IDS 2: IDS Firearm Policy Act of 2013 (Failed)

[Donerail]

So this would just clear up our firearms policy. Establishes what is in the sphere of the Legislature and what is in the sphere of state/local governments, where you can legally carry a firearm and who can do so, our laws on the transportation of firearms, etc, etc, etc.

[Donerail]

Why should the IDS become a no license open carry region?

We are already a no-license concealed carry region, and open carry laws aren't a threat to public safety. Additionally, three states in our region (Tennessee, Georgia, and Mississippi) have the same open carry restrictions proposed here.

[Donerail]

Why should the IDS become a no license open carry region?

We are already a no-license concealed carry region, and open carry laws aren't a threat to public safety. Additionally, three states in our region (Tennessee, Georgia, and Mississippi) have the same open carry restrictions proposed here.

It's funny to see that you quote an opinion article instead of statistics showing people dead by fire arms and some comparisons with other countries where possession is strictly regulated, as it should be in the South and everywhere. Honestly, I hope some kind of opposition to the bill from my fellow legislators, because the indiscriminate use of guns is a threat for people's life, freedom and integrity.

If you'd like some hard statistics (and I'll even use the firearm murder rate), these are from 2011 (in real life so Atlasia's gun policies aren't in effect). California had 3.25 murders per 100K people (1,220 total murders), and that year was ranked by the Brady Campaign as having the strongest gun control laws in the nation. Texas, the state with the closest population but with significantly less gun control, had a firearm murder rate of 2.91 per 100K (699 total). Utah, which the Brady Campaign said had the least gun control, had a firearm murder rate of 0.97 per 100K (26 total).

So there's your evidence: the state with the strictest gun control had a much higher rate than that with almost none. Not exactly a "threat to life, freedom, and integrity"; the facts on the ground say the exact opposite.

[Donerail]

The Firearms Death Rates per 100,000 that I've found are a bit different.

Washington DC is on the top of the table with 31.2, followed by Alaska (20), Louisiana (19.5), Wyoming (18. and Arizona (18). Texas has a rate of 11, California a 9.8.  Hawaii (2. and New England states like Massachusetts (3.1) have the lowest rates.

http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-death-rate-per-100-000

You can feel free to cherry-pick misleading statistics, but here - this data is from the FBI's 2011 crime statistics, and the rankings are from the Brady campaign (the data shows violent crime per 100K people, and the rankings are top 3/bottom 3):

California: 411.1
New Jersey: 308.4
Massachusetts: 428.4

Arizona: 405.9
Alaska: 606.5
Utah: 195.0

So two out of the three states with lax laws have lower crime rates than 2 out of the 3 with strict laws. You can take that to mean that states with lax laws have lower crime rates, or you can say that there's no statistically significant difference between them; either way this legislation is not going to lead to a rise in the violent crime rate.

You can also see the effects in DC, which you brought up - violent crime increased in the district, from 188 when they enacted a ban on carrying firearms in the city, to 454 in the early 90s, and it kept rising. But then, in 2007, it was ruled that their ban was unconstitutional. Crime, since then, has gone down to 88 murders in 2012. It certainly can't be said that loose gun laws cause a rise in crime.

And since you brought it up in your Louisiana quote - we already have strict federal gun laws, as you can see in the legislation creating a national handgun registry, sale restrictions, magazine restrictions, and an 'assault weapons' ban, so several of those things you quoted would not apply. What we need to realize when considering this legislation is that we're not starting from the American status quo and liberalizing on gun rights - we're starting with where we are in Atlasia, which is significantly more stringent than America.

[Donerail]

Don't you see the difference between "violent crime" and "firearms death rate"?  
Do you have something to say about the comaprison between murder rates between the USA and other developed countries? Don't you think it leaves the USA in a bad place?

There is really no statistic that I care about less than the firearms death rate. The death rate from firearms is really pointless. The murder rate, sure, that's important - but there's no point in isolating out firearms other than to point out how countries with less firearms have less people killed with firearms. That's common sense, sure, but it's a meaningless factoid relative to the actual murder rate. For instance, Britain has far less gun-related homicides than the US does; it also has a higher rate of violent crime than the US does.

[Donerail]

Shouldn't we take measures to regulate the possession of firearms instead of legislating in order that anyone could carry them wherever?

Okay, okay, I get it that you have a lot of data as to why 'guns are bad'. I have lots of data as to why guns are good, some of which I've presented already, and to be quite honest this could go on for days or weeks without much getting accomplished.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But here's an amendment. Does that make it a bit more palatable?

[Donerail]

Your ammendment makes point #3 slightly less awful, but it's far away from being enough. Gun licenses, granted under conditions strict enough (lack of criminal record and psychological examinations are examples that come to my mind),

People who have had their right to bear arms suspended for committing a crime are already banned from carrying.

a regional register for all weapons

Why would we need a regional registry? There's already a federal one (which, despite my opposition, seems to not be going anywhere).

and carry limited to private properties and homes (besides some security measures mandatory for gun owners inside their properties in order to prevent accidents),

Well that's just a recipe for more mass shootings (like the ones in Winnemucca in 08, or Pearl high School in '97, or Edinboro in '98, or Appalachian School of Law in '02).

Point #4 is unacceptable as well.

Point 4? I mean, I expected controversy on a couple of em, but 1 & 4 aren't real big deals. 4 especially, since all it does is say that our gun laws apply to only our people: if you're traveling from the Northeast through our region to the Pacific, and you've done whatever the Northeast requires to be allowed to carry a firearm, then you don't have to comply with our restrictions since you're not a citizen of the region and you're not staying for any extended period of time in our region, just passing through. It's just making travel easier (and maybe picking up a few tourist dollars while we're at it). If you're moving here, you still have to follow our law, if you're going here you do, and if you live here you still have to follow it, but if you're passing through from and on your way to another region and it's okay in your home region to possess your gun we're not going to stop you, because you'll be gone tomorrow anyways.


Perhaps it'd be a better solution to divide the question on this bill?

[Donerail]

Not a lot of time for a detailed response, but I think this should satisfy most of your concerns with regards to registries, sale restrictions, magazine restrictions, background checks, and permits required (the reason we don't need to do a lot of it at a regional level, like background checks or permits, is because the feds already do it).

[Donerail]

I don't really get what fascination our Emperor have for deadly things like nuclear power or firearms, but I sure have some concerns for the security of the Southern people...

Cause I'm evil. Duh.