Educate me on "gun control"
 

(I cant believe I'm actually starting a post here lol)

Ok, without posturing for a candidate or party, pretend I know absolutely nothing about gun control issues (not very far fetched lol)

I see lots of candidates are either for or against it, but Im not entirely sure just exactly what "gun control" does or doesn't entail.

I dont want tons of links to go read....I want it broken down in the simplest of terms that a political dummy like me can understand!!!

Well, Shani. I will admit that I know nothing about this subject. I am more of a political dummy than you are. I am very interested in hearing the answer in layman's terms, so I can better educate myself and my children.

As far as I can tell, there are two opposing positions:

1. If more people carry guns, it will be a deterrent to people using guns in a threatening manner.

2. If more people carry guns, the chances of someone using a gun in anger/passion/accident will increase.

OK. First off, in the interests of full disclosure, I am a libertarian and believe that -any- controls on private weapons ownership are illegitimate. I say this so you'll know my biases right out of the gate.

The paradigm espoused by proponents of Victim Disarmament (a more accurate term, IMO) is that if firearms are forcibly removed from society that crime, especially violent crime committed with firearms, will be reduced. Measures espoused from this position usually include at very least the registration of weapons, licensing of owners, and the banning of certain scary-looking weapons incorrectly known as "assault weapons*." Many Victim Disarmament advocates, possibly a majority, also propose the banning of pistols, standard-capacity magazines, various types of defensive ammunition commonly carried by both police and civillians, large-calibre target rifles, and laws requiring "safe" storage. A sizeable and noisy minority (at least) call for the banning of all or nearly all civillian gun-ownership, disallowing even self-defense or sporting use as legitimate. Such advocates point to Japan as an example of a relatively crime-free society which has enacted strict Victim Disarmament measures: while true, this neglects the fact that Japanese police can search homes and buisinesses without warrant or warning, and that accusation is unofficially regarded as proof of guilt in the Japanese court system. The Pro-gun/rights counterpoint to this is that Japan is safe because police states generally are. Victim Disarmament advocates routinely advise persons who are attacked to defend themselves with less-lethal means (which routinely fail), by running away, or by calling the police (who can take half an hour to arrive.) Proponents of such measures also routinely espouse closing a "gun show loophole" which does not exist, and the banning of private, not-for-profit sales of firearms between individuals.

The paradigm espoused by pro-gun/rights proponents such as myself is that while honest people may comply with such laws, the great majority of violent criminals will not, and that the result will be that the law-abiding are left at the mercy of the lawless, and the weak at the mercy of the strong. Furthermore, we believe that the right of self-defense (and the right to acces to the means thereof) is absolute and inviolable; ie not to be mucked about with. We believe that firearms and other weapon exist and may be utilized to protect individuals and their lives, liberties, and properties from unlawful encroachment, whether by freelance criminals or an out-of-control Government entity. We also believe that "sporting purpose" is an illegitmate means of determining a weapon's suitability for civillian ownership, as many people keep weapons for non-sporting purposes such as self-defense or to maintain themselves as part of the Unorganized Militia, defined in Section 311 of the US Federal Code. Pro-gun/rights proponents point to Switzerland, Norway, and the Czech Republic as examples of nations which range from relatively gun-friendly to downright gun-enthusiastic and yet enjoy low violent crime. Contrariwise, they point to the example of the United Kingdom (most violent nation in the developed world according to the United Nations) as an example of what can happen when law-abiding citizens are disarmed by government fiat. They furthermore point out that rampage shootings such as Columbine and VA Tech have universally occurred in "Gun Free Zones" such as schools and posted workplaces; never at shooting ranges, police stations, gun-shows, etc. It is telling, IMO, that Victim Disarmament advocates have never been able to explain why, if firearms and access thereto is the problem, this is the case. The pro-gun/rights position is based upon a Rights-centred paradigm, while the Victim Disarmament position is based typically on a paradigm of poorly-understood utility. Pro-gun/rights advocates also make a utilitarian arguement, pointing out that the heavily-armed Swiss have been left alone or the better part of the last thousand years, and point to a number of instances in 1930s America wherein armed bodies of citizens stood down or removed corrupt and brutal local governments, most commonly in the coal-mining country of Appalachia.

*"Assault Weapons" are semiautomatic (one pull of the trigger, one round fired) weapons which have an appearance similar to their fully-automatic (gun fires as long as the trigger is depressed) counterparts. Despite being used in less than 10% of firearms-violent crime, they are routinely touted by the Brady Centre and others as "the weapons of choice" for drug-dealers and gangsters, and as threats to police officers; neither of which assertions is borne out by evidence.

And by extension,

(1) Gun control advocates seek to limit or ban the possession of guns by citizens, as they believe possession will lead to more gun-related crimes.

(2) Gun control opponents seek to allow gun possession by qualified civilians, as they believe it to be a Constitutional right, or because they believe that it will lead to less gun-related crimes.

I'll start with two common misconceptions.

1. Gun control does not mean banning all guns
2. The 2nd Amendment "right to bear arms", like other constitutional rights, is not absolute.

IMO, the goal of gun control is to require registration of ownership of guns for the purpose of tracking those guns if/when they are used in the commision of a crime. to prohibit ownership of guns by certain persons through a background check so that those persons who have committed crimes with a gun or persons convicted of other violent crimes (ie spouse abuse) or persons with mental disorders (who are diaganosed as potentially threathening to themselves and others)are prevented from owning guns in the future, to provide protections to prevent accidental abuses of guns by children (child protection locks) and to prohibit certain catagories of the mosts deadly and dangerous weapons from civilian ownership.

i think alot of your relation to gun control is directly tied to where you live and whether you grew up with guns or not.

i live in chicago and have lived in cities most of my life: i also grew up in a family that had no particular interest in hunting. when my relatives would once in a while "go hunting" what it usually meant was that they would go to our cabin in northern new hampshire, drink alot of beer and play ping pong. once in a while, some intrepid soul would decide that actually going outside was a good idea, occasionally with a weapon in hand, and that it was more likely they would find something interesting to shoot at if they ventured further than the outhouse, and so they would do that. from what i understand, they mostly ended up shooting arrows into trees.
anyway i find it difficult to not support gun control in urban spaces. whaddya need a gun for in a city? to go hunting? what are you going to hunt: other people?

on the other hand, i know alot of folk who grew up in more rural areas in families that were interested in and in some cases quite devoted to hunting, for example. these folk have an entirely different understanding of guns and different positions on gun control. knowing these folk and talking to them at length about this has caused me to become more agnostic on the matter of gun control in general--that is controls that would apply equally everywhere.

there are also folk who seem to think that the only way they know they are politically free is if they have a gun. this is separate--some of these folk used to be associated with the black helecopter set--you know, the folk who thought the us was being invaded secretly by the united nations, which would whizz its troops around in black helicopters. the reportings of sightings of the mysterious black helicopters was at one point a variant of bird watching. i used to really enjoy listening to the shortwave radio talkshows they would call into to "report"...great stuff. the idea was that the united nations, an extension of the "world jewish conspiracy" at one level or another, wanted to take away "our guns" and thereby "reduce us to slavery." these folk tend to argue that any form of gun control is a blow against political freedom. i tend to see these people are crazy. they tend to see me as a commie. so we both get to use words that end in the "y" sound across pointless non-conversations.

I'm not sure these are misconceptions. What you elaborated on is sensible gun safety, but does not correlate with political supporters of "gun control" today. I agree in concept with all of the things you detailed, but I do not support "gun control" in its contemporary meaning.

I believe that "gun control" means far more than mandatory registration, gun safety and gun production regulation.

To some people, "gun control" means complete or near-complete disarmament of citizens.

ok...so far so good

JinnKai, I will ask you since you're the last one that posted....when a politician says they are in favor of/not in favor of gun control...what exactly are they saying? (the reason I put it this way is because you say "some people", and I'm interested in knowing what the government really means by it

Jinnkai...I dont know to whom you refer when you imply political supporters of "gun control" want complete or near complete disarmament of citizens.

No such gun control advocacy group, including the largest, the Brady Campaign/Brady Center, that I know of espouses such a position.

The argument you make is the common response from pro-gun advocacy groups...that the specific components of gun control that I mentiond are only the first step towards banning guns... yet they have no facts to support such a position.

Can you point to any recent proposed gun control bills or policies of gun control advocacy organiztions that want to completely disarm citizens?

The only recent case I am aware of was the DC gun law, which as a DC resident, I thought was overly restrictive and was found to be unconstitutional.

Having known a number of Militiamen, I feel I must speak here in their defense. The vast majority of these folks were not nuts. The ones that were...well, they were a real "special" breed, in the "child molesters and people who talk in the theatre" sort of way.

However overblown their rhetoric may have at times been, most were and are genuinely concerned about the loss of freedom in the US. If you want to see people who -HATE- George W. Bush, I mean hate him like a chigger-bite you can't reach, go to a militia meeting. Sure, a lot of the blowhards from the Clinton years were just nutjob Democrat-haters. And no, I don't think you'll find any sympathy for your particular brand of politics, RB. But they're not crazy, the vast majority are not racist, and they can at least be said to be -doing- something, unlike the vast majority of the sumbering American electorate. I have never once interacted with a militia group which proposed, espoused, trained for, or fantasized about a "first strike" against the US Gov't, and anyone who suggested such a thing (or who said anything about a McVeigh style attack in any case) was immidiately ejected. If they came back, the cops were called. Loudmouthed racists frequently got the same treatment. At least with the men and women I knew, a Klanboy who wanted to train with 'em had better keep his mouth shut and not let -anyone- find out about it. They weren't interested in having an asshole (and liability) like that around. I've known some of these folks for a long time; one was my High School chemistry teacher. He kept his politics to himself until he heard me in a heated discussion with a classmate on this very subect, and we conversed regularly on the topic after that. He was one of the funniest, most creative, and most level-headed teachers I've ever had, strictly in it for love of the job. He's moved to New Hampshire, last I heard.

As for measuring political freedom by firearms rights; how else do you propose it be measured? If the Gov't is not honest enough, transparent enough, and trustworthy enough to permit its' citizens weapons with which they might defend themselves against it, how free can it be? How do you propose to protect the printing press, the home, or the right not to be enslaved when the potential censor, robber, and slaver has all the guns and you are defenseless?

People should not fear their governments, governments should fear their people, if you insist upon having the damned things.

If someone is in favor of gun control, it means just that--they are in favor of governmentally controlling (aka restricting in some way) a citizen's ability to purchase weapons. Things that a person 'in favor of gun control' could be in favor of are any combination of the following:

• Making it illegal to buy or own certain types of guns (which could include any combination, roughly in descending order of how common it is to want to ban them: 'assault' weapons, .50 caliber 'sniper' rifles, tactical shotguns, pistols, non-hunting rifles, any rifles)
• Making it difficult or expensive to own certain types of guns
• Restricting how many bullets a gun can hold
• Restricting how powerful guns can be
• Requiring lots of traceable paperwork to purchase a firearm
• Requiring a waiting period before purchasing a firearm
• Requiring technological advancements that would allow bullets to be traced to the gun that fired them

If you are anti-gun control, you wish to eliminate many of the previous items.

The absolute extreme pro and anti gun control stances can be simplified to :

For gun control: Make it illegal for anyone to own any guns
Against gun control: Make it legal for everyone to own any gun you want.

Those are the absolutes, but I'm not sure anyone actually holds those beliefs. I don't want to hear anyone tell me I'm wrong, those two stances are not up for debate. If you are pro gun control, you want to bring us closer to noone owning guns, if you are anti gun control, you want to bring us closer to anyone who wants them owning guns.



Full disclosure: I'm in Arizona, where it's basically legal to own and carry any gun you want without permits, if you're 21 and you're not concealing it. Concealed carry permits are easy, cheap and common, I own several guns, and go shooting with my wife regularly. I have friends who are gun smiths, and others who legally own automatic pistols and rifles, and I've shot everything up to an AK-47 and an AR-15 (the civilian M16).

so lets say I'm a person that believes there should be a waiting period, that there should be background checks, but I dont really care what type of weapon it is...what does that make me?

(apologies for the digression, the conversation inside a conversation)

dunedan:

possession of a gun doesnt make you anything except a guy with a gun.
it provides no political orientation: it is an object.
it provides no coherent view of the world: it is an object, a commodity, like a package of oreos is except that guns will kill you faster.
to say that possession of a gun is in itself a guarantor of "freedom" then seems absurd.

the way you pitch this argument--that having a gun would make the government afraid of the citizenry--is absurd. first because you are simpy outgunned. second because once you enter into a modern state of affairs, you arrogate to the state a monopoly on legitimate violence. and the idea that you could simply make the state vaporize in 2007 is a pipedream--not if you like capitalism (which as a "libertarian" i assume that you do--correct me if i am wrong on that--but if you weren't a fan of capitalism, i would expect that you would identify as anarchist)--which would collapse in a minute without continutal state intervention to prop it up. and that, sir, is not a joke.

anyway, it matters less to me that these folk have guns than what they imagine themselves to be doing with them does. i see militia politics as entirely retrograde, predicated on a fantasy 18th century and some bizarre-o vicarious nostalgia for it. a political action by a rightwing militia group would unnerve me even more than an armed political action by a trotskyite group--and that is saying alot.

guns are just things. they have no independent political meaning. what matters is the orientation of the organizations that would use those guns. i think alot of milita folk prefer to invert logic and act as though their politics really are condensed an object because it is better pr than their actual politics could hope to be.

Shani.....it would make you a supporter of the original 1994 Brady "Gun Control" Act, assuming by background checks you mean some people should be prevented from legally purchasing guns.

The Brady Bill prohibits the following persons from buying firearms:
* Those under indictment for, or convicted of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
* Fugitives from justice;
* Users of controlled substances;
* Persons adjudicated as "mental defective" or committed to mental institutions;
* Illegal aliens;
* Individuals dishonorably discharged from the military;
* Those who have renounced their United States citizenship;
* Persons subject to a court order restraining a person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or the child of the intimate partner; or,
* Those convicted of a domestic violence misdemeanor.

The waiting period has been since been waived with the implementation of the computerized "insta-check system, the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).

IMO,the Brady Act is sensible "gun control"

Yes DC thats exactly what I meant.

I am confused now though....there is no waiting period anymore? I thought one of the purposes of that was to deal with "heat of the moment" purchases...or is that something different?

shani, my experience tells me one thing about gun control advocates.
Those in favor of gun control have realized that there is no such thing as 100% safety and security in a indivualized free society, therefore, they seek to try a new tact and make their government responsible for their safety and security by checking, tracking, and monitoring all of the nations citizens to ensure that nobody who is 'abnormal' is going to use guns to commit a crime against them.

gun control seeks to make crime too personal to be attempted, i.e. if there are no guns, there would be no crime

gun rights advocates believe that you alone are the best protector of your life and that of your loved ones and that a firearm is the best tool for that job.

and yet, the founding fathers of this nation felt the exact opposite of you.....does that mean you think the founders of this country were morons?

there are waiting periods in alot of states, but not all. Texas has no waiting period, just the background check.

Shani,

As I understand it, the waiting period was just to do a complete background check. If you're going to do someone harm with the gun you can't buy right now, you'll probably still do harm in three days, or just steal a gun, buy one illegally, go find a knife or baseball bat...or a pointy rock...etc etc.

dksuddeth, I love your signature, mostly because I love the author.

The wikipedia editor in me says this thread is rife with neutral point-of-view violations :D

Shani....the federal waiting period was a victim of politics in the original Brady Bill. The only way the NRA (and the many members of Congress it controls) had agreed to support the bill was if it included the provision to waive the waiting period once the NICS was in place....even though the NRA was on record earlier:

"A waiting period could help in reducing crimes of passion and in preventing people with criminal records or dangerous mental illness from acquiring guns."
-- NRA Fact Book on Firearms Control, 1976

BTW, the House passed a bill today to improve the background check system.
I assume Bush will sign it if it reaches his desk since he is on record for supporting the Brady Bill as well as background checks at gun shows, trigger locks and age restrictions on gun purchases:

Q: Do you support the Brady Bill?

BUSH: Law-abiding citizens ought to be allowed to protect their families. We ought to keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn’t have them. That’s why I’m for instant background checks at gun shows. I’m for trigger locks. I think we ought to raise the age at which juveniles can have a gun. I also believe that the best way to make sure that we keep our society safe is to hold people accountable for breaking the law. If we catch somebody illegally selling a gun, there needs to be a consequence. The federal government can help.
http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Geo...un_Control.htm

Yikes....I agree with Bush on both gun control and immigration reform!

I really really want to thank you guys for answering my questions in the way that I asked....and for not making me feel like a total idiot because I wasnt sure of things :) Not an easy thing to do in this forum hehehe

Roachboy...

In your post #7 where you list reasons for gun ownership - hunting, people hunting, counter-tyranny - where's self-defense against the common criminal?

In my own experience, it's the most often cited argument against gun control. Your post seems glaringly incomplete without it.

Gun control is for pussies who think that God or a cell phone will protect them.

Rocks, swords, guns, laser blasters... you need to protect yourself.

(/rant)

I was going to write a long diatribe concerning gun control, but Crompsin just summed the whole thing up far more succintly than I ever could.

And I want to thank you, Shani, for asking the question that many of us have about this complex issue. I'm reading your thread with great interest.

IMHO, the right to bear arms was important to the founders because they wanted people to have the means to overthrow the government. They realized that all governments eventually fail including the one they just formed.

All other reasons, defense against crime, etc.. came later. It would be interesting to see which weapons they would want to allow ownership of in today's world. I suspect they would be against registration and would not want to make it easy for the corrupt government to identify and confiscate weapons from those who bear arms.

That old pearl of wisdom:

"God did not make men equal. Samuel Colt did."

Anybody can use a gun. It is a neutral mechanism of social equality.

Well, mostly neutral. I know plenty of women (and a few men) who couldn't wield a rifle or heavy shotgun effectively, nor move the slide on heavier pistols.

But in essence, sure.

And Shani: the biggest argument used by anti-gun control supporters is the slippery slope argument.

If they ban "assault" guns because they look too dangerous, how long before they ban rifles altogether? And then what's to stop them from banning shotguns? Or handguns?

If they're excluding felons, drug users and mentally handicapped individuals, that's fine. But what other requirements are they going to add? Are they eventually going to add so many requirements that I, as a law abiding citizen, can't buy a gun?

etc, etc.

Gun control eventually does boil down to the cliche of "guns dont kill people, people kill people."

If you can decide whether you believe that the volume and accessibility of guns is responsible for gun related crimes, then you're probably pro gun control. If you believe that it is the persons wielding the guns (rather than the guns themselves) that are responsible for gun related crimes, then you're probably anti gun control.

you know, fta, you're right. i didnt say anything about "self-defense"--i didnt say anything about the gun as penis extension, as a tool the primary function of which is to allow for the illusion of control over situations to be available to any fuckwit with enough money to get a gun. i didnt talk about that not because i forgot, but because i wasnt really interested in derailing the thread into a litany of more or less sociopathic assertions about the levelling functions of guns, how "democratic" they are. i figured it was bad enough that there were already claims that having a gun means you are politically free. i didnt see the point of opening up another space for arbitrary claims. but it opened anyway, so my job is done.

i didnt talk about it because i live in a city and find nothing good or reassuring about such statements. i find them the rationale for potential shootouts in streets over some petty agression. i find them to be the rationalization for the multiplication of stray bullets. i find them to be the excuse floated up front for the accidental injury or death of people just wandering by or who live nearby. i dont find the idea that people are strapped in a city to do anything good for any sense of security. i see mostly people who are strapped using their mighty guns in a situation of panic. but i am sure that others see manly men dropping and rolling and squeezing off x rounds of precisely aimed lethal force in protection of all and sundry, mowing down Bad Guys vigilante style and ultimately being congratulated for their dodge city heroism the way charles bronson might have been in a movie, maybe even getting to say a cliche or two in the process---"go ahead make my day"----and i am sure that Proper Gun Safety and Handling Training means that you will never panic in an unexpected situation, that you would never make errors that would result in the maiming of someone walking by just because they were walking by. maybe that's the effect of being-strapped as penis extension: you are never afraid of anything, you have Control strapped to your side and are Ready to Whip It Out. but who knows, maybe out there in ruralia, land of the high plains drifters, these sort of problems of population density dont matter so much and it is less a big deal if in a panic you spray a few dozen stray bullets into the desert. maybe there is no panic is ruralia and that's why the manly men who live out there live out there.
maybe chaos is just an urban thing. when i watch television, it looks that way. maybe television is accurate in its portrayal of the world.

or maybe its cities where "pussies" live, to use the sophisticated terminology of one or another of the manly men above, i dont remember which.
ah there we have the REALLY compelling argument: cities are full of "pussies" and manly men live in ruralia.
got it.
now i understand.

nice one roach, you got all the key phrases. atta boy.

i would direct your attention to the sociopathic posts from crompsin above, dk. i would imagine that you too would find them to be a bit problematic. but hey, maybe not. in the end, the post you respond to is really just a riff on the basic argument: your position on gun control is a function of where you live. in a city, things look one way--in the country another. my actual position is that i favor local controls. i know these are anathema to you because you make no distinction local/global, seeing everywhere only the famous "slippery slope"...and that's fine, whatever, i am not interested in having this same circular debate with you yet again.

this crompsin posts in this thread deserve very bit of ridicule they get.

Roach...

Don't you think you might've overgeneralized and oversatirized the self-defense position just a tiny little bit there? Do you really think that all the people who invoke "self-defense" for gun ownership are itching for a firefight? Or that, even with training, panic and poor judgment are inevitable? Are police officers and other armed government employees really the only ones who can use guns well in preventing or combatting crime?

(for what it's worth, I wasn't a fan of the crompsin reply either.)

you might think his reply was worthy of ridicule, but he is right. You need to protect yourself, because when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

fta: i dont think i was over-generalizing terribly much, actually.
again, i live in an urban environment. i dislike guns intensely. someone got shot next door to me a few weeks ago. despite that, i dont have a gun and have no plans of getting a gun as the Idea of self-defense with a gun serves no therapeutic function for me and the reality is that i dont have a gun and dont want a gun. period.

the question of reliance on the cops is interesting and complicated obviously--another question of your experience more than anything else. like i said from the outset of this entertainment, my fundamental position is and remains that different contexts engender basically different relations to weapons--spatial context, personal context.
maybe when dk imagines a scenario, he has a gun with him and the closest highway patrol dude is 45 minutes away.
i dont.

A gun gives its wielder an efficient way of killing someone. There should be controls in place to ensure that not everyone has this power. This is especially the case if the leading cause of gun deaths is not self-defense (it's usually self-destruction).

The self-defense argument doesn't stand if you do the research. As one example, women have a much greater chance of being shot to death by their partners than they would by some stranger. Furthermore, for most people, having a gun in the home only increases the chances of accidental and intentional gun deaths (e.g. their partners).

and just being in a car increases your chances of being in an MVA.
just working on the roof of your house increases your chances of a broken neck, should you fall.

there are risks in everything a person does. the chances of you coming out alive in any encounter with someone who has a gun increases exponentially if you have your own gun and know how to use it.

This is why we have strict laws governing the roads. Those laws are in place as to best minimize the risks of automobile travel. Are you saying this is a good comparison? I'm now thinking so. We should use gun control to best minimize the deaths by guns. Actually, I mean the Americans should. We have gun control in Canada, which is why our gun-death stats are a mere fraction of what they are in the U.S.

And if you do work on your house, you should also follow safety guidelines to minimize your risk of death or injury. Use everything as recommended by safety professionals.

Getting into an encounter with someone who has a gun increases exponentially if you don't have adequate gun control.

Gun safety functions in a similar manner.

There are many dangerous aspects of a free society. We as a population intent on protecting these freedoms must do so through intelligent compromise in most cases. Absolute freedom in any large group becomes unworkable,and counter-productive to the whole, thus a certain level of limited freedom becomes justified. We call these limitations Law, and though no Law makes sense to every member of the citizenry, they are extremely important to the health of any society.
Traffic Laws and Gun control serve a similar purpose as a general rule. By forbidding people to run a red light we can minimize the inevitable accident and lower the chance of bodily injury without taking away the right to drive. Similarly, by placing limits on armament types we as a society minimize the possible damage a weapon can do within the society in question. For this reason no one can legally own an RPG for self defense, but can certainly carry a 9mm for protection if they feel so inclined.
If someone feels the need to own an assault rifle to protect themselves from perceived threat, I admit confusion as to how this weapon would be more effective for the purpose of protection unless the intent is to hold off an invasion of the home. Often the argument is one of sport shooting, and though I have no issue with the idea, I would expect the weapons involved to be regulated for the protection of society in general. You can have your High Powered Guns if you want them.....But don't expect me to trust you with my family.

I think this logic holds water.

And good writing and wit aside, roachboy makes some excellent points, as well. Albeit, good medicine is sometimes hard to swallow in such liberal doses.

I think the main constitutional argument for the right to bear arms is protection from our government when it fails. Of course the world is much different now and the arms are far more powerful. When our corrupt government finally totally fails it will be interesting to see just how far those in power will go to stay in power. A well armed population will make it much more difficult for them.

There are those who think our government will last forever or that resistence will be futile in any case when it does fail. I'm not so sure, and one thing seems certain, every government on this planet eventually fails. Some give up power peacefully, others fight to the bitter end to maintain power.

I presume, roach, that you are familiar with Pascal's Wager.

Which would you regret more? Being unarmed and unsupported by the police, miles away, in a life-and-death situation, or begrudging yourself to have a self-defense weapon within reach?

The risk of not possessing a defensive weapon far outweighs the risk of possessing one, in my opinion.

This is a what-if situation. I would make the same mistake if I countered with my own:

Which would you be more thankful for? Being unarmed and getting home safely, or accidentally shooting yourself in the gut while reaching into your pocket for a stick of gum?

Let's keep this rooted in realism. In my case, in the city of Toronto, even in a record year with a spike in gun-related homicides (2005), there were under 100 homicides (71, I think). In a city 2.5 million, what were my odds of being such a victim?

Comparatively, Chicago had 450 murders in 2004 for a population of 2.8 million. Now, Chicago is often referred to as the murder capitol of America. If all things were equal, my odds of being murdered in this city is around 6 times greater than it is in Toronto. The gun-control differences between Toronto and Chicago are astounding, I'm sure. Nevertheless, does 1 murder out of 6,200 people make you that worried where you would need to carry a gun? If you moved to a town of 60,000 people and you had heard that 10 people were murdered the previous year (not all gun-related deaths, mind you), would you rush out to buy a gun just in case bullets fly in your small-town grocery store? You would want to be prepared to return fire, right?

you ARE aware of what the gun laws are in Chicago, are you not?

Actually, no. But I'm hoping they are as strict as you're implying with your all-caps tone. I'm guessing, however, that Chicago's gun problems don't exist in a vacuum within city limits. What are your thoughts on Chicago?

bah, I like Canada's gun control. it's simple and works for me.

Chicago has implemented a near total ban on all guns within the city limits. The ONLY guns allowed have been those that were registered before the ban in 1986 and most of those have been confiscated. Now HOW does a city, with a near total ban on all guns, become murder capital of the world?

Discretion is the better part of valor.

Only a fool trusts his life to a weapon.

Better a gun in the hand than a cop on the phone.

If you don't agree... this is the land of the free.

...

Idiots blame the implements... the era of a weapon is such a short period.

I bet people like Roachboy blame swords for the crimes of the Crusades.

The RIGHT (not act) of self-defense is the pinnacle of true democracy.

BTW: I live outside D.C., wear a tie to work, and don't live in some shack in the woods. Stereotypes are for dumb crackers. (drum crash)

(/pontification)

This is what we need to be discussing. The answer is: gangs, drugs, guns. You can ban guns all you want, but gangs aren't exactly law-abiding citizens. (Consider that hardcore drugs are banned, too.) You might wonder where these thugs get guns if not in Chicago. Well, the drugs come from much further. Gun control cannot be that effective if it is a city-wide initiative alone. It needs to be conducted from the federal level. Toronto's own spike in gun-related deaths has led mayor David Miller to call out for a ban on all hand guns. This won't have much of an effect unless the prime minister takes initiative and makes it so across Canada.

This brings up another issue; namely, the problem with what is likely to be the source of most of the illegal guns in Canada: the U.S. Ultimately, for Canadians, this is not just a municipal policing issue... it goes as far as being an international issue. But as far as Chicago is concerned, if it wants to avoid such a title as being the murder capital (as it has in the recent past), it will need to pressure the rest of the country into developing a gun-control strategy that will act as a dose of sanity.

Baraka, I think that's it. At least I think so.

It seems that we do indeed will not learn from history. total bans have been attempted for things in the past and they simply do not work. Never have, never will.

so what you're really advocating is a worldwide ban on firearms except for those in the hands of law enforcement and the military, right? Again, it seems we don't learn from history.

Incorrect. I didn't refer to the whole world, and I didn't suggest a ban on all firearms. So, no, I'm not advocating more than what I wrote in my previous post anymore than you are advocating reductionist absolutism in yours.

these two are totally opposite of each other. the only thing gun control does is create more victims for the criminals who won't obey the gun laws anyway.

A good proportion of gun-related deaths are suicides. Not having access to a firearm can often reduce the chances of a suicidal person from taking their life. A large proportion of suicides are conducted with firearms.

The only thing gun control does is create more victims?

coming to you live from the muder capital of the world:

jinnkai: the trick with pascal's wager is simple enough: it is told as a dialogue between two voices. one of them tries to convince the other that there is no way to avoid the wager. you must choose, he says. well, that's just dandy in the context of the pensees, which are (among other things) a curious kind of evangelical tract....but the wager is not binding in outside that context.
one is not forced to choose.
one can simply walk away.
that's the option i choose.

on the other conversation: to say that gun controls do not work because they have not prevented all gun related crime so therefore there should be no gun control is like saying that drunk driving laws do not prevent all people from getting wrecked and then driving so there shouldn't be any drunk driving laws.

I don't think we should ban alcohol consumption or gun ownership. However there should probably be laws against driving or shooting while impaired.

Banning guns to prevent gun crime seems too much like banning automobiles or alcohol to prevent drunk driving.

Note: The FBI has a task force that specifically studies crimes committed with baseball bats.

Guns are a phase. Justice is a constant.

when a law makes a person a defenseless victim, that law should be abolished. gun control laws make people in to defenseless victims. drunk driving laws do not prevent people from defending themselves.

This is not actually the reality. Most gun control is directed at high power assault weapons, or at instant access to a weapon without some level of check on the individual before issuing a firearm permit. I doubt very much you, or anyone else would carry an assault rifle around as a weapon of self defense, and sincerely hope you would want to prevent an unstable person from getting a legal weapon for personal use.
I understand you are adamant about your right to bear Arms, and that is fine. It is important for you to equally understand that limitation MUST be placed on these weapons at some point for the stability of our society. Very few expect you to surrender your Guns, and limit your ability to protect yourself. But most people have a problem with allowing complete freedom when it comes to deadly weapons in the hands of everyone.
I doubt you would feel comfortable knowing the neighbor you just pissed off, who has a history of beating his wife has an M-14 in his closet.

This shows that you don't have very much knowledge on the gun control laws that have been passed and they keep trying to pass on a yearly basis.

I wouldn't carry an M16 or MP5 around, but I would keep it in my home, ready and able for use. As far as unstable people go, if they are unstable enough to not be trusted to not hurt people, they shouldn't be on the streets period.

and yet america was founded with the express right for everyone to own a firearm that was equal to the standing military, so here after 200 years, there are enough people out there who are in 180 degree different ideology of the founding fathers that we have several states full of people that have lost one of their rights in the bill of rights due to political ideology and mistrust of their fellow citizen.

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"
-- Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836

Though a truly beautiful sentiment, the world of 1836 should not be compared to today in this regard, and I hope you well understand this (though I am beginning to doubt it).

Interesting that the same eye numbing vitrol rhetoric is being pushed about and quite possibly removing any interest from the OP or any other person who steps in to get "educated" on gun control.

for me possession of a firearm is to allow me to protect myself from random aggressors and tyrannical government.

It is summarized easily during the 1993 congressianal hearing with Suzanne Hupp who lost her parents in the deadliest killing pre-VT at Luby's Cafeteria in TX. The gunman killed 23 people and wounded 20 then turned the gun on himself.

Sane?

Also, I think the NRA said it best...

'An armed society is a polite society.'

As someone who doesn't pay a whole lot of attention to this specific issue, who doesn't own a gun, and probably will never do so (I subscribe to the Ron White School of Hunting; it's too early in the morning, too cold outside, and I don't want to f***ing go), there seems to me that there is a major difference between gun CONTROL and a gun BAN.

Gun control, to me, is a lot like the present rules involving distribution of alcohol, and maybe even automobiles (although not in the combined way mentioned earlier with driving under the influence).

There are limits to buying both guns and cars, through licenses, registration, insurance (for cars), etc. There are also ways of preventing certain people from buying each.

A gun ban is more like Prohibition, or illegal drugs. Law-abiding citizens would obey, but if someone wants the banned item, they can find it relatively easily. Plus, there is an increase of crime, especially violent crime, due to the people wanting the banned item.

I can get behind certain amounts of gun control, but a gun ban would be insane to me.

My brain is a high powered assault weapon.

Control that.

The Adman is already doing a great job of it, I'm sure.

yes, check this thread for more information...

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=911

to this day, there is only one single proven incident of a legal automatic weapon used in a crime and that one was used by a police officer.

and it's my responsibility to ensure your families peace of mind? how is that?



doubt it you should, for if you can consider any one single right held by you to be determined by the times of the day, then you certainly aren't free nor should you be.

can you eleborate on that one single proen incident for both criminal and police?

Since 1934, there appear to have been at least two homicides committed with legally owned automatic weapons. One was a murder committed by a law enforcement officer (as opposed to a civilian). On September 15th, 1988, a 13-year veteran of the Dayton, Ohio police department, Patrolman Roger Waller, then 32, used his fully automatic MAC-11 .380 caliber submachine gun to kill a police informant, 52-year-old Lawrence Hileman. Patrolman Waller pleaded guilty in 1990, and he and an accomplice were sentenced to 18 years in prison. The 1986 'ban' on sales of new machine guns does not apply to purchases by law enforcement or government agencies.
---
Thanks to the staff of the Columbus, Ohio Public Library for the details of the Waller case.

Source: talk.politics.guns FAQ, part 2.

The other homicide, possibly involving a legally owned machine gun, occurred on September 14, 1992, also in Ohio

As far as criminal actions, I only know of a few, most notably the L.A. bank robbery shootout.

It should also be noted that In 1995 there were over 240,000 machine guns registered with the BATF. With only one confirmed and one POSSIBLE crime related to registered machine guns, it should be obvious to anyone with intelligence that law abiding citizens who go through the arduous process proscribed to obtain one is not going to commit a crime with one.

JUST FYI, dksuddeth is anti-gun control.

I just wanted to clear that up. In case anyone was unclear.

Will also asked me to point out that the sky is up, Miami is south of New York City and that Herbert Hoover is dead. :rolleyes:

Just kidding, will, but that did seem a little self-evident.

Heheheh...yeah. That was the idea. It would be like saying Host has a lot to say or Charlatan kinda has a lot of posts. Or that I have a passing interest in 9/11.

The Violence Prevention Center published a report in 2001, "Where Did They Get Their Guns" that describes`the firearms used in high-profile shootings from 1963 (starting with the Kennedy assassination) to 2001 and if the firearms were legally purchased.

http://www.vpc.org/studies/wguncont.htm

Legally purchased AK47s were used on several occasions, most notably the shooting at the CIA headquarters in 1993, among others:
More, including full report: http://www.vpc.org/press/0104wher.htm

DC, you're my new hero. I've been looking for those statistics for a long time.

irrelevant, unless you wish to paint handguns in a negative light, which the VPC has always tried to do.

again, irrelevant because it shows that weapons were acquired EITHER WAY, but this is the VPC's effort at showing that most crime guns were obtained via legal owners, therefore legal ownership should be abolished.


and in 10 or 10 shootings, all were done in a gun free school zone. wonder how that happened? that a gun free school zone was the place of a shooting. boggles the mind.

I've read this a few times, and I'm trying to wrap my head around the response. It would be irrelevant, unless the intent is to show how handguns acquired legally are used more often. Well, that was the idea. This is proof that in our system more crimes are committed with legally purchased weapons. That's rather telling, especially speaking as someone who was shot in the calf with a legally owned gun.
Looking puirely at the statistics, it's clear that more often people are able to get weapons legally to commit crime. It's harder to get a gun illegally. This would suggest, though not conclusively, that if gun ownership were abolished, gun crime could fall off.
Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 was abolished because it was ruled unconstitutional in 1995. It was an attempt to deter by making punishments of offenders in these zones worse. Those assholes who opened fire in a gun free school system were punished more because of that program.

(I'm trying to keep this about education on gun control, instead of this turning into a debate)

Fine, gun control doesn't work, hasn't worked, will never work. gun control was started in 1934 and crime has grown exponentially since then. so much for gun control.

You're welcome to your opinion, of course.

I am of a different opinion, personally. I believe that, based on crime in places where guns are banned, like the UK, we may be better off without making unnecessary weapons so readily available to everyone. I, myself, was shot in the leg by a gun that was legally purchased. As the statistics above make clear, guns may not kill people, but they sure as heck make it easier. People will always be violent, and many will be irresponsible. It's unfortunate, but considering the high rate of gun crime in the US, we may be better off simply making sure that only law enforcement officers are armed with weapons as deadly as guns. As for hunting, I'm not bad using the bow and arrow, and I would think there would be more sport in use of such a projectile weapon, anyway (considering that hunting is a sport, now).

Speaking to the Bill of Rights, specifically the Second Amendment:
Some people prefer to interpret this as meaning that everyone in the US has the right to own a gun. I don't. I see this as a clear indication as to how the founding fathers say the US needs a militia force, like the National Guard, that can be well armed and trained for times of need. I agree that the military should be armed, and that taking those arms is a clear indication that something is wrong, so they should be Constitutionally protected.

The right to bear arms (btw, 'arms' is a very open term that can be open to interpretation) for all people makes little sense, especially considering how that very interpretation puts guns into the hands of the people that pro-gun people buy guns to defend their family from. What a horrible irony that is, and it seems to be a matter of escalation that can be avoided.

Just my two cents. Shani, you obviously have a lot of stuff in here. I hope it's been helpful. :thumbsup:

Well you'd want to think that people would be, but the above proves that people will do stupid things, and this happened to be 2 things, one in my neighborhood, and second someone I actually know.

Bow and arrow control?

The second amendment exists to allow citizens to protect themselves from the government. The national guard is a tool of government, and would obviously be useless in protecting us from the government in the event that it oversteps its bounds.

Our founders were bright enough to see the eventual regression of the United States government into something wrong and which should be fought against. They included the second amendment to help us fight against it. Yes, that freedom comes at a cost, but it is one that anyone who truly values freedom should be willing to accept. If you are not, please don't try to forfeit that freedom on behalf of the rest of us. :P

It always surprises me when people tell me my opinion is wrong. My opinion is my opinion. I'm interpreting the words of the Amendment to the best of my english speaking abilities (I always received top marks in English from kindergarden through my graduation from a top private college... except for spelling, though I never really thought spelling was all that important). Having read the Second Amendment hundreds of times, you'll have to show me where protection against the government is mentioned because I've apparently missed it hundreds of times.

So here you are:
Good luck.

I see 'security of a free state', but that's a hell of a ways away from fighting the government.

Since the Second Amendment right "to keep and bear arms" applies only to the right of the State to maintain a militia and not to the individual's right to bear arms, there can be no serious claim to any express constitutional right of an individual to possess a firearm. . .
—United States v. Warin, 530 F.2d 103.

A fundamental right to keep and bear arms has not been the law for 100 years...Cases have analyzed the second amendment purely in terms of protecting state militias rather than individual rights.
—United States v. Nelsen, 859 F.2d 1318

In short, the Second Amendment does not imply any general constitutional right for individuals to bear arms and form private armies.
—Vietnamese Fishermen's Association v. Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, 543 F. Supp. 198

The National Guard is the modern Militia reserved to the States by Art I, Sec 8, cl 15, 16, of the Constitution.
—Maryland v. United States, 381 U.S. 41

The question has been faced by several states. State constitutions which provide to the 'people' the right to keep and bear arms for the common defence do not necessarily grant individuals that same right. The right is not directed to guaranteeing individual ownership or possession of weapons.
—Rabbit v. Leonard, 413 A. 2d 489

This court is unaware of a single case which has upheld a right to bear arms under the Second Amendment to the Constitution, outside of the context of a militia.
—Thompson v. Dereta, 549 F. Supp. 297

Even as against the United States, furthermore, the Second Amendment protects not an individual right but a collective right, in the people as a group, to serve as a militia.
—In Re Application of Atkinson, 291 N.W.2d 396

I can't get around the very circular thinking you have. Please explain your logic with this interpretation considering that the founders and framers, having a very healthy fear of a central government and standing army, would bother to declare the RIGHT for standing armies to keep and bear arms and put that right in the bill of rights, a very specific set of rights that was a concession to the anti-federalists to ensure that those rights could not be infringed upon by the government. Once you can clearly postulate that the Second Amendment only guarantees the right of the military, or national guard, to keep and bear arms I'd request that you show some historical proof that the militia that is referred to in the Second Amendment was clearly NOT supposed to be the citizenry at large, but instead was to ensure that the citizens would not disarm their military. Thanks in advance

1) This is a run on sentence.
2) I'm not here to threadjack. I'm trying to give my personal interpretation of the topic, as was requested by Shani. This isn't about debate. This isn't a debate. This isn't a debate. God knows we have enough threads around here to drive this into the ground, again.

There's this guy I know, who you may have heard of. He had some interesting things to say about a document that he helped write. This may help you to shift your perspective more in line with what he was thinking at the time:

All of these mentions clearly state that individuals are those who are to be armed, the last even that a "standing army" could be dispensed with as long as the nation itself -- its common citizens -- are armed. Jefferson did not intend for us to have a massive standing army, or for us to use it to invade countries pre-emptively.

Regarding standing army and "Militia":

The "militia" of the State is every man (citizen) within it that is able to bear arms. The second amendment, therefore, applies to every able-bodied person -- NOT just the "National Guard."

Through a series of liberal judicial activist decisions, the courts have effectively rewritten the constitution, including Art. 1, sec 10, paragraph 3 to wit "No state shall, without the consent of congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or ships of war in time of peace...."
Clearly, the constitution specifically states that the states themselves shall not have state troops, yet are very clearly given the right to keep state troops because of the 2nd Amendment.....ok, i'm dizzy now.:shakehead:

So, how does one reconcile within themselves that it's ok for judicial tyrannists to supercede the written constitution with judicial decisions and bypass the clearly written and detailed steps of amending the constitution as well as ignoring the definition of the various militia types in the militia code of the US laws.

I also would like someone to explain to me how congress HAS to use the commerce clause to regulate firearms if the 2nd Amendment does not refer to the right of an individual. One should be able to conclude that if there is no right to keep and bear arms, then a regular old punitive law, that has nothing to do with commerce regulation, could be implemented to ban firearms yet that is not the case.

Will? you have an interest in 9/11? I had NO idea! :surprised:

As to the OP, I always thought gun control was being able to hold the gun steady enough to hit your target???

THIS is one reason to carry a gun
 

http://www.breitbart.tv/html/2069.html

A woman, who called police to be a 'good witness', about a crime was kidnapped and then branded in the face with the word 'snitch'.

I'm telling you, those who don't care about the law and do what they want to do are aware that most of the people don't carry weapons for protection and aren't too damn afraid to do something to you if you cross them.

You think this is the first horrible story I've ever heard? I've also heard plenty of stories about men and women who have shot their spouses and children with their own legally owned firearms. I've also read that most guns used in the commission of crimes come from friends and family members. In other words - legal gun owners. How does your theory of "more guns carried by more people" work towards solving those problems?

Believe it or not, dk, some of us don't own guns because we simply don't want to own guns. *gasp*

Source? Sounds like an outright lie to me.

if you had your way, dk, and the american legal system could not adapt to changing conditions through the development of legal precedents in case law, the constitutional order that you fetishize so would have collapsed long ago. you cant have it both ways: you can't act as though "original intent" is a legitimate guide for interpreting the constitution and not accept that the result of this would be constitutional crises. each constitutional crisis would result in a new document, and each new document would reconsider the question of guns....

i am really not sure that you want to go down this road--it sounds like you have some totally different idea about what the consequences of "original intent" as a way of thinking about the constitution....how do you imagine that the result of that would work?

Actually where I read it was on a pro-gun website that was denying the urgency of the "gun show loophole" by saying that less than 2% of crimes involving firearms come from unlicensed gun show transactions and most come from friends/family members. It didn't clarify whether they were given by or stolen from friends/family members. But does that matter?

I'll see if I can find it.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm

Well, I suppose I should go to a reputable source for these sorts of comments...

Here's how it reads from the Dept. of Justice.

I'm not sure why they would have omitted "street buy, or an illegal source" from their data, but they did.

I would be interested to know exactly how that 80% breaks out, though. And does an "illegal source" account for weapons stolen from family or friends?

Anyway, I think the question of what to do about guns used in the commission of a crime that are given by (with or without foreknowledge of what they'll be used for) or stolen from legal owners for illegal purposes is a very valid one.

And thanks so much for calling me a liar. You're so sweet.

THIS is a reason not to have guns
 

http://www.breitbart.tv/html/2069.html

A woman, who called police to be a 'good witness', about a crime was kidnapped and then branded in the face with the word 'snitch'.

I'm telling you, those who don't care about the lives of innocent people and do what they want to do are aware that most people are afraid of their guns and can do anything to anyone with those guns, and some people want to protect the right of criminals to carry these guns. We live in a scary world.

I agree completely.

I'm not sure why the DOJ even bothered with that study, as it really doesn't show ..much... at all...

EDIT:

Will? Who wants to protect the rights of CRIMINALS to carry guns? Even the most pro-gun person I know wouldn't advocate criminal possession. BTW it's interesting you linked that story.. DK did too, above. He seems to have a slightly different take on it.

rb, we're going to have to agree to disagree. You seem to think that a legal document should ebb and flow with the changing tides of current events and the development of industrialization of the country. This theory alone should give people nightmares about constitutional crises.

If, however, you view legal documents as unchanging, unmoving, and inviolate then how does one have a crisis?

This is because Wills view of the situation is entirely based on the gun and that if said criminals just didn't have access to guns, they would be less inclined to commit crimes and hurt people. Wills view stipulates that if only guns were banned, a utopia would be around the corner and there would be no more violent crimes.

Female cop never had a shot

Another thing that really pisses me off is this,
Had this been any average citizen as the victim, there would not be the response that this cop got.

Yeah, they both should have had guns.

well gee, do you think she was thinking 'if i just lie still, he won't hurt me' or was she thinking 'i'm such a stupid asshead for leaving my gun at the PD'???

I'm sure it would also likely to be "Fuck, he caught me off guard; I didn't even get a chance to disable him using my NYPD combat training."

"I knew I should have taken those Krav Maga classes at the Y!"
"I should have developed superpowers!"