Keith Devens .com

I think, that if you own a gun - a device specifically created to kill someone/something - then putting up with a few questions from the police from time to time is part and parcel of you're responsibilities as a gun owner.

If you have nothing to hide, what's the problem?

If your child had been killed in a gun crime, wouldn't YOU want the police to be doing EVERYTHING in their power to find the perpetrator?

How were their rights violated? The police visited their homes and asked permission to test their weapons. It wasn't a dawn raid or anything.

If it had been a rare type of car that ran somebody over, I'm sure they'd go through the vehicle registration databases they have available and ask the owners of that particular model a few questions too.

I'm also confident the police asked questions of the people who live in the surrounding area.

Why is it acceptable for police to use leads from car databases and geographical location, but not from gun registration?

Asking questions from everybody you can find that may be linked to the crime is basic detective work. There's nothing sinister or rights-violating in it.

Why?

Try this thought experiment: You own a red Camaro. A red Camaro was used in a bank robbery that involved a murder. The police use the registration database and go to every owner of a red Camaro in the area so that they can take tire impressions and collect fiber evidence. If you refuse, of course, they'll get a warrant. They have nothing to tie anyone to the crime, it's called a "fishing expedition."

And if I hear one more person say "If you have nothing to hide, what's the problem?" I'm going to go postal.

Ask that question of the Founders.

If you refuse, of course, they'll get a warrant. They have nothing to tie anyone to the crime...

If they have nothing to tie you to the crime, then they shouldn't be able to get a warrant. If they are getting warrants for this kind of thing, then that's the problem that needs to be fixed, not the fact that they identified you.

Go and read the article you posted. No warrants were issued. People answered the questions voluntarily. If they didn't want to answer the questions, they should have forced the police to justify their reasoning to a judge. But they didn't. They answered the questions willingly.

And if they hadn't "answered the questions willingly"? You did read the part about "It's like having the Wehrmacht knock on your door," right? That sound like "willing cooperation" to you?

What happens if you tell the cops "get a warrant"?

Will it be akin to what happened to Richard Jewell? Or Steve Grassilli? Would you want that? The (unstated) threat of that is not coercion?

And if they hadn't "answered the questions willingly"?

If the police have no other reason to suspect you, they can't do a thing legally.

Will it be akin to what happened to Richard Jewell? Or Steve Grassilli? Would you want that? The (unstated) threat of that is not coercion?

Once again, you are focusing on the wrong thing. If police abuse their power, then it's the abuse of power that is wrong, not the thing that leads them to you.

It could be any number of different things that lead them to you - your address if you live by a crime scene, the type of car you drive, your physical characteristics. The fact that it was gun registration that lead the police to these people is entirely unremarkable and uninteresting.

If the police overstepped their authority, then that would be interesting. But you've repeatedly mentioned that the people cooperated willingly, so comparing the police to nazis simply for asking people questions that they answered willingly is simply ridiculous.

I have one response to that, though I know it will bounce right off of you, Jim.

"YOUR PAPERS, PLEASE!"

Perhaps this is off-topic, but...
I saw the other night a documentary about guerilla warriors from Kosovo. The want independance for Kosovo.
One of their leaders and soldiers were working in New York (I thought it was New York) and were ordering weapons there for their guerilla war in Kosovo.
While I'm not opposed to independancy for Kosovo, I found it really odd that they could buy weapons and stuff that easily in the US.

(By the way, sorry that I didn't respond to that other comment of yours some while back. I forgot about it and was busy with other things.)

I found it really odd that they could buy weapons and stuff that easily in the US.

Indeed. Restrictions on guns only makes it harder for people to buy guns legally. Any gun laws only wind up hurting law-abiding citizens, because criminals don't obey the laws anyway. It's such an obvious point, but to me it's one of the most crucial and sensible argument against gun restrictions.

In response to everyone else, I'll say this: I may be willing to take a step back and say that their rights (such as the right against illegal search and seizure) were not technically violated because they had the ability to tell the police to get a warrant. But, who wants to get on the bad side of the police? Stuff like this is very scary to me. The police walking door to door collecting people's guns is what we've seen in history in cases such as when the Third Reich came to power. Before killing the Jews in Germany, the first thing they did is take away their guns. Of course, in this case they'll give them back, but this is such a bad precedent.

Furthermore, in America, guns are viewed as being the ultimate and final guarantor of our freedom. Part of that freedom is the ability to protect ourselves from the government if need be -- and this was explicitly one of the motivations of the founders for writing the second amendment. (It's position is also very telling, as the constitution guarantees the freedoms of speech, press, religion, etc. in the first amendment, and protects them with the second.) What would it be like if we had to be licensed to speak publicly or to publish a newsletter? Yet we have to be licensed to exercise our second amendment rights. The government should not have to give permission for us to exercise what the constitution guarantees us as a right. Gun licensing negates the very purpose of the founders in putting the second amendment, because guns cease to serve as protection from the government when the government has a list of all the guns people own.

Finally, the car analogy is a fair one, but not analagous enough, I think. Cars by their nature are public, while guns are a private tool of protection. More importantly, cars don't protect our safety and freedoms, while guns do, and your car is not constitutionally protected, while your guns are.

I'd like to amend my above comment a bit:

But, who wants to get on the bad side of the police? If you deny them you become a suspect and you make them go through the trouble of getting a warrant. Once they get it, they can go and trash your house if they'd like and it's all legal.

But these were guerilla warriors. They were (are?) buying guns, night viewers, etc in the US and brought them somehow to Kosovo, to use them for their battle there.
I can't believe that is the intention, that people from other countries are using the liberal weapon law in the US to buy guns to use them in other countries.

Restrictions on guns only makes it harder for people to buy guns legally. Any gun laws only wind up hurting law-abiding citizens, because criminals don't obey the laws anyway. It's such an obvious point, but to me it's one of the most crucial and sensible argument against gun restrictions.

It's an obvious point, but it oversimplifies things far too much.

When guns aren't legal, they are far harder to get hold of. This isn't just about scarcity, it's about having to know the right people, it's about them being more expensive due to lack of economies of scale, all sorts of different things.

When guns aren't legal, it becomes far easier to put somebody in jail for gun crime (mere possession is easier to prove than related crimes). Your point is usually stated as "when guns are outlawed, only outlaws have guns" - think it through - it makes it a hell of a lot easier to identify and jail outlaws, doesn't it?

When guns aren't legal, the types of criminals that have guns changes. Instead of any off-the-rails kid possessing one, the average "experience" of a criminal possessing a gun rises. This means less chance of things going wrong during a crime, which results in less people dead (somebody who just wants to rob somebody rarely kills unless they have to).

Obviously, I am approaching this from a different perspective to you, as I am from the U.K. and so wasn't raised thinking that I have some kind of right to own lethal weaponry. To me the relevent points are:

• If I wanted a gun, I wouldn't have a clue how to get hold of one.

• If my fellow citizens and I did all own guns, we still wouldn't have a chance of an armed uprising against our government, which is what you guys claim is the reason for the second amendment.

• I don't feel it necessary to own weapons to defend myself.

• If I did feel it necessary to own weapons to defend myself, I don't see why those weapons need to be lethal weapons.

Gun licensing negates the very purpose of the founders in putting the second amendment, because guns cease to serve as protection from the government when the government has a list of all the guns people own.

So how exactly do your guns protect you from the government? How about an example?

So how exactly do your guns protect you from the government? How about an example?

The American Revolution.

Are you trying to be funny? That was a completely different world then. Unless you are also advocating that individuals should also be allowed tanks, ICBMs and fighter jets with their associated weaponry, that argument simply doesn't apply. You couldn't fight off a government when you only have thnigs like rifles today. The 2nd amendment simply isn't relevent in today's world.

You couldn't fight off a government when you only have thnigs like rifles today.

Oh, I disagree. Look at all the problems a very small group of people are causing in Iraq. A large (armed) portion of the populace committed to revolution can take on any government, including the US.

As for the 2nd amendment not being relevant: Firearms as a guarantor of freedom from oppressive government is only one of the motivations for the second amendment. I think the ability to defend yourself with lethal force is a fundamental individual right and firearms are the best tool with which to do that. I've said in the past that while many people look at guns as a negative, harmful invention, I think guns are the best tools ever invented for individual protection. A person who would otherwise be helpless against an attacker (women, the elderly, bedridden homeowners, etc.) who has a firearm can effectively defend him/herself.

Your other comments you made in your previous comment are good ones. You make an economic case rather than a moral case for restricting firearms.

This isn't just about scarcity, it's about having to know the right people, it's about them being more expensive due to lack of economies of scale, all sorts of different things... [so] When guns aren't legal, the types of criminals that have guns changes. Instead of any off-the-rails kid possessing one, the average "experience" of a criminal possessing a gun rises.

But the fact remains that it comes at the price of disarming innocents, and criminals are clearly not hindered as much as you think. As a case in point, gun crime has only gone up since the U.K.'s recent gun restrictions in the 90's went into effect.

I just searched through my archives and found some relevant material. Glenn Reynolds wrote a short history of gun control in England. The Guardian ran an article last year reporting that gun crimes skyrocketed the year before. In fact, violent crime in general has increased in England, while crime has declined steadily in the US. The BBC even ran a piece arguing that Britain needs more guns, and someone wrote a whole book about the gun control in England.

In addition, different types of economic reasoning comes into play. This selection from the BBC article I referenced above is a case in point:

You are now six times more likely to be mugged in London than New York. Why? Because as common law appreciated, not only does an armed individual have the ability to protect himself or herself but criminals are less likely to attack them. They help keep the peace. A study found American burglars fear armed home-owners more than the police. As a result burglaries are much rarer and only 13% occur when people are at home, in contrast to 53% in England.

Also:

Your point is usually stated as "when guns are outlawed, only outlaws have guns" - think it through - it makes it a hell of a lot easier to identify and jail outlaws, doesn't it?

Not really. The way you're most likely to find out that someone has a gun is when he's used it in a crime.

Oh, I disagree. Look at all the problems a very small group of people are causing in Iraq. A large (armed) portion of the populace committed to revolution can take on any government, including the US.

Two things:

1. Is it possible for them to win? I don't think it is at all possible.

2. Is this a revolution? Again, I don't think so.

I think the ability to defend yourself with lethal force is a fundamental individual right and firearms are the best tool with which to do that.

It's a cliché, but "your right to swing your fist ends when it hits my face."

I am not in any way saying that you don't have the right to defend yourself. But to defend yourself with lethal force? Why? In what way are you protecting your rights when your intent goes above and beyond mere defence? It seems to me that the people who advocate lethal force instead of necessary force are concerned more with retribution than protection.

A person who would otherwise be helpless against an attacker (women, the elderly, bedridden homeowners, etc.) who has a firearm can effectively defend him/herself.

What is your opinion on so-called "non-lethal" weapons? Sure, they still sometimes cause death, but that isn't their primary purpose, and they seem to be just as effective as lethal weaponry in terms of actually defending yourself.

I don't have the reference to hand, but to counter your gun crime in the U.K. argument, I believe that the U.K. still has an order of magnitude less gun crime than the U.S.A., after taking into account our relative populations etc.

Even so, I find it extremely difficult to believe that the restrictions on guns has had an effect on the mugging statistics; it's one of those situations where the statistics may be clear, but the reasoning isn't. To clarify, you need to know a couple of things:

1. Even before the gun restrictions, virtually nobody owned a gun or carried one around in the U.K. This is part of the reason there was hardly any opposition to the new legislation.

This means that the mugging "deterrant" of guns was never there to begin with. The legislation didn't remove this deterrant, so the rise in muggings is hardly likely to be a response to this.

2. In recent years, mobile phone theft has skyrocketted. This alone has had a big impact on mugging statistics, and, from what I've heard, is mostly a case of kids being held up by other kids with a knife.

Also, I'm not entirely sure about this one, but I think the way in which crime statistics were counted changed a couple of years ago, which may also be a factor.

See how different that sounds once you look beyond the raw numbers? It goes from "the U.K. enacted gun control and crime went through the roof" to "the U.K. never really bothered with guns for defensive purposes, they have far less gun crime than countries that do, and the recent trend of everybody having a mobile phone is causing a lot more muggings."

First off I think the view that guns are just for "killing things" it rather dim and narrow minded. Sports shooting is a very popular .

As for the whole checking on gun owners via registration, while it is a prudent idea, but somewhat ineffective for the following reasons:

a) Most murders are commited with illegally obtained guns.
b) Some calibers are very common.

While I dont live in the USA, I do know of a very high profile case which was solved in part to police doing exactly this.

Basicly the perp was a gun collecter and used an unusual caliber handgun in the crime. Handguns being somewhat of a rarity themselves in this country. If the same person had used a stolen rifle, say a .22 or .223 (very VERY common) the police would have had a much harder time linking him to the crime.

I think as a gun owner I would be more than happy to assit police in there enquiries and I also think anyone that wouldn't be should maybe not have the priviledge to own one.

Yes thats right, gun ownership is a priviledge not a right (no matter what any constitution says) and if more people would take this attitude gun owners in general would have a better reputation.

As for comparing this to the nazi, that is plain stupid ... it's quite clear there enquiries are limited to a quite specific type of firearm ... its not a "hand over all your guns" .... its "please can we test your .38 special".

Think about it, keep it real... I hope they catch this freak before he kills some more innosent people ... and he probably will.

the american revolution was a few thousand light infantry against the (then) most powerful nation in the world.

the american indochina war same thing

light infantry always beats the big bad feds.

the american revolution was a few thousand light infantry against the (then) most powerful nation in the world.

England was already fighting a more important war much closer to home.

England was a massive distance away, so resources available to the English army on American soil were scarce.

The "few thousand light infantry" were assisted by powerful nations like France.

While it's true that guerilla warfare shouldn't be underestimated (cf. Iraq and Vietnam), it's not the dealbreaker you make it out to be in the context of citizens rebelling against an oppressive government, and it wasn't as important in the American revolution as you imply.

Any government can be changed with a few rifle shots, but that is not the point of the second amendment. We were given the right to bear the latest military technology by our forefathers. Only time has changed that at all. the second amendment does not apply to just firearms and it shouldn't. Every law passed by Congress that has limited what a law abiding person may own is unconstitutional. You may disagree, but then again I don't really care.