we'd see an increase in firearms prices across the board. I also wonder if it would put some smaller dealers out of business.

As far as the effectiveness of this type of law I have no clue. Statistics can be misleading in these kinds of reports.

A study of Virginia’s one-gun-a-month law demonstrated that the law
was effective in reducing the number of crime guns traced to Virginia dealers.

Criminals will always seek the path of least resistance. The number of crime guns coming from Virginia was reduced in all likelihood because neighboring states without one-a-month laws filled the void. If all 50 states had the same law in effect I suspect Virginia would see it's problems return in a different form.

If there were a gun law that did effectively limit straw purchases etc without stepping on the rights of law abiding citizens I'd certainly support it. It's hard to imagine how such a law might be structured though.

[thefirstndsecond]

There is actually a lawsuit and statistical information he should be able to get you.

He went around to Clubs all over the State of NJ and spoke about this issue.

Pennsylvania also has the State Federation of Sportsmen Clubs http://www.pfsc.org/

Unified Sportsmen of Pennsylvania - http://www.unifiedsportsmenpa.org/

Pennsylvania Rifle & Pistols Association - http://www.pennarifleandpistol.org/

Allegheny County Sportsmen's League - http://www.acslpa.org/

Strength in numbers, shared information!!

[photoshooter]

Looks like he just wants to be more prepared to refute anti's claims, as well as help anyone else be prepared to refute them.

I like to read up on these topics for the same reason. Although I refuse to get in heated debates I like simple solid facts to refute ideas that trample the rights of citizens.

[MDJschool]

Here's a statistic: we have 2 constitutions behind our rights, and they have 0 behind their infringements.

Statistics is their game and you don't want to play it on their terms, because accepting that their statistic is better is probably the tacit acceptance that all that is needed to overcome the Declaration of Rights is a statistic (rather than, say, an infringement of someone else's rights.)

Without the 2A, the US constitution gives the federal government no power to instate 'one gun a month', and with the 2A, it would be thought most absurd for the government to mettle. 'One gun a month' cannot coexist with Pa Const. art I, sec 1 and sec 25, because the right to acquire and possess property is protected, as is the right to dispossess it. 'One' would therefore at least infringe on the rights of one party if not both. The government is excepted from conduct infringing upon the right by section 25.

Someone might offer that one free association a month might have prevented Hitler from reaching power. Yet one free association a month might have prevented the Revolutionary War. Ask those who seek to destroy our rights if they would mind meeting only once a month, not just one per group but one meeting with anyone.

Ask them if they think it would be legitimate to ask the mafia to make sure people don't buy any more than one gun a month, that the mafia might be allowed to fine people, and if they evade, arrest them, handcuff them, put them in jail, or use force if they resist. Ask them what differentiates the mafia, as an organized criminal syndicate, from the government. Ask them if it would be valid to ask a criminal to kidnap someone if they bought more than one gun a month. Would you ask a hitman to kill someone? Why would you ask the government to kill someone for you? Hopefully they see the absurdity, because it is absurd. Someone is asking for your rights to be violated having not violated someone else's first as a matter of prior restraint, someone is asking that you be a slave, and if a good slave nothing bad will happen, and someone is asking that force be used against you if you violate that whim even though there is no victim. That is absurd. They are asking that CRIME be CREATED, and to make law enforcement a new generation of petty criminals. Ask them if they would like to be fined, arrested, handcuffed, jailed, or beaten for meeting more than once a month, because that's the order of things for this 'law' make criminalizing firearms.

[photoshooter]

Here's a statistic: we have 2 constitutions behind our rights, and they have 0 behind their infringements.

Statistics is their game and you don't want to play it on their terms, because accepting that their statistic is better is probably the tacit acceptance that all that is needed to overcome the Declaration of Rights is a statistic (rather than, say, an infringement of someone else's rights.)

Rep sent for a great post.

Mark Twain said there are three kinds of lies;
lies, damn lies and statistics.

Yes we all know it's absurd and yet there are states with 90 day limitations. It gets a little scary when the lunatics run the asylum...