What Level Of Gun Control Works For You?

[Guest Simon]

What Level Of Gun Control Works For You?

http://www.thepolls.net/?poll=164

 

I would have to say Outright Ban, No Guns For Anyone But Police

 

what are your thoughts?

[RPMS]

Simon, I used to think like you do. Over the past five or six years, I have modified my position after considerable thought. Ask yourself this: There are hundreds of thousands of guns out there right now. If we remove them from the hands of citizen owners, what would lead us to think that criminals would give them up as well, leaving them only in the hands of the police?

 

"Well, if the penalties for committing a crime using a gun were stiff enough, criminals wouldn't use them." It sounds good, but it doesn't work that way. Criminals aren't usually all that rational, believing that they won't get caught when they commit a crime. Expecting an irrational person to behave in a rational manner simply isn't logical.

 

If we take guns away from the citizens, only criminals (and the police, obviously) will have the guns. Gun control doesn't prevent gun crime, it only takes the guns away from enthusiasts, most of which use them in a safe and responsible manner.

 

If we'd started with handgun control 100 years ago, it might have had the effect you desire. As it is, there are just too many guns out there to think we can remove them from the streets. There is no turning back at this point.

 

Keep guns in the hands of the population.

[Guest Aaron]

Statistics show that the VAST majority of all guns are never used in a violent manner. They are used for target practice, hunting, collecting, etc. A gun has never committed a crime. A human has used the gun to commit the crime.

 

I recently heard a study of inmates in prison. They were asked what what they were most afraid of. Police, Prison, or an Armed Victim. Something like 80% said an Armed Victim. So what do you really think would happen if guns were taken away from the general populus?

 

I recently purchased a new (to me) gun to carry. In researching what to buy, I ran across a number of forums where people discuss there experiences. Most have never drawn there gun for any purpose other than practice. The ones that have been in bad situations usually only had to show the handle of there gun to make the bad guy leave.

[JMortensen]

Simon is from Australia, so that may help explain his position. When you live in a country where there is statistically a gun in every other house, and enough guns in the country for every person to have 5 or 6, then removing them from society becomes impossible as RPMS said--that is assuming you wanted to remove them in the first place.

 

Most of us here in the US don't want to remove guns from the hands of the average person. Our whole society is built around being rebels who threw off the yoke of tyranny, and our Bill of Rights was a necessary addition that was demanded before ratification of the Constitution. The job of our Bill of Rights is to state in specific terms what rights the government cannot take away from us. Gun ownership was second only to freedom of speech, religion, and the press, and clearly gun ownership is the only tool that we as citizens have to protect our First Amendment rights from abuses by our government. The reason that so many of us Americans value our right to gun ownership is that we understand the potential for tyranny to rise again, and if that were to happen we would need our guns to put it down again.

 

There are so many other arguments that support gun ownership, and hopefully you'll hear more of them and maybe even change your mind like RPMS, but the central issue is and should be the Constitutional issue for Americans.

[2many280s]

I'm a firm believer in the "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" saying. When it comes down to it, if someone is crazy enough to kill another person, they are going to do it with their bare hands or anything else they can find if they have to.

 

It all boils down to wich person does civilization not need... the innocent victim? or the criminal that picked the wrong victim?

 

And as RPMS said, if someone is already breaking the law, what makes people think they will pay attention to a new law? All that leaves is an armed criminal(because if he wants a gun, he will get one by any means neccesary, or use a knife if he can't) and a law abiding victim without the ability to defend themselves. It takes the police about 20 minutes to get where I live... a lot can happen in that time.

[Z-Dreamer]

Hitting my target every time!

 

Mark

[pete280z]

The reason that so many of us Americans value our right to gun ownership is that we understand the potential for tyranny to rise again, and if that were to happen we would need our guns to put it down again.

 

In my experience, making this argument that plainly gets me dismissed as a paranoid, conspiracy theorist, sleeping-in-my-BDUs gun-nut (*far* from reality, BTW). It's probably important to point out that the essence of this argument is more philosophical than practical in modern USA. The second amendment is about maintaining a balance. As long as the potential, however remote, for a tyrannical government to rise exists, the need to defend ourselves from that possibility survives.

 

In the USA, I don't believe that total gun control could ever work. Technology, once in the hands of the public, is almost impossible to take away via ligitation or legislation. If you need evidence for this, just check out the popularity of file sharing networks and the free distribution of copyrighted music as mp3.

[auxilary]

IMO, we require a person to be 21 years of age to purchase a handgun, and 21 to purchase and drink alcohol

 

However, we let 15 year olds drive 3000lb machines of death capable of multiple injuries and deaths. Statistically speaking, we probably have close to the same amount of firearms per person as we do cars. Which are there more deaths from?

[Guest subdermal]

In my experience (American citizen who has lived for the past 20 years in Canada) gun control can be done right (and I'm not saying Canada has done it perfectly, but I think its at least a 'better' system). Guns are available for sale here. In fact, in the province I call home (Alberta) there are more guns per capita than in the US. However, there is a smaller available selection of legal firearms that limit rate of fire, concealability etc. Also, to purchase a gun you have to first qualify for an owner's license. These factors combined seem to be working, as enthusiasts can have their guns (although possibly not all the various styles they might like) and yet the rate of crimes involving guns is much lower than in the US.

 

As for the 'guns don't kill people, people kill people' argument, I used to support that. However, people with guns can kill a whole lot more people, in much less time, than people without.

[silicone boy]

I own 2 AR-15's, an AK 47, an AK 74, and a Sig 225. Do I support the NRA and think that anyone should be allowed to have a gun? Absolutely not. I go to a lot of gun shows and stores and frankly, I'm scared of the people that are allowed unfettered access to guns. I think you should have to pass some kind of a civics test, showing you are a good citizen before you can own one. Why do I own such "weapons"? For target shooting only. I don't plan on using them for self defense because I am convinced of the sanctity of a human life, even of the one who is trying to take mine (not likely that I would ever run into such a situation). I think the idea of trying to overthrow my government with small arms is ridiculous also. As the experience in the former Yugoslavia shows, sidearms against a modern army does little good. The last I heard, an M16 round does little against a modern tank. You may say that Kalashnikovs have been effective in Iraq against our army, but this is not the case. Instead, the more effective weapons have been RPG 9's and old artillery shells, and I don't think our founding fathers ever felt that we should have access weapons such as these.

[JMortensen]

Statistically speaking, we probably have close to the same amount of firearms per person as we do cars. Which are there more deaths from?

In terms of accidents in 1997 there were 41,200 automobile fatalities and 900 firearms fatalities due to accidents. In 1997 there were 10,369 gun related murders. So roughly a 4:1 ratio of auto to gun deaths.

 

All of these statistics came from the internet, but I tried really hard to get DOJ and CDC type websites, and not JoeBob's Gun Statistics Site.

[JMortensen]

The last I heard, an M16 round does little against a modern tank. You may say that Kalashnikovs have been effective in Iraq against our army, but this is not the case. Instead, the more effective weapons have been RPG 9's and old artillery shells, and I don't think our founding fathers ever felt that we should have access weapons such as these.

 

I would disagree with you that the founding fathers didn't want us to have artillery. After all, they had used the most advanced artillery they could get (brass cannons), along with the leading assault rifles of the day (flintlock musket) in the Revolutionary War from 1775-1783 to defeat the British before they had even established a legal right to bear arms.

 

I would also argue that it seems unlikely that 145 million armed people can be trampled by 1.4 million armed forces. Huge assumptions are being made here, that everyone with a gun would get involved and be unified against the government, and that every person in the armed forces would directly oppose them, but hopefully I've made a point. The military is HUGELY outnumbered by the citizenry. In Iraq you've got 20,000 insurgents (last estimate I heard).

[Zhadman]

I don't think you would get too many individuals in the armed services who would willingly fire, or drop ordinance, on American citizens... assuming the 'rebellion', or 'uprising', was mainstream and popular. I own a Beretta 92FS and I hope to hell I never have to point it at someone...

[Pop N Wood]

In my experience (American citizen who has lived for the past 20 years in Canada) gun control can be done right (and I'm not saying Canada has done it perfectly, but I think its at least a 'better' system). Guns are available for sale here. In fact, in the province I call home (Alberta) there are more guns per capita than in the US. However, there is a smaller available selection of legal firearms that limit rate of fire, concealability etc. Also, to purchase a gun you have to first qualify for an owner's license. These factors combined seem to be working, as enthusiasts can have their guns (although possibly not all the various styles they might like) and yet the rate of crimes involving guns is much lower than in the US.

 

Assuming there is a causal relationship between gun laws and crime rate. This is a common oversimplification on the part of most anti-gun people. Gun crime is much more closely tied to demographics that gun laws. Look at the statistics and gun laws of countries like Sweden, Switzerland, Mexico and compare them to the US. It is the attitudes and background of the people that make guns more dangerous in some countries than others.

 

As for laws banning specific types of guns I have to ask you what good such "feel good" laws do? You are assuming one type of gun is more dangerous than another. Once again, it is the mind set of the person carrying the weapon that makes it a threat. Take the case of Patrick Purdy, the guy who shot up the Stockton school yard with an SKS carbine (note to all: an AK-47 is fully automatic. If it is not fully auto it is NOT an AK-47). Simply fact of the matter given the range at which he shot all those Asian kids (and why just the Asian kids?) the result would have been much more tragic had he used a common shotgun rather than an assault rifle.

 

The reason we NRA types are against such laws (besides the fact they don't really accomplish anything) is the potential for abuse. Gun ownership tests can (and often are) abused in the same manner as the old Jim Crow laws governing voting.

 

Oh, and as for statistics. In the US less than one tenth of one percent of all legally sold handguns are ever used in the commission of a felony. The average American has a greater chance of being struck by lightning than victimized by a hand gun. Since the National Firearms Act was passed in 1934 requiring a license to own a fully automatic weapon, only 1 legally owned automatic weapon has ever been used in the commission of a crime (http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcfullau.html). And that crime was committed by a POLICE OFFICER. And finally, in the US over 50% of all hand gun murders are committed by young black males shooting other young black males. Perhaps we should channel our energies into understanding that statistic. Maybe if we address some of the problems facing urban youth we could sit back and talk about those crazy Canadians and THEIR statistically higher gun death rate.

 

Alexander Hamilton had it right. The unarmed populous is at the mercy of the government in power. Think about that quote when you try and read into what the founding fathers were thinking.

 

And one last thing. As for need in today's society? I know I sure felt better knowing I had the means to protect myself and my family during the Rodney King riots then the guy trusting the non-existent police. It is nice to trust the system but better yet to have a back up plan.

[Pop N Wood]

Oh. And an M16 may not do much against a tank, but it will sure do a number on the crew when they get out the refuel the pig. Small arms may not stop the invading army, but they sure can make the cost of occupation too high to bear.

 

Need any current examples of this?

 

Ask the Bosnian Muslims (the ones that are left) what they think of the gun control policies of the former Yugoslav state. Didn't serve them well in preventing the genocide that was attempted against them.

 

Unfortunately mankind has yet to outgrow it's need for firearms. They are as pertanent today as during Hamilton's time.

[Guest subdermal]

Assuming there is a causal relationship between gun laws and crime rate. This is a common oversimplification on the part of most anti-gun people.

Whoah there, I'm hardly anti-gun! When I lived in the US I had a few of my own, and the only reason I don't now is that frankly it hasn't been worth the paperwork time for me. I will maintain that it is logical to assume a relationship between gun laws and gun crime. In a society where it is easier to obtain guns, you will see more criminals using guns to aid in their activities.

 

Gun crime is much more closely tied to demographics that gun laws. Look at the statistics and gun laws of countries like Sweden, Switzerland, Mexico and compare them to the US. It is the attitudes and background of the people that make guns more dangerous in some countries than others.

I'd go a step further and say that it is the attitudes and backgrounds of the people that are allowed to have guns. Also, mandatory weapons safety training and regulations on secure storage and transport are hardly draconian, anti-gun measures.

 

You are assuming one type of gun is more dangerous than another.

Well yes... I don't think it can be postulated that a single shot .22 rifle is as dangerous as a 9mm full auto machine pistol, regardless of the person making the choice.

 

Once again, it is the mind set of the person carrying the weapon that makes it a threat.

Absolutely. But with the realization that unhealthy mindsets exist, I prefer to keep them away from the guns, especially the ones with most potential for killing the most people in the shortest time.

 

Gun ownership tests can (and often are) abused in the same manner as the old Jim Crow laws governing voting.

On this I agree with you 100% - however, I feel this to be an acceptable risk given the options.

 

Oh, and as for statistics. In the US less than one tenth of one percent of all legally sold handguns are ever used in the commission of a felony.

And, like my stance on the abuse of screening laws, do you feel that this in an acceptable risk? Or would you prefer to see a system that did not infringe on your rights, but that could lower this percentage even further?

 

The average American has a greater chance of being struck by lightning than victimized by a hand gun.

I guess I'm just 'lucky' then. Never been hit by lightning, but within a month of moving back to the US for a six month stint in 89 I came under fire at a radio-station sponsored warehouse party. My night would have gone much smoother, and I wouldn't have had my life at stake, if every teenager in the state didn't have access to firearms.

 

Since the National Firearms Act was passed in 1934 requiring a license to own a fully automatic weapon, only 1 legally owned automatic weapon has ever been used in the commission of a crime

What about those that were stolen from the legal owner in home robberies, due to lax regulations on storage? The clearly pro-gun site you referenced does not contain any hard stats on that topic, but does make reference to the number of automatic weapons as a percentage of all weapons siezed by LE. The numbers are convincingly low, but not really the stats I was looking for anyways.

 

And finally, in the US over 50% of all hand gun murders are committed by young black males shooting other young black males.

And that makes it OK? Or not your problem? I'm going to assume that that is not what you meant, and I agree that this factor should be looked into, but in my mind it certainly doesn't lessen the problem.

 

crazy Canadians and THEIR statistically higher gun death rate.

Haha touche if this is the case. I was not aware of this, and if true I would actually find it highly surprising.

 

And one last thing. As for need in today's society? I know I sure felt better knowing I had the means to protect myself and my family during the Rodney King riots then the guy trusting the non-existent police. It is nice to trust the system but better yet to have a back up plan.

Agreed. I would just prefer to see a system in place that meets those needs and also protects us from gun violence, instead of a relative firearms free for all.

 

I admit to not being 100% educated on the issue. When looking into it, I have found most available information to be either from frantic pro-gun revolutionaries (often, interestingly, but by no means always with links to racist organizations) or conversely to be from equally frantic anti-gun "Big Brother knows best" type left-wing groups. This is the situation with most topics on which a small percentage of the populace really even gives a damn one way or the other, and those that do are passionate, but it sure makes it hard to get any trustable facts.

[280Zone]

My initial thought was a three shot grouping within an inch at 80 yards.

 

I am enjoying the debate that will never end but check out the options that are given on the poll on the original link. The choices are rather limited and I believe are limited to handguns.

 

Commence firing, I'll enjoy the ongiong discussion.

[A. G. Olphart]

I'll begin with the acknowledgment that I am now an NRA member... I joined them a few years back to support the right to keep and bear arms. I feel that it is an absolute right under the constitution (based on a fair knowledge of American English), but the supreme court has seen fit to change that.

 

On the other hand, I haven't shot a gun in years.

 

That said, outlawing guns will work about as well as outlawing heroin, cocaine, crank, etc. has worked. Those willing to search them out in the black market/criminal society will always have them. And as pointed out previously, they will KNOW that their victims are unarmed. Do you really want a class of wolves free to prey upon us sheep?

 

I'm against any kind of controls-- due to the 'camels nose' aspect. Once ugly semi autos are banned (and the killing doesn't end) someone will rightly point out that grandpa's Browning is functionally similar, and there go the hunting rifles too.

 

I find comfort in the thought that an armed populace can make it uncomfortable for an aggressor. As we have recently discovered, it is one thing to drive a tank convoy through a country, and quite another to control it.

[Brad-ManQ45]

Kennesaw, GA has a legal requirement that there be a firearm in each home.

 

They happen to enjoy a much lower incidence of burglaries, home invasions and in-home rapes than other cities/towns/counties per capita than anywhere else in the metro Atlanta area.

 

I don't happen to believe in any kind of gun control, not only because no-one has come up with valid data saying that the ban on certain models makes a difference, but the ludicrous fact that even with stioffer penalties, the person STILL needs to be convicted FIRST before the additional penalties can be imposed. With the sad state of our legal system, I have no faith that these additional penalties provide much of a deterent to those willing to use a firearm in the commission of a crime - too many technicalities.

 

I'd like to address the firearm accidents now:

 

Having been raised from the age of 4 or 5 with firearms (my dad and mom used to take us and he would wrap his hands around mine w/a .22 pistol and we'd shoot baby jars in a safe area of our farm - mom and baby brothers and sister in attendance - we did a lot together), some of the accidents involving firearms are inexcusable - and the ones involving young kids entirely because of the parents lack of care/training and supervision/precautions. I could go on about this lack of precaution/supervision thing for a long time because it seems to be affecting a great majority of youths today with both parents working - but even with only one working, there is too much me-me on the parent's side and too much slack in the concept of rearing kids. I guess the fact that I am 50 this year is showing through...

 

When I grew up we had all kinds of war toys, mortars, bazookas, Okinawa guns, cap grenades, the Mattel six-shooters that shot plastic bullets that you put the caps on the brass part. We watched westerns and war movies same as we do today - although today it's a lot more graphic. We played Cowboys and Indians, War Games, Spy Games with these toys and had a blast - we would also use newspapers and fashin swords and shields.

 

The people who are saying it is the violence of TV promoting these actions in our youth are the people that take little responsibility in the raising of thier kids. Every one wants to blame everybody but themselves for the lousy job they did raising their kids.

 

 

I have a concealed weapons permit, simply because it only costs $25 every 4 years. I have been robbed at gunpoint by some of those underpriveledged inner city youths within 25 yards of the GA State University campus - and incidentally Police Headquarters too. At the time, I didn't have my gun on me, but even if I did, I wouldn't have used it - there were two youths accosting us I was with a friend. If I were alone it might have been a different story had I had my pistol, but I sure wouldn't have taken the chance with him there.

 

We weren't hurt, thankfully, but it appears that these same people did kill someone the next week - based on description. Personally I feel that anyone that threatens me or mine in this fashion is better off in a pine box. That way WE don't have to support the miserable bastard(s) after an expensive trial even if he/they were caught.

 

The police do not provide protection for the average homeowner - they simply cannot get there in time to be of any use in burglaries/home invasion/rape scenarios - all they can do is react and try and catch 'em.

 

When i got married, I did what my dad did with his kids, and taught my new wife how to shoot everything but the Ruger Redhawk (.44 Magnum) that we have - the .22's to start, the shotgun, the .380 Beretta and the .45 in that order. I made sure she knew how to clean the firearms and how to store them.

 

She really likes the Beretta - the .44 and .45 are simply too big for her. I like going squirrel hunting with the .22 Ruger target model - I like 'barkin' 'em - heck I've even hunted fish with it (if you use hollowpoints and hit within an inch of their head when they come to the surface after a bug it stuns 'em - then you can net 'em). I used to go javelina hunting in Texas with the .44.

 

Sorry for the long response, but the very thought of someone taking my right to protect myself/own a firearm is abhorent to me. New york City has some of the toughest gun laws and look at their crime rate.

 

People that believe gun control will work are living in a dream world - they are unrealistic and probably bleeding hearts. I like quoting James Garner in a little known series called Nichols wher he was a sheriff, set around the early 1900's out west. When an army officer who was with him tracking a criminal asked him what he believed in, he said "cannibalism - if everyone had to eat what they shot there'd be a lot less killin'".

[VRJoe]

The one point I always get across to people who question gun ownership is the order of the amendments. They always agree that the First Amendment is critical to our freedom. I then ask them how we can defend the First Amendment without the Second. There's a reason for the order.

 

9/11 has given me a source as an example. If terrorists were to attack the US close to elections the President could suspend elections until thing were deemed safe. He could suspend Congress for their safety and use the military to enforce the suspensions. If the general public were not armed how could they tell the military not to follow the Commander In Chiefs orders. BUT if the general public IS armed they have the ability to enforce the Constitution. The military would have grounds to disobey orders because they would be forced to get in to a shooting battle with the people they are supposed to protect.

 

Since the general public is armed and the Second Amendment is intact we should never have to worry about this scenario. Since we have the ability to revolt we should never have to, if we loose that ability I'm not so sure.

 

I also like to point out that one of the first things the Nazi party did once gaining power in pre-war Germany was to enact gun laws and disarm the public. It was a requirement for the 'social changes' they planned.

 

- Joe