Gun control

[protege]

Since nobody started a thread on this yet... In light of the recent killings at Virginia Tech, what do you all think?

Advocates for it would have you believe that simply having a gun is dangerous. That is, "guns kill people." By that logic, shouldn't cars (which can also kill people) be subject to controls as well? A gun, like a car is just a tool. It does, whatever the person controlling it *tells* it to do. With that said, i think the responsibility should go on the head of the person in charge of the object--it doesn't belong anywhere else; not the victim, not the manufacturer...nobody else but the person holding it.

If anyone is wondering, I grew up in a household that had firearms. Both my father, and grandfather had rifles and shotguns. Did they kill anyone? Nope. All of their guns were for hunting...or if someone was to break in, they'd find themselves on the wrong end of a shotgun! Since there were always kids around, Dad kept his guns locked up, and the ammo locked up in a separate place. Even so, I was taught to respect firearms, and their power.

With that said, I don't think gun control is a good idea. No matter how strict it becomes, criminals will always find a way around it. Whereas, the law-abiding citizen who wants a gun for hunting or protection will suffer delays simply because they choose to obey the law.

[Boozy]

With that said, I don't think gun control is a good idea. No matter how strict it becomes, criminals will always find a way around it.

This has always struck me as a weak and silly argument. Watch what I can do with it:

"Crack cocaine should be made legal, because criminals can always find a way to get it anyway."

Before you all jump down my throat, I am not claiming that guns are the equivalent of crack cocaine. I am only saying that the availability of something on the black market shouldn't be a factor in deciding as a society what we find acceptable and unacceptable. Gun rights advocates would be well-advised to stop using this argument and focus on more solid proofs.

[squall]

"Crack cocaine should be made legal, because criminals can always find a way to get it anyway."


Amazingly I have seen this defense used on here repeatedly on other threads. I fail to see why people advocate this as a viable defense when the effects of implementing an action would be worse than controlling the problem. For such radical gun control, one of our primary bill of rights laws would have to changed or amended. Finding anybody in any branch of the US government who would advocate that would be a monumental task. I am all for using guns as self-defense, and certainly hunting if you live in an area far from any available resources. Do I think guns should be illegal like in Britain? Not really.

[AFPheonix]

I definitely think there should be restrictions on guns, perhaps even a more than there are now.
I also think there should definitely be more restrictions on the venues where one can purchase guns. We do that for hard alcohol, why not weaponry?
I also think that some types of guns, like military-style ones, should NOT be in the hands of citizens.

Yes, I realize that there's a lot of shooting enthusiasts on this board. Guess what, there's a gun cabinet 2 feet behind me with a rifle of my own in it. But I also realize that these suckers are ultimately meant for one thing, and one thing only: killing shit. Yeah, other things can and are used to kill people too, like knives, but stabbing people is not their primary use. Preparing tasty food is their primary use. They are a great tool when used appropriately, but I honestly think it's waaay too easy for freaks to get ahold of them at this point.
Think about it. We sell lethal weapons at freakin' WAL-MART. Let that sink in for a minute.

[rahmota]

Protege: Sorry about that I have been trying to formalize my thoughts on this. BUt I'll go on ahead and throw a few things out that are on the top of my head right now and maybe try and pretty up my words later.

First off let me caveat things by saying I am an NRA lifetime member and have been since I was 16. I grew up in a rural area where firearms are common and acceptable. I have seen people walking down the middle of the local town's main street at high noon with shotguns across their back and the local cop just stop and talk to them about what they got during deer season. My father was US Military and was very involved in my learning about firearms and their safe usage. I collect firearms and will be getting my concealed carry as soon as there is an opening in the classes (which in my area has a back log until june) for me to do so. I wish I was rich enough to get a class 3 liscence and build a much larger collection.

Okay that out of the way let me start.

First off yes the whole criminals will always have firearms because they dont obey laws is a rather weak argument but it is also a valid one in many ways. Why? Because first off they ARE criminals. Removing a person's ability to defend themselves from criminals gives the criminals an edge over common people. TO anyone in britain banning firearms has done what to the level of violent crimes being perpetrated over there?

As has been shown multiple times a person who is determined to do harm to another will find a way to do so. Firearms or not. Also criminalizing firearms is a way of takign power away from its citizens. A government that starts removing power from its law abiding citizens is a government that should be feared and if need be revamped or removed.

It isnt so much a matter of making or keeping something legal because the illegal people would have it it is more of a leveling the playing field issue.

Also firearms serve more than just the prime purpose of killing. Yes that is what they are designed for, that is what they where invented and refined over the centuries for. But there are some that are as much a piece of artwork as well as a fine functional machine. Think of some of the classic sports cars, rolls and such. There is also the historical value of some pieces. A classic colt peacemaker that helped tame (or wild) up the old west would have a value as well.

Sometimes it is just enough of a deterrence to know or suspect that a person is armed. Deterring a crime is better than even having to actively defend oneself.

As for the availability with firearms. I see nothign wrong with where they are being sold. In many ways I am disgusted by how many people are trying to make it impossible or insanely difficult to access firearms. I am quite unhappy that they used to be sold in Wal-Mart here. Notte I said used to be sold in walmart. Thanks to the nanny state whiners Wal-mart decided to just wash their hands of the BS and stop selling firearms in Ohio. Sucky indeed. Not far from me there is a gas station/quickie mart that has a firearms/hunting supplies/fishing section. I like that. There is nothign wrong with that. As far as I know this place has NEVER been robbed, held up or broken into. The owner carries a ruger .357 on his hip and has a short barrel mossberg under the counter. This is common knowledge and his station is one the sheriff's stop at and have coffee at and consider a safe hang out. I wish more gas stations where like that.

As long as the proper checks and balances are in place. A background check that is then thrown away (NO FIREARM REGISTY for the GESTAPO to have on hand) as well as age controls is good enough. Personally I would not be upset with mandatory firearms ownership required for all citizens. And I have to disagree that it is NOT too easy to get firearms. There are too many hoops, lopps, and BS to jump through to get one for just any freak to be able to stroll in and get one. I'm starting to get into black powder and it at least still just requires a driver's liscence to purchase. I am hoping that the anti-firearm nuts don't ruin that.

Of course along with firearm ownership is the need for training, education and knowledge of how to be responsible. This is why I think there should be mandatory firearm training courses in high school. Whether the person agrees to firearms , uses them or whatever. This is one of the few ways that the truth about firearms can be taught to people given how many lies and misconceptions hollywood promotes about them, also counteracting the lack of involvement or outright antifirearms propaganda many parents do.

I am sorry if some of this doesnt make sense or is kinda rambling but it is the way I feel. Firearms is one of the prime parts of the foundations of a free citizenry. An armed populace is a safe populace. Safe from their government and safe from those who would do them harm. It is the ultimate check to tyrrany of the masses, of the government and of the criminals. All a firearm is is a cold lump of steel and plastic. It cannot think, it cannot feel it cannot decide anythign on its own. It is the human holding it that has the mind. Has the will to do or not do harm. By criminalizing the item it does nothign to the thoughts, the actions done with that item. Or the things that caused the pain.

To touch on the virginia tech problems. This guy does not seem to be evil. It seems to me like he was pushed down and away and disenfranchised by society. He succummed to jealosy, anger and hatred of those more affluent or powerful than him. And he responded with the way, the only way for many. He used violence. If he had not had access to firearms he still probably would hav edone something. It may not have had as many deaths but it still would have been a tragedy.

[Rapscallion]

Okay, this is going to be interesting.

First off, I'm from the UK, and we have strict gun laws over here. After Dunblane (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunblane and scroll down a bit for the massacre - we've got fuckwits with guns too), the government put in laws to ban weapons of certain sizes etc. Of course, there was an amnesty, and the number of illegally held weapons handed in was minimal. The only people to hand their weapons in were people who were previously law-abiding. Shotguns and the like are still legal, but you've got to prove you have a reason for them. Our olympic shooting team was immediately unable to practice.

Illegal weapons were conspicuously not visible in the stuff handed in - there were some, including some souvenirs from soldiers who had served abroad - but the average 'gangsta' wasn't really willing to part with his moronity of choice. It was mostly knives back then. Guns were a rarity on the British streets, and comparatively they still are. There are more these days, mostly because of 'urban' (hah - a weasel of a word if ever I heard one) culture (a misnomer if I ever heard one).

Comparing guns to cars doesn't really work. A car is designed to move a person or people from one place to another without hitting anything on the way. People dying from use of a car is usually an accident. A gun is designed with the express purpose of sending a projectile at high speed in the direction of a target with the aim of hitting it. That is a gun's sole purpose. People dying as the result of a gun being used is generally a genuine act.

Sure, there is target shooting, but that evolved from the very origins of the weapon. Initially, all projectile weapons were conceived for either hunting or killing of other humans - it's unknowable which came first. I suspect hunting, but I have no evidence. It became primarily a weapon a person could use at a distance on other humans with minimal danger to him or herself.

A gun is designed to hit or kill. Practice ranged with targets and target shooting competitions? They're just a byproduct of the need to kill. Hunting with ranged weapons? Sure, a genuine use, but the aim is once again to kill.

There's no getting away from it - a gun was designed from the express purpose of killing or wounding.

Moving on - should said guns be restricted or not? I think the answer, from the perspective of a Brit, is simple - fuck yeah!

Switzerland has a higher number of guns per head than the US, and I think that Canada has as well. However, you can be certain that there is far less gun crime in either of those countries. Why is this? Culture.

Canadian culture hasn't embraced the image of a 'gangsta' (i'm going to say idiot or thug from here on) going down in a hail of bullets as glorious as the thug culture portrays it. However, there is a huge swathe of credence given to that idea by American culture. Switzerland? Very polite people, but not given over to thug culture.

Young people in America are given an image of guns being right and a means of solving a problem. Sure. they're great in a war, which is a problem, but someone from your social standing not giving you "'spec" is not something worth shooting them for. There's a huge lack of proportion in this. "You be disrespetin' me" is a common claim (and that's a gerund that should never have been born), but the idiots saying things like that think that a gun will make things better and that they will get respect for shooting the other person. The other part of the problem is that they will gain respect from their idiot peers.

Why do they get this? Mostly because they are spoiled. Sure, we're talking about people in ghettos for the most part, and the vast majority are considered to be in poverty. I saw a classic debate on television that exposes this for what it is - a campaigner against poverty was saying that ten percent of the population were living in poverty according to figures from his organisation, and he was asked how he defined poverty. The answer was the bottom ten percent of the population in terms of wealth. By those standards, there would always be a group who were in poverty even if they lived in mansions.

People in general have it too easy these days. Welfare/social security is a safe blanket for them - they aren't going to starve as long as they stayed in school long enough to read and write so they can fill in the correct forms. There will be a roof over their heads, no matter how crappy, and there are homeless shelters if they are desperate. If they want to get a better income, they can do what they were told in school - study.

Look at the situation a mere 150 years ago in the UK - Victorian times. Genuine poverty reigned amongst the lower classes. There were poorhouses, but you were expected to work your arse off and suffer for the privelege. Things weren't easy. Think about back in the great depression in the US - people had it genuinely rough back then. Now? Feh - don't make me laugh. Those children in the ghettos (colour of skin is not important, and there is a mix) don't know when they have it good. Yes, there are shitty jobs, but there are jobs. The cursing out coworkers sections proves that idiots can get basic jobs.

Until we change the attitude that the world owes the scum class - the ones who think guns are the answer to their problems - there will be idiocy. I'm not just talking about the apeshits in schools, but the general gun crime where people get shot singly. Until society can get rid of the self-indulgent bling culture, and get some form of pride instilled in people, then people cannot be trusted with guns. Sure, law enforcement and military need them, as well as people out in the boonies to defend from wild animals, but nobody else does need them.

"An armed society is a polite society."

Really? Go to the ghettos and ask if that's the case.

"Guns don't kill people."

True, people kill people. With bullets. Fired from guns. It's safer than getting close with a knife, eh?

"We have a constitutional right!"

Do you bollocks.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

That says a militia is necessary and that the people (note the capitalisation, signifying a group of people, not individuals) need guns for security. America has a standing army, one of the largest in the world. Does anyone really expect to be called upon to be in a militia? Thought not.

When the police are in a shootout situation and people come along offering to help, are they accepted? Thought not. Where the frag is the militia then?

Put down the guns and make people grow up. You don't actually need them.

Rapscallion

[rahmota]

Wow Raps and I thought I was cynical and bitter.

Hmmm. Well I have to disagree with most of what you said. Especially about the uselessness or how people do not need firearms. Actually most of what you said I disagree with except the cultural issue.

Yes hollywood is guilty of glamorizing the gun battle, gangsta culture. That is something that would have to be changed. However the firearm is a major part of American culture. It has helped tame, build and otherwise defend this country and her people. The image of the lone gunslinger standing up for justice is an iconic one in this country. Unfortunately one that has been perverted by the gangsta culture. And what passes for justice on the streets is mainly just plain ego tripping. This is why the problem must be attacked form the roots.

That is one reason why compulsory high school firearms safety education should be in all schools. Teaching a person the truth about firearms safety and how to be responsible. I know this would be like bailing the atlantic in some cases but I do firmly believe that society and people can learn to behave appropriately if given half a chance.

This is also one reason why "rehabilitation" in the american justice system shold be forgotten and we go back to the punishment of criminals. The firearm is not the problem. It is merely a tool. The person holding the tool is the one that makes the choice to do or not do harm. If they choose to do harm then they should be punished for it. If the person is punished in such a manner as they would not wish to return to that punishment then they will be rehabilitated by not wanting to be punished again.

What is funny is if you look at statistics about murder and such in the old west there where a lot fewer firearm crimes than what hollywood portrays. And in the old west almost everyone had a firearm of some sort. This is because if you committed a crime you got punished for it, in many cases a nice rope dance would be the result of a murder. We need to go back to that sort of criminal justice system.

Change either comes from within because they want to or from the outside becuase something or someone else forces them.

In many ways I don't think the social services are as big a problem as what you are saying and calling them. True there are some who abuse the system but there are also a majority of people who need them thanks to not being able to achieve what our society calls middle class even. I mean there are members of our armed forces with families that are on food stamps thanks to corporate america's greed. So social services are not the free ride lazy way out for the majority of people but something they need just to survive and try and take care of their families. Not everyone can succeed just by studying and working hard and all that. Especially when corporations and the rich and elite have the tables and deck stacked against those they dont want in their little club. I can see why the guy in VT may have felt pushed against the wall and hopeless. I may not agree with what he did but I can see and understand it. Understand it is not always the fault of the poor and unemployed that they are in the position they are in.

But back to firearms. I say that firearms are a useful, in many cases necessary tool. I would not be uncomfortable living in a state where the citizens are trained and taught to be responsible with firearms and required to own firearms. And in many ways yes it would be a more safe society than one with a hodgepodge of anti-freedom laws. Personally I would like it where people have the right to have ANY class of firearm up to and including military hardware. It is not the tool that is the problem it is what is done with that tool that is the problem.

Which BTW the militia is defined in the Uniform Code Of Military Justice as all adult free males. (Not the exact wording but I don't have my copy of the UCMJ handy) This goes back to the colonial days. Which means that all individual people are members of the militia so it is a recognized and accepted part of our countries laws , for most people except the pansies that want to deny people their rights, that individuals have the right to keep and bear arms. All of the military personnel I associate with agree with this assessment. None of the military personnel I associate with favor firearms control in anyway shape or form other than firearm control means hitting your target. Also the militia and the publics right to keep and bear arms was an insurance policy against political tyranny the founding fathers agreed was needed after the excesses of the british kings. I happen to agree with that assessment. A governemnt that removes the right of its people to defend themselves is a government that is willing to do great harm against its people.

So in closing here, Firearms are a tool. Nothing more.

NRA forever!

[Boozy]

I have to disagree that it is NOT too easy to get firearms. There are too many hoops, lopps, and BS to jump through to get one for just any freak to be able to stroll in and get one.

"After showing a government issued photo ID and a driver's license to prove his Virginia residency, Cho Seung-Hui charged $571 on a credit card and walked out of Roanoke Firearms with a new 9 mm Glock 19 and 50 rounds of ammunition." - CBS News

His background check took thirty seconds.

[rahmota]

Ok so the system worked. There was nothign in his background to indicate that there was a reason to deny him a firearm. I see no problem with what you just posted boozy.

[squall]

I think mandatory firearm safety classes would be about as effective as abstinence education. The people who intend to misuse firearms (the urban culture, insane nuts) will be just as likely to misuse them afterwards. Amazing how threat of imprisonment and even death penalty does little to deter someone determined to kill somebody else. I feel like the situation that happened at Virginia Tech was very much unavoidable. This guy had nonspecific threats below surface level. No gun shop owner can immediately dredge up the psychological profile of a complete stranger who seems regular and has committed no violent crime. He went through the correct procedures to obtain his guns. Maybe records of his stalking should be taken into consideration before giving him a handgun. No matter what measures we take, somebody will always slip through the cracks. I think any amount of controls we take are hopeless. Britain has a good idea, but our country is too laden with guns at this point to really expect it to just let them go. I'd imagine people would protect their right to carry their firearm....with their firearm.

[rahmota]

One other thing I forgot to touch on in my earlier posts that I firmly and devoutly believe. If there had been armed students willing to act appropriately and responsibly at VT then the tragedy would have been stopped a lot sooner with a lot fewer deaths.

Squall: I will agree that a person determined to do harm and who no longer cares about their own or societies welfare will not be stopped or detered easily.That is one reason why we need more people armed, more right to carry laws enacted so that people who are responsible and law abiding are able to defend themselves in a case like this. Like I said if there had been armed students facing cho then his rampage would have been stopped dead in its tracks. And it would have been tragic still but not to the same proportion.

And as for Cho himself. He had not done anythign severe enough to warrent being in the system. The system worked. Yes stalking is a threat but if the person he was stalking was armed then he might have decided not to stalk them or he would have done somethign and they would have been forced to defend themselves and he would be dead. Either way it is a win-win scenario for everyone except cho who would still be a troubled person unless someone cared enough to intervene and help him. And the government already keeps too many records on people, there are already too many nannies in power trying to repress and homogolize and destroy individual freedoms and rights. We do not need anythign else added to a person's records.

Britain does not have the right idea in this regards I am sorry to say. Emasculating and removing a citizens ability to defend themselves and their family from aggressors or oppressors is wrong on so many levels. An armed person is able to remove threats to themselves, their family, and their property.

Also you are quite correct in how I for one would defend my right to bear arms. Anyone who comes for my firearms will get them barrel first. Death before disarmament! For if the government tries to deprive their citizens of firearms that is the first step in depriving them of other fundamental rights. One of the reasons this country was founded was to get away from such abuses of governmental powers and why the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms is a fundamental part of our constitutional limits on our governments powers. We have way too many firearms restrictions in this country as it is. A truely responsible person does not need their government, their church or anyone else to think for them.

[Rapscallion]

Wow Raps and I thought I was cynical and bitter.

I've had more practice :D


Hmmm. Well I have to disagree with most of what you said. Especially about the uselessness or how people do not need firearms. Actually most of what you said I disagree with except the cultural issue.

Yes hollywood is guilty of glamorizing the gun battle, gangsta culture. That is something that would have to be changed. However the firearm is a major part of American culture. It has helped tame, build and otherwise defend this country and her people. The image of the lone gunslinger standing up for justice is an iconic one in this country. Unfortunately one that has been perverted by the gangsta culture. And what passes for justice on the streets is mainly just plain ego tripping. This is why the problem must be attacked form the roots.


You just agreed with my main point. Canada and Switzerland have huge amounts of weaponry, but they don't have the apeshits. Society needs to evolve.


That is one reason why compulsory high school firearms safety education should be in all schools. Teaching a person the truth about firearms safety and how to be responsible. I know this would be like bailing the atlantic in some cases but I do firmly believe that society and people can learn to behave appropriately if given half a chance.


How about simply teaching people that guns are dangerous, rather than that and how to use them? The truth is that guns are there to kill.


In many ways I don't think the social services are as big a problem as what you are saying and calling them. True there are some who abuse the system but there are also a majority of people who need them thanks to not being able to achieve what our society calls middle class even. I mean there are members of our armed forces with families that are on food stamps thanks to corporate america's greed. So social services are not the free ride lazy way out for the majority of people but something they need just to survive and try and take care of their families. Not everyone can succeed just by studying and working hard and all that. Especially when corporations and the rich and elite have the tables and deck stacked against those they dont want in their little club. I can see why the guy in VT may have felt pushed against the wall and hopeless. I may not agree with what he did but I can see and understand it. Understand it is not always the fault of the poor and unemployed that they are in the position they are in.


You missed my point, I'm afraid. I'm not saying it's necessary, but I am saying that people have it far easier than they ever did. Who now has to wash their clothes by hand for hours? Not many people, I can assure you. He may have felt hopeless, but in comparison to what? He was able to go out and still spend over half a thousand dollars on a gun he didn't have the money for. How poor is that? The banking institutions were willing to lend him that much without thinking. Just an automated process. Sure, he could have not done what he did and ended up deeper in debt, but the fact is that the money was available. That's part of the problem.


But back to firearms. I say that firearms are a useful, in many cases necessary tool. I would not be uncomfortable living in a state where the citizens are trained and taught to be responsible with firearms and required to own firearms. And in many ways yes it would be a more safe society than one with a hodgepodge of anti-freedom laws. Personally I would like it where people have the right to have ANY class of firearm up to and including military hardware. It is not the tool that is the problem it is what is done with that tool that is the problem.


Sure, someone could use a knife instead of a gun. A man going apeshit in a school will maybe kill two or three (plus others wounded) before being brought down by people able to tackle him. This guy managed thirty-two last I heard.

Up to and including military hardware? What would the death toll have been if he had a tank?

Short version - if there are loonies in the system, make it harder for them to get guns. Get rid of the weaponry. Yes, it's part of the culture, and it will take time to change that, but you're never going to be completely rid of the loonies.


Which BTW the militia is defined in the Uniform Code Of Military Justice as all adult free males.*SNIP>

A militia, as defined by the 1903 Militia Act, is deemed as not required. Despite its name, it pretty much did away with the sort of militia that was around when the amendment was written. Modern warfare (of the time) required modern weapons and trained troops, not a bunch of men who could shoot but had no military discipline (I'm paraphrasing from Wikipedia here - I'll admit). Militias are no longer required, and they are not formed as they were. They are now a defunct concept and that, to me, anuls that amendment. It's outdated by events.


So in closing here, Firearms are a tool. Nothing more.

NRA forever!

A hunting gun is a tool. Anything else is a weapon to kill people.

Funny - I've not heard much from the NRA over the VT killings. I have to admit that I've not really listened much to the coverage. There's only so much drama and sorrow I can take.

Rapscallion

[Rapscallion]

Ok so the system worked. There was nothign in his background to indicate that there was a reason to deny him a firearm. I see no problem with what you just posted boozy.

Apart from the thirty-two dead. I'm sure more than that are killed on a weekly basis in normal (how crappy that sounds here) gun crime every week in the US, and that's what bothers me. This is a statistical blip, rather than a regular occurrence.

Rapscallion

[Boozy]

Ok so the system worked. There was nothign in his background to indicate that there was a reason to deny him a firearm. I see no problem with what you just posted boozy.

When the system "working" means that a legally purchased weapon is used to gun down 33 people, I would submit that something is wrong with the system.

[Rapscallion]

One other thing I forgot to touch on in my earlier posts that I firmly and devoutly believe. If there had been armed students willing to act appropriately and responsibly at VT then the tragedy would have been stopped a lot sooner with a lot fewer deaths.


I'm sure that if every student from the age of eleven had a gun issued as standard, most people going apeshit would be cut down before they got to five kills. I'm also sure there would be many more schoolyard fights that ended at a morgue.

Britain does not have the right idea in this regards I am sorry to say. Emasculating and removing a citizens ability to defend themselves and their family from aggressors or oppressors is wrong on so many levels. An armed person is able to remove threats to themselves, their family, and their property.


We're perfectly free to go around. If we can prove we need a shotgun to hunt wildlife or protect our herds, we can get one. After that, we have the police and armed forces to defend us. We're free to go around our business - you know, like working or relaxing - without being insecure enough to need a weapon. It's a matter of perspective.

An armed person has to put the gun down at some point. Would be pretty embarassing to be killed by the gun yo bought to protect your family, eh?


Also you are quite correct in how I for one would defend my right to bear arms. Anyone who comes for my firearms will get them barrel first.

I think you've summed my argument up perfectly at this point. Thank you.

Rapscallion

[AFPheonix]

Ok so the system worked. There was nothign in his background to indicate that there was a reason to deny him a firearm. I see no problem with what you just posted boozy.

Yes. It worked so well that someone who had a court injunction to get psychological help was allowed to buy 2 bloody handguns. A COURT ORDER did not show up in the background check. What the hell.

[Boozy]

I'm sure that if every student from the age of eleven had a gun issued as standard, most people going apeshit would be cut down before they got to five kills. I'm also sure there would be many more schoolyard fights that ended at a morgue.

I agree with pretty much everything you've had to say on this topic Raps, and especially on this point.
When people seriously believe that the solution to gun violence is to add more guns, I would suggest that we have reached a point where intelligent discourse on the subject is no longer possible. Gun culture in America has become a religion. Reasonable debate can't occur when firearm possession is considered an integral part of who Americans are as people. When someone says that "Guns are just a tool, nothing more" in one breath, and then "Death before disarmament" in the next, reason is tossed out the window. Facts are useless here.
Americans love their frickin' guns. The tragedies at Virginia Tech and Columbine is the cost of this love affair. Its theirs to pay. I'm going to stay safe and sound in Canada.

[xld17]

Okay, so I think my original account was deactivated because I never posted anything, but this one interests me. I go to the other big Virginia college, and actually went to high school with the shooter. (Way to build up a reputation on a first post, huh.)

I don't know where anyone else lives, but Virginia has some of the laxest gun laws in the country. You don't have to register your firearms and all you need to get a concealed carry permit is proof of training, a photo ID, and the form. In a very suburban area, we frequently see people walk in to restaurants with their weapons.

Blacksburg (Va. Tech) is in a much more conservative/rural area than where I'm from and even though almost any kid in that building could have had a gun, none did. Point being, just because people could arm themselves, doesn't mean they will. Even if someone was carrying a concealed weapon, if this guy had come in blazing with something fully automatic, odds are that your average citizen isn't carrying anything that could match that fire power.

The thing that needs to be accepted before any debate about guns can continue, is that they will never be made entirely illegal in America. The next step is attempting to regulate them to safe levels. I'm not totally anti-gun. We have always had them in the house and I occasionally go target/skeet shooting with my father. I would like to see military grade weapons banned because let's face it, you aren't going to do anything good with a Tech 9, M-60, or armor piercing rounds. You could hunt the rabbit, but it's pretty hard to eat something that is just a splatter.

As for licensing, I'm not really fond of the idea of telling the government what I own, but I do think guns need to be harder for the average citizen to obtain. Depending on what news outlet you have been following, less than a year ago, another kid from the same high school went rambo on a police station. He had four guns on him and killed two cops. At his parents' home, they found more twenty more guns including an improperly-licensed AK-47 and over 2,500 rounds of ammunition. Clearly this was overkill if the argument is that guns are necessary to defend yourself.

Meaningful background checks would be nice, but nothing this particular kid had in his record (The claims of stalking have been over-inflated by the media. The girls actually reported him as, "annoying.") would have triggered his being denied a weapon. I think the best we could realistically do toward ending gun violence would be to ban the automatic weapons to minimize damage and try to keep guns out of the hands of people who are known to have been violent in the past.

The culture as a whole is a large part of the problem and most of the time guns are glorified in an unrealistic way (I don't think there is an actor in the world who understands what a recoil is, and I would love to actually see some of them stick those hot barrels down their pants.), rather than being respected as tools which come with inherent dangers and responsibility. It's nice that some people can handle this, but many more can't and that is why so many people are killed every year by guns.

But still, they just aren't going away. The danger of driving cars is actually a pretty good analogy for guns. Some people will drive carefully, never speed, keep their hands at 10 and 2 and wait until they get home to drink their latte or use the cell phone. Others will get drunk, try to shave on their way to work or drive stick while eating a burger, fries and a shake. Some people will buy and use gun locks, keep their weapons and ammunition secured and take classes. Others will keep them loaded and in reach of their young kids, use them while drunk, or decide that shooting up a class full of college kids will somehow make life fair.

By choosing to live in a society that allows guns (and cars), we also have to accept the inherent risks that go with them and with the potentially irresponsible people who will also use them. To get rid of all gun violence, we will have to get rid of all guns. We as a society have essentially decided that occasional acts of gun violence are acceptable in order to continue free gun ownership.

[ditchdj]

Heh. You guys should read about what was REALLY happening in New Orleans after Katrina and the subsequent breakdown of law enforcement. Read about the nursing home that stocked up on food and supplies for two weeks and was forced to hand it over when armed looters came by and forced everyone out. Read about those neighbors whose guns saved them from getting pilfered by armed criminals and looters. We live by a major fault line where I live and a disastrous earthquake that could destroy the entire corner of this state is expected soon. I know that whatever's left of MY property is staying right here because I have a gun to make sure that happens. A gun is a sure necessity to survive a catastrophe or civil disturbance.

[Ree]

One can argue all they want about guns being "art" and "showpieces" and of "historical significance", but the fact remains that guns are still designed only for one purpose, and that is to kill.

Fine, I can agree that guns, in many cases, are used for sport or to hunt for food.

Will someone please explain to me how the types of guns used in the killings this week could possibly be used in sport or to hunt down food?

In many cases, there would be nothing left of the poor animal if these guns were used for hunting.

This guy purchased a killing machine using the system.
True, we have no way of knowing when a person will reach their breaking point and go apeshit on the community, but when there is documented proof of mental instability and homicidal speech or writings, why does it not show up in a record search somewhere?

You know what, though? I don't know how gun control can be the answer.
Canada has had gun control in place for many years now, and there was a college shooting not that long ago.

"Sept. 13, 2006 Montreal, Canada
Kimveer Gill, 25, opened fire with a semiautomatic weapon at Dawson College. Anastasia De Sousa, 18, died and more than a dozen students and faculty were wounded before Gill killed himself."

Granted, there are fewer school shootings in Canada, so perhaps the limited access to guns helps somewhat, but the fact remains that guns are still out there, and people are still dying from guns.

I don't think it's necessarily the access to guns...it's the type of guns that people have access to.

In those shootings that have taken place, I have to ask just how many of them were the result of Daddy's hunting rifle?

It seems to me that, if people didn't have access to these guns that allow multiple shots only seconds apart, the mortality rate in the killings might not be quite so high.

So, I don't think we should be telling people they simply cannot own a gun, but I do think there needs to be limitations on what types of weapons are available to the public.

It won't eliminate the problem completely, but maybe it will slow it down somewhat.

[Dreamstalker]

A few of my netfriends who attend VT do have concealed carry permits, but having a firearm on campus is immediate expulsion IIRC.

So, I don't think we should be telling people they simply cannot own a gun, but I do think there needs to be limitations on what types of weapons are available to the public.
I agree. IMO, banning guns completely won't do much, as the determined nutjobs will manage to get them. A ban on military grade weapons is probably the way to go. If a civilian wants to test-fire one of the big-caliber guns, it could be done on a dedicated range with the appropriate supervision.

I tried to have a reasonable discussion with my mom about this...it once again turned to "violence is bad, guns are bad and I don't know why you can't see that"...

[rahmota]

Ok welll lets see how to respond here.

Hmm. The system did work. From everything I have read there was no mention in them of him having a court record. And the "stalking" comments where inflated by the media as was pointed out. Just because there are people who do not have a record but still wind up having issues does not mean the system has a problem. It means society does not have as strong a sense of personal responsibility as it should.

As long as we do not punish criminals and do not teach or otherwise convince people that in the end of things they are the only ones responsible for their own lives and their own families. Yes there are police in place. They however cannot be everywhere. They cannot be trusted to be there when I need help. I am the only one that can be trusted to be in my home or my place when I need herlp. Therefore I must be ready, willing and capable of defending my family, my home and myself from any threats.

And we cannot have a government that spies on its own people watching for someone who might be showing signs of instability. For so many reasons. One of which is the risk of false positives. I play superheros and dungeons and dragons and such and have emailed people in my group about the various plans and games. Including using the words like massacre, death, genocide. Heck if we spied on people this board would pop up as a flagged conversation. It would cause more issues and problems and more chaff to wade through to find the real problems. So we have to do our best to be responsible for our own lives and to watch out for the potential problems we can be aware of.

I still dont see the problem with full auto or otherewise military weapons. If society and people can be taught to be responsible. If criminals who commit crimes are punished instead of "rehabilitated" or treated like they are sick. Murderers are not sick they are evil and deserve to hang. End of story. DO that enough and people will realize that it is not glamorous or fun to go on a killing spree and then it is only those who are truely cold and dark who will be a threat. And for the most part society, at least in the areas I have been, is filled with responsible people. I know 3 class 3 holders. (Class 3 being the federal liscence that lets you own full auto firearms) All 3 of these people are responsible, kind, and decent people that I would trust with my back in a problem.

I agree with DitchDj in the event of a large natural disaster it is the responsible armed citizens who bring peace back to the streets or at least their small corner. Not the police, not the military, not the government, not anyone except the ARMED responsible citizens. If the citizens had been stripped of their rights and abilities to defend themselves then the problems and looting and vultures in New Orleans would have had free reign to loot, plunder rpae and pilalge. It would have been the sacking of Rome all over again.

Dreamstalker: few of my netfriends who attend VT do have concealed carry permits, but having a firearm on campus is immediate expulsion IIRC.
That is a sad comment indeed that to try and have the ability to defend yourself you are thrown out of college. Bah on the administration for setting things up for a tragedy like that. Its almost like they didnt care about the students safety and wanted a tragedy to occur.

Raps said:We're perfectly free to go around. If we can prove we need a shotgun to hunt wildlife or protect our herds, we can get one. After that, we have the police and armed forces to defend us. We're free to go around our business - you know, like working or relaxing - without being insecure enough to need a weapon. It's a matter of perspective.


Ok I was not as aware of the amount of "freedom" you have to own firearms. That is still an overly restrictive and scary proposition you have stated though. This is putting your life and your safety in the hands of some government flunky who may be on a powertrip, may not like you or otherwise decide for whatever whim to deny you a firearm. Even if you might need one. One of the reasons the citizens are armed is to do away with the kinds tellign us what to do with our own lives. And like I said earlier you cannot trust that the police, sheriff or armed forces are goign to be there when you need them. Heck in a worst case scenario they may eb the ones you have to defend yourself from. That has happened too many times in the history of the world to be compleately free of that mistrust. Loonies are not just on one side of the badge.

An armed person has to put the gun down at some point. Would be pretty embarassing to be killed by the gun yo bought to protect your family, eh?


Yes and that is why the weapons need to be stored safely, the home defended in layers and constant vigilence against invaders. I do not have the fear of being killed by one of my own weapons. Of course I am at most 5 feet from a weapon in my home at any one time. But then again anythign can be a weapon if used properly. It is as you say a matter of perspective.

How about simply teaching people that guns are dangerous, rather than that and how to use them? The truth is that guns are there to kill.

That is a part of a responsible teaching of firearm safety. You cannot understand that the tool you are using can cause harm if it is not presented to you. I have 4 children ranging from 7 to 12. They all understand that firearms can be harmful or deadly. I took a watermelon out of the garden and shot it to show them the effect a bullet has. I have taken my 12 year old hunting. They understand that a firearm is not a toy and not something that should be disrespected.

You missed my point, I'm afraid. I'm not saying it's necessary, but I am saying that people have it far easier than they ever did
Ok true things are relative. It is a matter of ones perspective. If society advances and people are elevated in wealth then that is all well and good. However american society (and any capitalist society) does not distribute that wealth and availability or access to resources evenly. So some people are going to be treated unfairly and be angry or frustrated about that. This is a social problem that needs to be addressed to help resolve any other issues.

Boozy said:When the system "working" means that a legally purchased weapon is used to gun down 33 people, I would submit that something is wrong with the system.
No the system is not broken or wrong in this case. The system is not designed to prohibit innocent or at least recordless individuals from obtaining a firearm. Therefore the system did work as he did not to all the information available to the authorities responsible have a record.

And one more thing I want to address, Ree said:It seems to me that, if people didn't have access to these guns that allow multiple shots only seconds apart, the mortality rate in the killings might not be quite so high.

It does not matter how many seconds apart the bullets are fired. This tragedy in VT could have occured with him having a black powder flintlock. If there is no armed opposition to a murderer then that murderer will have all the time in the world. Given the lack of response by the authorities in the VT case (according to what I have read) it wouldnt have mattered what sort of firearm he was using. 1 round or a hundred rounds the end result is the same if people are not able to defend themselves.

IN closing for this tiem all I have to say is that I do not agree that firearms control or restrictions is a good thing, a needed thing or a useful thing.

[Boozy]

No the system is not broken or wrong in this case. The system is not designed to prohibit innocent or at least recordless individuals from obtaining a firearm. Therefore the system did work as he did not to all the information available to the authorities responsible have a record.

I believe you misunderstood what I said, because this statement appears to be a response to something else entirely.
I did not say the current system didn't work. The current system did work. The current system allows people without criminal records to purchase weapons, and it did so in this case. I said the system itself is problematic.

After all, a lot of people don't have criminal records until they shoot somone. If I were a family member of a victim I wouldn't be happy with people saying, "Now that we know, we just won't give him a gun next time."

[rahmota]

Maybe I didnt make myself clear when i responded.

The system as it is now is not broken. The system is designed to keep known criminals from obtaining a firearm. An innocent person by definition is someone who has not done something that would result in a criminal or official record against themselves. Therefore if a person should sudden stray from the path of responsibility then as you put it you wont know it this time but next time. An unfortunate thing but a risk that must be taken because the alternatives are much more harmful and evil.

The alternative would be to design a system where thoughtcrime is a part of it. Where you treat each and every citizen as a potential criminal and deny them the basic and fundamental rights of the constitution and free citizens. Might as well turn over your adult status and let the government or others think for you and not be a responsible adult.

The system as it is works. There is no really better system that cannot lead to denial of innocent people's rights and governmental abuses. Criminals will always have firearms no matter what one does. It is only fair and right for a citizen to have firearms to defend themselves. You cannot trust the government, the police or anyone else to come to your defense so it is better to take the risk that someone like cho gets a firearm than to deny one person who needs a firearm to defend themselves. I still say that the body count at VT would never have gotten out of the single digits if there had been responsible armed students there.

And if I was a family member I would not be happy with the authorities bumbling the ball on their response time. the college for prohibiting students from being able to defend themselves, the college for not responding appropriately and forcefully. Etc....

[rahmota]

I looked up cho. Since he was not convicted or committed and only held for observation there would be no record of his "psychological" issues. As the system is rightfully setup as innocent until proven guilty it worked. He was not found to be insane so there is no record.

True he was probably not the most stable person and his personal attitudes not endearing we cannot automatically assume the worst out of him. Innocent until proven guilty.

It is a difficult and can be cruel and painful thing to do sometimes but it is necessary to have a society that believes in personal rights, freedoms and responsibility. SOmetiems bad thigns happen but for the most part the system worked as it was designed. There was no real and verifiable indications that cho was going to do this. And without destroying personal freedom, personal liberties and treating everyone like a criminal and instituting thoughtcrime where no one is allowed to act or think in a manner not approved by the governmental nannies there is no way you can prevent something like this from ever happening again. There is no way to prevent criminals from having firearms. The only people that can be prevented from having firearms and being able to defend themselves are law abiding decent responsible citizens.

[Boozy]

it is better to take the risk that someone like cho gets a firearm than to deny one person who needs a firearm to defend themselves.

I think that's probably the crux of the issue. I disagree with the preceding statement on its face. But that doesn't mean the statement itself is wrong or illogical in any way - its just a matter of personal values.
When we agree to live in a society of laws, we all agree to give up some of our personal freedoms. We agree to give up our freedom to continue driving when we're at a red light so that when we're at a green, we can proceed safely. We agree to give up our freedom to steal someone's things in return for them agreeing not to steal ours. There are no laws of physics preventing us from driving through red lights, or walking out on the bill in a restaurant. We are naturally free to do these things if we choose. But we agree to give up these freedoms so that we can live together peacefully. Society doesn't work if we all do whatever we want, whenever we want.
Some people are willing to give up less than others. Some people don't want to give up guns. There's no reason they should have to - its simply a decision about the kind of society one wants to live in. Like I said, I'm pretty comfortable with Canadian gun laws. A lot of Americans may find them too restrictive. Its a pretty big cultural difference.

[Rapscallion]

Ok welll lets see how to respond here.

Hmm. The system did work. From everything I have read there was no mention in them of him having a court record. And the "stalking" comments where inflated by the media as was pointed out. Just because there are people who do not have a record but still wind up having issues does not mean the system has a problem. It means society does not have as strong a sense of personal responsibility as it should.


The system needs updating, as Boozy has pointed out. When someone who is under psychological observation/evaluation is not red-flagged on the system, the system is risking the lives of the country's citizens unecessarily.


As long as we do not punish criminals and do not teach or otherwise convince people that in the end of things they are the only ones responsible for their own lives and their own families. Yes there are police in place. They however cannot be everywhere. They cannot be trusted to be there when I need help. I am the only one that can be trusted to be in my home or my place when I need herlp. Therefore I must be ready, willing and capable of defending my family, my home and myself from any threats.


The police cannot be everywhere, true, but let's compare gun crime. In the US, where guns are part of the culture and easy to obtain, gun crime is relatively high. In the UK, where guns are not part of everyday life and are hard to obtain, gun crime is relatively low. See what I'm getting at?


And we cannot have a government that spies on its own people watching for someone who might be showing signs of instability.


To a reasonable level, we must. I've snipped, but posting on a board like this would be impossible to observe, but being under psychological evaluation should raise a red flag in any reasonable system.


I still dont see the problem with full auto or otherewise military weapons. If society and people can be taught to be responsible.


Big 'if' there.


I agree with DitchDj in the event of a large natural disaster it is the responsible armed citizens who bring peace back to the streets or at least their small corner. Not the police, not the military, not the government, not anyone except the ARMED responsible citizens.


Only the armed citizens who are responsible have a duty? How about the unarmed responsible citizens? Do they just do what the gun-wielders say?

Raps said:

Ok I was not as aware of the amount of "freedom" you have to own firearms. That is still an overly restrictive and scary proposition you have stated though.


Scary? I can walk down almost any high street in any town in the UK and know that the people I'm passing do not carry weaponry. Sounds safer to me.

This is putting your life and your safety in the hands of some government flunky who may be on a powertrip, may not like you or otherwise decide for whatever whim to deny you a firearm.


I've yet to be convinced that it's unsafe not to own a gun.


Even if you might need one. One of the reasons the citizens are armed is to do away with the kinds tellign us what to do with our own lives.


Part of me really, really hopes you live in an area with an HOA who is really, really petty, but it's a very unworthy part.



Yes and that is why the weapons need to be stored safely,

How about not around at all?

This is a social problem that needs to be addressed to help resolve any other issues.

Looks like that's something we agree on in this, but only this bit :p


And one more thing I want to address, Ree said:
It does not matter how many seconds apart the bullets are fired. This tragedy in VT could have occured with him having a black powder flintlock. If there is no armed opposition to a murderer then that murderer will have all the time in the world. Given the lack of response by the authorities in the VT case (according to what I have read) it wouldnt have mattered what sort of firearm he was using. 1 round or a hundred rounds the end result is the same if people are not able to defend themselves.


In Napoleonic times, the black powder flintlocks managed to fire approximately three times a minute. A flintlock user would generally be able to fire once (I'll ignore the relative accuracy of the weapon) before being tackled by the people he didn't hit. Can you come up with something more realistic here, please? I can. A fully automatic weapon would be able to gun down many more people before they could reach they properly stored and responsibly held weapons than a glock handgun.

Rapscallion

[rahmota]

OK first off I'll agree with the comment that it is a cultural perspective issue. I grew up in a rural region with firearms being a daily part of life. Even if it was only in the background with them hanging on the wall or people talkign about them. A sense that you cant trust the police or the government to be there for you so you have to be ready to defend yourself. A different perspective and not in my opinion a wrong one or a bad one.

Raps said:When someone who is under psychological observation/evaluation is not red-flagged on the system, Ok here is the problem I have with that. He was not committed to a psychological hospital or counseling. The courts had him evaluated and from what i can gather it appears that he passed that eval. So there is no record of it in the firearm system because as far as theya re concerned he was Innovcent until proven guilty. And he was never proven guilty. So in my mind the system still worked and does not appear broken to me. Because to change it otherwise would make it guilty until proven innocent or otherwise surrender too many rights.

And yeah to live in a polite society one must compromise on many things. But a person has to draw a line somewhere. If you do not draw that line then those who wish to wield power will keep pushing you back until it is too late to stand up to them.

In the US, where guns are part of the culture and easy to obtain, gun crime is relatively high. In the UK, where guns are not part of everyday life and are hard to obtain, gun crime is relatively low. See what I'm getting at?

I do see what you are getting at but then again looking at the overall cultural attitudes and histories of our two nations I also see a big gulf in things and attitudes of that nature. And please do not take offense as this is just one yank's POV and not meaning to be insulting or anything. But America is a young country, we where founded on personal freedom and liberty and our history is one of mistrusting authority and relying on our own two hands and power. While the UK and Britain is a history of submission to government and authority and letting another who claims authority over a person is allowed to rule you. Which leading this thought back into the firearms yes we have more firearm crimes and more firearms in general. A lot of that is because it sells media. You dont hear about the times when a law abiding citizen defends his family and loved ones from a criminal with a firearm. You dont hear about the times when a bad guy was chased off because a citizen had a firearm. That sort of good news is not sellign media. And while you guys may not have the same level of firearms crime all other forms of crime are not much different than us from what I have seen. I may be wrong but then I might not be.

To a reasonable level, we must. I've snipped, but posting on a board like this would be impossible to observe, but being under psychological evaluation should raise a red flag in any reasonable system.

Thoughtcrime is still thoughtcrime. When you open the door to criminalizing thoughts and feeligns and ideas or "observing" people because they show signs of potential problems or criminal activity then you get into an area of oppression and slipperiness that leads to the death of republics and the rise of totalitarian regimes.

Only the armed citizens who are responsible have a duty? How about the unarmed responsible citizens? Do they just do what the gun-wielders say?

Ok that was poorly worded. But the difference between being a victim and not in that scenario and situation is if you are armed or not. Every citizen has the duty to what they can to improve their world, armed citizens have better tools to do so.

Scary? I can walk down almost any high street in any town in the UK and know that the people I'm passing do not carry weaponry. Sounds safer to me.

I guess its a matter of persepctive. In my hometown I've seen people walking down the street with shotguns on their shoulders and the local police doesnt hassle them in the slightest. Firearms are a common part of the culture here and people know to be responsible with them or they get punished. If the law dont get them their own family or others will. Appalachia is still rather old fashioned in that regards. And to be perfectly honest I am happy that the concealed carry law passed. This means that responsible citizens can no longer be harrassed and hassled for packing iron. I feel safer knowing that an armed citizen is not too far away if a criminal decides to try and mug, rob or do harm.

I've yet to be convinced that it's unsafe not to own a gun.

And I've yet to be convinced that its safer not to own a firearm. To put my life in the hands of a government or authority that doesnt give a rats arse about me, doesnt know me except as a tax identifier number and may not have the resources to be able to have forces in place when I need them.

Part of me really, really hopes you live in an area with an HOA who is really, really petty, but it's a very unworthy part.

Hehe I live on a small farm of only 64 acres. It is in a rural part of OHio where it is 12 miles to the nearest town big enough to have a mcdonalds. 6 miles to the nearest gas station. I think the nearest home owners association is 25 miles away out by the lake. I am the master of my dominion and on my farm I am the authority. The fire department takes about 15-20 minutes to get out here, life squad is about the same and depending on where one of the sheriff deputies are on patrol they can be right down the road only a minute away or if they are coming from the other end of the county up to a half an hour away. America is a large country. Ohio is 34th in size and covers 44,825 sq mi while Britain covers 80,800 square miles a little bigger than Nebraska our 16th largest state. It took me and my friend 6 days to drive across the country and I think we saw about 2 dozen cops in that entire time. I think we saw 1 cop in all of WYoming. You just cant rely on the cops being there when you need them in a country this big.

Ok so maybe the example of blackpowder was not the best but the point is still the same. If people are not willing to stand up and defend themselves then they will die. It does not matter if the person is firing three round a minute or 300 rounds a minute if you do nothing then you die. Your only choices are run or fight or die. If you cannot run that limits you to fight or die. I know which choice I will take.

Boozy: I'll agree its a cultural thing. The culture I grew up in and live in and am a part of accepts that firearms are a necessary and safe part of our lives. That people can choose to do harm or good. I am quite comfortable wwith america's firearms laws even if they are starting to edge towards overly restrictive. I am not comfortable with canada's firearms laws.

[Ryu]

well how many people are going to defend against a machine gun without having a gun themselves?
whereas with a regular gun its very possible to defend against without any type of weapon at all

[KaeZoo]

The system needs updating, as Boozy has pointed out. When someone who is under psychological observation/evaluation is not red-flagged on the system, the system is risking the lives of the country's citizens unecessarily.

Raps, you're proposing a system where every person who undergoes psychiatric evaluation is reported to the government, and that information becomes public (as it must, if it's going to be available to gun dealers). Would you like to guess the most immediate and noticeable effect of this policy? That's right: people who need help will avoid being evaluated at all costs. As long as we're talking about a system that risks lives.



The police cannot be everywhere, true, but let's compare gun crime. In the US, where guns are part of the culture and easy to obtain, gun crime is relatively high. In the UK, where guns are not part of everyday life and are hard to obtain, gun crime is relatively low. See what I'm getting at?

Some alternate dimension, I'd think. Laws do not dictate culture. Laws arise from existing cultural beliefs. There are millions and millions of gun owners in the USA. No magic wand will make those weapons disappear. No legislation will change those people's beliefs. Pass a law against them and you will turn a substantial portion of those gun owners into criminals, when currently they frankly pose no danger to anyone.

A large number of responsible, harmless gun owners will resist an attempt to forcibly disarm them. No laws will make them change their minds.

[Boozy]

Raps, you're proposing a system where every person who undergoes psychiatric evaluation is reported to the government, and that information becomes public

I don't know as though he was actually proposing that (correct me if I'm wrong, Raps). I was under the impression that he was proposing, and I agree, that because not every nut job can possibly be flagged in a system, then maybe the correct system should be that no one gets a gun. Again, I can't speak for Raps, but that's what I was sort of getting at.

Also, when I said that cultural differences were acceptable, of course I meant it, but I should add that I feel very strongly that there should at the very least be an acknowledgement by gun rights advocates that gun ownership is inherently dangerous. I still see arguments being put forth that having a gun in the house actually increases safety. This is an absolute falsehood. Study after study has indicated that the presence of guns significantly increases the risk of accidental death, homicide, and suicide. Even in the most crime-riddled areas of the States, you are more likely to be killed with a gun that is kept in your home than by one brandished by a criminal (or those supposedly incredibly untrustworthy government agents). From a statistical standpoint, this is an argument that gun rights advocates cannot win.
The only argument left to stand must be a philosophical one: That gun violence, no matter how rampant, is an acceptable cost of preserving the freedom of gun ownership. Again, I completely disagree with this statement, but I cannot argue that it is illogical. It is just not in keeping with my personal values.

[rahmota]

Her eis an interesting, non-NRA link that has some statistics and points that you might want to see. They do tend to debunk the lies and myths of the anti-firearms crowd.http://www.lizmichael.com/ninemyth.htm

It is plain out BS to say that owning a firearm decreases a responsible person's safety when it is a proven fact that it actually increases safety! Increase the ability of a citizen to defend and protect themselves and their families and property.

An armed person is a citizen an unarmed person is a subject.

[KaeZoo]

Also, when I said that cultural differences were acceptable, of course I meant it, but I should add that I feel very strongly that there should at the very least be an acknowledgement by gun rights advocates that gun ownership is inherently dangerous. I still see arguments being put forth that having a gun in the house actually increases safety. This is an absolute falsehood. Study after study has indicated that the presence of guns significantly increases the risk of accidental death, homicide, and suicide.

You can make a very similar argument against ownership of a motorcycle. Or a horse. Or skis.

As a responsible adult, I am capable of analyzing the risks of gun ownership to myself and to those in my home. I am capable of taking measures to reduce or eliminate some of the risks. I am capable of weighing the potential benefits against the potential risks and coming to an informed decision. And here's the important part: I am MORE capable of making that decision for myself than any other person or any government agency.

The vast majority of gun owners present no substantial danger to themselves or to their neighbors. They do have a constitutional right to arm themselves (yes, I'm aware that some do not interpret it that way, but I strongly believe that when the framers wrote about "the People" they were talking about ME, and not the appointed guardians of some state-sponsored armory).

[rahmota]

Exactly personal freedom requires personal responsibility. The great majority of firearm owners know, understand and accept this. They do not cause problems or issues. They do not sell newspapers or advertising spots on tv. Only those who are not responsible, which are the minority, are the ones you hear about in the media.

[squall]

Her eis an interesting, non-NRA link that has some statistics and points that you might want to see. They do tend to debunk the lies and myths of the anti-firearms crowd.http://www.lizmichael.com/ninemyth.htm


The site read like propoganda to me. It's hard to follow up scientifically on the figures they are giving. I think they are shooting at numbers in the dark.

An armed person is a citizen an unarmed person is a subject.

That is a very black and white statement. It depends on the perspective of the society you are in. I don't believe the whole world deals in these kinds of absolutes. What this statement says to me is that I'm not responsible because I choose not to own a gun. That I am automatically a second class citizen subject to the will of the so called "responsible gun owner" waving the gun. And if I live in Britain, I am a pawn because I let the government tell me I can't own a handgun. That all the people that obey the laws and the rules of public institutions and don't bring a gun to campus made the decision to hasten their demise at the hands of a madman.

If I choose not to own a gun, it is my own RESPONSIBLE decision. I have a wife is depressed more than she really should be, especially under the influence of alcohol. She has admitted suicidal thoughts before. As long as she keeps the same habits, I shall not bring a gun into my house. Any gun that is left out intentionally or by accident is a safety hazard to children, especially young ones. And the more you tell children not to mess with something, the more some want to do it anyway. I don't have kids, but that's not the point.

I hear alot of talk on here about fear of police and government, and the need to protect yourself from THEM. Paranoia much? I don't believe for a second that this country will stoop to the level of door-by-door disarmament or execution style killing. But then again I have been criticized as having too much faith in man. I just choose not to live in a state of panic and fear....it keeps my blood pressure the way it should be.

I don't think more guns is the solution. It mean more guns in the hand of the irresponsible, and I think I would get along well in Canada. You don't hear any complaints from them. Or in Britain for that matter. If you want to own a gun, that is your decision and I don't hold ill feelings toward you. But when people start telling me that I SHOULD feel the same way they do about guns, or that it is my "responsible" duty to arm up, that is when the conversation does not go in their favor.

[rahmota]

Squall: Did you look at the footnotes on the site? They are all respectable sources well thought out and researched. It is not propaganda. But then again I have always heard that anythign that does not agree with the bias of the individual can be referred to as propaganda. Like the one comment says an actavist judge is a judge that disagrees with your interpretation of the law. And as for shooting numbers in the dark thats not uncommon with a lot of the anti-firarm places and "propaganda" I've seen.

I am sorry for your wife and hope that she gets the help she needs. Though if she was really suicidal she would have done so, firearm or not. All one needs is a steak knife and an arm handy. Those who are talking about suicide are generally not going to do it those who do it do so without talkign about it generally.

And I will agree with you that some cultures are more comfortable being subjects and submitting their will to the authorities. America was founded on the principle of the responsible citizen being the final arbiter of how far the government and society can go. Remember Americans where rebels and rogues from the begining of this country. It is a part and parcle of our cultural heritage to be an armed society.

I do not worry compleately about the police coming to take my firearms away. I actually dont worry about too much since I am an armed individual. I sleep rather well at night. When I took my recent trip to washington I made sure my wife had access to all the firearms and plenty of ammo available for her 9mm. (She has her own) that made me a lot more comfortable about leaving home azs she was protected. Since the police cannot be everywhere adn I previously posted the response time for the authorities cannot be trusted. One has to be self sufficient.

As for children. I have 4 children in my home ranging from age 7 to 12 (8 and 9 are the other 2) I have worked with them since they where first able to understand me to know the difference between a toy and a real firearm. That firearms are not something to be casually played with. That it takes a great deal of responsibility to handle a firearm. I know that I can trust them. I could leave a firearm on the dining room table and they will not touch it. Of course being a responsible parent means I do not just leave them lying around on the tables un-attended liek that. People like to exaggerate how dangerous it is to have a firearm in your home. All those exaggerations can be countered by a responsible and reasonable degree of precautions.

And I will say that people telling me I should not enjoy, like or that I should be ashamed to be a firearms owner and responsible citizen does not sit well with me either. I will never surrender my firearms as I have a constitutional right to them, a duty as a citizen to be armed, and a duty as a parent and huisband to protect my family by any means necessary.

A person may wish to remain unsafe and unarmed and that is their right and choice to do so. It is my right to be armed. If we can agree to both go our own paths on this then things will be fine and peace will prevail. If people still try to be bossy nannies and tell responsible firearms owners they are wrong and evil people for having a firearm then there will continue to be disagreements and strife.

[xld17]

I think the source of disagreement on this comes between the people who grew up/live(d) in Appalachia and rural Ohio versus (my guess is that most of the anti-gun crowd lives) in cities, towns, or the suburbs.

You're right that if you grow up in an area where guns are a part of life and you have responsible parents who teach proper handling of them, that they will raise children who also are unlikely to cause problems by owning guns later in their lives. You also have a point that you live in an area where they actually may be necessary for personal protection or for hunting.

The problem is that Cho, and most other people, do not grow up in such an environment. For most kids from (sub)urban areas, their only exposure to guns is what they see on TV and that, I think we can all agree, is mostly neither accurate nor responsible.

1. My neighbors' houses are less than twenty feet away on any side. 2. The closest thing to a game animal that we have is the squirrel, but you can't really shoot them-see #1. 3. The county has over forty fire/rescue depts., and the average response time is under seven minutes. 4. The last "crime watch" section of the local paper reported kids whacking at mailboxes with bats and and abandoned car, and the police response times are even lower than the fire depts. So tell me, what could the people here possibly need guns for in this area, unless they are for sport, and kept locked away until needed.

Exactly personal freedom requires personal responsibility. The great majority of firearm owners know, understand and accept this. They do not cause problems or issues. They do not sell newspapers or advertising spots on tv. Only those who are not responsible, which are the minority, are the ones you hear about in the media.

The above quote was probably written by one of those responsible gun owns in a rural area. It may seem to you that most people who own guns are responsible, because that is what you see in your surroundings, but by definition, there are going to be more people raised in (sub)urban areas where their entire gun education comes from what they see on TV.

These are the people who get a hold of guns when they have no legitimate use for them. They might claim they are for protection but those few classes in the gun shop will never impart the level of knowledge as being raised with a gun and proper teacher. They don't clean them properly, they "hide" them from their children in a dresser drawer, and the only time they have to use them is when they are angry. Perhaps most of all, they cannot shoot. Is Mr. Suburbia-I-took-a-three-part-class-and-fired-at-a-couple-of-targets-that-one-time really going to be accurate enough to hit an intruder? When panicked? In the dark? (Most guys have to fumble for the condoms in the bedside drawer and then can barely get the wrapper off. I really don't have confidence in the inexperienced gun owner.)

So some people do have a use for them, and do use them responsibly. I just beg to differ that those people are in the majority. I still wouldn't ban gun ownership entirely. I just think that most of the responsible people who have a real use for guns overestimate everyone else.

Honestly, I wouldn't mind making people show that they have a use for their gun before they are allowed to buy it. That would pretty much exclude all military weaponry and hopefully, the ones like Cho who's big plan was to go nuts.

[rahmota]

Well I'll agree that the cultural and physical differences between urban/suburban and rural societies/people are a major issue. The problem with creating a one size fits all legislation to protect the idiots and the irresponsible from each other and the responsible from them as well is that it would harm and infringe upon the responsible as well.

This may sound rather cold but if some dipwad urbanite manages to blow his own foot off or his neighbor away or his little dog toto too because he thinks he's wild bill hicock then he should be arressted and punished for his troubles. Innocent until proven guilty (or retard as the case may be)Irresponsible use of a firearm is not the fault of the firearm or the responsible people, because an irresponsible person could just as well as run over the neighbor with his car trying to show off or just in road rage on the freeway, talkign on the cell phone or for a variety of any other reasons. Yet we allow people to have multi ton death machines every day with no background checks, no major in depth training really and none of the hassles or BS that responsible firearms owners have to face.

So why should I as a responsible citizen be forced to be punished because mr idiot decides to try and play wild west show in his suburban backyard or because a person who had no official record decided that he wanted to go out in a blaze of glory? Who has the right to tell responsible people that they may not have their items becuase bily dumbbutt can't play with himself without directions?

You are right though teaching people to be responsible adults is a more basic and pressing need in many ways than just mere firearms safety. One of the thigns american society has forgotten how to do in many ways is be a responsible common sense using adult. For people to worry about their own house before trying to bust in and run someone else's life. The whole nanny I know how to live your life better than you stupidity is a more basic problem than mere firearms control in the first place. But even with all you pointed out it would be better that as long as billy dumbbutt just has the firearm in his dresser drawer and only takes it out to fire it at the range once a year or so evolution will catch up with him. Sucks to be him or near him when it does but thats his fault and his problem and he should be punished for it if he lives and not everyone else who owns a firearm and knows which end to look down.

[Lace Neil Singer]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccAn8XjeFX8

Sorry, I know this is a serious debate and all, but something Rahmota said made me think of this. I will now step outside and leave you guys to carry on.

[EmiOfBrie]

The police cannot be everywhere, true, but let's compare gun crime. In the US, where guns are part of the culture and easy to obtain, gun crime is relatively high. In the UK, where guns are not part of everyday life and are hard to obtain, gun crime is relatively low. See what I'm getting at?

You need to take a look at not the USA as a whole, but the seperate municipalities within the USA.

Washington DC has the strongest gun control of any city in the country, but has the worst crime rate per capita than any other city.

Places that have little to no gun control have the least crime. In fact, per capita, the municipality with the lowest crime rate in the USA actually makes gun ownership MANDATORY for every household!

The reason why this is, is because most criminals here won't screw with someone who may have a weapon. In Minnesota, businesses have the choice of whether or not to allow guns, and most of them do not, but those who do not have to post a notice on the door stating the policy. It's often been joked around here that such signs are an invitation to criminals, as they can be perceived to say to crime: "Hey, look! No one is armed here! Hit this place and get no resistance!"

This is why the issue of gun control is not so black and white within the USA.

[AFPheonix]

The reason why this is, is because most criminals here won't screw with someone who may have a weapon. In Minnesota, businesses have the choice of whether or not to allow guns, and most of them do not, but those who do not have to post a notice on the door stating the policy. It's often been joked around here that such signs are an invitation to criminals, as they can be perceived to say to crime: "Hey, look! No one is armed here! Hit this place and get no resistance!"
.

Honestly, crime rates are affected by multitudes of different variables, not just one like you are proposing here. You didn't mention what municipality had the lowest crime rate, but I'll hazard to guess that there's also a huge difference in a lot of other areas that could affect the level of crime.
Drug use and availability, intersections of major highways and other routes of travel, education levels, race relations, poverty and gaps between rich and poor are other things that can contribute.

[ditchdj]

http://www.mlive.com/news/flintjournal/index.ssf?/base/news-43/1178806841203740.xml&coll=5

-You know if THAT would have happened in the UK there would be some serious time being done: Not by the surviving robber but by the pizza guy! :mad: Anyone that sees nothing wrong with that needs to understand that laws were originally created to protect the people. The "people" in this case was ONLY law-abiding citizens, NOT the criminals.

[Rapscallion]

Back to this one, mostly delayed due to being stupidly busy.

Boozy's point about the psychiatric evaluation - generally speaking, an evaluation that says that someone is a danger should flag them up as unsuitable to own a gun. If the evaluation says that they're no danger, then there should be no flagging. Sound reasonable? As you are quite willing to point out, Rahmota, responsible gun owners are not a problem, right?

Now, having only skim-read this, I have to point out that I won't be able to deal with every point, but I will admit that there were some valid facets given on the pro-gun side. However, I'm talking about the part where it's necessary to have a gun in the wilderness where there is the possibility of wild animals. In an urban setting? Nah - just make sure nobody has a gun and you'll be fine.

Sure, they could use knives, but that's a poor argument. Thugs are going to use something, no matter what - a half-brick, a lump of lead pipe, whatever. Guns are easier to use than knives and they are effective at range - guns can hurt many more people than hand-to-hand weapons in untrained hands. Get rid of the guns completely save for law enforcement and army folk, and you've got the basis of proper safety.

How would this work? I'll pass you over to something told by me by a guy introduced as 'Liberal Ken'.

I'd deal with guns simply. Ban them. Anyone found to have a gun - apart from police or army etc - I'd have them arrested. Then at noon on a Monday, we'd have a get-together. Everyone in the town square sort of thing - get a band playing, maybe a ride for the kids and the like. We'd get the people who were arrested for carrying guns and shoot them with their own guns.

I liked him.

Interesting comparison you make between subjects and citizens. I'd rather be a subject of a just and caring monarchy than a statistic.

Rapscallion

[MadMike]

Nah - just make sure nobody has a gun and you'll be fine.


That's easier said than done. The criminals are never going to give up their guns, regardless of the law, because by definition, they do not obey the laws. All this would do is take them away from law-abiding citizens, who would then become sitting ducks for the criminals.

Let's say you were going to carjack someone. You see two potential victims. The one car has a bumper sticker that says, "Ban guns NOW!" The other has one that says, "Fight crime -- shoot back!" Which one are you going to pick?

Get rid of the guns completely save for law enforcement and army folk, and you've got the basis of proper safety.


That's assuming that no members of the police or the government are corrupt, and will never be. Hitler did the same thing back in the days of Nazi Germany. First came gun registration, then confiscation. After that, he and his followers were able to take over, with little fear of anyone fighting back.


Sure, they could use knives, but that's a poor argument. Thugs are going to use something, no matter what - a half-brick, a lump of lead pipe, whatever. Guns are easier to use than knives and they are effective at range - guns can hurt many more people than hand-to-hand weapons in untrained hands.

Or they could build a bomb out of common household materials, which can do even more damage than a gun.

How would this work? I'll pass you over to something told by me by a guy introduced as 'Liberal Ken'.


I suppose that might work with the criminals who only have the guns to intimidate, but have no desire to actually use them. But the ones that aren't afraid to kill? They already know that if they commit murder and get caught, that they can be put to death. Why would they be afraid of what would happen to them if they're caught with a gun?


Interesting comparison you make between subjects and citizens. I'd rather be a subject of a just and caring monarchy than a statistic.


But what happens if the monarchy changes, and becomes something other than "just and caring? The worst thing anyone can do is put their blind trust in anyone or anything.

[rahmota]

Raps: Opening the door to psych evaluations is a dangerous thing. Because an evaluation is just that an evaluation to see if there is a problem. Until there is a determination that there is a problem with the full court ordered psychiatric commitment and rugs and all the person is innocent. No flagging on evals only full court ordered commitments.

And you are right responsible firearms owners are not a problem.

The person you are calling Liberal ken does not sound very liberal to me. To me they sound like a neo nazi fascist hitler fan. Killing people for wanting to be able to stand up for themselves in public like they where somekind of criminal? That Ken needs to have a craniorectomy.

As for a subject i would rather be a citizen able to stand on my own feet than a sbject of a monarchy that can change from just and caring to intolerant and unjust.

Madmike pretty much beat me to most of what else I would want to say in response to you raps.

DitchDj: that pizza guy deserves a medal not the hassle and BS he is going to get. Defending himself in a life and death situation is somethign everyone has to be able to do. Thanks the gods he lives in America and was able to have a firearm otherwise the pizza driverwould be dead and tere would be one more crime statisic instead of one more street scum removed from the world.

AFP: I'll agree that there are quite a few variables to look at when considering crime statistics. But there is some anecdotal evidence that a highly armed populace does have less violent crime than a less armed area. At least in my experiences and region. Maybe its the culture thing. I dont know. But I will agree that when it comes to crime there is no on thing that can be pointed to as the one sole reason for crime. Poverty beng one of the biggest though IMO.

[ditchdj]

A buddy of mine posted this on another board (dont know if he wrote it himself or got it from somewhere else)...

20 reasons to ban guns..... Flawed anti-self-defense/anti-gun liberal logic

1. Banning guns works, which is why New York, DC, & Chicago cops need guns.

2. Washington DC's low murder rate of 69 per 100,000 is due to strict gun control, and Indianapolis' high murder rate of 9 per 100,000 is due to the lack of gun control.

3. Statistics showing high murder rates justify gun control but statistics showing increasing murder rates after gun control are "just statistics."

4. The Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban, both of which went into effect in 1994 are responsible for the decrease in violent crime rates, which have been declining since 1991.

5. We must get rid of guns because a deranged lunatic may go on a shooting spree at any time and anyone who would own a gun out of fear of such a lunatic is paranoid.

6. The more helpless you are the safer you are from criminals.

7. An intruder will be incapacitated by tear gas or oven spray, but if shot with a .357 Magnum will get angry and kill you.

8. A woman raped and strangled is morally superior to a woman with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet.

9. When confronted by violent criminals, you should "put up no defense - give them what they want, or run" (Handgun Control Inc. Chairman Pete Shields, Guns Don't Die - People Do, 1981, p. 125).

10. The New England Journal of Medicine is filled with expert advice about guns; just like Guns & Ammo has some excellent treatises on heart surgery.

11. One should consult an automotive engineer for safer seatbelts, a civil engineer for a better bridge, a surgeon for internal medicine, a computer programmer for hard drive problems, and Sarah Brady for firearms expertise.

12. The 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1787, refers to the National Guard, which was created 130 years later, in 1917.

13. The National Guard, federally funded, with bases on federal land, using federally-owned weapons, vehicles, buildings and uniforms, punishing trespassers under federal law, is a "state" militia.

14. These phrases: "right of the people peaceably to assemble," "right of the people to be secure in their homes," "enumerations herein of certain rights shall not be construed to disparage others retained by the people," and "The powers not delegated herein are reserved to the states respectively, and to the people" all refer to individuals, but "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" refers to the state.

15. "The Constitution is strong and will never change." But we should ban and seize all guns thereby violating the 2nd, 4th, and 5th Amendments to that Constitution.

16. Rifles and handguns aren't necessary to national defense! Of course, the military has hundreds of thousands of them.

17. Private citizens shouldn't have handguns, because they aren't "military weapons'', but private citizens shouldn't have "assault rifles'', because they are military weapons.

18. In spite of waiting periods, background checks, fingerprinting, government forms, etc., guns today are too readily available, which is responsible for recent school shootings. In the 1940's, 1950's and 1960's, anyone could buy guns at hardware stores, army surplus stores, gas stations, variety stores, Sears mail order, no waiting, no background check, no fingerprints, no government forms and there were no school shootings.

19. The NRA's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign about kids handling guns is propaganda, but the anti-gun lobby's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign is responsible social activity.

20. Guns are so complex that special training is necessary to use them properly, and so simple to use that they make murder easy.

[CancelMyService]

Those are some pretty impressive strawmen. Those aren't anything anyone who's in favor of gun control would argue, they're things that the pro-gun people *think* the opposition would say. It's like when I stumble across a right wing talk radio host railing about "THE LIBERALS SAY X" where X is something I've never heard anyone of any consequence say.

Gun control is not as simple as either side wishes it is. Saying no one should own guns is just as silly as thinking the answer is to have every man, woman, and child packing heat like they were in the Matrix.

I mean, I'm by all accounts a pretty liberal guy, but my only take on the gun issue is that some measure of gun control is just common sense. It's embarrassing as someone who grew up around guns and married into a family of hunters to see the NRA get completely hysterical over any and all mention of gun control. Anything short of the Wild West is seen as an affront to the founding fathers, and they really should see how foolish they look. The NRA does a lot of good things when it comes to education on firearms, but they also do a lot of harm by supporting some legitimately crazy bastards for public office just because they back a "GUNZ 4 EVERYONE" platform.

[Seshat]

well how many people are going to defend against a machine gun without having a gun themselves?
whereas with a regular gun its very possible to defend against without any type of weapon at all

How can anyone defend against a machine gun without a kevlar (or better) bodysuit - or preferably a steel wall at least an inch thick?

A gun is not a defensive tool, it's an offensive tool. Because of that, I find the idea of people having guns 'to defend themselves' amusing at best. The only style of defence a gun is useful for is the 'kill them all and let God sort them out' defence.


However, my husband came up with a good suggestion once: have every gun manufactured with a biometric lock such that only the person keyed to the lock can fire it. This would reduce gun theft, which would help reduce gun-based crime. (I know - there are a lot of guns out there already. You have to start somewhere.) It would also make it easier for the police to identify murderers in shooting crimes, provided they can find the gun.

[rahmota]

Cancel: Actually I have heard/debate/argued against some of the things Ditch posted. The 2nd amendment does not refer to the national guard which is a federal military force but the citizens of each state. Unfortunately I have had individuals try to force me to think/say or believe otherwise.

Some of the other things on the list are true statements made by anti-firearms individuals I have encountered.


Seshat: The only way to defend against a machine gun is to have superior firepower or tactics or both. A .50cal round fired from a machince gun will penetrate almost all common kevlar vests even with trauma plate. Of course this is one reason why Tanks and armored vehciles as well as air support where developed. But the thing is no-one in america except people with class 3 permits have posses or own a machine gun which is serious military hardware. Unfortunately they are expensive, hard to get and the scrutiney when having one is beyond belief. Most of the full autos in the hands of street thugs are SMGs with a lot lower cyclic and ammo capacity. Generally in the 9mm caliber so body armor can be useful and all. So strategy and tactics can be a lot more useful.

Also a firearm can be used in a defense way. Its just matter of perspective and POV. Sometimes you dont even need to fire a airearm to deter someone from doing somthing the mere knowledge that the firearm exists and that you have the desire and the will to use it.

No we do not need to techup the firearms. Keeping them nice and simple but teaching people proper responsible firearm handling is a much much better solution than trying to create a judge dredd style biometric firearm that will probably malfunciton on the common user more often than not. That sort of blind ally would lead to fewer firearms being able to be used when needed as the technology is not reliable enough yet.

[CancelMyService]

People may have said some of the statements in that list, but it was presented as a all-inclusive list to shoot down (no pun intended) the gun control advocate. It's the same as cherry picking the most extreme examples of left or right wing politics and suggesting it's a common belief.

[Seshat]

Agreed, CancelMyService. I didn't even bother reading my way through the list - it's a list of excessively simplistic arguments which are totally not what I, or anyone else I know who actually thinks, would say. It reads like a list created by a guns-for-everyone advocate who assumes everyone who disagrees with him/her is an idiot.

Personally, I find the gun control debate very difficult. I'd like to see a simple breakdown of what's important to the 'let's have guns' side. So far, I think their argument amounts to:

1. There is an Amendment to the US Constitution which says people can have guns!
(Not relevant to people outside the USA.)

2. If everyone (or some subset of everyone) can have a gun, crime rates go down.
(The less vehement of them admit that crime is a complex issue that no single factor controls, but seem to believe gun ownership affects it.)

3. Whichever individual is speaking tends to talk anecdotally - they're a responsible gun owner, the people they know are responsible, they don't see responsible gun owners as being a problem.

4. Distrust of government/police/military, and a perceived need to protect oneself against not only criminals, but a potential abusive state.

5+ Rebuttals of arguments that they think (or maybe hear) from gun-control advocates.

Is that pretty accurate? Are there any other arguments (not rebuttals) from the guns-for-(almost-)everyone side?

(Editted to add point 4, having read this whole thread in more detail.)

[Seshat]

While we're at it, how about I rebut some stuff?

To state my position: while I'm undecided as to how much gun control there should be, I advocate some gun control.

1. "Advocates for it would have you believe that simply having a gun is dangerous." (Protege, first post in this thread)

Actually, I believe that guns in the hands of the immature and irresponsible enable the immature and irresponsible to easily do more damage than they would otherwise easily be able to do.
However, guns in the hands of mature, responsible people are safe enough to satisfy me.

2. "By that logic, shouldn't cars be subject to controls as well?" (Protege, same post)

You haven't seen my road safety rant yet. Yes, cars should be subject to controls - I think we'd all be a lot safer if only mature, responsible people were permitted to drive. I'm consistent!

3. "No matter how strict it becomes, criminals will always find a way around it." (protege, same post)

Yes - but some of the immature and irresponsible people will be unable to get hold of a gun. Some will buy them from criminals, yes, but others of those are too immature, irresponsible and stupid to get them that way either.
Also, police will have another tool to use to reduce harmful criminal behaviour. Sure, corrupt or stupid cops would have a tool to use to harass innocents, but we have systems in place to identify and stop those. (And to be slightly inconsistent: the police have plenty of things to use to harass innocents.)


4. "Removing a person's ability to defend themselves from criminals gives the criminals an edge over common people." (Rahmota, in the first page of this thread)

A valid argument. I don't have any problems with society having a pool of well-armed mature, responsible people who maintain the ability to shoot accurately under stress and the skill to make accurate assessments of defense situations.

I do have problems with guns in the hands of panicky scared people who don't know how to shoot properly, have firearms greater than their ability to handle, and don't have the skills to determine who is an aggressor and who is an innocent.

5. "As has been shown multiple times a person who is determined to do harm to another will find a way to do so. Firearms or not." (rahmota, same post)

Another valid point. But many murders occur in the heat of the moment, using items readily at hand. Keep guns from being readily at hand, and these would-be murderers are limited to such items as knives and broomsticks - which puts them on an even basis with an unprepared defender.
(And yes, there's also such possibilities as chainsaws and drain cleaner. But a person in emotional turmoil isn't usually in a position to think laterally.)

As for those who are determined - keeping them from buying a gun easily means they leave a longer trail while they acquire their weapon. If they're making a bomb or using poison, they also need to get hold of instructions (or be intelligent enough to devise their own). It's a delay, and that might save lives.

6. "A government that starts removing power from its law abiding citizens is a government that should be feared and if need be revamped or removed." (rahmota, same post)

Civil liberties .... big long issue, beyond what I'm going to talk about in this post. Maybe we can make a thread about this issue.

7. "Also firearms serve more than just the prime purpose of killing." (rahmota, same post)

Mature, responsible people can have guns if they want, in the idealised world of my imagination. Immature, irresponsible people can have disabled guns to admire.
How do we tell who's mature & responsible? Um. Dunno. Maintaining the ability to handle the non-disabled guns they have might be one useful yardstick. Not enough on its own, but it'd help.

8. "Firearms is one of the prime parts of the foundations of a free citizenry. An armed populace is a safe populace." (rahmota, same post)

Big, complex issue. I'm not armed (and given my disabilities, I don't know if I'd ever trust myself with a gun), and I feel safe. But my country has a different culture from the USA - I don't distrust my military, or my police force. In fact, I put my trust in them, and respect them.
The US has a different culture. At this level, I can't claim to understand US culture at all. I can see that you in general tend to feel very differently from me about this issue. I think it will be necessary to agree to disagree.

9. "If there is no armed opposition to a murderer then that murderer will have all the time in the world." (rahmota, much later)

Tell that to the heroes on the flight that didn't crash into a building on September 11th.
If your enemy is not armed with a ranged weapon, and you're brave enough to risk or take injury, and either strong/skilled or there are enough of you, you can take down a would-be murderer.
If your enemy is armed with a ranged weapon, but there is enough time between projectiles, you can still get close enough to take him down.
If your enemy has a fast enough ranged weapon, you're toast.



Not directly on-topic, but something rahmota said:
"convince people that in the end of things they are the only ones responsible for their own lives and their own families."

I agree completely. That may be part of the cultural difference between Down Under and the USA - I can't think, offhand, of anyone I know in flesh-life (over the age of teenage irresponsibility, anyway) who thinks anyone 'owes them a living' or that they 'deserve' some sort of luxury. Or who thinks they should be allowed to get away with misbehaviour, short of a couple who think cops give out speeding tickets as revenue-raisers. And even those people tend to be on the wrong end of an argument if they voice the opinion outside their little circle.


Another thing rahmota said:
"Though if she was really suicidal she would have done so, firearm or not. All one needs is a steak knife and an arm handy. Those who are talking about suicide are generally not going to do it those who do it do so without talkign about it generally."

Not actually true. That one is a very dangerous myth. Squall is being responsible to keep a gun out of his house.
See:
Suicide Myths (http://www.crisislink.org/resources/suicide/suicide_myths_adult.html) at crisislink.org. Or Google 'suicide myth' to see lots of crisis-help sites repeat the refutation of that myth.
If we want to talk about suicide, however, we should switch to a different thread.


I tried to pick quotes which raised the major issues in this thread. There has been a lot of discussion of detail or examples (especially Cho), but hopefully I've covered the main points.

[rahmota]

The following is from a 1995 paper I did in college so some of the data is a bit old but still valid.
Among 15.7% of gun defenders interviewed nationwide during The National Self Defense Survey conducted by Florida State University criminologists in 1994, the defender believed that someone "almost certainly" would have died had the gun not been used for protection -- a life saved by a privately held gun about once every 1.3 minutes. (In another 14.2% cases, the defender believed someone "probably" would have died if the gun hadn't been used in defense.)

In 83.5% of these successful gun defenses, the attacker either threatened or used force first.

In 91.7% of these incidents the defensive use of a gun did not wound or kill the criminal attacker (and the gun defense wouldn't be called "newsworthy" by newspaper or TV news editors). In 64.2% of these gun-defense cases, the police learned of the defense, which means that the media could also find out and report on them if they chose to.

In 73.4% of these gun-defense incidents, the attacker was a stranger to the intended victim. (Defenses against a family member or intimate were rare --well under 10%.)

In over half of these gun defense incidents, the defender was facing two or more attackers -- and three or more attackers in over a quarter of these cases. (No means of defense other than a firearm -- martial arts, pepper spray, or stun guns -- gives a potential victim a decent chance of getting away uninjured when facing multiple attackers.)

In 79.7% of these gun defenses, the defender used a concealable handgun. A quarter of the gun defenses occured in places away from the defender's home.

Source: "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalance and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun," by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, in The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law, Volume 86, Number 1, Fall, 1995

Here are a few more of the pro-firearms arguments I have in addition to the earlier ones:

1:Calling 911 means the police are still at least several minutes away and the knife wielding thug isn't going to wait that long. Plus the police have no obligation to provide timely protection.

2: Drug dealers can afford to "throw away" a $90,000 airplane smuggling $10 million in drugs, a $1,000 tax isn't much of a deterrent, except to hard working law-abiding civilians.

3:The 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1787, isn't about the National Guard that was created by Congress 130 years later in 1917. The national guard is a federal level military force, not the militia that the orginal framers where referring to. See this quote:"The right is general. It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been explained elsewhere, consists of those persons who, under the laws, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon.... [I]f the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of the guarantee might be defeated altogether by the action or the neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose. But this enables the government to have a well regulated militia; for to bear arms implies something more than mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use; in other words, it implies the right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in so doing the laws of public order." [emphasis added]
-- Thomas M. Cooley (1824-1898),
Chief Justice of the Michigan Supreme Court and author of the leading nineteenth-century works on constitutional law.

The "militia" was provided for in Section 10 of the United States Code (often abbreviated USC). The Code is the list of all the laws that are written by the federal government. Section 10 USC 311 reads:
"All able-bodied males at least 17 years of age…and under 45 years of age who are or have made a declaration to become a citizen of the United States." Additionally, another provision allows for a "reserve militia" (as opposed to the "ready militia" described above), that includes women, children and the elderly.


4:Address all crime and not just crime with guns. To date, no gun law has been proven to reduce crime or homicides, not even the Brady Law. This is according to the National Institutes of Justice and The NIH.

5: Crime was arguabely lower when guns were easier to buy before 1968, when you could buy a gun with no paperwork and walk out with it. No Form 4473, No Brady Form, No background check, No waiting periods. Before 1968 guns were available through mail order catalogs too. This is looking at historical reports from state and local police departments as well as anecdotal evidence.

6: In 1985, the National Institute for Justice reported that:
60% of felons polled agreed that "a criminal is not going to mess around with a victim he knows is armed with a gun."
57% of felons polled agreed that "criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police."
74% of felons polled agreed that "one reason burglars avoid houses when people are at home is that they fear being shot during the crime."

Heres a couple of books folks might find interesting:
The Best Defense : True Stories of Intended Victims Who Defended Themselves With a Firearm
by Robert A. Waters
Cumberland House; ISBN: 1888952970
Paperback - 225 pages (October 1998)

Armed & Female
by Paxton Quigley
St Martins Mass Market Paper; ISBN: 0312951507
Mass Market Paperback Reissue edition (July 1994)
Highly Recommended For Women! I have read this book as have several women friends who recommend it to other women. Paxton Quigley documents her own experience as she converted from a fear of guns to a proponent of women's rights, especially the right to keep and bear arms.


Stopping Power: Why 70 Million Americans Own Guns
by J. Neil Schulman, Gary Kleck (Afterword), J. Neil Shulman
Pulpless.Com Inc; ISBN: 1584450576
Paperback - 318 pages (July 1999)


More Guns, Less Crime : Understanding Crime and Gun-Control Laws (Studies in Law and Economics)
by John R., Jr. Lott
Paperback - 321 pages 2nd edition (July 2000)
Univ of Chicago Pr (Trd); ISBN: 0226493644
Hardcover - 225 pages (May 1998)
Univ of Chicago Pr (Trd); ISBN: 0226493636
Documents Professor Lott's study and conclusions that concealed firearm carrying by law abiding citizens helps to lower crime.
Kinda dry IMO but still interesting.

There is more but I am doing some research on that. As for the suicide information. I'll take that in advisement.

Seshat you said:Mature, responsible people can have guns if they want Several times. Two questions please define exactly and in legally available terms what exactly a mature responsible person is and then describe to me who would be allowed to decide for me that I am a mature responsible person and how one would be able to maintain that status?

Also you said this:I do have problems with guns in the hands of panicky scared people who don't know how to shoot properly, have firearms greater than their ability to handle, and don't have the skills to determine who is an aggressor and who is an innocent.
Well my response to that is we need mandatory firearms ownership for all citizens of adult age and training begining in public schools.

Also:I don't distrust my military, or my police force. In fact, I put my trust in them, and respect them.
Why do you trust and respect them? I do not trust my government as they are not there for my protection or personal needs. they are there to serve society in general and not me the individual. It is up to me the individual to see to my own needs and that includes self-defense! Same thing for the police department and other law enforcement agencies. They are not there to protect me. they are not always available when i need them and in many cases they will act contrary to my best interests and needs. And this is having members of the us military in my family. I respect the individual members on an individual basis taken as a whole the government,the military and the police cannot be trusted to help you when you need them as an individual unless it is part of what "society" calls for.

and Agreed, CancelMyService. I didn't even bother reading my way through the list - it's a list of excessively simplistic arguments which are totally not what I, or anyone else I know who actually thinks, would say. It reads like a list created by a guns-for-everyone advocate who assumes everyone who disagrees with him/her is an idiot.
Which is actually not true as I have personally encountered each and everyone of those arguments at one time or another in discussions. I'll agree that it is rare for anyone person to have all those attitudes in the same person at the same time however taken as a whole that list is a reasonable valid list of anti-firearms attitudes I have encountered as well as others in the pro-firearms lobby. And while I do not think everyone who is anti-firearms is an idiot (misguided and not quite understanding yes quite frequently they are) There are quitr a few ignorant parrots out there just repeating the propaganda.

Oh and as for the "heroes" of flight 93 they are just as dead armed or not. Being trapped in a metal tube with dedicated religious fanatics in control of it does not matter a whit if they had been armed or not. the "heroes" arguably may have saved other lives but the fanatics could just as easily have brought it down in podunksville city hall killing others. The heroes where never in control of the situation and while influencing the time and place the plane came down it was fully at the control and discretion of the terrorists. Sorry for being so sacriligious as to not see flight 93 as the glorious heroes everyone else wants to make them out to be. they where victims. They where trapped in an aluminum tube hurtling through the sky and all they did was help choose when they died. A dead hero is still a dead person. It was a sad and pointless event in the scope of humanity that was entirely preventable beore the plane left the ground. But thats a discussion for another thread.

[Seshat]

<snipped: guns-as-defence statistics>

1:Calling 911 means the police are still at least several minutes away and the knife wielding thug isn't going to wait that long. Plus the police have no obligation to provide timely protection.

This is true. This is part of why I'm undecided about the whole gun debate.


2: Drug dealers can afford to "throw away" a $90,000 airplane smuggling $10 million in drugs, a $1,000 tax isn't much of a deterrent, except to hard working law-abiding civilians.

3:The 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1787, isn't about the National Guard that was created by Congress 130 years later in 1917. The national guard is a federal level military force, not the militia that the orginal framers where referring to. See this quote:


Both of these arguments are specific to the USA. I'm not familiar enough with this aspect of US culture to debate either way.


4:Address all crime and not just crime with guns.
<snip: a whole bunch more guns-and-crime stuff>


I don't know enough to make an informed statement about crime rates in general. I'm limiting my contribution to this aspect of the discussion to what I do know - mostly the stuff I commented on earlier about guns in 'crime-of-passion' situations.


Seshat you said: Several times. Two questions please define exactly and in legally available terms what exactly a mature responsible person is and then describe to me who would be allowed to decide for me that I am a mature responsible person and how one would be able to maintain that status?


I quote myself:
"How do we tell who's mature & responsible? Um. Dunno. Maintaining the ability to handle the non-disabled guns they have might be one useful yardstick. Not enough on its own, but it'd help."


Well my response to that [my comment about panicky scared people with firearms they can't control - Seshat] is we need mandatory firearms ownership for all citizens of adult age and training begining in public schools.


That, I'll strongly disagree with. For one thing, it's an erosion of my civil liberties - I might choose NOT to have a gun. In fact, in this particular household I would. We have two people in this house with neurochemical problems.

Now, firearms training is a different matter. Teaching our citizenry how to safely handle cars, firearms, and household chemicals is a good idea.


Why do you trust and respect them? [them = police and military - Seshat] I do not trust my government as they are not there for my protection or personal needs.

Ah. There's one of the big cultural differences between thee and me. Here, the military serves society in general, the police serve individuals. Oh, sure, the police aren't necessarily as staffed as we'd like, or as equipped as we'd like, but I've always had cordial and helpful dealings with the police.



It is up to me the individual to see to my own needs and that includes self-defense!


Yes. I accept that the fact that I cannot run, can fight only to a limited extent, and cannot trust myself with a gun limits my ability to defend myself. Quite severely, in fact.

But even within those limitations, I take responsibility for defending myself. Mostly, I work towards slowing down potential home invaders, and I'm careful where I go and what I do.


I respect the individual members on an individual basis taken as a whole the government,the military and the police cannot be trusted to help you when you need them as an individual unless it is part of what "society" calls for.


And my society is different from yours. It looks like this is one of the differences.


Which is actually not true as I have personally encountered each and everyone of those arguments at one time or another in discussions.

I quote myself:
"which are totally not what I, or anyone else I know who actually thinks, would say"

I didn't say noone would say those things. I said they're not what a subset of people - I and the thinking people I personally know - would say such things.

I believe you - I can see that some people would say stuff like that - but they're not arguments I personally would respect. Admittedly, in some cases they're exaggerations of arguments I'd respect - arguments taken from the sane to the silly.


There are quitr a few ignorant parrots out there just repeating the propaganda.


Every political argument has its extremists.


Oh and as for the "heroes" of flight 93 they are just as dead armed or not.

I brought them up because you said: "If there is no armed opposition to a murderer then that murderer will have all the time in the world."

They're just one of the examples of people who have (in their case, partially) taken control away from murderers while being themselves unarmed. Your statement is too sweeping to be accurate, I'm afraid.

Narrow it down, and you can become accurate. Maybe 'If there is no armed opposition to a murderer, then whether the murderer can be stopped is dependent on many factors, including what the murderer is armed with, and the skill and courage of the victims and bystanders.'

[rahmota]

Seshat: Alright I saw you say you didnt know how to define that but I was just pointing out that mature responsible person is rather hard to pin down in the definitive black and white litmus of legal definitions in a rather rhetorical way. Defineing mature and reasonable by governmental mandate is a very, very, dangerous thing to allow to happen. It would give governmental power over a person's life beyond any that a government deserves.

I say manadatory firearms ownership as I admire the swiss people for their firearms requirements. Every country should model its firearms attitudes on switzerland. They have the lowest crime rate and have never been bothered by invaders due to every adult citizen being armed. An armed society is a polite and safe society.

I'll give you your cultural differences. In many ways the united states is quite different as we have a military and a civilian police force seperate and with different roles. Many other countries have the two forces one in the same. Also the US is sort of a john wayne cowboy self reliant pioneer coutnry where folks had to be self sufficient in all regards and we are not as willing to place all our trust and faith in governments and authorities to look out for our personal good.

As for heroes I would have to say that a hero is a person who has the ability or capacity to run away or not become involved but chooses to do so anyway.

And how about this one then since my previous comment was deemed not accurate enough? A criminal faced with armed resistance is less likely to be able to acheive his criminal goals. Ie its hard to rape, plunder and pillage with a hole in your chest.

[CancelMyService]

If we're going to list stats, lets have both sides represented:



The deaths of more than 30 people on the campus of Virginia Tech, in what is probably the deadliest incident of its kind in American history, should renew the debate on gun ownership in the United States. The Graduate Institute of International Studies in Geneva estimated that there are between 238 and 276 million guns owned by civilians in the United States. Unless more strict laws are enacted regarding gun ownership, thousands of innocent lives will continue to be lost to what has become a tragic pandemic in the U.S.The issue of gun ownership in the U.S. is centered on the Second Amendment to the Constitution: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Opponents of gun control emphasize the last part of the sentence, “…the right of people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed,” neglecting to give much weight to the first part of the sentence pointing to a “well regulated militia” as the holders of this constitutional entitlement.

Average citizens are not the ones entitled to claim a constitutional right under the Second Amendment, but rather those belonging to a group of civilians trained as soldiers who, in case of an emergency, must become available to supplement the regular armies. Accordingly, in a 1982 ruling, the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held: “Construing [the language of the Second Amendment] according to its plain meaning, it seems clear that the right to bear arms is inextricably connected to the preservation of a militia…We conclude that the right to keep and bear handguns is not guaranteed by the Second Amendment.”

Self-defense is often cited to justify the people’s right to bear arms, yet research has shown that a gun kept in a home is 43 times more likely to kill a member of the household or a friend than an intruder. Resorting to firearms to resist a violent assault has shown to increase the victim’s risk of injury and death.

Gun violence places a significant burden on health and rehabilitation services. In some cities in the U.S., emergency rooms (nicknamed “knife and gun clubs”) report frequent gridlock. Although non-lethal injuries caused by firearms have recently go down in number, this is most likely due to the fact that emergency room doctors and technology are now better equipped to deal with these injuries.

In a study by Dr. Arthur Kellermann published in The New England Journal of Medicine, it was found that, excluding factors such as previous history of violence, class, race, etc. a household where there is a gun is 2.7 times more likely to experience a murder than a household without one. It has been found that the number of teenagers who die from gunshot wounds in the United States is greater than for all other causes combined.

According to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, among 26 developed countries, 86% of gun deaths among children under 15 occurred in the U.S. In 1998 (the last year when this kind of statistic was compiled) 19 people were murdered with handguns in Japan, compared to 11,789 in the U.S.

Groups opposing gun control in the U.S. spend enormous sums of money lobbying elected and government officials. Thus, the Gun Owners of America spent $18 million between 1997 and 2003, and the National Rifle Association spent $11 million over the same period of time for those purposes.

According to the Children’s Defense Fund, since 1979, gun violence has resulted in the deaths of 101,413 children and teens in the U.S. This is more than the total number of American fatalities since the end of World War II, including the Korean, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

There is no successful strategy for dealing with youth gun violence. The complexity of the phenomenon demands integral, comprehensive approaches flexible enough to adapt to specific circumstances. Educational, judicial and prison reform measures are necessary to control gun ownership, and to assess and monitor mass media’s social responsibility.

The right to bear arms without restrictions is a step backwards to controlling violence. It contradicts experience and the belief of peaceful people everywhere that eliminating guns will lead to a safer, more humane world.

[Seshat]

Defineing mature and reasonable by governmental mandate is a very, very, dangerous thing to allow to happen. It would give governmental power over a person's life beyond any that a government deserves.

And yet we approximate it all the time. Age of consent. Age limits for alcohol or tobacco sales. Age limits for driving.

How about this compromise, for firearms: possession of firearms requires a person to pass a shooting ability test, a gun-safety knowledge test, and a danger recognition test. The tests would be created and maintained by experts, probably chosen by a committee including civilians.

The shooting ability is simply so that a skinny and physically weak person isn't responsible for some uber-powerful gun that will throw her on her butt; or that someone like me whose judgement and reactions are impaired by illness doesn't end up being responsible for - well, for any gun.

The gun-safety test I think you'd have absolutely no qualms about, presuming it was a reasonable test and was run fairly.

The danger recognition test would probably require coursework before hand, and the coursework would probably be based on such stuff as the five stages of violent crime, the Ability/Opportunity/Intent(or Jeopardy) triangle, and the legal ramifications of self-defence. I'd like to see it also include material on crime avoidance, such as recognition of fringe areas, recognition of imminent violent behaviour, and 'run TO safety, not AWAY from trouble'.
(The danger recognition course would also be very useful for people who can't run, can't fight, and can't shoot. But we can learn to use our brains!)

I want people doing the danger recognition stuff because knowing that stuff reduces paranoia (in healthy people). It reduces the chance of being shot because some idiot thinks I 'looked at him funny', and actually increases the sane non-criminal's ability to defend themselves against actual criminals.

Anyway - I'd accept provably knowing gun safety and danger recognition, and being physically capable of using one's choice of gun, as a suitable legally-achievable substitute for 'mature and responsible'.


I say manadatory firearms ownership as I admire the swiss people for their firearms requirements. Every country should model its firearms attitudes on switzerland. They have the lowest crime rate and have never been bothered by invaders due to every adult citizen being armed. An armed society is a polite and safe society.


According to wikipedia (not the most guaranteed-accurate source, I grant), once Swiss military service is over, ownership of a weapon is optional.

I'm sure there are other factors to their criminal history, and I know that their geography (as well as the Swiss pikemen) are part of the reason they've never been successfully invaded.

However, given that I can assume gun safety, weapons training and (presumably) danger recognition are part of their military service, I'll grant that the Swiss method is one I'd find acceptable.

Just be prepared for it not to work as well at crime reduction outside Switzerland, due to cultural differences.


I'll give you your cultural differences.


Thank you.


As for heroes I would have to say that a hero is a person who has the ability or capacity to run away or not become involved but chooses to do so anyway.


I'll agree with that, but I'll also extend it to people who, for whatever reason, know that their circumstances have doomed them, but who work to minimise the effects of their doomed state on others.

I enjoy disaster shows. (What can I say, I'm a bit of a ghoul!)
One of the things I see many times in disaster shows is black box evidence that the cockpit crew, and sometimes the cabin crew, of a plane know that the plane is going down and there's nothing they can do to stop it. But they spend the last minutes of their lives making sure the plane goes down in an empty field or on water. Usually while making some attempt to land softly enough that some of their passengers might survive.
To me, that's heroic too.

That's why I respect the non-terrorists aboard flight 93. It's reasonable to assume that the hijackers' plan was to crash their plane into a building as well.
If the crew had followed their training, and the passengers had followed the conventional wisdom about plane hijackings before September 11, the hijackers would have succeeded.

The hijackers didn't. The most likely variable is the passengers and crew tried. What little is known for sure about what happened about that flight matches that hypothesis. The crew and the passengers realised that this hijacking was different and the conventional wisdom was wrong, thought on their feet, got involved, and tried. We'd probably all prefer it if they'd survived as well. But they gave it a go. I respect that.


And how about this one then since my previous comment was deemed not accurate enough? A criminal faced with armed resistance is less likely to be able to acheive his criminal goals. Ie its hard to rape, plunder and pillage with a hole in your chest.

Granted. :)

[rahmota]

Cancel: Where did you find those numbers and that quote at? Just curious as it mentions Sarah Brady and Handgun Control inc or whatever she is xcalling that antigun zani extremist group she fronts for now. And yes in case you cant tell I think Sarah Brady is a bitter lying nazi hag who wants to destroy the constitution and the freedoms of american citzens and wouldnt know the truth if it bit her on the butt. I wouldn't trust her to tell me my hair was on fire I'd get a second opinion.

But suffice to say I would probably doubt or question most of that article as it definately shows its antifirearms bias very strongly. And continues to espose several outright LIES that the antifirearms folks like to propagate. Also Dr kellerman's study was highly biased and cherry picked. Also he skewed his numbers by only looking at highly urban areas with gang and other criminal activities already in place. Also regard the follwoing involving sarah brady and the aforementioned study by Dr kellerman:
People] want [a gun] for self protection but have no clue how to use it, how to keep it safely from kids, and in that situation, that gun is 43 times more likely to be misused than it ever is to be used effectively in protecting ones' self. That statistic comes from the New England Journal of Medicine. It has been researched over the years that a gun in the home is much more a danger to the owner.



Sarah likes to use this "43 times" statistic, even though the author of the
study admits that his study was flawed and, at best, the number should be
closer to 2.7 times. But the true story is in how the study evaluated data.

Remarkably, the author excluded all other legitimate uses, including occasions
where a gun was used a gun for protection but a shot was never fired or a
criminal simply wounded or frightened away. This is equivalent to claiming
airplanes are an public danger due to the number of yearly deaths without
accounting for the number of passengers or miles safely flown!
source:= Taking Control - Viewpoints Pro & Con in the Gun Debate

a household where there is a gun is 2.7 times more likely to experience a murder than a household without onea household where there is a gun is 2.7 times more likely to experience a murder than a household without one

Really? I'll tell that to the hundredds if not thousands of citizen households in america that go their entire lives with firearms in the home and never have a single murder in them.

Also you quoted Accordingly, in a 1982 ruling, the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held but More recently, in the U.S. v. Verdugo decision of 1990, the Supreme Court (kinda trumps a mere appellate court) held that when the phrase, "the people" is used in the context of the Second Amendment, it means "individuals" --- as to mean "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"; these are the same "people" mentioned in the First, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments of the Bill of Rights.

Source =:^ Miguel A. Faria, Jr., MD. The Second Amendment - Reaching a Consensus as an Individual Right


Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun ViolenceAn anti-firearm, anti-american, anti-constitutional terrorist organization which should be expelled from this country and sent to some third world nation where citizens dont have rights and freedoms to see how much better off they are here.

A copuple quotes from their founder Sarah Brady:...I don't believe gun owners have rights."
-- Sarah Brady, Chairman, Handgun Control, Incorporated,
from the Hearst Newspapers Special Report, "Handguns in America" October 1997

Our main agenda is to have ALL guns banned. We must use whatever means possible. It doesn't matter if you have to distort facts or even lie. Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed.
Sarah Brady


source=: Collected quotations of Sarah Brady from google.

The deaths of more than 30 people on the campus of Virginia Tech Which could have been stopped earlier if there had been an armed student available to respond and end the violence with quick reactions instead of having ther students be disarmed sheep waiting to be rescued by the authorities.

Seshat:And yet we approximate it all the time. Age of consent. Age limits for alcohol or tobacco sales. Age limits for driving.
Age of consent does not mean anything. All that means is that the person is now X amount of years old and therefore the action in question is legal for them It has no being on behavior or maturity. Also age of consent such as that is based on a biased moral system and should be abolished or at the very least set to 16 for all regards.

Anyway - I'd accept provably knowing gun safety and danger recognition, and being physically capable of using one's choice of gun, as a suitable legally-achievable substitute for 'mature and responsible'.

Well as long as there where no records kept, liscences or other registration for the classes or to own a firearm then i'd agree with that. Firarms registration and liscencing being a dangerous tool used by oppressive and evil governments everywhere.

Also those classes begining in high school or middle school would be mandatory for graduation would be an acceptable choice.

As for the choice of firearm. Eh that should be left up the individual. Most people will figure out for themselves quite quickly what sort of firearm is suitable for their needs. One of the reasons I like shopping at firearms stores with a range attached to them.

extend it to people who, for whatever reason, know that their circumstances have doomed them, but who work to minimise the effects of their doomed state on others. Thats just dying well. Not everyone lives well but some manage to die well. An honorable and valient death in the cause of their duty is not somethign heroic. It is what is to be expected. Being doomed and managing to live through it is heroic. If flight 93 passengers had managed to regain control of the plane and land it somewhere (even in a field) and get most of the folks off that would have been heroic. Knowing you ARE going to die and choosing where or when is not heroic its just expected behavior of an honorable person. I know its a rather klingon/viking attitude but its truely what I believe. A firefighter running into a burning building is just doing his job, its what he choose to do with his life. he is not a major hero. You or me, joe citizen running into a burning building with no equipment or training and rescusing someone is being a hero as we could and probably rightly should have stayed out of it but didnt. A soldier in iraq is not a real hero. They are an honored and brave soul who does their duty and sometimes beyond but it is what they choose to do and volunteered to do. A soldier charging a machine gun nest so that his unit can take the bunker is a minor hero but he died doing his duty so he is among the honored dead.

But that is not to say that I do not respect and honor those who at least stood up and died well trying to take the plane back. I sincerely do and regard them as among the honored dead whose deeds serve as a model for others.

But anyhow we are drifting off the firearms control topic here with the introduction of heroes and all. Suffice to say that your definition and mine of a hero are probably not going to align as I have seen and lived under high standards of what is expected from a person by their duty and honor coming from a military family.

[CancelMyService]

It's not like Sarah Brady's husband was brain damaged by gunfire intended for the President, clearly SHE's the one who's an un-American Nazi.

BTW, can we please retire the un-American slur against anyone who has a viewpoint that disagrees with the stereotypical right wing? It's just so beyond played out that I just mentally discount the opinion of anyone who uses it since it's such a lazy attack on someone who differs from you.

Also, it should be pointed out that when the Constitution was written, I believe it was Thomas Jefferson who did not want the US to have a permanent standing army. He knew it was important to be able to mobilize a force for defense when attacked, but he did not want a full time army. Hence the Second Amendment, so that there would be a well trained milita to call upon when needed in times of defense. Of course now when reading the Second Amendment in the context of being a nation that *has* had a standing army for hundreds of years, it's very easy to interpret it as saying the framers wanted us all to be armed to the teeth. Unfortunately, it's just not correct.

Surely there's groups on both sides who fudge facts to further their cause, but there's just something a little creepy about the more fervent pro-gun people. I think it's the glamorization of the Old West that makes people think the solution to all problems is just a well armed populace. Can you imagine the carnage if Virginia Tech was full of terrified students with firearms? You probably could have multiplied the death toll by ten at least. Scared/angry people + firearms = carnage.

Basically, if you want to own guns, fine. Acting like anyone who wants to put reasonable limits on dangerous, lethal devices is some sort of terrorist makes you sound exactly like someone who shouldn't be around lots of guns. I'm speaking in a general sense BTW, don't want to give the impression I'm singling anyone out in this thread.

[Seshat]

BTW, can we please retire the un-American slur against anyone who has a viewpoint that disagrees with the stereotypical right wing? It's just so beyond played out that I just mentally discount the opinion of anyone who uses it since it's such a lazy attack on someone who differs from you.

Oh, I dunno. I'm proud to be un-American. Not being American at all does help with that, I suppose.

As for the term 'un-American' itself: it's very closely associated with McCarthyism, which was a very serious abuse of the exact same freedoms that rahmota's so very strong in the defence of. The House Committee on Un-American Activities is the first thing I always think of when I see the term.

An honorable and valient death in the cause of their duty is not somethign heroic. It is what is to be expected.

I'll agree to disagree with you on the topic of what is and isn't heroic. It's clear we have vastly different definitions.

I'll also agree to disagree with you on the topic of trust or lack thereof in government. Another topic on which we have vast differences.

I don't think you're ever going to convince me on gun ownership or control, nor am I ever going to convince you. But I understand your 'side' of the debate much better, and for that I thank you.

If you have any questions about my 'side', that you think I can answer, I would be happy to attempt to. I suspect, however, that either cultural or value differences will ensure that our opinions will never match.

Edit to add: this is probably a bit pedantic, but the term you're looking for in regards to Sarah Brady is 'fascist'. I think it's highly unlikely that Brady is, or has ever been, a member of the National Socialist Worker's Party.
According to Godwin's law, you've just lost this debate. ;)

[rahmota]

Ah yeah Godwin's law. About that. Rememebr hwo a while back i said there are certain big red buttons that will set my temper off? Well sarah brady and the handgun control inc nutjobs are certainly one of them. I have a bit of history with some of them considering my pro-firearms stance.

I went to a gun show in dayton and some of them where there protesting firearms and getting rather disturbingly unpleasant about it. basically take all the stuff you heard about calling soldier's comign back from nam baby killers and all sorts of stuff and then up it a degree and thats what these protesters where doing. Also i hav edone speciall research back in college as I had a professor for a required class that took umbrage of my NRA membership as she was a member of the HCI and we had a few go rounds before the board of regents before she and i agreed to call a truce and just let me test of the class so both of us didnt have to be around each other ever again. So mentioning them gets my blood up a bit quick.

Sarah brady is a vindictive bitter hag who uses people's fear and ignorance as a weapon to try and subvert and pervert the protections of the constitution. You are right unamerican activities is somethign that gets bandied about quite frequently if you are not in favor of whatever the current political fear of the week is. And mccarthy may have been almost a half century back but that just means too many people may have forgotten that in the interests of safety and protection people are willing to trade off too much freedom and personal responsibility. You are right though she is more of a fascist than a nazi. :)

As for the POV issues you are probably correct. you and I are products of our respective lives. I grew up in one country with one set of choices and experiences and you grew up in another and the end result is the people we are. you are welcome as you have made a few interesting points. You are right that my views on firearms safety and all will not change anytime soon (probably three days after 'm dead but not until) and thats just me.

Cancel: Well Thats a first I didnt think I was a member fo the right wing, or left wing. Or any wing. I am me I represnt the views and opinions of me, myself and I only. I have a deep seated personal hatred of sarah brady, the group of ignorant fearful hate mongers she leads and howshe is takign a personal tragedy and turning it into some kind of vindictive crusade of oppression and evil to destroy the constitution and the rights and freedoms that where guarenteed to american citizens.

Which the militia refers to. WE THE PEOPLE are the militia. Its free citizens. I am not against reasonbale controls. I mena after all we can't shout fire in a crowded theator without getting in trouble. What I am opposed to is the blanket demonification of firearms and those who collect or use them. What i am opposed to is automatically saying that this type of firearm is automatically only goign to be used in a crime so it must not be allowed to be owned. That someone who doesnt want the government to keep a list of who owns firearms is just a paranoid idiot. Among a lot of other things. there are already laws against certain actions we do NOT need laws against just a certain item or type of people just because they have a fondness for things that go boom.

In the end analasys of thigns a firearm is just a tool. A highly specialized tool but a tool none the less. it is the person using that tool who decides to help or harm.

And as for the second amendment and how it ties into all of the other amendments in the bill of rights its a very complex issue. A well armed populace is not only a way of defending the country against enemies but as had been just shown a way of defending the populace against an oppressive government. A fourth check and balance as it where. Any government who disarms its population is able to trod all over them with jackboots with no problems whatsoever. Dont think it could happen here? Would be wonderful if it where true but it could happen anywhere citizens give up their personal liberty and freedom for a sense of security and safety.

Can you imagine the carnage if Virginia Tech was full of terrified students with firearms Ummm no. Not really. Most of the peopel I know who own and use firearms are responsible and have taken the appropriate measures mentally to prepare themselves to use said firearm in a reasonable and responsible manner. So one student is all it would have taken and you could have cut the death rate by half to almost none.

Basically, if you want to own guns, fine. Acting like anyone who wants to put reasonable limits on dangerous, lethal devices is some sort of terrorist makes you sound exactly like someone who shouldn't be around lots of guns. I'm speaking in a general sense BTW, don't want to give the impression I'm singling anyone out in this thread. Sure no problem. considering how I've been the msot vocal about firearms ownership on here I'll understand you're not referring to me. There are reasonable limits yes. But we need to put limits on those limits before they start becoming unreasonable and offensive. And a firearm is only as dangerous and lethal as the person holding it. A firearm cannot be dangerous or lethal if the person holding it does not desire it to be so.

[Seshat]

Thank you, rahmota, for mentioning your encounters with the extremists. It does clarify some of your comments. Thank you also for accepting the cultural differences between you and I.

As for 'There are reasonable limits yes. But we need to put limits on those limits before they start becoming unreasonable and offensive.' - I agree. I think our main differences are where the limits, and the limits on those limits, should be.

As you can see in the privacy thread, I agree with a need to keep government honest and under control of the people. Where I am, I believe there's a rather low risk of the government being -that- out of control that a citizen's militia will be desperately needed.

Locally, I think that the risk of gun misuse should they not be controlled is significantly higher than the risk of a citizen militia being necessary. Especially in the hands of urban people who don't have the 'gun culture' that rural people develop. And no, I don't think gun safety courses in schools will produce that culture - that's something that's developed through years of watching adult family and friends handling guns on a regular basis.

This is my guess as to some of the cultural differences that cause us to have such different attitudes, anyway.

[rahmota]

You're welcome seshat. Yeah I've lived and experienced quite a bit so I know that you're not going to make everyone happy all the time and that not everyone's gonna agree with you. So *shrug* thats life.

I'll agree the biggest difference is where you and I draw the line on what is reasonable. That seems to be a common problem with many people on this and other issues.

As for the government I'm goign to go on a limb here and say that since America was founded on revolution, on a distrust of big government, our culture will always have that at some point in the back of its collective mind. Which leads to the well the government isnt out for me or to help me so I'm on my own.

And yeah the culture has changed significantly that high school education would not be all that would be required but it would be a definate start. Its just a sign of how far thigns have changed that you used to be able to mail order firearms and firearms violence was never as bad as it is today when to be a legal firearms owner in many parts of the country you have to jump throuhg two dozen hoops and procedures. It makes me think that there is somethign a bit more wrong than just the ease or availability of firearms. more like the value people place on things like life, liberty and fraternity.

As for us personally. Probably something to do with that too. Oh well. Vive le differenace!

[CancelMyService]

The thing about guns is that they pretty much have one primary purpose: injuring and/or killing things. It's not like a car, which has the capability of killing but has other primary uses, a gun really only has one possible use. Now that's not to say that you'll never need to use a gun, but to act like a gun is some sort of benevolent device seems kind of silly.

I also don't get the argument that guns are needed to keep the government at bay. If shit were to ever really go down, you think even the most well armed gun owner would stand a chance against the US military? There's a lot of reasonable defenses pro gun people can make, and this never strikes me as one of them.

[rahmota]

Cancel: saying that firearm is just a benign lump of metal and plastic does not seem silly to me or millions of other firearms owners. The fiream cannot jump up and load and cock itself for you. It cannot make you pull the trigger or shoot something or someone unless you want to do so. It has no mind, no soul, no will, no desires, no hatreds, no emotions whatsoever. It is an inanimate device. Yes a limited useage tool but a tool none the less. It can be used for sport, hunting, or defense as well as offense. But only based on what the wielder of said firearm chooses to do with it. its not the firearm that is the fault here it is the person using it. Something a lot of people either ignore or choose to forget. They would rather demonize the tool or the item rather than face facts that a person has failed to retain their sense of honor, responsibility and control.

Now as for the second: Assuming the absolute worst case scenario where we get a president who doesnt care about the constitution, who has managed to get a charisma cult going and has created or manouvered things to declare an illegal martial law and basically pull a palpatine on us. The US military will probably have its own issues going on with people splitting onto both sides, chain of command issues and generally all the bad thigns that happen during a civil war. So using them to suppress the population will be a bit problematic. What will be left will be local police forces and they will not be able to be utilized either due to their own issuess with people choosing sides.

What will be left? We the People, citizens who are the militia to form and defend themselves, their families and each other until the constitutional crisis has been resolved. the government would not be able to use the full might of the military on general citizens, and even if they did there would be ways of dealing with that. look at how effective the insurgents in Iraq are at holding the US military at bay. Believe it or not the more technologically advanced the military the harder it is for them to deal with a guerilla force. all the US military controls in Iraq is crtain safe zones outside those zones its wilderness. And this is from my cousin who is in country right as we speak.

In a less worst case scenario a well armed populace is useful when the federal government fails in its duty to provide protection to the citizens. Take NO after katrina. There are reports of citizens who saved people's lives, who saved property by banding together and providing their own police force after the governmental forces abandoned the city. Not lawless vigilantes mind you but law abiding citizens who did not want to see their homes, and ther neighbors threatened by roving bands of hoodlums.

I could go on and on about how useful the ciizen's miliia is in dealing with the failings of a federal government and how a well armed person is a citzen an unarmed one iis a subject and all but I dont think it will do much good.

[Greenday]

While it's admirable to see people doing that kind of stuff rahmota, the problem is we are seeing more and more school shootings. I mean, how the hell are these kids getting these weapons? I mean, some woman is able to buy multiple weapons for her 14 year old son, who was planning on attacking his old schoolmates. Obviously, the woman is an idiot, but doesn't this help the argument that pretty much anyone can get a gun these days? Hell, if I wanted, I could go out, buy some guns, and blow some stuff up. And that's what other people are realizing too, and they are taking advantage of it.

I agree that if the government was to totally go out of control and try to make the country into a dictatorship, or if another country was to invade, having a people's militia would be necessary. I just don't see either happening any time soon.

[rahmota]

Greenday: the problem is we are seeing more and more school shootings Really I didnt think we where seeing that many more? And anyhow its not the fault of the firearms or the firearms owner or availability of the firearms that is causing these few isolated incidents but a failure of the schools, parents and society in general to take responsibility for the root causes of the incidents.

Oh and do you know how many school shooting there have been in all of 2007? 3. Yes 3 total. I will agree that 3 is 3 too many but if peopel had taken the time to stop and discover the root cause of the shootings they could have been prevented. And just removing firearms are not going to get rid of the root causes of school shootings.

I keep hearing people whinging on about how there are so many school shootings and how much firearms violence there are in the media? Well you know why the media reports on these thigns? Because it sells! It makes them money! It goes with their bias that they feed off of and into the way people think. A very circular logic with the media. Sell the drama, sell the scare and they can be the ones who have the scooop.

You never see the media report on how a loyal firearms owner saved a life or protected their property from a vicious mad dog criminal. You never see about how someone took the time to stop and talk to a troubled kid before they went and did something unpleasantly tragic.

But a people's militia is a legal, moral fact of life garunteed by the constitution of the united states of america. It is part and parcel of our legal code and our social traditions. There are a million and one reason for a people's militia to exist. I am a member of the citizen's militia as is any other american over the age of 18. We are the militia. We are the last line of defense for our homes, our families our neighbors.

but doesn't this help the argument that pretty much anyone can get a gun these days Bullshit! Firearms are less available and more tightly controlled as to who may or may not purchase them than at any time in the history of this country. And it has not helped reduce violence or crime in this country by one bit. Criminals can still get acccess to firearms of all sorts. By denying the citizen the right to defend themselves and their families all you do is make the criminals job that much easier!

I have a 1958 sears catalogue that was my mothers that has army surplus M1 garands available in it for MAIL ORDER! Thats right a mail order catalogue that did not require you to do anythign other than send them a check or money order and you too could have your own military surplus rifle. Heck you used to be able to walk into the general store and the rifles would be out in plain sight where everyone could get to them and touch them and look at them. And there wasnt the same kind of paranoia and hatred of firearms and violence was there but it was not as bad as it is now. There are more murders in LA than there ever where in the wild west in a year.

You know why? Disarmament of citizens. Demonization of firearms. Media irresponsibility. Personal responsibility being traded off for a false sense of security from the government or other organizations. People wanting to look anywhere they can to throw the blame than in the mirro. People who wish to trade their freedom and liberty for security deserve neither!

Oh and one other thign I feel deserves being repeated. Firearms are not the cause of criminal violence or criminal activities there are other reasons that are socially around (capitalism, corporate thievery etc...) that cause criminal activity.

[Greenday]

Honestly, I have no opinion on the issue. I just enjoy providing counter-arguments to get people thinking.

One of the main reasons we didn't have such strict laws back in the past was because we didn't need them. Once guns started becoming a "problem", more laws were put in place.

I honestly don't believe ANYONE should be able to have a gun. Known criminals and otherwise proven violent people shouldn't be given more tools to commit crimes with.

But if the time comes where the people NEED to defend themselves from foreign invaders or a military run government where the people lose all their rights, you can be sure I won't be caught dead without having something to protect myself with and it sure as hell won't be just a bb gun.

[rahmota]

But if the time comes where the people NEED to defend themselves from foreign invaders or a military run government where the people lose all their rights,

You do realize though that if your comment previous to that one came true then if the time came there would be noone or nothing available to defend yourself with? An armed person is a citizen an unarmed one is a subject.

Also a lot of the "problems" with firearms have come about because 1: The media feeds into it with ther frenzy of vulture reporting. and 2) Societies move away from personal responsibility into the nanny tate letting others think for people and act like the government or the churchs or some other organization knows better how to live your life than you do.

Known criminals and otherwise proven violent people shouldn't be given more tools to commit crimes with.


And the criminals will finda way to comit their crimes without fear ofpeople beingable to defend themselves if the entire citizenry is reduced to defenseless sheep.

[NightAngel]

I've always been a fan of Chris Rock's take on gun control:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdJGcrUk2eE

I don't have a gun.
I won't have a gun.
Surprisingly, I've lived 35 years without ever once needing a gun. I have zero use for a gun- it'd be a supreme waste of money. If I owned a gun it would be locked up and dusty somewhere because I don't have any use for it. My daily life does not involve wild animals, hunting, zombies or much of anything else I might need to shoot at.

Granted, I don't hunt or live on a farm where wild animals might attack my livestock either. Yes, there are certain situations where I can understand someone needing a gun. Those situations are pretty rare though.

I also frequently find the types of guns that people claim they need/have the right to own amusing. No individual NEEDS a fully automatic (or even semi) assault rifle. :rolleyes:

The other point that people frequently make to me is that their guns are securely locked in a cabnet, unloaded with the ammo kept somewhere else for safety. Then, in the same breath, tell me that if someone broke into their house they'd use the gun to protect their belongings...
So, you have to get the keys, unlock the cabnet, get the ammo, load the gun...

Shit, if I was a burglar you'd be dead before then 'cause MY gun's already loaded and ready to shoot you.
Besides, it's just stuff. Stuff can be replaced.

I'm not completely against guns- I just don't think that every yahoo on Earth needs one.

[rahmota]

Nightangel: Hmmm. I'll give you that circumstances are different for different people and some people might not use firearms as frequently as others however denying those who do use firearms or need firearms or even just want firearms for whatever reason and are responsible with them because someone doesnt like them or want them is an action only deserving of an evil empire. Not only is it in blatent violation of the basic rights and freedoms of the constitution it goes against the whole point of the revolution in that each person has the right to live their life as they choose without undue governmental interference or even interference from their neighbors.

There are already laws against actions and behaviors that are criminal and irresponsible. There is no need for many of the more draconian firearms laws (or really many of the laws that are on the books based on someones arbitrary "morals".)

No individual NEEDS a fully automatic (or even semi) assault rifle.
And many people dont NEED a huge military basd SUV should we prohibit everyone from having one because they don't need it? People dont NEED to have a home entertainment system, playstation or XBOX, people dont need an icrud phone tv fax machine whatever else they can cram into it should we ban them? The point is if we had to show a definate NEED to be able to own something then most of the things in people's lives would not be available to them. Oh and assault rifle is not a proper term for a firearm as it is too broad a category based on personal opinion and feelings and not any particular characteristics or features of a firearm.

Stuff can be replaced Some stuff cannot be replaced. i have a few family heirlooms sitting around that i would shoot someone if they tried to steal it as they are closely linked with my family an my blood. Besides it is the point of the violation of my home and hearth by a criminal that is why I would defend my sanctum sanctorum so vehemently. And in my household it takes under 1 minute for me to get to a firearm and be in condition one from which it takes like 1 second to go to condition 0. Ths is from practice and practical knowledge. And this is also with keeping the firearms in a safe condition. Knowledge is the most powerful thign in the universe, know yourself and know your condition and know your equipment. Unfortunately too many people are too lazy to do any f that and just demonizes thigns without trying to understand them

I too have lived 34 years. In that time period I have NEEDED to use a firearm several times. I have enjoyed owning and using firearms recreationally. I am proud and pleased to be associated with other reasponsible firearms owners and their families. My firearms are polished and maintained properly according to US milspec. I am ready in all sense of the word to defend myself,my family and my home from any threats. I am a citizen.

[NightAngel]

Rahotma:

I didn't say that firearms should be denied to everyone.
I really think that if people were smart they could base their own need- sadly, some people just think owning a gun makes them cool. Alternately, I know some people believe that they have the responsibility to own a gun should we ever have to take up arms and defend American soil. Most of those people (that I know) keep their gun/s in good condition and locked up. No need to flaunt them to the world and no need to have them out- because unless that day is to ever come- they don't need it.

As for the SUV statement (I'm thinking Hummer here?):
No. No one NEEDS a Hummer. And actually I'd vote for the banning of giant, resource wasting SUV's before I'd vote to ban guns. So there. :p
(That, however, is a different argument entirely.)

As for tvs, fax machines, etc.:
No, most people don't really need those either. But then, when was the last time you heard of death by fax? They really don't fall into the same category.

Assault Rifle:
Uzi, M16, AK-47, etc. I thought the term 'Assault Rifle' was relatively clear. I suppose people can debate anything, eh?

Unfortunately too many people are too lazy to do any f that and just demonizes thigns without trying to understand them...

...I am proud and pleased to be associated with other reasponsible firearms owners and their families.


Uhm... exactly.

I wish that all people who owned guns were as knowledgeable and safety oriented as you. If they were I doubt that gun control would be such a huge issue.

Another sad thing is this:

As a general rule, in most situations, I'd never know if someone owns a gun nor would I care.
It's the people who flaunt that worry me. I live in a state where carrying concealed is legal with a license. You want to know how I know that they have the license? Because they flaunt it when they don't get their way (SC's).
I consider it a threat.
I throw them out and invite them never to return- only not that nicely.

I get one of these assholes once or twice a year.

So, yes... maybe my view of guns is *slightly* tweaked by shitheads.
In my life I've had a few bad gun related experiences. It would be very easy, based on those experiences, to say BAN ALL GUNS!
But I don't- I try and be a bit more logical and fair than that.

[rahmota]

Ok I'm sorry I was kinda free associateing with my thoughts based on your commetns. Or Chris Rock's comments whichever. (I dont particularly care about or for Chris Rock and find him a talentless bore in general IMO)


Sorry for the confusion about the term assault rifle. like I said I use the military or national firearms manufacturer's association definitions. Assault rifle is a rather nebulous term bandied about by the anti-firearm community that doesnt really describe an actual weapon systems. It describes the useage of said weapon system. Pedantic and all I know but one of the thigns about a debate is precision in words. If we are discussing the usage of a weapon system then i'll agree with we are discussing the actual weapon systems themselves i'll not use the term and if I see it used then I'll probably go with the definitions i'm familiar with.

As for flaunting them I'm not sure what you mean by flaunting them. I have no problem with displaying a firearm in a rack or cabinet with proper security measures.

I'm sorry you've had such bad experiences with firearms owners. Growing up in a rural area with military family members and all I never had that many bad experiences (if any that I can recall). I certainly do apoligze for those people and am glad you know they are not the majority of firearms owners.

[CancelMyService]

Maybe it's just me not being a rabid gun fanatic (which is odd, since my family is heavily military and my dad was a gun enthusiast to some degree), but I just don't see how someone can be SO fervent about firearms. I think it's a mindset that I just don't understand.

I mean, there's debate about policy and there's just common sense. Guns really don't have any other purpose other than killing or maiming. Yes if a gun is sitting on a table, it's not likely to do any harm. You can also say a mountain of cocaine sitting on a table isn't going to hurt anyone either unless someone snorts it. I don't think anyone would make the argument there shouldn't be any restrictions on cocaine just because of the way some people use it.

The whole "we may need guns to defend against the government" argument makes less and less sense the more people try to explain it. Hell, the current administration cares less about the constitution than any other in recent memory and by and large the gun community doesn't seem to mind much because they haven't made a move against the second amendment. We've got a President who pretty much operates on a "I'm gonna do whatever I want and no one can stop me" policy, and as long as he courts the NRA he gets 8 years in office. Heckuva job, gun owners.

[Greenday]

Come on, you may not agree with arguments for guns, but you can't blame gun owners for the president being elected for two terms. First of all, the popular vote means nothing. Second of all, a lot of non-gun owners voted for Bush too.

Can you not see gun usage as a sport at all? Aiming contests, speed shooting at targets. I mean, some people don't see golf as a sport, or fishing. Hell, fishing is a great example. Fishing contests hurt animals. Shooting contests hurt...paper?

And yes, a lot of gun usage does result in hurting other people, but there can be importance in the use of a gun in self-defense. If an unarmed thief enters someone's home, and is confronted with the sight of the receiving end of a gun, I HIGHLY doubt the thief will continue to rob the house. The gun doesn't even have to be loaded. The thief would never know.

[Seshat]

I think (and correct me if I'm wrong) that NightAngel's point about noone needing "assault rifles" (*) is a counter to the often-stated argument 'but I need it!'

The type of gun I think of when I think of the term 'assault rifle' is one which has an extremely rapid rate of fire, and frequently uses fast and/or powerful bullets.

(*) imprecise, I know.

Such guns aren't needed for hunting, and using them for self-defence would include a high risk of collateral damage. Especially in the hands of someone who doesn't treat guns with the respect and professionalism they require.

The only reasons I can think of for Joe or Jane Average to need or want an assault rifle are:
(a) admiring gorgeous engineering. Okay, I can buy that one. I've been known to study a bridge or a train engine, I can see people wanting to study guns.
(b) admiring the craftsmanship. See a.
(c) anticipating social collapse. I can buy that one, too.
(d) you anticipate multiple well-armed and potentially armoured criminals attacking you/your family/your property, and you either don't care about collateral damage or are thoroughly trained in the use of such weapons.
(e) you seek status among your peers, and ownership of such a weapon is a status symbol in your environment.
(f) the silicon chip inside your head is tuned to overload, and you wanna shoot (oo -oo-oooot) the whole day down.(*)

(*) Taken from 'I don't like Mondays' by the Boomtown Rats

Now, people like me, and others on 'this side' of the gun debate, see d as unlikely to occur to the vast majority of people. Most people on 'this side' of the gun debate see c as unlikely to occur - me, I'm more dubious about that.
I see e as insufficient reason to own such a weapon - because I've known a lot of status-seeking people, and they tend not to hold their symbols in enough respect to handle a dangerous symbol like this safely.

To me, an accident by an e-reason person or their friends, or an f event, are much, much more likely (in my part of the world) than either social collapse or a home invasion by a large and well-armed band of thieves. Thus, social risk management argues that society is probably better served by keeping such guns under control than otherwise.

However, because I recognise that I'm not as well-informed about Joe or Jane Average's individual situation as they are, I'm willing to accept that Joe or Jane Average can have whatever gun they wish, provided they have proof of training and responsible handling of the gun.

And before you say 'but people can have cars they don't need' - people have to show proof of training in the use of such cars. I wish they had to show proof of more training, and of responsible handling. In my ideal world, we'd have excellent public transport and more stringent licensing for driving. But we do have licensing before you can drive.

[CancelMyService]

Come on, you may not agree with arguments for guns, but you can't blame gun owners for the president being elected for two terms. First of all, the popular vote means nothing. Second of all, a lot of non-gun owners voted for Bush too.


The NRA played a big part. They pushed a lot of people to vote for him based on the "the other guy will take your guns away" approach. As close as both contests were, it's not crazy to suggest they tipped the balance. I saw firsthand examples of this since I live in a so called swing state and was deluged by all sorts of propaganda.


Can you not see gun usage as a sport at all? Aiming contests, speed shooting at targets. I mean, some people don't see golf as a sport, or fishing. Hell, fishing is a great example. Fishing contests hurt animals. Shooting contests hurt...paper?


The guns used for target shooting are usually very different than the ones used for defense. Also, just because it can be used as sport doesn't really take away from the fact that guns are pretty much designed to do damage.


And yes, a lot of gun usage does result in hurting other people, but there can be importance in the use of a gun in self-defense. If an unarmed thief enters someone's home, and is confronted with the sight of the receiving end of a gun, I HIGHLY doubt the thief will continue to rob the house. The gun doesn't even have to be loaded. The thief would never know.

Like I said, there are many valid uses/reasons/needs for guns. The belief that owning a gun, any gun, is the most important right a person has is very disturbing to me.

[Greenday]

\Like I said, there are many valid uses/reasons/needs for guns. The belief that owning a gun, any gun, is the most important right a person has is very disturbing to me.

Ok, I'm glad we found something we can totally agree on. When it comes to human rights, I wouldn't put the right to bear arms as high as freedom of speech, freedom of religion or no illegal search and siezure.

[NightAngel]

As for flaunting them I'm not sure what you mean by flaunting them. I have no problem with displaying a firearm in a rack or cabinet with proper security measures.

Flaunting would be like this:

"No, I can't do that for you sir."

"I have a concealed weapons permit (shows permit)... my gun is on me. Does that change your mind?"

"No, but it earns you a one-fucking-way ticket out the door. You can take that trip with or without the police- your choice."

Some of them even go as far as flashing the gun- they're a bit more rare though.
(One guy even told me to, "... wait here while I go get my gun out of my car..."He walked out- I locked the door and called the police. He was gone at the speed of light once he realized I'd dialed 911. Yes- it's a special kind of stupid.)

Then they usually try and argue that they've done nothing wrong and they have a license so the police can't DO anything.

Actually, yes dumbass they can- you've just threatened me with a deadly weapon. They can take you to jail.

See, it's people like this that make it hard on the gun owners. I imagine that I'd probably never be/feel threatened by Rahotma or the presence of his guns.
Flaunting and displaying are two completely different things. You can display a gun for everyone to see and it be fine. No one has to even see a flaunted gun for it to be a problem.

Make sense?

And Rahotma, no need to apologize for these bottom dwellers. I know the difference between normal people and scumbags- they're not your fault or the fault of other responsible gun owners.
Sadly- they are the ones that make the biggest impression though.
They are the ones that gun owners should be combating because they are the REASON people hate guns and want them banned.

[rahmota]

Ok I'm not real sure where to start so we'll take it from the top with cancel/greenday's comments.

Cancel:The NRA played a big part. They pushed a lot of people to vote for him based on the "the other guy will take your guns away" approach. As close as both contests were, it's not crazy to suggest they tipped the balance. I saw firsthand examples of this since I live in a so called swing state and was deluged by all sorts of propaganda.


Okay as a Life NRA member in the swong state of Ohio I can personally say I did not see, hear or encounter one bit of NRA authorized, approved or placed material in regards to this. As a matter of fact I voted against King Dubya both times and many other members of the local gun club where also Kerry supporters. We also had W supporters. I would not say that there was a national movement by teh NRA to support W. And also much of W's unconstitutional activities are not endorsed by the NRA. We do not just blindly endorse a president or candidate in that manner. At least at the local level I am active within.

Cancel:As close as both contests were, it's not crazy to suggest they tipped the balance
And its not crazy to say it was the religious extremists harping on and feeding the fears of the people that Kerry would destroy family values and let homosexuals have basic human rights (which religous extremists are not happy to do) and all the other sins and evils of the world resided in the democrats while their posterboy saint george would save us all.

Its also not improbable to say that there may have been some fishy deals going down with the voting machines and all either.....

Cancel:Like I said, there are many valid uses/reasons/needs for guns. The belief that owning a gun, any gun, is the most important right a person has is very disturbing to me.

Greenday:I wouldn't put the right to bear arms as high as freedom of speech, freedom of religion or no illegal search and siezure


Okay you do realize without the right to keep and bear arms if the other rights are not respected you have no recourse to defend yourself and your home and those rights? That the entire 10 amendments are only in that numerical order for bookkeeping purposes and the founding fathers saw all ten as being equally important and needed for the citizenry and this country? Its a really dangerous attitude to say that this right is worth more or more valuable than the other one. Almost like saying pick a finger to loose or something.

Cancel:You can also say a mountain of cocaine sitting on a table isn't going to hurt anyone either unless someone snorts it. I don't think anyone would make the argument there shouldn't be any restrictions on cocaine just because of the way some people use it.

Okay since this was dragged into the discussion I'll say this. I believe that many of the drug laws in this country shold be removed and many drugs legalized, taxed to hell and back and tightly controlled but legal. If a person wants to pollute their body and brain and harm themselves then so be it. Only if they directly harm another should they be restrained or stopped from doing so. One place for firearm ownership to come in handy for self-defense. As for cocaine specifically Legalize and control it and you will see a reduction in criminal activity as people no longer have an incentive. As gangs and other organizations who make a living out of this no longer are able to profit from being sole source providers.

Cancel:but I just don't see how someone can be SO fervent about firearms. I think it's a mindset that I just don't understand.
And I cannot see why someone would be so anti constitutional or lacking in common sense to be so anti-firearms. Why someone would actually support the nanny state. Thats a mindset I cannot understand. To quote River People like to meddle. Thats the only reason i can figure why people want to take away people's firearms or ability to live their life the way they choose to do so. As long as a person doesnt harm another then do what they will and dont stand in their way.

And its not just firearms but the rights and protections and history and tradition and everything that is american and means to be american that firearms represent and is all tied up within that I am passionate and fervent about.


Cancel:The guns used for target shooting are usually very different than the ones used for defense. Actually not all of them are. I've been in turkey shoots with the same shotgun I have hanging up in the bedroom. I have been in target shoot competitions with my 9mm sidearm I keep for self defense. my wife has used her 9mm sidearm (we have a matched set) in target shoots before.

Cancel:Also, just because it can be used as sport doesn't really take away from the fact that guns are pretty much designed to do damage
Okay just to be a smartarse: Javelins are used in sport and they grew from the hunting spears the romans and all used. All designed to do damage. Bows and arrows can all be used in the same way as firearms. Steak knives are only designed to do damage. Should we take all of them away? ban anything that is dangerous or could hurt someone and live in nerfworld with the nanny state telling us what we can do, how we can act, what we can think, or what we can feel? Ohhh no that might harm you or someone we need to ban that. Noooo noo o little child you cannot play with that as you might hurt yourself or another person.

I personally would rather die than live in a country or society that treated its people like mindless children. And sad to say thats the way this country is going if people dont grow some and stand up for the constitution and personal responsibility. Its your life take a stand for it. I dont care if you dont like firearms or see a need for firearms. I do. Others like me do. You stay in your corner and dont tell us we cant have firearms and we'll stay over here and be happy to blast away at our targets and have our firearms and be all politically incorrect.

Nightangel: yeah that would be innappropriate (not to mention illegal) flaunting and threatening behavior there. Somethign that any responsible and intelligent firearms/CCW owner would never do (or at least should never do). Although I have to say there are probably quite a few of the responsible CCW individuals pass through your store that you never know about as they dont behave so idiotically.

The CCW liscence actually requires people to act in a more responsible manner as improper use/carry of a firearm is a punishable offense in and of itself much less any other criminal activity in and of itself invovlign the firearm. It says so right in the paperwork when you go get one. That to accept that liscence means you agree to behave according to a higher set of standards than the average joe schmo on the street.

And yeah I can see the difference between flaunting and displaying. I've carried openly before an never felt the need to mention or acknowledge my firearm and when I get my CCW I'll definately not be flashign it aroud like that. (Open carry during legal hunting season in a hip holster in full view of all persons. Walked past a county sheriff's deputy and he never said a word. Another rural vs urban difference)

I imagine that I'd probably never be/feel threatened by Rahotma or the presence of his guns.
Thank you. I can assure you that barring you becoming a threat (somethign I'm not expecting or preparing for) there would be no threat to you. And that is the biggest thing responsible firearms owners can understand and do. Be smart, Dont go looking for or creating threats and issues, Be an example and a good one at that. Unfortunately like I said before too many people are too lazy to think that hard.

They are the ones that gun owners should be combating because they are the REASON people hate guns and want them banned. Well as an individual I'm doing the best I can. As a member of the NRA and NAHC I'm trying to do what I can and as a political activist and active member of my community I am doing what I can. Sorry I cant do more.

And now if not the best then certianly the last for this post. :)
Seshat: The type of gun I think of when I think of the term 'assault rifle' is one which has an extremely rapid rate of fire, and frequently uses fast and/or powerful bullets.


See part of the problem here is that you have described about 90% of the firearms in existence in the modern world. Including many that law enforcement have.

and using them for self-defence would include a high risk of collateral damage. Especially in the hands of someone who doesn't treat guns with the respect and professionalism they require.
Which is why the need for better training and information for what weapon is most appropriate for the task at hand.

Now dont tell greenday or cancel but I'll agree that using an "assualt rifle" or milspec SMG for home defense, especially in urban areas, could be a bit problematic. Heck in some of the apartment buildings I've visited a properly thrown dart could penetrate the walls. Thats where the training in weapon choice would come in.

For home defense in those situations I'd probably go with a pump shotgun with as short a barrell as legally available. loaded with birdshot, buckshot and then slug in that order so that you have escalating responses available. Also bird shot doesnt have great penetration qualities so a couple sheets of drywall unless you have the barrell up against them would be able to reduce the threat to collateral damage. Generally though I have found that merely workign the action to load a round is quite effective at getting people's attention.

Now as for the reasons to have one I'll agree with A, B and C definately. D in some countries around the world I could definately buy into. In America or another supposedly civilized country I will admit its not as likely but still within the realm of possible. A non-zero degree of probability which still doesnt mean they should be banned though for that reason however small the degree is. F I"ve got no clue what you are talking about at all.

As for E. I'm not overly fond of those kinds of people either. Having somethign just for the "status" it brings you is shallow, irresponsible and pointless IMO> Unfortunately banning something just because it can be used as a status symbol is also not a valid reason to ban it. And like I said before there are already laws about behavior.

I would also like to add:
(G): Collectable value. Some "assault rifles" that have been banned are from WWII or older and as such fall within antique status. Also some people may wish to collect all examples of a particular company or military organizational weapon systems. Why couldnt they be happy with disabled nonfunctional replicas? Well speakign for myself (the only person i can really speak for) I wouldnt want one because it would not be (1) as valuable, (2) the real thing (3) useful in an emergency except as a club.
(H): Entertainment or recreational value: Yeah I know this may not be everyone's cup of tea and it may make me sound a bit further off the edge of the radar but there is somethign about ripping off a high cap magazine into a target that just gives a rush, an endorphen high like winning the jackpot or something. I mean I know a guy who has a Class 3 liscence (this is the one that lets you have full auto hardware) and has a sweet mint Thompson SMG (The tommy gun in all the old gangster movies from the 30s.) that he let me fire one day at the range (in full compliance with all range safety directives) and I quite enjoyed it. Now I will admit that if the target had been anything other than a chunk of plastic and wood backed by dirt or firing back at me I might feel a bit different but as long as no harm is done then whats the big deal?

But yeah I'll agree that training and knowledge are the most powerful parts of personal responsibility and that humanity needs more of that (in all sectors of society) but having a firearms liscence is not somethign I'm overly fond of for the various reasons I've already gone into.

[Seshat]

Translation from the obscure: reason F is specifically to go and kill a bunch of people or destroy property.

I agree that people wanting something just for status isn't sufficient reason to ban it - I do think that in the case of guns (or other things with a high potential for hurting people), people should demonstrate an ability/willingness to handle it safely.

I'll admit I forgot about recreational value. :o

I guess I thought of collectible as coming under admiring/respecting the engineering and/or craftsmanship. I'm not a collector-type personality, and only really see 'worth' in a collection from the point of view of studying the evolution of the engineering/craftsmanship. I accept that other people have some weird-to-me desire to collect, though. ;)

Anyway: Nightangel covered the main reason people want what you think of as a 'nanny state' governing the ownership of firearms. The fact that there ARE idiots out there who misuse guns.

I'm against 'nanny state' stuff where misuse affects the misuser. I'm strongly for a controlled level of 'nanny state' where misuse affects primarily other people, and partly for a controlled level of 'nanny state' where misuse affects other people as a secondary thing.

With guns, misuse (appears to) primarily affect people other than the misuser.

[rahmota]

Ahh I see now. F is not a good option I'll agree. At least most of the time.

One of the reasons I so dislike the nanny state is that it tries to take away all risk and make people live in a quiet sheeplike nerfworld. Well you cant live without taking some risks. The nanny state takes away personal drive, initiative and the ability to make your own decisions about your life. Whether those decisions are good or bad or downright stupid.

I'll agree that there needs to be reasonable controls in place for those people who refuse to or otherwise are not able to accept personal responsibility. The thing is that those controls need to accept the individual freedoms and not be as constrictive as long as the individual does not do something to affect others. Affect themselves all they want thats their life and they want to screw it up oh well too damn bad but thats their right as a sentient being.

And yeah there are all sorts of reasons people like to collect things from it looks nice to its a fine piece of workmanship.

[Seshat]

I think that's another cultural difference. In general, our government (Aussieland) prefers only to regulate things where misbehaviour harms others. There are exceptions, but in general our government has historically provided and otherwise left people to their own devices.

We do have gambling and smoking help lines, and the government is providing warnings, and charging a 'sin tax' which is (at least nominally) to cover the cost of these support services. But we don't stop people from doing it.

If someone wants to drive off into the desert without sufficient fuel and water, that's their own lookout. There's clear warning, after all. They might get picked up by the highway patrol before they dehydrate. Usually they do, the cops don't like to have to deal with the alternative. ;)
(The cops also have a system where if you're going bush or into the outback, you can file a 'travel intentions' form. If you don't show up, they'll go find you.)

Censorship tends to depend on which government is in power at the time - for the most part, however, it's just a matter of providing clear warnings again.

There're just so many dangers in Aussieland, once you get outside the major cities, that a nanny state is impractical.

(Don't let this put anyone off visiting, however. Just make sure that if you're not in the urban areas, you drop in at a tourist bureau or a police station and get the local warnings.)

[CancelMyService]

Okay you do realize without the right to keep and bear arms if the other rights are not respected you have no recourse to defend yourself and your home and those rights?


I've managed to live my whole life without firearms and so far I've been able to defend myself. Well ok, no one's ever broke into my house but I have defended my person on several occasions without having to use a firearm. As I said before, I don't really have a problem with everyone having the ability to purchase a gun, I just don't agree with the idea that everyone NEEDS one.


That the entire 10 amendments are only in that numerical order for bookkeeping purposes and the founding fathers saw all ten as being equally important and needed for the citizenry and this country? Its a really dangerous attitude to say that this right is worth more or more valuable than the other one. Almost like saying pick a finger to loose or something.


Heh that's pretty much the point I was trying to make.

[Rapscallion]

And many people dont NEED a huge military basd SUV should we prohibit everyone from having one because they don't need it?

Do you realise that the thought of this forced three drops of pee out?

Sorry - just had to say that.

Rapscallion

[AFPheonix]

Sounds like SOMEONE hasn't been doing their kegels....

[rahmota]

seshat:only to regulate things where misbehaviour harms others

And I'd like to see that too. Somehow I think we've managed to go down the path where we're agreeing just using different words again.

Cancel: Ok I think I managed to mistake/misinterpret something you said earlier as I've been told to my face that we dont need the second amendment, it soutdated, its useless, etc... before. If thats your feelings on it then I'll agree with you on that.

Raps: Do you realise that the thought of this forced three drops of pee out?
Two thigns 1: What surprised a redneck would actually say something like this? I dont like the big SUVS they handle like crud off road and they are hard to take down narrow trails as they are just too dang wide. I want a nice old Jeep CJ7 or old jeep like they had on M*A*S*H now those where jeeps!

and 2: You know they have a test for that now. All it takes is one minute, a rubber glove and enough alcphol to drive the memory out of your skull....:p

And finally. I'm not sure what else is going to be said. This horse has been beat down so much we cant even make glue out of it. So unless anything new and major comes up I'm willing to say that this thread has settled into the usual suspects as frenchie would say and move on. I'm not changing my feelings on it and I doubt I'll be changing anyone else's, though this has been an interesting go around and I thank all of you and hope I didnt come off as too big a redneck lunatic..:)

[Greenday]

And finally. I'm not sure what else is going to be said. This horse has been beat down so much we cant even make glue out of it. So unless anything new and major comes up I'm willing to say that this thread has settled into the usual suspects as frenchie would say and move on. I'm not changing my feelings on it and I doubt I'll be changing anyone else's, though this has been an interesting go around and I thank all of you and hope I didnt come off as too big a redneck lunatic..:)

Which brings us to our next topic of debate: why SUVs should be done away with for the most part...

[Seshat]

seshat:

And I'd like to see that too. Somehow I think we've managed to go down the path where we're agreeing just using different words again.

I've found that to be surprisingly common. I had a talk about gay marriage with a person who was utterly horrified at the mere thought, that ended up with us agreeing in principle on everything and just needing to redefine terminologies.


What surprised a redneck would actually say something like this? I dont like the big SUVS they handle like crud off road and they are hard to take down narrow trails as they are just too dang wide. I want a nice old Jeep CJ7 or old jeep like they had on M*A*S*H now those where jeeps!

I hear you!

I'm not changing my feelings on it and I doubt I'll be changing anyone else's, though this has been an interesting go around and I thank all of you and hope I didnt come off as too big a redneck lunatic..:)

Country boy, yes. Different culture and attitudes from me, yes. Lunatic, no. Our circumstances differ enough that I'd be surprised if we had identical attitudes, and I respect your ability to recognise that, and am pleased that you seem to respect my different-circumstances.

I also understand the gun debate now, and hadn't previously. For that I'm grateful.

[Rapscallion]

Working vehicles, fine with those. They are genuinely needed. For use in the city? Not needed. I feel pretty much the same about guns.

Rapscallion

[ditchdj]

A lot of people dont understand is that our 2nd Amendment was there to prevent tyranny. It's the idea that a well-armed population will prevent the government from having too much power and taking away everyone's rights. I see nothing wrong with that. I've found that ordinary, "law-abiding" citizens to be a much bigger threat to my well-being and way of life than some group of religious freaks running around with bombs strapped to their wastes. That's what I see the 2nd Amendment for. To me, violence is what censorship is to most people. Yeah it's not right and it's wrong in a normal setting, BUT, when you threaten my well-being in any way, shape, or form, then all bets are off and they're to be embraced (and I'm sure a lot of other people feel that way). I've worked too long and way too hard to build the kind of life I want and have become very protective over it. I just wish most people had that kind of motivation to go after Bin Laden. If you put ME in charge over there right now his body would be providing dinner for the scorpions and sand flies over there.

[Rapscallion]

http://www.leasticoulddo.com/comic/20071211

A far better solution.

Rapscallion

[IDrinkaRum]

Thanks Raps! I almost violated CS's Rule #1 over here! :p

[ditchdj]

Interesting video from ABC's "20/20" on the myth of gun control reducing violent crime...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_YTM_eAWnQ

[BlaqueKatt]

A buddy of mine posted this on another board (dont know if he wrote it himself or got it from somewhere else)...

20 reasons to ban guns..... Flawed anti-self-defense/anti-gun liberal logic

that is actually part of this (http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?id=174) much longer list by Michael Z Williamson- titled "what you have to believe to believe in gun control"


A few other good ones-

That it's reasonable to require proof of a criminal act before an order of protection can be issued, but reasonable to assume anyone with a gun will commit a criminal act, so they should be subject to prior restraint.

That most people can't be trusted, so we should have laws against guns, which most people will abide by, because they can be trusted.

That people who own guns out of a fear of crime are paranoid, but people who don't want other people to own guns in case it causes them to commit crimes are rational.

That a criminal is somehow more of a threat to a cop than to a regular person, so police need guns and regular citizens don't.

That intelligent people should support gun control because they realize they are too stupid to be trusted with guns.

That you should give a mugger your wallet, because he doesn't really want to shoot you and he'll let you go, but that you should give him your wallet, because he'll shoot you if you don't.

That someone who fails to clear his weapon, fails to point it in a safe direction, pulls the trigger without checking the chamber, and blows his foot off is an example of how even a "trained professional" can be a "victim" of a diabolical gun, but people in the military who clean weapons millions of times a year without getting hurt are "dumb grunts."


That neighbors who carry guns against the occasional lunatic are paranoid, because of the perfectly justifiable fear that every single one of them is waiting to turn into a lunatic.

That the ready availability of guns today, with only a few government forms, waiting periods, checks, infringements, ID, and fingerprinting, is responsible for all the school shootings, compared to the lack of school shootings in the 1950's and 1960's, which was caused by the awkward availability of guns at any hardware store, gas station, and by mail order.

That we should ban guns because people have a "right to feel safe," but the right to feel safe by owning firearms for defense is not valid.

That "assault weapons" have no purpose other than to kill large numbers of people, which is why the police need them.

That citizens don't need to carry a gun for personal protection but desk-bound police administrators who work in a building filled with cops do, as do tax auditors, vegetable inspectors, mail inspectors, and meat inspectors.


to the constitution issue:

That there's no risk of the US becoming a police state, Japanese-Americans were not interned in the 40's, blacks were not oppressed and jailed in the 50's, and no students were killed at Kent State.

That when the government promises that they won't confiscate our weapons after we register them, we can believe them, just like the Commanche, the Sioux, the Apache, the Kaw, the Cree, the Blackfoot, the Italians in NYC, the Jews in Germany, the Zulu in South Africa…and the Americans at Lexington and Concord.

That there's no right to own military weapons, which is why the Civilian Marksmanship Program at http://www.odcmp.com exists to sell military weapons to civilians under Congressional authority.

That registration of guns, in violation of the McClure-Volkmer Act, and as declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, is somehow still legal.

That the "right of the people peaceably to assemble," the "right of the people to be secure in their homes," "the enumeration herein of certain rights shall not be construed to disparage others retained by the people," "The powers not delegated herein are reserved to the states respectively, and to the people," refer to individuals, but "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" refers to the states.

That the 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1791, allows the states to have a National Guard, created by act of Congress in 1916.

That the National Guard, paid by the federal government, occupying property leased to the federal government, using weapons owned by the federal government, punishing trespassers under federal law, is a state agency.

That private citizens can't have handguns, because they serve no militia purpose, even though the military has hundreds of thousands of them, and private citizens can't have assault rifles, because they are military weapons.

That we don't need guns against an oppressive government, because the Constitution has internal safeguards, so we should ban and seize all guns, therefore violating the 2nd, 4th, 5th and 9th Amendments of that Constitution, and won't thereby become an oppressive government.

That guns are useless against tyranny, because an armed populace of 160 million cannot defeat an army of 2 million mixed in among it.

[radiocerk]

Just off the bat, that I just don't like guns. I've known many people who have been shot (not fatally, luckily) and believe that most people who are rabidly attached to their weapons are testosterone-poisoned idiots.
Now that I've said that, I understand that in some places, guns can be useful.

If you live in BFE (extremely rural areas), and the police need a full tank of gas to reach you, and some wild animal is threatening you or your dependents (spouse, children, livestock, whatever), a gun may spare you either emotional distress, financial difficulty, or both. (I hate the "loved ones" term in gun-rights, I feel it is a term designed to pull at the heartstrings and be inflammatory.)

I have had the gun-rights conversation with my SO regularly, as the proud owner of a CCW, he is thrilled that he can take his gun places. I think it's silly. If you can't openly wear a gun somewhere, why should you be able to hide one?

I grew up in an extremely metropolitan area. Guns were not a tool in S. California, they were a problem. The people I knew who had guns for home-defense never needed them. Not because thay had a giant sign in the window "GUN HERE", but because the gun wasnt' the only thing they kept in mind. Decent lighting, a security system, a barking dog, these things are just as likely to deter a robber or other "invader" as a gun. Nobody's going to know about the gun until their inside. And the gun isn't going to help if someone robs your house while you're not home.

As for the common inflammatory argument about the woman and rapist, there are ways to defend yourself against that sort of thing without a gun as well. It is very difficult (I imagine) to rape someone while holding a gun, which means, at some point, every rapist is open to counterattack. I don't understand why anyone would need to carry a gun to keep a level head. The easiest way not to become a victim, is to refuse to be one. And it doesn't require a weapon, just a state of mind.

If you really feel the need to keep a gun in your house, fine. If you really feel the need to go hunting, I'm cool with that, I prefer my bow, but YMMV. But I can't see any logical reason (If you want to collect pretty looking guns, they make replicas that don't fire) for [B]anyone[I][B to own a fully automatic weapon. If you really want to know what it's like to fire one, join the military.
With the exception of the store owner/manager, I see no reason for anyone to have a gun in a place of business. And carrying one walking down the street seems the height of testosterone poisoning. Earlier someone made the comment comparing taking away his guns to emasculating him, sounds like testosterone poisoning to me.

And for the complarison of guns to cars, I think guns should be held to the same standards. The government has the VIN of my car on file, and kinows who owns it. I have to make sure they have this information every year, if I sell it to someone else, the government knows who has it now. If it is stolen, I don't report it and it kills someone, I'm certain I'll hear about it. I had to get a permit, and then a license to operate it, and a test before I was given that license. I have to take a physical exam (an eye test) every few years, and if I have any physical reasons that I may not be able to operate my car properly, and I don't tell the government about them, they will take my authorization. I feel that guns should be registered, and you should have to show proper use of one before you can legally use it. Yes, I can own a car without a license, but that is illegal and makes me a criminal. Anyone who does not register their weapons, should similiarly be considered a criminal.

More guns is not the answer to the problem. I do not own a gun, though there is one in the house. I have no desire to own a gun. I also have no desire to carry a cell phone, own a SUV, or have plastic surgery. You can if you want to, but you can't tell me that I should or should want to. America is a country of individuals, and NO ONE has the right to tell anyone that they should [I]want[I] anything.

I have a strong distaste for the nanny state, but that's a rant for another topic. My distaste works both ways though. Don't tell me whether or not I should want to own, carry, or shoot a firearm. The government can (within ever increasing limits) tell me what I can [I]do, I won't stand for anyone telling me what I can think, feel, and want.

[CancelMyService]

I just wish pro gun people (and there's nothing wrong with being into guns) wouldn't rely on scare tactics to make their case. When you have to make lists of all the scary things that can happen if the evil libruls took all the guns away, it gives the impression that it's the only way they can get anyone to agree with them.

It's my same basic issue with anti-abortion and the fervently religious, all they ever seem to offer to prove their sides are scare tactics.

[Boozy]

Question re: Concealed weapons and carrying permits.

If someone is licensed to carry, and they want to eat at a restaurant I own, or shop at my store, do I have the right to refuse them entry as long as they have their gun with them?

[radiocerk]

You have to post a notice at your door, but yes, you can refuse service to those carrying weapons. Out where I live now, it's pretty easy to get a CCW, so there are a lot of people who do. So, you do see the signs posted.

[the_std]

I just wish pro gun people (and there's nothing wrong with being into guns) wouldn't rely on scare tactics to make their case.

It's my same basic issue with anti-abortion and the fervently religious, all they ever seem to offer to prove their sides are scare tactics.

I think most rational, logical people wish that no political extremist (and I mean "extremist" in the negative way, not in someone who simply has radical beliefs) would use scare tactics. I know I'd rather have my brain appealed to rather than my herd mentality about, say, the environment, the health care system and gun control.

[CancelMyService]

Of course the difference being that having no health care and poor quality air can kill you, while not having a gun only kills you in the stories of evildoers who want to do you harm. Not that there isn't any risk of becoming a victim of violent crime, but it's a far lesser risk than say, catching a cold that turns onto pneumonia due to not being able to afford a doctor visit.

[the_std]

I know. I was just saying that scare tactics will always be around. That's just how some people do things.

[Zyanya]

My life was once in danger.

I used force to protect myself. The force involved should have been lethal, I certainly intended it to be, but alas, the emergency room doctor was good at his job.

I was not that individual's first victim. Nor was I his last.

I own a gun now. I learned the hard way that non-lethal methods of defending myself are insufficient.

Call it scare tactics if you want. It's a lesson I do not need a refresher course in.

[Seshat]

My father taught me about applying my bony prominences to an attacker's soft tissues. My husband taught me that if I'm ever attacked, I shouldn't hesitate to use my full strength.

Both of them are of the opinion that someone who assaults another person deserves whatever they get - and that since I'm not a black belt or some other sort of specialist in martial matters, I don't have the sheer knowledge and expertise to use non-lethal force and expect to get away.

(If I ever do become a specialist, of course, the equation changes. At that point, I would have the knowledge and skills to use a measured amount of force and escape unharmed. With my disabilities, that's unlikely.)

That said, I'm not intending to carry a gun. Aside from the low likelihood that I'll need it (being in a relatively low-crime country), I trust myself with a gun even less than I do with a car. Part of the disabilities I have. :( And I dare not use capsicum spray - the by-blow from it is likely to disable me further right when I need to be able to get the hell away. I'm highly susceptible to capsicates.

It sucks. :(

[Zyanya]

I recommend a stun gun, if that's legal where you are.

[Boozy]

My husband gave me an ASP tactical baton, although I don't feel the need to carry it with me. I live and work in a nice area.

I like the ASP though because it can turn even the weakest girly blow into a painful strike. It also has a deterrent affect, because of the sound it makes when it snaps into place is quite loud.

You can keep it up your sleeve, and if you are lucky enough to see the attack coming, you extend your arm and drop it into your hand. A quick snap of your wrist extends it. Its quite a display. It makes you look like you could kick some ass, even if you're terrified and plan on running for it anyway. :rolleyes:

[Dreamstalker]

I was actually considering seeing if civilians could access baton training (probably not) when I was working closing shift at the game store (closing alone, that corner of town could get sketchy at that hour). For some reason it seems that a lot of personal protective stuff seems to be not allowed (as in cannot be shipped to my state--does that mean they are really "illegal" or the vendors are just covering their asses?).

[Zyanya]

For some reason it seems that a lot of personal protective stuff seems to be not allowed (as in cannot be shipped to my state--does that mean they are really "illegal" or the vendors are just covering their asses?).

Some states have idiotically written laws. It may be legal to own something, but illegal to sell it.

I think Texas had that until recently with sex toys.

[FashionLad]

I am opposed to a lot of governmet control.

I'm exceptionaly opposed to gun control. The government already has more control over our lives that I would like to say.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

If you want guns to be outlawed, only outlaws with have guns.

Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck, using surveys and other data has determined that armed citizens defend their lives or proprty with fireamrs against criminals approximately 1 million times year. In 98% of the instances, the citizen merely brandishes the weapon or fires a warning shot. Only in 2 percent of the cases do citizens actually shoot their assailants. --The Second Amendment Primer

Now, what if a law abiding citizen had a gun in that school? How many lives could have been saved?

http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/mountaien.htm

"No man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. --Thomas Jefferson

What part of ". . . . . the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" don't people understand?

He who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither. - Benjamin Franklin

If you're willing to repeal the 2nd Amendment, let the government control your life. Let them listen to your phone calls. Let them tell you 2+2=5. I'm opposed to all that, and it's already started.

http://doctorgrayson.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!2FC6F6005DF92C68!311.entry

One day guns will be outlawed, I can feel it. And we'll all live in fear because it won't be us, the good people having guns. It will be the government and the bad guys. And sometimes, those two groups are not mutually exclusive.

[rahmota]

Jumping back into this I see its got some interesting stuff going on.

I like the ASP though because it can turn even the weakest girly blow into a painful strike. It also has a deterrent affect, because of the sound it makes when it snaps into place is quite loud.
The ASP is nice. And you are right the deterent factor of getting that snap flip just right with a cool look on your face can be very effective at getting a weaker willed chum to run off. Bad thign is you do that you had better be ready and able to back it up with the ability to do some whoop arse if the deterent doesnt work.

Like Teddy said: Speak softly but carry a big stick. And the Army extension of that phrase: and know how to use it!.

Seshat: Well you could always learn redneck barfighting style. Which basically says anythign goes so long as you're the last one standing. And I'll agree if you are in a fight with someone (and they atarted it. Never start a fight but definately be the one to finish it.) then you are obligated to fight with any and all means at hand to render them non-hostile. Fight dirty and lowdown. All those rules of chivalry and honor dont count when its a street brawl with your life on the line. Go for soft spots not to injure but to incapacitate or if at the most required and there are no other options to kill.

I've worked with my wife and daughter that if a guy attacks them they are to change that guys gender, gouge his eyes out a person cant hit what they cannot see, jam something in the persons jaw and break it off. The means to incapacitate an enemy are quite unlimited for an inventive enough and determined enough person.

[protege]

I've worked with my wife and daughter that if a guy attacks them they are to change that guys gender, gouge his eyes out a person cant hit what they cannot see, jam something in the persons jaw and break it off. The means to incapacitate an enemy are quite unlimited for an inventive enough and determined enough person.

My father always said...don't start the fight, but you damn well better finish it. That is, if someone's trying to hurt you, you take them out. Not kill them...but simply neutralize the threat.

For example, I caught someone trying to break into my grandmother's house one night. Guess they thought nobody was home since my car wasn't visible. Grandma was in the hospital, and I'd put my car in the garage. Anyway, as soon as the porch light went on, whoever it was ran off...after trying to force the door open. Needless to say...I grabbed a pitchfork off the porch, and went after the bastard. Never had that problem again ;)

[tropicsgoddess]

I personally believe that it's the person holding the gun that controls the gun. People with a history of violence, mental health issues (the psych ward type of stuff) shouldn't even be allowed to have a gun. Unfortunately, that's not the only issue with gun control that needs to be addressed. There's the parents who have a gun somewhere in the house for protection and then the little kid finds it and shoots himself or somebody else with it on accident or the Columbine types that raid their parents' gun and go out and shoot up innocent people and then themselves. Parents should be legally required to get a safety device for the gun and a safe or heavy duty lock box to prevent the children from accessing it and have the family take lessons in gun safety.

[Zyanya]

Parents should be legally required to get a safety device for the gun and a safe or heavy duty lock box to prevent the children from accessing it .

Or they could just teach the kid not to get into it. I'd rather have my gun where I could get it if I needed it.

[Seshat]

The ASP is nice. And you are right the deterent factor of getting that snap flip just right with a cool look on your face can be very effective at getting a weaker willed chum to run off. Bad thign is you do that you had better be ready and able to back it up with the ability to do some whoop arse if the deterent doesnt work.

Definitely. Never draw a weapon - any weapon - unless you're willing to use it. And to face all the consequences of using it, including how you're going to feel after having seen the wrecked remains of your assailant.

Even if the other person was intending to rape and/or kill you, doing serious damage to a person will change you.


Seshat: Well you could always learn redneck barfighting style. Which basically says anythign goes so long as you're the last one standing.

Oh, believe me, if I'm fighting to save my skin (or a kid, or an elderly or more-disabled person), 'rules of honour' mean nothing. There are only two rules: survive, and don't hurt any innocent bystanders if you can help it.

[FashionLad]

There's the parents who have a gun somewhere in the house for protection and then the little kid finds it and shoots himself or somebody else with it on accident...

I know you addressed this a little later, but, I think you didn't go into it deep enough.

A lot of times parents will keep guns in their house for protection, but hide it for their kids. So when the kids snoop around, they find it and are in awe of it. They will think it's the coolest thing ever. Be up front about your gun to your child and take them to gun safety classes. I think in the long run, that will help out a lot. I bet if you look at a lot of cases were a child found the family gun and hurt someone or themselves with it, the gun was never explained to them. I'll bet you anything that the parent actually wanted to hide the gun from the child and never once really explained anything about the gun.

I've been shooting guns since I was about 4 or 5. My parents always had unlocked and loaded guns in the house. Why? They were for protection. If you have a gun for protection, it doesn't make sense to lock it up and have the ammo for it locked up somewhere else. Because by the you're able to get everything when you need it, you're dead.

[crazylegs]

I've been reading this thread now for quite a while and only now feel qualified to throw my hat into the ring.

I come from a country that has
Some of the worlds toughest gun control laws
Seen an increase in gun related crime
A fascination with weapons.

I do not believe that criminilising weapons works. Criminals are, by their very definition, those who defy the law. To say to a criminal "you can't do that, its against the law" and expect it to work is naive to the extreme.

Weapons (by that I mean hand guns) should be allowed to those who can demonstrate they can use them safely and can secure them properly. By this I don't just mean 'has attended a course' but rather has passed a course on weapon safety. The course content should be similar to the same lessons within the military (very strict on pass/fail rates). Owners should be retested each year. Within the UK possession of a weapon has never been a right, like driving it is a privilege and should be treated as such.

All weapons should, like vehicles, be registered to their owners, in addition there should be registration certifcates with any nessacary conditions attached to ownership. Stiff penalties should be given for failure to comply.

I am aware that my argument is flawed, yet so are our laws currently, I do however feel that this is a better fix than our current situation.

[ditchdj]

Excellent piece on the myth of "Gun Control Reduces Crime". Note how one incarcerated convict said that he could care less about laws.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_YTM_eAWnQ

[AFPheonix]

I suppose, like seatbelt laws, that gun control laws can add more time to a convict's sentence.

[Boozy]

I suppose, like seatbelt laws, that gun control laws can add more time to a convict's sentence.

They also give police more leverage in pressing charges.

Right now, if they find an unlicensed gun in the possession of a known criminal, they can press weapons charges immediately and make an arrest. They don't need to wait until they use it.

The majority of police officers in my country in favour of gun control laws.

[rahmota]

My father always said...don't start the fight, but you damn well better finish it. That is, if someone's trying to hurt you, you take them out. Not kill them...but simply neutralize the threat.
Yep i'll definately agree with you. Dont ever start a fight but definately be the one to finish it. I'll also say though that sometimes one has to be prepared to take it as far as it has to be taken. If a person is trying to kill you, not just wound you or rape you sometimes the only way to end it is to end it permanently. Something a person has to be willing to consider when using force.

As for registration and the inherent hazard with giving a government that has already shown a willingness to ignore the rights and freedoms of their citizens another tool to opress their citizens firearm registration would just bloat the amount of beuracratic BS we already suffer under as it it.

Anythign else see my earlier posts as my opinions have not really changed except maybe leaning more anti-governmental controls in this.

I suppose, like seatbelt laws, that gun control laws can add more time to a convict's sentence.
And they can also be used as an excuse to go after innocent people and criminalize folks who otherwise would be lawabiding. I mean there is talk of defining a sniper scope as any firearm that can have a scope mounted on it. That means everythign from a single shot break action 12 guage to a full auto AK and everythign in between could be declared a sniper rifle and owning it be a criminal act. Not to mention you have other agencies like the gestapo (CPS) that define any weapon as a firearm and try to declare them falling under the same rules. I mean recently they tried to get me in trouble with probation for having paintball guns on my property. The probation office yelled at them for it and told them to stop being so overreacting.

Anyhow. I have had firearms aroud my kids before and there has never been any problems. Its all in how you teach and take responsibility.

[rahmota]

Okay Maybe i should explain somethign I meant by the too many government agencies havign power over weapons and such. You have agencies like Child services who think that a person should not have ANY weapons in a home when you have children. And they define weapons very very liberally. Basically if it looks like a weapon or has a blade longer than 3" it is a weapon. But even though they have no real legal power they will harrass and threaten to take a person's children for having weapons. Forcing people to get a lawyer and fight them.

Okay. i mentioned I am on probation thanks to that bastard judas. Fortunately it is only for 2 years (assumign things dont get wiped out htis august and go away) and then i get my firearms back. But if i was a felon, no matter what it was for or what i did to redeem myself or whatever time was served and restitution was paid to society the RIGHT to keep and bear arms would be forever denied unless i went to court to fight it. (of course felons also cannot vote or do a lot of other things that are not exactly fair and equitable according to the constitution but thats for another thread) And in the current environment that would be rather difficult. This is because more and more thigns are being called felony crimes. More charge are able to be thron at a person. It is getting to the point where a person can be a criminal just for walking the wrong way on a street.

Just because when Judas called 911 he said I had a gun they responded in force (to the point where I was rather rudely thrown to the ground on broken glass even with both hands up in the air and in plain sight, fortunately my lawyer made the officer apologize to me, hes lucky i was trying to have his badge for excessive force) and judas was able to shove aggravated burglury against me even though I was (1) declaring I am unarmed (2) no weapon was found on me (3) I cooperated with the offier (4) and had never been in trouble. I had to plea down to misdemeanor tresspassing to avoid going to prison on felony charges as it was made abundantly clear to me that since the judge was up for reelection there was no way anyone was going to walk out of his court without being found guilty of something.

Anyhow suffice to say that throwing more power to the cops and the government is not the answer to anything. You give these bastards an inch and they will take a mile or more. What we need to do is reduce the amount of power the police and government have over the individual persson's life and increase the indivdual person's responsibility and control over their own life. i mean there is no need for any laws against a person possessing any firearm of any type, caliber or style. It is how that firearm is used that needs to be controlled. And that comes from changing social, cultural and personal perspectives about how firearms are thought of and looked at.

[Fuzzykitten99]

<snip>I can see why the guy in VT may have felt pushed against the wall and hopeless. I may not agree with what he did but I can see and understand it. Understand it is not always the fault of the poor and unemployed that they are in the position they are in. <snip>

It may not be their fault, but working conditions and wages are FAR better now than say, during the industrial revolution, and even the Great Depression. Back then, there was no government-mandated minimum wage. No worker's rights. No OSHA. If you didn't like the working conditions, there was always someone willing to take your place. And, here's the kicker--- you didn't hear of a kid going and lighting up a class full of innocent people because he felt 'pushed against the wall and hopeless'. Why are you justifying this person's actions? I feel stressed right now because we are tight for money. Doesn't mean I go rob a bank or hold people hostage. And if I did, my reason doesn't justify breaking the law and murdering innocent people. I am not above the law, regardless of the root cause of my actions.

Society has come to the point where people are taught to blame others for their plight. In many cases, it isn't their fault for their unemployment and position in life. But that is the way life is. The only one really keeping you down is the attitude that you can't work hard to rise above and prove them wrong. If some people can't do that, that is their problem, not mine. I am willing to help give a boost, but only if their attitude is the right one.

There will always be low-points in someone's life. Financial, emotional, whatever. Saying that their position in life is because the elite don't want them in their little club is just an excuse to not try and get there anyway and prove them wrong. Why are you so worried about the 'elite' not wanting you in their 'club'? Why not find a way to get there, just to piss them off?

[Seshat]

There will always be low-points in someone's life. Financial, emotional, whatever. Saying that their position in life is because the elite don't want them in their little club is just an excuse to not try and get there anyway and prove them wrong. Why are you so worried about the 'elite' not wanting you in their 'club'? Why not find a way to get there, just to piss them off?

Or do what I'm doing, and redefine 'success'. I'll never be healthy enough for the professional-class job and lifestyle I used to call 'successful'. But when I thought about it, I realised that that wasn't necessary anyway: and not necessarily 'successful', either. Now I'm working towards other goals. Doing some good, leaving a legacy, and getting as healthy as is realistic given the disabilities.

So yeah, something prevents you from getting the goal you had in mind? Something moves the goalposts on you? Pick a different goal, or change direction, or something. Just keep moving towards something you can call 'successful'.

[rahmota]

Back then, there was no government-mandated minimum wage. No worker's rights. No OSHA. If you didn't like the working conditions, there was always someone willing to take your place.
And the conditions now adays is not much different. There may be a minimum wage but I'd love to see anyone actually live a decent life on it. Try and do that with kids and you'll have the gestapo come and take the kids for endangerment as you cant support them.
OSHA is a joke by the time they get around to doing anythign people have already died or maimed. And even then all they do is fine the company which if its a minor enough problem the company pays the fine and goes on with life. big deal so what. Heck this government is so friendly with the corps that most of the worker protection laws are unenforced, or the agencies required to enforce those laws are underpaid and overworked beyond belief.
With 5.1% unemployment adn an estimated 350,000 new unemployment claims each week companies have applicants lined up ten deep for most jobs.

[Slytovhand]

I would like to weigh into this debate, but not from a legal point of view. Not even from the POV of arguing one side or another (specifically).

I would just like to express how this debate and some of the arguments make me feel.

Firstly, I would just like to start by saying that this can quite easily be interpreted as a ‘flame’, or a pointed insult. I hope that the gun-lobby on here will forgive me for this, but I do think it’s necessary. I would also like to say that I have handled and fired them (and not too shabbily either, thank you :p) Also, I know some people who do own, and I know people who will be owning. I feel relatively safe with the actual gun itself, and also with a couple of those people too. Personally, I could take having one or 2 – but while it’s not quite legal for me to (or there are legals to go through before I could) I’m not that phased that I can’t. I’d rather that while I can’t, I know others can’t as well. I’d also like to point out, that if we had the freedom of guns in our society, and if I had one available, I wouldn’t be here to type this right now.


From the arguments put forth on here, it scares the crap out of me that people can think like this. It makes me never want to visit the US, and certainly not to various parts of it.

What I hear when the ‘it’s my constitutional right to own a gun’ is ‘it’s my constitutional right to go an kill someone any time I feel I can justify it'.

Human life seems to have an incredibly low value. What is it worth? A television? A pack of cigarettes?? The debate always seems to get turned into a match of statistics. Those ‘statistics’ are each a life that has been lost, and a lot of lives spent grieving. The life lost and the lives grieving can, in the most easiest way, have been avoided if those who start the killing did not have access to the weapon. Is the theft of a mere object worth killing someone for? Is a human life so devalued in today’s society that we will truly kill to protect one’s property??

In every post here, the term ‘responsible person’ gets thrown up. Well – humans haven’t yet gotten to that utopian place yet. In the same post, there will be the argument of ‘rights’ and ‘freedoms’. Ok – assuming that there are people who don’t have that level of responsibility, who or what is to limit their ‘right’ to carry and misuse a firearm? It scares me to death that it could be anyone I walk past in the street who has an attitude.

Yes – that scares me! It’s a ‘fear mentality’ that is being propagated - “you need a gun to protect you from all the bad things in the world”. How would it be if there was as much passion, money, argument etc spent on making the place a safer one to be in? If there are social issues involved – then go spend the money on helping out the needy to make it a better place to live in. Not spend it on a way to make it worse.

I am flabbergasted that when a killing – the taking of innocent human lives – takes place, the gun lobby seems to think that there is ‘nothing wrong’ with the situation. There doesn’t appear to be anything ‘wrong’ with a child taking a weapon and killing someone, other than that other children were unable to shoot back. Hey… does it truly matter if it’s 33 children, versus only 2? (2 being the first victim shot, and then the shooter). It’s still the life of a child we’re talking about. Surely, the sanest thing a person can say is ‘that person should not have had access to that gun’? True – there are social issues that need to be addressed, I’m not in any way denying that. But surely, the fastest and surest answer in the short term is to make such weapons harder to get – not easier?

It also scares the crap out of me to hear intelligent points get ignored, or worse, insulted, just because it opposes someone’s ideas. And it also galls me that quite irrelevant arguments get thrown up, which are quite obviously ridiculous (comparing guns and cars - oh please!). Especially on the topic of killing. So – your statistics aren’t my statistics – but one human life is still one human life! When the argument gets empassioned, then reason has a bad tendency to get thrown out the door… hey – that’s what we’re talking about –when someone who was normally responsible and reasonable goes ape and starts shooting someone….

And it also scares the crap out of me to think that our law enforcement officers, who are there to help protect it’s citizens, could easily get killed because someone got their hands on such a weapon – because it was so readily available (and by ‘readily available’, I don’t mean the paper work.. I’m talking about Joe or Jane Blog owns a gun quite legally, and then just hands it over to Harry who goes for a joy ride and doesn’t want to get pulled over, and then panics!) Especially when the argument gets put forth that the enforcement agencies might, just might, turn against it's citizens.. that alone is supposed to justify the added risk the police have to face?


I just read Rahmota’s “deserving of an evil empire” line on page 8. Guess what? I live in an ‘evil empire’. I am not paranoid, I don’t think my government is doing the very best that it can, and sometimes it doesn’t have my personal best interests at heart.. but I’m not scared of being shot as I walk down the road, because some gun-owner who used to be responsible is having a real bad day, and needs to take it out on someone.

If the gun lobby were really that gung-ho about civil liberties and freedom and rights, they’d probably be in the middle of civil war right now. If you take a look at the laws the presidents have been enacting over the past few years, you’d see that most of your personal freedoms and liberties don’t exist anymore. The US security services now have the right to walk into your home, handcuff you, take you away, detain you with no access to legal aid, no right to contact anybody, not even the right to tell someone what’s happened to you – with no charges laid. They can currently keep you there indefinitely, and for no reason at all. Additionally, they have the right, right now, to monitor every form of communication that you use. For that matter, it wouldn’t surprise me if they already are.. given the comments on here about willingness to fight the government.

Also.. I would be just as scared, and not wanting to go to, those Middle-East or African countries which you see on the TV, and all those ‘militia’ are wielding their guns and shooting up into the air! Are those individuals any less ‘responsible’?


Let me ask a hypothetical. What if the US government decided to hold a referendum on the subject? What if the results of that referendum were that 60% of the people of the US decided to impose greater gun control laws? Would you hand them over? What if that figure was 75%? Or 90%?? You live in a democratic country, where the people (the majority) have the right to elect officials to enact laws for their personal safety and well being. Would that democratic process just get thrown out the window because it doesn’t fit someone’s ‘personal freedom’ to own a gun?




Slyt

[rahmota]

What I hear when the ‘it’s my constitutional right to own a gun’ is ‘it’s my constitutional right to go an kill someone any time I feel I can justify it'.

Thats truely what you hear when you hear a person defend their constiutional right to be able to defend themselves? Wow you have a very strange POV on the us. Having a firearm does not mean what you are saying it means. It means you are to hold yourself to a higher standard than just some gunslinging nutjob. There are laws against using that firearm to just go out and murder someone. There are laws against using a firearm irresponsibly. Just because a person does posess a firearm does not make them an irresponsible or violent person. The two are not interlinked.

Is a human life so devalued in today’s society that we will truly kill to protect one’s property??
It is not so much the property that is being defended but ones home and family and own life. Suppose you are in your home and someone breaks in. You do not know what they are going to do to you or your family. If they are in your home then you know they are already hostile to you so shooting them is valid and understandable. The same can be said if you ar ein your car and someone breaks into it or attacks you. they have forfeited their life by threatening yours.

I am flabbergasted that when a killing – the taking of innocent human lives – takes place, the gun lobby seems to think that there is ‘nothing wrong’ with the situation. There doesn’t appear to be anything ‘wrong’ with a child taking a weapon and killing someone, other than that other children were unable to shoot back. Hey… does it truly matter if it’s 33 children, versus only 2? (2 being the first victim shot, and then the shooter). It’s still the life of a child we’re talking about. Surely, the sanest thing a person can say is ‘that person should not have had access to that gun’? True – there are social issues that need to be addressed, I’m not in any way denying that. But surely, the fastest and surest answer in the short term is to make such weapons harder to get – not easier
No the thing is to increase education and responsibility. Especially as child related firearm incidents are rather inflated by the anti-firearm organizations.

Let me ask a hypothetical. What if the US government decided to hold a referendum on the subject? What if the results of that referendum were that 60% of the people of the US decided to impose greater gun control laws? Would you hand them over? What if that figure was 75%? Or 90%?? You live in a democratic country, where the people (the majority) have the right to elect officials to enact laws for their personal safety and well being. Would that democratic process just get thrown out the window because it doesn’t fit someone’s ‘personal freedom’ to own a gun?

I can honestly answer that with a resounding no. The government would be disolved or I would rather die. because a referendum like that would be first off illegal, second off unconstitutional and third off immoral. I and other firearms owners would prefer to fight things within the courts as the step of civil war would be a last ditch effort with results that would not be able to be backed away from easily. It would mean the dissolving of our government and while that might not be a bad thing it would be an act that would be irrevocable and have to be handled with some severe and serious consideration.

And I sincerely doubt that you would get above 30% in a referendum like that and almost all of them would be in urban areas.

[Slytovhand]

Thats truely what you hear when you hear a person defend their constiutional right to be able to defend themselves? Wow you have a very strange POV on the us. Having a firearm does not mean what you are saying it means. It means you are to hold yourself to a higher standard than just some gunslinging nutjob. There are laws against using that firearm to just go out and murder someone. There are laws against using a firearm irresponsibly. Just because a person does posess a firearm does not make them an irresponsible or violent person. The two are not interlinked.

Oh - very true, very true. Unfortunately, the problem with the whole gun-control argument is that it isn't really directed against those responsible law abiding people. It's against giving the 'nutjobs' easier access to those guns. I noticed in your "Your in Charge" thread, that you put legalisation of all drugs directly above everyone has a gun... thus, if someone gets smacked off their head on something, and go on a shooting spree, that it's 'ok'... and everyone needs to fend for themselves. In the interests of making the place a bit safer, it would be easier (in lieu of the legal wrangling that you also appear to despise), to stop the easy access of weapons, rather than give them to everyone. At the very least, I would think licensing and registration mandatory. (oh, btw, when stricter gun control laws were introduced into this country, and our Olympic shooting teams still mentioned to get medals.. including gold :D)

Honestly (as againstly lyingly :p), I would love to agree with your entire argument and 'right to bear arms'.... but humanity isn't all that responsible. Hell... take a look at what we're doing to the planet. Take a look at how we (the human race) treats itself... in the broader world view.... We (humanity as a whole) isn't ready to deal with that level of responsibility... yet. If we were, this entire thread wouldn't be here (of course... neither would CS :D)

It is not so much the property that is being defended but ones home and family and own life. Suppose you are in your home and someone breaks in. You do not know what they are going to do to you or your family. If they are in your home then you know they are already hostile to you so shooting them is valid and understandable. The same can be said if you ar ein your car and someone breaks into it or attacks you. they have forfeited their life by threatening yours.

Pass... I can't agree with that. Oh - the bit about 'or attacks you' is obviously a yes. But to say because someone has entered your house, they have forfeited their life by threatening yours... nope! As I said... your TV isn't worth someone's life. But if someone enters your house, yeah... you've got a 'right' to yell out to them that you have a gun, and even to discharge (if you have one) into the roof/floor. But not to automatically shoot them just for being in there (even with intent to....steal??). Now... you did say "You do not know what they are going to do to you or your family". Well... I have other weapons available to me... like kitchen knives (not that I want them to get that close...). I also happen to have a sword (blunt, but still). But even if I had a gun, I still don't want to start a shooting match...


No the thing is to increase education and responsibility. Especially as child related firearm incidents are rather inflated by the anti-firearm organizations.

Inflated or not, 1 is still 1 too many. See above for 'responsibility'.



I can honestly answer that with a resounding no. The government would be disolved or I would rather die. because a referendum like that would be first off illegal, second off unconstitutional and third off immoral. I and other firearms owners would prefer to fight things within the courts as the step of civil war would be a last ditch effort with results that would not be able to be backed away from easily. It would mean the dissolving of our government and while that might not be a bad thing it would be an act that would be irrevocable and have to be handled with some severe and serious consideration.

And I sincerely doubt that you would get above 30% in a referendum like that and almost all of them would be in urban areas.

Umm - I have to guess which the 'resounding no' refers to... cos I threw a few different questions in at once...bad me :(

I find it sad (and scary) that, given that hypothetical, you would rather die, or (if I read correctly) go to civil war, if 70% of your population voted for stricter gun control laws. (of course... I may have mis-read you there...). Even if the majority were from the urban areas, would that really matter if the law was passed? After all, hopefully, all laws are made with the benefit of society as a whole in mind, not just for individuals.. which means, by definition, that the individual has to give up certain freedoms in order for that society to function effectively.

And having a referendum would be illegal and unconstitutional?? Weird. Personally, I couldn't think of anything thing that should be more legal (having the entire populous of a country making a decision about a law).

Immoral?? WTF??? What's the argument for that??


Speaking of this 'right'... (and a bit OT), does that right extend outside the US? (legally, obviously not, but since you used the term... morally?)


Slyt

[rahmota]

and everyone needs to fend for themselves. In the interests of making the place a bit safer People who are armed and trained are able to defend themselves. Firearms make it easier for those who are not physically capable of wielding a sword or bow or xbow to defend themselves.

We (humanity as a whole) isn't ready to deal with that level of responsibility... yet So? The irresponsible ones die the responsible ones live the world becomes a better place. The equation balances itself out.

But if someone enters your house, yeah... you've got a 'right' to yell out to them that you have a gun, and even to discharge (if you have one) into the roof/f So aperson has no right to defend themselves in their own home? Their own home is not their castle? That a person's home can be invaded and violated and their lives threatened with impunity? Yelling at them just lets them know where you are and if they are in your home and caught by you then they most likely have hostile intent and then you are a target. Discharging a firearm into the roof or floor is irresponsible as that can result in collateral damage not to mention damage to your own property. Also unless you are using the right kind of rounds there is an increased chance of collateral damage to bystanders in apartment buildings. low velocity rounds will enter the human body but not exit. Also using fragmentation rouds will enter the body but not penetrate walls.

I find it sad (and scary) that, given that hypothetical, you would rather die, or (if I read correctly) go to civil war*shrug* Thats you. I personally find it honorable, decent, and responsible to be willing to die to defend my constitutional and human rights. When a government ceases to be the servant of its citizens then it deserves to fall.

there...). Even if the majority were from the urban areas, would that really matter if the law was p yes because laws that are passed and might work in the urban environemtns usually do not work or are not right for rural environments. Sometimes it works out the zame way the other way.

passed? After all, hopefully, all laws are made with the benefit of society as a whole in mind, not just for individuals.. which means, by definition, that the individual has to give up certain freedoms in order for that society to function effectively
Yes individuals have to give up SOME freedoms for society to function but the balance must always, always be in favor of the individual over the good of society. Society is made up of the individual working in concert as a whole. Not the body politic dictating from the top down.


And having a referendum would be illegal and unconstitutional

Yes the second amendment protects the citizen's right to bear arms. To change that would require certain steps and methods to be passed namely passing an amendment to the constitution a simple referendum would not be constitutional which would mean it would be illegal as you cannot change the constitution by just popular vote.

Speaking of this 'right'... (and a bit OT), does that right extend outside the US? (legally, obviously not, but since you used the term... morally?)
Well yes the human right to defend oneself by whatever means required extends to all human citizens. if the bad guys have firearms then the good guys need them. Otherwise you always have what happens when unarmed people go against armed people.....

[BlackIronCrown]

Human life seems to have an incredibly low value. What is it worth? A television? A pack of cigarettes??

In all seriousness, the human body is worth $4.50-$5 American. (http://home.nycap.rr.com/useless/sell_your_body/index.html) That is the value if broken down into its material components and sold on the open market.

And before you ask, this does not include intangibles like knowledge. Such things as knowledge and experience cannot be measured and thus cannot be given a price tag. Thus, they have no monetary value as such.

Ok – assuming that there are people who don’t have that level of responsibility, who or what is to limit their ‘right’ to carry and misuse a firearm? It scares me to death that it could be anyone I walk past in the street who has an attitude.

This is what most people who advocate the loosening of gun control don't understand. There is no limit. None. The only thing stopping someone from just letting forth full auto is a) whatever "morals" or "ethics" they might accidentally have, usually none and b) fear of the law. If you don't have either of those - and a lot of Americans don't - then it becomes a free-for-all.

And it also scares the crap out of me to think that our law enforcement officers, who are there to help protect it’s citizens, could easily get killed because someone got their hands on such a weapon – because it was so readily available (and by ‘readily available’, I don’t mean the paper work.. I’m talking about Joe or Jane Blog owns a gun quite legally, and then just hands it over to Harry who goes for a joy ride and doesn’t want to get pulled over, and then panics!) Especially when the argument gets put forth that the enforcement agencies might, just might, turn against it's citizens.. that alone is supposed to justify the added risk the police have to face?

Correct. Let's face it - your average gangbanger outweighs the average firepower of a cop, usually through dirty dealing from the National Guard selling stocks out the back door. Armor-piercing, full-auto - it's all available on the streets if you know who to ask.


The US security services now have the right to walk into your home, handcuff you, take you away, detain you with no access to legal aid, no right to contact anybody, not even the right to tell someone what’s happened to you – with no charges laid. They can currently keep you there indefinitely, and for no reason at all.

Actually, have to argue it. It may APPEAR to be that way through the media, but that's not true. If you're NOT an American citizen, yes, that is possible. If you ARE an American citizen, it can't happen. Habeas corpus has been defined as to not to apply to non-citizens by the Military Commissions Act of 2006.

[crazylegs]

So aperson has no right to defend themselves in their own home? Their own home is not their castle? That a person's home can be invaded and violated and their lives threatened with impunity? Yelling at them just lets them know where you are and if they are in your home and caught by you then they most likely have hostile intent and then you are a target.

Seeing as (in the UK) the majority of burglars are doing it to fund their drug habit I can assure you they are considerably more scared of encountering resistance of any description in the house than you are of them. They will be weakened (by the drug habit) so detaining them is perfectly feasible without the use of firearms (it comes down to training, I can take down a 20stone self defense expert because of my training. Before you state I'm a strapping young man, my BMI is lower than 18.5, I am mediacally speaking underweight.

Unless you catch them in the kitchen (thats really unlucky) then shouing at them will probably work AS LONG AS YOUR VOICE CARRIES AUTHORITY.

[Pedersen]

Actually, have to argue it. It may APPEAR to be that way through the media, but that's not true. If you're NOT an American citizen, yes, that is possible. If you ARE an American citizen, it can't happen. Habeas corpus has been defined as to not to apply to non-citizens by the Military Commissions Act of 2006.

Unless, of course, they find a little loophole (http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2003/04/58326) which allows them to hold a US citizen indefinitely without charging said citizen with a crime.

[IDrinkaRum]

In my neck of the woods, in the states, we have a lot of "home invasion" burglaries. These types of burglaries are where the perpetrators (and there are usually at least 2 to 4) get into the home either by forcing open a window or door or just knocking on the door and the homeowner just randomly answers said door & a scuffle ensues as the criminals force themselves into the house and subdue the person who answered the door.

If I'm in another part of the house & I hear the scuffle, I'd do a couple of things. 1) grab the phone. 2) get a gun (if I had one - we do not) or find a weapon of some sort. 3) find someplace to hide and call 911 and report what is happening.

Let me tell you - 9 out of 10 home invasion burglaries do not end happily for the family/owners of the house that has been burglarized.

[Slytovhand]

Thanks for the link, Pedersen.. that was the sort of thing I was thinking of.

I have had a thought...

Most if not all of us seem to be of the opinion that at least a major part of the reason for carrying a gun (not the 2nd Ammendment bit, nor the 'so the government doesn't take over) is against crime, and that crime comes from society's woes...


Well... last estimate places the US at having around 280 Million guns... about 1 for every person there (and that's only the known element, btw).

so... take the average price on each gun (and I'll be fairly conservative...hahahaha) and say $100.

There's $28 (US)Billion dollars... (English would have a million million equal 1 billion..... that's why they don't have as many billionaires...)

How about ammunition?

Factor another, say. $100 per weapon (no doubt you'd go through a stack more than that....)

But there's another $28 billion dollars.

So...there's $36 Billion.

How would that go in fixing some of the social issues that would give rise to the crime that the guns are supposed to defend against?


Just a thought....

[BlackIronCrown]

Unless, of course, they find a little loophole (http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2003/04/58326) which allows them to hold a US citizen indefinitely without charging said citizen with a crime.

I would agree on that EXCEPT...after being held for 5 weeks to serve as a material witness for the other 7 guys arrested and indicted (and held because he was considered to be hostile and a flight risk), he himself was indicted and plead guilty, guilty, guilty.

Got a reduced sentence, though, for testifying against his former co-conspirators.

(I feel really bad for all his supporters who said he was innocent. What an awful surprise.)

[Zyanya]

I would agree on that EXCEPT...after being held for 5 weeks to serve as a material witness for the other 7 guys arrested and indicted (and held because he was considered to be hostile and a flight risk), he himself was indicted and plead guilty, guilty, guilty.

Got a reduced sentence, though, for testifying against his former co-conspirators.

(I feel really bad for all his supporters who said he was innocent. What an awful surprise.)

Given the choice between being held for the rest of your life while you proclaim your innocence or getting out of jail in a short time but pleading guilty, which do you think you would pick if you were already well aware the system was corrupt?


Not saying I think he is innocent, just pointing out something that may have been a consideration.

[Slytovhand]

Speaking of which...David Hicks.

I don't know if the name rings any US bells, but in Oz, it means a lot. And part of the reason the Liberals lost the last election was because of the mis-handling of his case.

He was in 'Gitmo' (not a term I usually use, btw) as an 'enemy combatant', although there's a stack of controversy about that.

In the end, he pleaded guilty... but there's been enough thought to say it was only to get out of that... especially when you add to it he's under a suppression order not to say a word about it all... (hatred of the US Gov't and it's policies isn't only from the countries it's actually bombed!)


Slyt

(damn... gone way OT... :( )

[Slytovhand]

Following on from the NRA thread.... I thought I'd go here, cos it's turning into a discussion on this stuff...

Me - And out of curiosity (since I presume you are pro-gun), what does an individual need armour-piercing rounds for??


FashionLad -
Why does anyone need a car that goes 200mph? Why do people need to live in mansions? Why does anyone need excess of anything? If it's not hurting anyone, why can't a law abiding citizen have it? Just because we don't need it, doesn't mean we shouldn't be allowed the chance to own it.

3 points.

A) using that logic, why not grenades? Tanks? Mines? DU rounds?RPG's (not the D&D or NWN type)? SAM's? Napalm? Tomahawks, cruise, etc etc.? Chemicals? Biological? Nuclear?? how about owning a few military jets? Stealths?? Aircraft carriers, or frigates or subs... where does it end.. if it does? (we did a thread on that - under "Why Pedersen shouldn't own his own battleship"). Hey - if you're a law abiding citizen, you should be allowed be the chance to own it.

B) AP rounds, unlike cars that travel at 200mph, or live in mansions, or do anything in excess... have one, and only one designed purpose. To kill... human beings... who wear body armour. Who would those people most likely be? Police, military, intelligence agents, and the occasional politician or VIP (eg - visiting dignitaries). Thus, the most likely reason a person would have for purchasing AP rounds is to execute (assassinate??) lawful members of the society.

C) Quick question - if your state introduced a ban on guns tomorrow, and required all guns to be handed in to the local police station, what would you do?


Slyt

[crazylegs]

B) AP rounds, unlike cars that travel at 200mph, or live in mansions, or do anything in excess... have one, and only one designed purpose. To kill... human beings... who wear body armour. Who would those people most likely be? Police, military, intelligence agents, and the occasional politician or VIP (eg - visiting dignitaries). Thus, the most likely reason a person would have for purchasing AP rounds is to execute (assassinate??) lawful members of the society.

Although every armour an be defeated, for every round there is an armour that will defeat it, ceramic plates normally do the job quite nicely and will also protect against rifle fire (the 'soft' armour normally only protects against sidearms).

[Fashion Lad!]

Following on from the NRA thread.... I thought I'd go here, cos it's turning into a discussion on this stuff...

A) using that logic, why not grenades? Tanks? Mines? DU rounds?RPG's (not the D&D or NWN type)? SAM's? Napalm? Tomahawks, cruise, etc etc.? Chemicals? Biological? Nuclear?? how about owning a few military jets? Stealths?? Aircraft carriers, or frigates or subs... where does it end.. if it does? (we did a thread on that - under "Why Pedersen shouldn't own his own battleship"). Hey - if you're a law abiding citizen, you should be allowed be the chance to own it.

C) Quick question - if your state introduced a ban on guns tomorrow, and required all guns to be handed in to the local police station, what would you do?


Slyt

Two things...

A) of all, within reason. What individual besides Bill Gates or Warren Buffet is going to have enough money in this country to buy an Aircraft carrier and a few military jets? That's just getting ridiculous for argument.

And here's the deal. I am a law abiding citizen. I will not hurt anyone unless absolutely necessary. I really want a fully automatic gun, I don't have one be cause I'm a law abiding citizen. I have a couple of semi-automatics and the love of my collection is a Beretta 9mm Custom Carry (it's sex).

Now, Mr. Angry Evil Badman isn't a law abiding citizen. Mr. Badman breaks into my house with an AK-47, I have at best my 9mm semi-auto Beretta that can be readily available at anytime. Mr Badman knows that he will either be the only with a gun or the one with the more powerful gun. He breaks into my house, I'm dead. Great. Just fantastic. Why? Because someone decided that a fully automatic is something I should not have. And I am typically very law abiding go along with it. However, we all know that bad people do not follow, nor do they have any concern for anyone but themselves.

Pedersen should have his own battleship, it'd be neat.

Secondly, if it were the law that I had to give up all my guns, I'd do it. Because like I said, I follow the law. I'd be pissed, I'd be so pissed. I'd petition or go into politics. Or, I'd move to a country where the government has more faith in it's law abiding citizens.

And the people that really want us ban guns are the people in the U.N. Why are they so concerned about our guns?

[Slytovhand]

Crazy - Yep, I know that. There isn't too much in head protection that's really all that good :p Still - an answer to teh question wasn't even approached... if those are the people wearing such gear, why would you want the bullet to go through it... as a "law abiding citizen".


FashionLad. yep, A was intended to head into the ridiculous.. but as per the Battleship thread, there are people out there with the money, the resources... and the angst! But... the lesser stuff?? I mean - claymore mines?? Napalm?? RPG's??? And, given that most advocates of such freedoms also want that those freedoms include privacy (ie - no background checks other than for criminal history), it's just asking for trouble.


I'm glad you said you'd hand your guns in. And disappointed... I had the obvious argument against that :p But I've heard of those who would point blank refuse to hand them in, saying that "it's their right", and that they'd die to defend it. Ummm... now, not only are they not law abiding citizens, but they are also putting thier personal attitudes above that of the law... (not to mention, all those wonderful traits of the USA that people have died for - ie democracy - they've just spurned that ideal). Isnt' it supposed to be the lawyers who decide what's lawful and what isn't???


BTW - B)??

[Fashion Lad!]

FashionLad. yep, A was intended to head into the ridiculous.. but as per the Battleship thread, there are people out there with the money, the resources... and the angst! But... the lesser stuff?? I mean - claymore mines?? Napalm?? RPG's??? And, given that most advocates of such freedoms also want that those freedoms include privacy (ie - no background checks other than for criminal history), it's just asking for trouble.
BTW - B)??

I'm not saying that there shouldn't be any gun control, that's just irresponsible. Napalm, claymore mines, those aren't guns. So yes, those should be illegal to the public. Grenade launcher, not really a gun again. I mean, there's a limit to everything. But, if it's what the general population would consider a gun, as a law abiding citizen, I should have the right to own it.

Why restrict good people when the bad guys are just going to do whatever they want anyway? (I still believe that the non-gun weapons that you mentioned should not be allowed to the public.)

Oh, and I never include a B) for some reason. I always go "A) of all" and "secondly" it's a habit I guess. Sorry.

[AFPheonix]

Part of the reason for restriction is to at least stem the tide of illegal weapons. We have too many guns that flow from us to our neighboring countries. Where do you think the drug cartels south of us get their weapons?
Gun laws need some revamping, but not in the way you want. They need to be made more cohesive with better regulation on where guns go from the source.
I'm sorry, but I think there are some weapons that the public should not have available to them, simply because that creates more demand for them, and therefore more supply. I don't wish for that to happen.

Besides, life is not like Robocop. Chances are, the guy who's gonna break into your house is going to be smart enough to case the joint and wait until you are likely to be away before breaking in, not come in with guns ablazin'.

[crazylegs]

Crazy - Yep, I know that. There isn't too much in head protection that's really all that good :p Still - an answer to teh question wasn't even approached... if those are the people wearing such gear, why would you want the bullet to go through it... as a "law abiding citizen".

If you're law abiding you won't be shooting at them, only the bad guys who wear body armour. When NIJ IIIA vests are available for a few hundred pounds (not a huge amount to the career criminal) it's not inconceivible that the guy climbing through the window is wearing a vest.

[BlaqueKatt]

. When NIJ IIIA vests are available for a few hundred pounds (not a huge amount to the career criminal) it's not inconceivible that the guy climbing through the window is wearing a vest.


that's why I prefer to go for head and knee shots-and even with a vest a shotgun slug at close range will take the perp off his feet-

Katt who oens a S&W .40 cal Sig, and will be purchasing a Taurus "judge" (http://www.taurususa.com/products/product-details.cfm?id=199&category=revolver) soon.

[protege]

*knows that a .38 can leave a quarter-sized hole from 30 feet away...*

I've probably said this before, but when I was younger, we always had guns in the house. Dad's hunting rifles, and at least one shotgun. All were equipped with trigger locks, and kept in a large (locked) case. Bullets and shells were kept somewhere else, again, under lock and key. As such, I was always told to respect firearms.

At the farm, Grandpa always had a rifle or two or his shotgun around. Not for protection, but to take care of "varmints." That is, rabid animals--he wasn't about to let them attack his grandkids. We weren't the only ones who had guns--plenty of neighbors had them too. Crime wasn't a problem then, mainly because criminals simply weren't stupid enough to break in...knowing that the homeowner was likely to be armed.

However, crime has jumped up a bit, mainly because the new arrivals (read: rich idiots who want the country life) tend to bring lots of expensive stuff, but usually do not own firearms. These homes usually do get robbed.

Not long ago, someone tried to break into my grandmother's house when she was in the hospital after her auto accident. Sometime around 1am or so, I heard someone trying to force the front door open. Apparently, no car was visible (I'd put the Tercel in the garage that night), so nobody was home. Needless to say, whoever it was fled when I flipped the porch light on :eek:

Didn't stop there though--I grabbed a pitchfork off the kitchen porch, and went after the bastard. Probably not the best idea...but I never had that problem again! I'm sure I scared the shit out of the perp--a crazy farmer brandishing a pitchfork and yelling at you might do that... :p

[crazylegs]

that's why I prefer to go for head and knee shots-and even with a vest a shotgun slug at close range will take the perp off his feet-

Katt who oens a S&W .40 cal Sig, and will be purchasing a Taurus "judge" (http://www.taurususa.com/products/product-details.cfm?id=199&category=revolver) soon.

I have no idea how good your shooting is, however trying to hit a running person while they move perpendicular or erratically in relation to yourself is difficult enough in the best of situations. This is why police/armed forces etc are taught to aim for the largest mass (i.e. the torso) and it's more likely to be hit due to its relative mass in comparision with the rest of the body which is long, mobile and flexible (ie arms and legs).

I will agree with you on the shotgun though! :D

[Slytovhand]

If you're law abiding you won't be shooting at them, only the bad guys who wear body armour. When NIJ IIIA vests are available for a few hundred pounds (not a huge amount to the career criminal) it's not inconceivible that the guy climbing through the window is wearing a vest.

a) no, that was the point, Crazy.. it's only the crazies who would be shooting at those people.... (oh, sorry..didn't mean you :p)

b) ummm.... I'm thinking, the more guns that become standardly available, the more vests just might get purchased. At the moment, I don't see your average burglar wearing such a vest at all. Your average rapist isn't going to either (read - about none of them... even if guns do become common place with AP rounds).

I see that the only people who are going to be wearing such a vest are those totally bent on destruction... seriously heavily armed bank robbers, seriously nasty gangs... and those, well - just being in the general area is going to be bad for you - let alone trying to shoot back.

Your standard home breaker is either poor or drug-fucked. If poor, there isn't any vest. If drug-fucked, there's no brains about the idea of wearing a vest...

I don't think I've seen any example of anything that suggests to me that AP rounds are actually going to be of much use over and above any standard round ... unless you're going to start including civil war.

Fashion.. question for you, on the topic of 'responsible'... I personally think any gun ownership needs to be based on a few different things... one of those is levels of responsibility (ie - psych evaluation). So - what 'responsibility factors' do you think should be in place for sellers, and required by buyers/owners?


Btw - .50 cal sniper rifle?? Certainly a gun.... yes/no? Heavy machine guns? Just wondering where the line is drawn.

(oh, if I hadn't stated it clearly, I'm not totally opposed to gun ownership... just needs restrictions.. the sort that may well have saved quite a few lives over the past few decades)

[Fashion Lad!]

Fashion.. question for you, on the topic of 'responsible'... I personally think any gun ownership needs to be based on a few different things... one of those is levels of responsibility (ie - psych evaluation). So - what 'responsibility factors' do you think should be in place for sellers, and required by buyers/owners?



I don't believe people need a psych evaluation to decide whether or not they can own a gun. I feel that everyone who wants to own a gun should go through gun safety courses.

Where does the line get drawn? It shouldn't be drawn at whether or not it's fully or semi-automatic. If I hold down the trigger, I want to be able to empty a clip. Or, in the case of a semi-auto, I want to be able to shoot as fast I can pull the trigger.

When I was growing up, we had guns in the house. They were loaded, ready to go. They weren't locked. My parents didn't keep them a secret. But, they did definitely take my brother and myself through several gun safety classes. We learned to respect the gun and what it can do.

A lot of things can be avoided through education.

[Greenday]

I think the main problem is, a lot of people are getting guns through illegal means and it's really tough to stop. You can talk about psych tests and gun-safety classes all you want. But what good are all those when the majority of the people buying guns legitly aren't committing the crimes? The black market is a BIG place.

[Fashion Lad!]

I think the main problem is, a lot of people are getting guns through illegal means and it's really tough to stop. You can talk about psych tests and gun-safety classes all you want. But what good are all those when the majority of the people buying guns legitly aren't committing the crimes? The black market is a BIG place.

The gun safety classes are helpful for anyone who is going to own a gun. Kids in houses that have guns especially need to go through gun safety. If they don't know about it, it is a toy to them.

[crazylegs]

At the moment, I don't see your average burglar wearing such a vest at all.

They might wear this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7329892.stm) instead though.

[Greenday]

They might wear this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7329892.stm) instead though.

I want one...

[Fashion Lad!]

That hoodie does look sweet.

[Flyndaran]

Anyone that uses the erroneous term, "bulletPROOF" should not ever be listened to. Nothing is proof only resistant to bullets.