Gun Control
 

This, more or less, comes from a British TV comedy called "The Thin Blue Line". THe background to this is that, at the time - and still I think - anyone who wants to own a gun in the uk has to get permission from the local police.

This particular character, a police chief, had never issued a licence for a handgun during his tenure.

His reason?

"It is my duty to ensure that only those people who _should_ be in posession of a handgun _are_ in possession of a handgun, in doing this I must judge their character. With this duty in mind I have but two questions for anyone who comes asking such a licence; Would you like to own a Gun? and, If I were to issue this licence, will you then take that licence and use it to procure said weapon?

If the applicant answers to both in the affirmative, then I deem that they are not really the sort of person who I feel should be in posession of a Gun."

Funny, but in all seriousness it's damned accurate.

Guns are tools which serve a grave and serious purpose, if you merely "want" or "would like" a gun then really, you need your head feeling more than a little.

Can you REALLY justify liberal gun ownership laws in any way?

I, for one, have never heard one arguement that holds water and am wondering where the american fascination with all things weaponry stems from?

Ignorant gun control policy simply does not work, and there is really no reasoning behind such proposals, it is just pure emotional nonsense. Even some Democrats have begun to notice this, and so have backed off to a large degree.

Re: Gun Control
 

Yes, I can.

America has always been, and continues to be an armed society. This started as a means to feed ourselves, defense against the enemies of our fledgling nation, as well as a defense against our government, should it ever become a threat to our liberties. In modern times guns are used for much the same purpose. Hunting not only provides recreation for millions of Americans, it also provides the vast majority of conservation dollars, and criminals are far less likely to attack citizens in states that issue concealed weapons permits.

You see, if you pass laws that outlaw the ownership of weapons, the only people who will follow them will be law abiding citizens. The criminals will keep their weapons. Does that sound like a wise idea to you? Look at the enourmous increase in violent crime in countries such as Great Britain and Australia for an example of that endgame.

The violence in America is not caused by guns, it is caused by the close proximity of so many varied cultures, and the wide gulf between our rich and poor. It is one of the many earthquakes of our liberty.

After all, a gun is just a piece of metal, isn't it.

If you need more arguments, I will be happy to provide...

The major argument against gun control is, enforce the laws we have now and that'd be good enough.

And I agree. Unfortunately, the agencies which enforce all those laws seem to be underfunded. For some reason. Otherwise, we'd see ATB officials checking every gun show for illegal buys, but it just never seems to be a priority. For some reason.

Man, what a fucking shocker. A lot of us should get understudies around here, take some time off. Our opinions are pretty much mapped out for all.

i agree with debaser. i hate to be trite, but guns dont kill people, people kill poeple. i FIRMLY stand by that. all it takes is some intelligence and proper instruction to know how to safely handle guns, plus a reasonable amount of sanity. if you dont have that amount of sanity, then you can kill somebody with anything. why dont we ban kitchen knives while we're at it.
in my perspective, guns are striclty pieces of sporting eqipment (i dont know of anyone that goes hunting because they need to eat their game). i myself am a skeet shooter, and i find it to be very fun. sure, its dangerous, but like i said, one needs intelligence about gun safety and sanity. but dont ban guns. criminals will still get them, and we'll all be screwed

Is this your way of telling me that you would like to become my understudy? :D

Jesus H Christ.

You really think you need guns to defend yourselves from the government or criminals? Honestly?

When was the last _armed_ uprising of _civilians_ that actually succeeded in overthrowing or radically overhauling it's government?

Has it every happened in a modern state?

When you're attacked by a criminal, how are you going to get your gun from it's concealed position when there's a knife or gun in your back?

The conservation/hunting thing. Well, for one, It isn't hunting. It's slaughter. If you want to go out into the woods with just a knife, whittle your own bow and arrow, make traps, turn ferral, learn how to track, etc. then i'll reckon you're hunting. With a rifle, the odds are stacked too far in your favour. Out of earshot, downwind and invisible but for the flash.

That's as much hunting as shooting tin cans in a fair with a BB gun.

And in any event, for hunting purposes you need a basic rifle, not a handgun. Completely different arguement, more moral then practical.

You point to rises in violent crime in the UK and Australia. The reason for the rise in gun crime there is the same as the rise in gun crime everywhere.

Prohibition of substances for which there is a substantial demand.

Give poor people (in general, not all dealers start out poor, of this i am aware) or the greedy a means of making large sums of cash, make it illegal. Voila. Friction between small but powerful clans will turn into fighting.

Fighting leads to escalating violence, which leeds to the procurement of guns/rocket launchers/whatever they can lay their hands on with the vast sums of money the STUPID drug laws throw into the hands of the ruthless.

It was ever thus, and ever will be.

I ain't covered every base because i'd like more posts. I'm really fascinated with what Bill Hicks aptly described as the "tingly feeling" that americans seem to get when guns are even mentioned...

This is a hotly contended topic. Let's keep our comments civil. It's OK to disagree, but not OK to rant or offend or flame. Moderate your posts, or be moderated.

Swing and a miss! But that would actually be hilarious. We should switch stances for a week, see how it feels to be on the crazy side of the fence. What say you, old enemy?

Russia, Romania, Serbia, need more?
See above. ;)

Ask the over 800,000 people a year who use a gun defensively in the US ( http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html ). The point is not how it is used, though. It is the deterence factor. A criminal is by nature lazy and self-interested. He will be far less likely to attack/rob a person if he knows there is the possibility that the victim will defend themselves with a weapon.
You obviously speak from a position of complete ignorance on the subject. First off, it takes a great deal of skill, you must still learn the skills of tracking, moving silently, and outwitting the animal in its own habitat. Deer (just as an example) can hear you moving far further than you can shoot at them.

But your petty predjudice aside, hunting still provides almost all the conservancy dollars in this country, without which we would no longer have wooded places at all. You seemed to ignore that point.

Also, hunting culls populations that are otherwise out of control due to the removal of natural predators. In the county I live in, more insurance claims and more deaths a year are caused by dear being hit by cars than by all other road related causes combined.

Some people hunt with handguns, it takes alot more skill than with a rifle or bow (see your comments above). Both uses of both different kinds of weapons are very practicle, should you find yourself in one of the above situations (hunting and everyday life).
I did not say it was "gun crime", I said violent crime. Since guns have been banned, violent crime has sky-rocketed. The reason is that criminals no longer fear getting shot while breaking into houses or mugging people.
Like guns in the US?
I thought we were talking about guns...
Guns are a charged issue in American life, as are many issues in which a minority of the people want to curtail the rights of the majority.

So far I haven't seen any new information or arguement to cause me to rethink my stance (the Weaver stance, to be exact.)

http://www.svricochet.nl/6B.GIF

OH, and Rowen Atkinson is a comedic genius.

Wouldnt he just be more likely to bring a bigger weapon of his own?

Why would a "bigger weapon" help him? A .22 can be quite lethal. A criminal does not want to be shot at with any gun, period. Why would a criminal go after a citizen who might have a gun when he could just go after a soft target, with no fear of reprisal ( as in California, for example)?

Er that makes sense. The short answer is no. The long answer is... bigger weapon? What? Like a nuke... or what? I mean its not the size of the gun its how you use it! (tee hee..) Seriously though, if I was a criminal and god willing someday I will be, I wouldn't go after anyone that I knew (or atleast thought) had a weapon any more lethal then prehaps a knife. I might have a shotgun and he might only have a 9mm but the fucker could still kill me.

As for a general response to the thread. Not to be cliche (and repeat whats allready been said ) BUT .. when guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns. Yea, I've heard about gun control before. It was about 60 years ago but it was hard to understand because the naration was in german. Seriously though the first country to ever pass gun control laws was Nazi Germany. It makes sense too. If a goverment is going to be totalitarian then wont it want its citizens disarmed? Yes, guns WERE made for one purpose, to stop/kill things. But thats the way of the world. Sadly it can be kill or be killed. Once you change the way of the world then I will consider giving up my gun (which I do not own one. I just support ones right to own one)

This shouldn't be an issue for Americans because it would be unconstitutional to take away guns. The 2nd Amendment forbids the government to take guns away from the people.

this isnt exactlyy what you're talking about, but its along the same lines......i remeber hearing a story from my PoliSci teacher that there was a shooting in a law school a few years ago. the shooter, a deranged student, shot one of the professors and then set out to go injure or possibly kill more people. he was unable to do so, however, because four other students went into their cars and got their own guns and were able to bring the shooter down. thats a pretty good example of self-defense right there. on a side note, the anti-gun media didnt even report this fact, they just reported that the shooter was detained by other students....no other guns were mentioned ;)

Also, I believe that in US vs Miller, the Supreme Court decided that "a well regulated militia" was essentially comprised of "all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense,'' who, ''when called for service . . . were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.'' This would suggest that any argument that "well regulated militia means state police!" is false.(LINK)

Well, its time to change the constitution!

You're right.

We need to remove the militia phrase so there is no wiggle room for the left to try to ban guns.

:D

The best form of gun control is a steady grip and careful aim

im gonna have to use that one day ;)

Damn straight.

If the criminal is running off with my valuable I'd like to take out my weapon and deliver some wrath into his back. He did it to me odds are he'll do it someone else. Plus it much easier to remove a human threat using a gun than it is a using knives, keys, pens, Hap Ki Do.

This is irelevant.

I too saw that story.

It is fairly obvious that now they are incapable of enforcing the law to the extent that that argument requires them to be capable of.

I find the fascination with guns in the US... well... facinating.

I just don't see the need of guns. I have little to no fear of someone attacking me or breaking into my home while I am there.

If I was there that should be enough to deter even the most aggressive of the "lazy" criminals.

I am all for the control of handguns and automatic weapons. I mean who in the public sphere really needs a fricken uzi? No one who isn't up to no good.

I have no issue with hunting rifles and the like. Great sport. Knock yourself out.

But guns that are essentially only really used to kill people what is the point... (and don't give me that crap about people hunting with a hand gun... just ridiculous).

Yes. People kill people. But why make it easier for them?

Those of criminal intent, and with criminal mindsets will always be able to get weapons legal or otherwise. We have constitutional rights to protect ourselves against these type's. If you ban guns only those who want to cause havic will have them. The police force can only do so much.

My only issue with guns is that its too bad the criminals with the guns who are intent on using it usually end up using it and innocents get hurt before they are brought down.

The sniper attacks in the DC / MD area and stuff are just plain sickening anyways.

The best form of gun control is still knowing how to use the gun, knowing the responsibility of the gun, and being responsible enough to put the gun away where no one other than you yourself can get it.

There should never be any excuse for leaving a rifle with rounds nearby / chambered in a closet where the kids can reach it.

Yes its too bad in society so many of these things occur because society has grown so large / there are always loons out there, but thats the first step.

Excellent post Charlatan, you echo my thoughts exactly.

I've heard all this before... I get it.

From my view point all I see is that more guns (even in the hands of the responsible) just add to the problem... a proliferation of weapons.

I don't see that they are needed. Yes, bad people will get guns. However, if there were fewer guns to get... think about.

I truly believe that violence begets violence. Guns are a symbol of violence (if you don't agree show me that it is otherwise) and as such simply add fuel to the fire.


(again I am talking about guns that are really made for the sole purpose of killing people)

Gee, 227 years of success and now YOU have a better idea. Somebody phone the President, I bet he can solve the Social Security problem, balance the Budget and erradicate Terrorism as well.

"But guns that are essentially only really used to kill people what is the point... (and don't give me that crap about people hunting with a hand gun... just ridiculous)."



Well, your right when it comes to MOST handguns but,.....I hunt with a .44 mag pistol. Very effective for killing deer. I for one really don't think the average person needs a uzi or ak-47. Those really aren't for hunting. I have a lot of pistols though, 9mm, 40s&w, 380 and like shooting them.I take them to the range all the time. I wouldn't use them for any other thing. If somebody breaks into my house, I'm going for the shotgun.

Charlatan,

Thanks for a well stated post that states your feelings without going off on a tangent telling anyone who wants a gun that they must be 'crazy' or 'fearful'.

Anyway, a few points.

-I'm glad you are not fearful of a home invasion, and in general, neither am I, but the reality is that they do happen. The question is, do you want to play the odds that it won't happen to you or do want to prepare for that possibility?

-Real Uzi's and other automatic weapons (btw, an 'assault' rifle is a select fire weapon capable of firing in an automatic mode) are already heavily regulated. My Bushmaster DCM AR-15 may look like a military M-16 (i.e. it looks scary), but it is mechanically no different than any other gas operated semi-automatic carbine (i.e hunting rifle).

-the Second Ammendment mentions NOTHING about hunting. It does talk about defense. The government could ban all hunting tomorrow and be within its legal rights (if it could ignore the firestorm of protest is a different issue.)

-Large caliber handguns are used for hunting all the time. It actually provides more of a challenge (like bow hunting), since you have to get closer to the animal for a sure kill.

-More properly, hand guns are meant to equalize the ability of people to kill each other. In other words, thanks to Samuel Colt, an old woman can defend herself quite easily against a 20 year old 200lb rapist. This was not possible before the invention (and wide scale availablity and affordability) of the gun.

Wow. Didn't even acknowledge the gauntlet, seretogis? You are without honor! :D

Strict gun control is working and has worked quite nicely in all the civilized countries on this side of the pond. Doesn't really mean it would work on yours. You would have far less dead bodies lying around.

Usually, on boards like this, the average intelligence factor of an individual is far greater than your normal person. Of course _you_ know how to use a gun responsibly without killing anybody, accidentally or not. This just doesn't apply to the Average Adam who gets a gun from a local store to 'protect' his house etc.

Then he (hopefully) goes to jail for shooting the guy dead that just came to rob his garage. Another life lost to a careless gun owner. A pity.

Whoops, missed your post!

It would be quite interesting, that's for sure, but I'm honestly not sure how convincing I could be as a dem. :)

In Minnesota, at least, protecting property with deadly force is not legal, especially if the person is running away from you. It doesn't make much sense, but unless the person is committing a felony or endangering your life, you can't shoot them to death and get away with it.

[quote]Yes. People kill people. But why make it easier for them?[/qouote]
Criminals wont have legally obtained weapons.

Ever read John Locke? What about Life, Liberty and Property? If someone is breaking in my house, garage or otherwise, let them be on notice--they will get shot.

you aint gonna use this to hunt a deer
http://www.army-technology.com/contr...chine_gun2.jpg
but it would be fun!

AK 47 bb gun- cooool

Now, now, liberal, not dem. You're a libertarian, not a rep, right? And who cares about convincing, who are we trying to sell? Just take the stance you think the other would take on questions. It'll obviously get satirical, but that's all good. Maybe a week would be too long, a few days.