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.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Xell101

Quote:

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

That is besides the point... more guns in the marketplace means just that... more guns.

I'd love to see some stats on home invasions. How many occur while people are at home compared to when they are away. Where in the coutry do they occur? etc.

My dog/alarm system is loud and my phone is by the bed and I'd rather let them steal my stuff than have a shoot out in my house.



I can see the thrill and the challenge BUT if getting rid of handguns is going to make it safer (assuming for the moment that it will) I think we can forego the hunting with handguns.

Why is it that in other parts of the world guns just aren't deemed as neccessary to "personal safety"? You only need to "equalize the ability of people to kill each other" when there is a gun culture to start with... I honestly just don't understand America and Americans when it comes to this issue. :confused:

I'd give up my right to own a gun if and only if I could be assured that the criminal element, or better yet, no one else outside of military and law enforcement would have a gun either. The biggest detracting argument I find against gun control is the hardship in prohibiting illegal gun ownership.

People under 21 aren't supposed get alcohol, but they do.

Marijuana and other drugs are illegal, people obviously get those

So if we make handguns illegal why do some people think it will get rid of handgun violence? Granted it may make it a bit harder, but even so then criminals will still have weapons, so what does that give me? Kung Fu and and a ten minute police response window?

No thank you

I think many many people would agree with that statement. And that seems to be the general concensus here.

But there are still some stubborn enough to think they need one no matter what *sigh*.:hmm:


Anyways I can't see guns going son because Americans are too stubborn to change things of old. A gun may never be used by a family but its only there because their entire family is supposed to have one for "family protection" and maybe one day that would be an outdated term.

zeld 2.0 the only way we will ever have "family protection", if we remove the criminal element. IF you have a way to do this please tell someone asap. Hitler took guns away from his citizens, America had its beginning in an armed society, and hopefully it always will be. Unless you like big brother goverment to do everything for you.

Charlatan,

I haven't found any statistics on home invasions, but I did find these newspaper excerpts for the month of April, 2003:

I'll also repeat that the Second Ammendment was not written for "hunters", but so that the people would not be disarmed in the event of a tyranical state, so the notion of "the police and the military" only having guns is exactly what the Second Ammendment is designed to avoid.

BTW, it would be helpful if you put "Canada" in your profile, just so people don't have to guess.

Well other coutnries have very few deaths (like England like 100-1000 a year, other european nations less than 500 for sure, some even less than 100) due to guns.

Thats mainly because the criminals don't have the guns and neither do the populace. It works for them.

America - too many guns are out there already. And honestly the argument of "military and police" having guns and making a police state all depends on the gov't's thinking.

If we elect a sane man it wouldn't happen.

Besides, honestly, would YOU shoot at police/military if there was a police state or martial law or whatever you want it to be?

Most "right" people wouldn't anyways despite having guns so thats somewhat irrelevant.

Guns for defense are only useful if the guy owning the gun is responsible and knows how to use it. And its responsiblity that really matters. Leaving it in an unlocked locker is hardly responsible when there are kids around.

Oh and I'd like to mention that those cases you listed - there are many more where the gunfire exchange leads to the guy trying to defend. There are many many grocery store / liquor store robberies where the owner tries to get a gun and ends up dying. Home invasions as well where they challenge there are man yas well.

You only hear about the heroes - but many more probably get injured, and sometimes its the kids getting hurt which is even worse imo.

Hell thats even why police repeatedly say "just wait for the police and don't try to fight" because there are so many incidents where people try and they end up the victims.

Of course all of this would be irrelevent if criminals didn't have guns and people didnt' as well. to get to that point though some type of measure has to be done in the beginning to stop providing criminals with it - which imo is much more important.

All I've got to say is that, the founding fathers thought that I should have the right to own a gun, and I thank them. Teaching people how to use a gun and respect a gun would bring down gun related crimes, because by teaching respect of a gun, people will realize the killing power it has and will only use it in self defense or in sport. I mean, criminals will continue to try to get a weapon to use it against innocent citizens. I for one say, leave my second amendment alone.

I am aware that the Second Ammendment was written for that purpose. I've always found that facinating. While it is an amazing bit of counter balance right in the constitution it is highly unworkable in this day and age. Do you honestly thing an uprising by the people wouldn't be squashed by the far superior fire power of the US military? Besides there are MUCH better political counter balances that can be used to oust a tyranical state (election 2004 perhaps... j/k... sort of).


As for the reported cases of people fighting off intruders... yes. A gun was handy at that moment.

Is there a direct relation to the number of gun related "incidents" to the number of guns available?

If there were fewer guns total would there less gun violence?

Why is America so apparently "obsessed" with guns when other countries are not?



By the way, I'm Canadian. How long have I been posting here? ;)

The Charlotte Observer, Charlotte, NC, 04/10/03
Tyrone McKnight, a Charlotte, N.C., man with a record of some 30 offenses committed over eight years, picked the wrong target for what would be his last crime. McKnight broke into an East Charlotte apartment about 2:30 a.m. Resident Jerene Haron O’Neal, awake and armed, pointed a gun at McKnight and fired at least three times, according to Charlottte-Mecklenberg police. McKnight was taken to a local hospital where he later died.


This story is great.
It doesnt look like Tyrone will be robbing anyone anytime soon.
I do not see anywhere where the police detered this break-in.

Maybe Jerene could have asked Tyrone nicely to leave his house,
but what do you think the outcome of that would have been?

I see it as one less lowlife that the public has to pay to babysit in prison.

They also have a far higher rate of violent crime than we have here in the US (mugging, home invasion, assault, etc). Look at Switzerland. They have an average of two guns in every home (50% of which are the scary and evil assault rifle), yet they have the lowest murder rate in Europe (after Vatican City). It is not about guns.
I am in the military, and I would be the first to take up arms to defend the constitution, that is the oath I took. If I had to defend it against the government, so be it.
True. That is why, given the fact that guns are abundant in America, we should insist on a mandatory gun safety course in our schools.
Just the opposite really. The media rarely if ever reports the use of a gun in self defense. Mind you, in most cases the gun is never fired, it simply acts as a deterent.

Thats exactly the opposite of what every cop I've ever talked to says (and I am engaged to one).

Quick scenario.

You wake up to the sound of breaking glass. Footsteps creak down the hall towards your bedroom. The average response time for the cops is 5 minutes (a wildly optimistic figure). Your doorknob begins to turn.

Now, would you rather:

A. Have a gun.

or

B. Not have a gun.

Ask any cop and they will tell you, they are there to solve crimes, not prevent them.
"Some type of measure", even though is has been proven not to work?

Check the areas of the country with the highest rates of gun violence, and you will find that they have the most restrictive gun laws.

Like it or not, guns are here to stay, you cannot change that. The only thing you can change is whether the law abiding citizen is allowed the chance to effectively dissuade the criminal who preys upon him.

A handful of cases out of a population exceeding 280 million doesn't portray a very accurate picture of gun related incidents.

It seems to me that a more relevant question would be, out of all the people posting in support of handgun ownership, how many have actually been forced to use it in self-defense?

It is an enourmous deterent. First, do not assume that the US military would engage citizens acting within their constitutional rights. To do so would be to obey an illegal order, which we are prohibited from doing (regardless who gives it). Second, to know that a huge portion of the population is not only armed, but skilled with their weapons as well, will give any would-be tyrant pause.

Please show me a better counter balance to oust a tyranical regime that is willing to use force against its subjects. Singing Kumbaya isn't gonna cut it...

800,000 (the low figure, see my link earlier in the thread) is not a "handful".

And I have used my pistol to defend another, not myself. I did not fire, only brandished, the fact that I had it was deterent enough.

First of all, debaser, I was referring to Lebell's post not your figure (albeit less than 1/350th of the population, BTW).

Secondly, thanks for the response. That makes one person--would you elaborate on the circumstances?

edit: the "low" number in your link was actually 108,000 which would place DGU at less than 1/2,593rd of the population. I've already pulled the stats from a crim database on the ratio between DGU and fatal accidents. It was exceedingly high but no one came back with any stats of their own. I can't find the thread anymore which is a shame.

If you are relying on the example of European nations to bolster your arguement, you are in for a disappointment.

In Switzerland, every able bodied man is required by law to do a stint in the army and the army reserves. In addition, they keep their fully automatic weapons in their homes, both during service and after they leave. Is there a crime wave in Switzerland?

No.

According to the Swiss Consulate, there were 66 homicides and attempted homicides in Switzerland in 1998.

Contrast this with England, a country with some of the toughest gun control laws in the world.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/grap...3/ncrim123.gif

The International Crime Victims Survey, based on 34,000 telephone interviews across 17 countries, found that 26 per cent of people - more than one in four - in England and Wales had been victims of crime in 1999. The figure for Scotland was 23 per cent and in Northern Ireland 15 per cent.

(Read the full London Telegraph Article)

These two extremes show that the number of guns available to the populace is NOT the determining factor in the level of gun violence.

In the United States, this is bourne out by the examples of Washington DC, Chicago and Los Angles, all cities that severely restrict gun ownership and all cities with high murder rates.

Saddam Hussein was an elected leader in a democratic society, as was Slobidan Melosavich and Adolph Hitler.

Just because we hope it won't happen, doesn't mean it can't or won't.

Honestly?

If you were one of Hussein's terror police raping my wife or daughter, yes, I would shoot you in a heartbeat.

But honestly, it could never happen in a 'civilized' first world country, right? Say Chekoslovakia? Or Germany?

Finally, something we agree upon.

Statistics do not bear you out.

There are approximately two million defensive gun uses (DGU's) per year by law abiding citizens. That was one of the findings in a national survey conducted by Gary Kleck, a Florida State University criminologist in 1993. Prior to Dr. Kleck's survey, thirteen other surveys indicated a range of between 800,000 to 2.5 million DGU's annually. However these surveys each had their flaws which prompted Dr. Kleck to conduct his own study specifically tailored to estimate the number of DGU's annually.

(Read the FULL ARTICLE)

Further more, homicide rates are as low as they have been since the 1960's:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/hmrt.gif

(Source: US Dept. of Justice)

This inspite of more guns.

As to firearm deaths, there were 30,708 firearm related deaths in 1998 (US pop= 270,248,003). Of these, 17,424 were suicides, 11,798 were homicides, 866 were accidents and 304 were legal killings. (Crunch your own numbers at the Center for Disease Control.)

By this data alone, you can see that overwhelmingly, there are far more defensive uses of guns than deaths, and DGU's dwarf the number of accidental deaths.

Oh yes, the "Call 911 and let the police handle it" strategy.

Did you know that the police are NOT legally obligated to help you when you call 911 or otherwise?

This has been determined by:
-Hartzler v. City of San Jose (1975) 46 Cal.App.3d 6, 120 Cal.Rptr. 5
-Davidson v. City of Westminister (1982) 32 Cal.3d 197, 185 Cal.Rptr. 252
-Westbrooks v. State (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 1203, 219 Cal.Rtr. 674
-Ne Casek v. City of Los Angeles (1965) 233 Cal.App.2d 131, 43 Cal.Rptr. 294
-Susman v. City of Los Angeles, et al (1969) 269 Cal.App.2d 803, 75 Cal.Rptr. 240
-Antique Arts Corp. v. City of Torrence (1974) 39 Cal.App.3d 588, 114 Cal.Rptr. 332

Note that all these cited cases are from California, but I can dig up others as well. (I just wanted the California cases since you hail from LA and expect LA's finest to protect you :D)

Anyway, please feel free to read the summary of these cases HERE.

I reject this arguement as I did before by saying that with the invention and ease of availabilty of the gun, a weak person no longer must feel helpless against a stronger person.

Sorry, had to throw this one in too.

(You get all sorts of amazing results when you GOOGLE for england gun crime :D)


--------------------------------------------
(original article HERE)

Gun Control’s Twisted Outcome

Restricting firearms has helped make England more crime-ridden than the U.S.

By Joyce Lee Malcolm

On a June evening two years ago, Dan Rather made many stiff British upper lips quiver by reporting that England had a crime problem and that, apart from murder, "theirs is worse than ours." The response was swift and sharp. "Have a Nice Daydream," The Mirror, a London daily, shot back, reporting: "Britain reacted with fury and disbelief last night to claims by American newsmen that crime and violence are worse here than in the US." But sandwiched between the article’s battery of official denials -- "totally misleading," "a huge over-simplification," "astounding and outrageous" -- and a compilation of lurid crimes from "the wild west culture on the other side of the Atlantic where every other car is carrying a gun," The Mirror conceded that the CBS anchorman was correct. Except for murder and rape, it admitted, "Britain has overtaken the US for all major crimes."

In the two years since Dan Rather was so roundly rebuked, violence in England has gotten markedly worse. Over the course of a few days in the summer of 2001, gun-toting men burst into an English court and freed two defendants; a shooting outside a London nightclub left five women and three men wounded; and two men were machine-gunned to death in a residential neighborhood of north London. And on New Year’s Day this year a 19-year-old girl walking on a main street in east London was shot in the head by a thief who wanted her mobile phone. London police are now looking to New York City police for advice.

None of this was supposed to happen in the country whose stringent gun laws and 1997 ban on handguns have been hailed as the "gold standard" of gun control. For the better part of a century, British governments have pursued a strategy for domestic safety that a 1992 Economist article characterized as requiring "a restraint on personal liberty that seems, in most civilised countries, essential to the happiness of others," a policy the magazine found at odds with "America’s Vigilante Values." The safety of English people has been staked on the thesis that fewer private guns means less crime. The government believes that any weapons in the hands of men and women, however law-abiding, pose a danger, and that disarming them lessens the chance that criminals will get or use weapons.

The results -- the toughest firearm restrictions of any democracy -- are credited by the world’s gun control advocates with producing a low rate of violent crime. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell reflected this conventional wisdom when, in a 1988 speech to the American Bar Association, he attributed England’s low rates of violent crime to the fact that "private ownership of guns is strictly controlled."

In reality, the English approach has not re-duced violent crime. Instead it has left law-abiding citizens at the mercy of criminals who are confident that their victims have neither the means nor the legal right to resist them. Imitating this model would be a public safety disaster for the United States.

The illusion that the English government had protected its citizens by disarming them seemed credible because few realized the country had an astonishingly low level of armed crime even before guns were restricted. A government study for the years 1890-92, for example, found only three handgun homicides, an average of one a year, in a population of 30 million. In 1904 there were only four armed robberies in London, then the largest city in the world. A hundred years and many gun laws later, the BBC reported that England’s firearms restrictions "seem to have had little impact in the criminal underworld." Guns are virtually outlawed, and, as the old slogan predicted, only outlaws have guns. Worse, they are increasingly ready to use them.

Nearly five centuries of growing civility ended in 1954. Violent crime has been climbing ever since. Last December, London’s Evening Standard reported that armed crime, with banned handguns the weapon of choice, was "rocketing." In the two years following the 1997 handgun ban, the use of handguns in crime rose by 40 percent, and the upward trend has continued. From April to November 2001, the number of people robbed at gunpoint in London rose 53 percent.

Gun crime is just part of an increasingly lawless environment. From 1991 to 1995, crimes against the person in England’s inner cities increased 91 percent. And in the four years from 1997 to 2001, the rate of violent crime more than doubled. Your chances of being mugged in London are now six times greater than in New York. England’s rates of assault, robbery, and burglary are far higher than America’s, and 53 percent of English burglaries occur while occupants are at home, compared with 13 percent in the U.S., where burglars admit to fearing armed homeowners more than the police. In a United Nations study of crime in 18 developed nations published in July, England and Wales led the Western world’s crime league, with nearly 55 crimes per 100 people.

This sea change in English crime followed a sea change in government policies. Gun regulations have been part of a more general disarmament based on the proposition that people don’t need to protect themselves because society will protect them. It also will protect their neighbors: Police advise those who witness a crime to "walk on by" and let the professionals handle it.

This is a reversal of centuries of common law that not only permitted but expected individuals to defend themselves, their families, and their neighbors when other help was not available. It was a legal tradition passed on to Americans. Personal security was ranked first among an individual’s rights by William Blackstone, the great 18th-century exponent of the common law. It was a right, he argued, that no government could take away, since no government could protect the individual in his moment of need. A century later Blackstone’s illustrious successor, A.V. Dicey, cautioned, "discourage self-help and loyal subjects become the slaves of ruffians."

But modern English governments have put public order ahead of the individual’s right to personal safety. First the government clamped down on private possession of guns; then it forbade people to carry any article that might be used for self-defense; finally, the vigor of that self-defense was to be judged by what, in hindsight, seemed "reasonable in the circumstances."

The 1920 Firearms Act was the first serious British restriction on guns. Although crime was low in England in 1920, the government feared massive labor disruption and a Bolshevik revolution. In the circumstances, permitting the people to remain armed must have seemed an unnecessary risk. And so the new policy of disarming the public began. The Firearms Act required a would-be gun owner to obtain a certificate from the local chief of police, who was charged with determining whether the applicant had a good reason for possessing a weapon and was fit to do so. All very sensible. Parliament was assured that the intention was to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals and other dangerous persons. Yet from the start the law’s enforcement was far more restrictive, and Home Office instructions to police -- classified until 1989 -- periodically narrowed the criteria.

At first police were instructed that it would be a good reason to have a revolver if a person "lives in a solitary house, where protection against thieves and burglars is essential, or has been exposed to definite threats to life on account of his performance of some public duty." By 1937 police were to discourage applications to possess firearms for house or personal protection. In 1964 they were told "it should hardly ever be necessary to anyone to possess a firearm for the protection of his house or person" and that "this principle should hold good even in the case of banks and firms who desire to protect valuables or large quantities of money."

In 1969 police were informed "it should never be necessary for anyone to possess a firearm for the protection of his house or person." These changes were made without public knowledge or debate. Their enforcement has consumed hundreds of thousands of police hours. Finally, in 1997 handguns were banned. Proposed exemptions for handicapped shooters and the British Olympic team were rejected.

Even more sweeping was the 1953 Prevention of Crime Act, which made it illegal to carry in a public place any article "made, adapted, or intended" for an offensive purpose "without lawful authority or excuse." Carrying something to protect yourself was branded antisocial. Any item carried for possible defense automatically became an offensive weapon. Police were given extensive power to stop and search everyone. Individuals found with offensive items were guilty until proven innocent.

During the debate over the Prevention of Crime Act in the House of Commons, a member from Northern Ireland told his colleagues of a woman employed by Parliament who had to cross a lonely heath on her route home and had armed herself with a knitting needle. A month earlier, she had driven off a youth who tried to snatch her handbag by jabbing him "on a tender part of his body." Was it to be an offense to carry a knitting needle? The attorney general assured the M.P. that the woman might be found to have a reasonable excuse but added that the public should be discouraged "from going about with offensive weapons in their pockets; it is the duty of society to protect them."

Another M.P. pointed out that while "society ought to undertake the defense of its members, nevertheless one has to remember that there are many places where society cannot get, or cannot get there in time. On those occasions a man has to defend himself and those whom he is escorting. It is not very much consolation that society will come forward a great deal later, pick up the bits, and punish the violent offender."

In the House of Lords, Lord Saltoun argued: "The object of a weapon was to assist weakness to cope with strength and it is this ability that the bill was framed to destroy. I do not think any government has the right, though they may very well have the power, to deprive people for whom they are responsible of the right to defend themselves." But he added: "Unless there is not only a right but also a fundamental willingness amongst the people to defend themselves, no police force, however large, can do it."

That willingness was further undermined by a broad revision of criminal law in 1967 that altered the legal standard for self-defense. Now everything turns on what seems to be "reasonable" force against an assailant, considered after the fact. As Glanville Williams notes in his Textbook of Criminal Law, that requirement is "now stated in such mitigated terms as to cast doubt on whether it [self-defense] still forms part of the law."

The original common law standard was similar to what still prevails in the U.S. Americans are free to carry articles for their protection, and in 33 states law-abiding citizens may carry concealed guns. Americans may defend themselves with deadly force if they believe that an attacker is about to kill or seriously injure them, or to prevent a violent crime. Our courts are mindful that, as Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes observed, "detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an upraised knife."

But English courts have interpreted the 1953 act strictly and zealously. Among articles found illegally carried with offensive intentions are a sandbag, a pickaxe handle, a stone, and a drum of pepper. "Any article is capable of being an offensive weapon," concede the authors of Smith and Hogan Criminal Law, a popular legal text, although they add that if the article is unlikely to cause an injury the onus of proving intent to do so would be "very heavy."

The 1967 act has not been helpful to those obliged to defend themselves either. Granville Williams points out: "For some reason that is not clear, the courts occasionally seem to regard the scandal of the killing of a robber as of greater moment than the safety of the robber’s victim in respect of his person and property."

A sampling of cases illustrates the impact of these measures:

• In 1973 a young man running on a road at night was stopped by the police and found to be carrying a length of steel, a cycle chain, and a metal clock weight. He explained that a gang of youths had been after him. At his hearing it was found he had been threatened and had previously notified the police. The justices agreed he had a valid reason to carry the weapons. Indeed, 16 days later he was attacked and beaten so badly he was hospitalized. But the prosecutor appealed the ruling, and the appellate judges insisted that carrying a weapon must be related to an imminent and immediate threat. They sent the case back to the lower court with directions to convict.

• In 1987 two men assaulted Eric Butler, a 56-year-old British Petroleum executive, in a London subway car, trying to strangle him and smashing his head against the door. No one came to his aid. He later testified, "My air supply was being cut off, my eyes became blurred, and I feared for my life." In desperation he unsheathed an ornamental sword blade in his walking stick and slashed at one of his attackers, stabbing the man in the stomach. The assailants were charged with wounding. Butler was tried and convicted of carrying an offensive weapon.

• In 1994 an English homeowner, armed with a toy gun, managed to detain two burglars who had broken into his house while he called the police. When the officers arrived, they arrested the homeowner for using an imitation gun to threaten or intimidate. In a similar incident the following year, when an elderly woman fired a toy cap pistol to drive off a group of youths who were threatening her, she was arrested for putting someone in fear. Now the police are pressing Parliament to make imitation guns illegal.

• In 1999 Tony Martin, a 55-year-old Norfolk farmer living alone in a shabby farmhouse, awakened to the sound of breaking glass as two burglars, both with long criminal records, burst into his home. He had been robbed six times before, and his village, like 70 percent of rural English communities, had no police presence. He sneaked downstairs with a shotgun and shot at the intruders. Martin received life in prison for killing one burglar, 10 years for wounding the second, and a year for having an unregistered shotgun. The wounded burglar, having served 18 months of a three-year sentence, is now free and has been granted £5,000 of legal assistance to sue Martin.

The failure of English policy to produce a safer society is clear, but what of British jibes about "America’s vigilante values" and our much higher murder rate?

Historically, America has had a high homicide rate and England a low one. In a comparison of New York and London over a 200-year period, during most of which both populations had unrestricted access to firearms, historian Eric Monkkonen found New York’s homicide rate consistently about five times London’s. Monkkonen pointed out that even without guns, "the United States would still be out of step, just as it has been for two hundred years."

Legal historian Richard Maxwell Brown has argued that Americans have more homicides because English law insists an individual should retreat when attacked, whereas Americans believe they have the right to stand their ground and kill in self-defense. Americans do have more latitude to protect themselves, in keeping with traditional common law standards, but that would have had less significance before England’s more restrictive policy was established in 1967.

The murder rates of the U.S. and U.K. are also affected by differences in the way each counts homicides. The FBI asks police to list every homicide as murder, even if the case isn’t subsequently prosecuted or proceeds on a lesser charge, making the U.S. numbers as high as possible. By contrast, the English police "massage down" the homicide statistics, tracking each case through the courts and removing it if it is reduced to a lesser charge or determined to be an accident or self-defense, making the English numbers as low as possible.

The London-based Office of Health Economics, after a careful international study, found that while "one reason often given for the high numbers of murders and manslaughters in the United States is the easy availability of firearms...the strong correlation with racial and socio-economic variables suggests that the underlying determinants of the homicide rate are related to particular cultural factors."

Cultural differences and more-permissive legal standards notwithstanding, the English rate of violent crime has been soaring since 1991. Over the same period, America’s has been falling dramatically. In 1999 The Boston Globe reported that the American murder rate, which had fluctuated by about 20 percent between 1974 and 1991, was "in startling free-fall." We have had nine consecutive years of sharply declining violent crime. As a result the English and American murder rates are converging. In 1981 the American rate was 8.7 times the English rate, in 1995 it was 5.7 times the English rate, and the latest study puts it at 3.5 times.

Preliminary figures for the U.S. this year show an increase, although of less than 1 percent, in the overall number of violent crimes, with homicide increases in certain cities, which criminologists attribute to gang violence, the poor economy, and the release from prison of many offenders. Yet Americans still enjoy a substantially lower rate of violent crime than England, without the "restraint on personal liberty" English governments have seen as necessary. Rather than permit individuals more scope to defend themselves, Prime Minister Tony Blair’s government plans to combat crime by extending those "restraints on personal liberty": removing the prohibition against double jeopardy so people can be tried twice for the same crime, making hearsay evidence admissible in court, and letting jurors know of a suspect’s previous crimes.

This is a cautionary tale. America’s founders, like their English forebears, regarded personal security as first of the three primary rights of mankind. That was the main reason for including a right for individuals to be armed in the U.S. Constitution. Not everyone needs to avail himself or herself of that right. It is a dangerous right. But leaving personal protection to the police is also dangerous.

The English government has effectively abolished the right of Englishmen, confirmed in their 1689 Bill of Rights, to "have arms for their defence," insisting upon a monopoly of force it can succeed in imposing only on law-abiding citizens. It has come perilously close to depriving its people of the ability to protect themselves at all, and the result is a more, not less, dangerous society. Despite the English tendency to decry America’s "vigilante values," English policy makers would do well to consider a return to these crucial common law values, which stood them so well in the past.



Joyce Lee Malcolm, a professor of history at Bentley College and a senior adviser to the MIT Security Studies Program, is the author of Guns and Violence: The English Experience, published in May by Harvard University Press.

Most excellent Lebell.
I will have to save this link for future reference

Well, that's one way to choke a thread to death.
I was reading a book with vivid descriptions of a break-in/attempted kidnapping of an infant and an attempted rape, both of which were resolved firmly and effectively by force of firearms. I admit that it is almost certainly comforting in the night to think of the shotgun in the closet or the handgun in the nightstand as deterrents against the crime in the world outside, and I'll not comment on the statistics one way or the other. I think that owning a gun is giving in to the fear, joining the base element of humanity that uses violence as a standard solution rather than a last resort. Those of you who swear by guns can call me unrealistic, but I hope you never see the need to use your gun on another human, and I suspect we'll both sleep better having made the choices we have.

Sorry.

No worries, tho.

I give it a month, maybe two, when this thread is long buried, before someone starts a new gun control thread and starts repeating all the same misconceptions without any facts to back them up.

Using a firearm against an intruder should always, of course, be a last resort and I think is seen as so by most responsible gun owners. I'm interested in hearing how you would deal with someone that breaks into your house with the intent of raping your wife and stealing her jewelery after stabbing her to death. Talk him out of it, like two rational adults?

When I said I hope you never have to use your gun against another human, I meant it, not just for the other human being, but for you, too. Did you read my post at all, or just kneejerk at the sight of my name? The passages in the book I mentioned certainly demonstrated the exegencies of using a gun to solve an otherwise intractable problem. I'm sick of fucking arguing about gun control. You are happier having made your choice about guns, and I about mine. So are you really fucking interested in hearing how I would talk him down, or do you just want to see my wife raped and then stabbed to death?

I hope for the exact same thing. If I go to my grave never having to fire my weapon at another human being (in civilian life, that is), I will be a happy man.

Nobody wants to use a gun, but some of us retain the option, knowing that it is sometimes an ugly neccesity.

I hope I never have to use a gun against a person either, it's a horrible thing to think about, but if it's a choice between me or my family and him, it's gonna be him that's gonna pay the price. I will take the step of calling the police first, but if someone who is invading my house and pulls a gun on me or my family, his ass is gettin shot. I mean if you ban guns it won't bring down violent crime no more than Prohibition brought drunkeness down, what people will want, they will always obtain. I mean, we've banned drugs and more and more people are using drugs everyday (not that I condone the legalizing of drugs) I'm just pointing out that banning things will not prevent the use of said things.

Very nice Lebell. It looks like you've had practice debating in this particular topic of discussion. I believed that it wasn't guns that were responsible for crime before, but it's good to have the facts.

I am Canadian, we have had gun control for many years. Hand Guns require special permit to own, you also have to have a specal permit to move one from your house to the range. The new gun control system in canada is good, there is only one small part of it that doesn't work(the gun ownership database). The idea behind most of the gun control law is to make sure that everyone that owns a gun know how to treat that weapon at all times, while hunting, while target shoot or while storing. I own many different hunting rifes/shotguns. I don't want a gun under my bed for protection or hidden downstairs in a drawer. I want the all lock up in a safe, with trigger locks on each gun and the ammo stored some where else. I want to be safe not only from the bad guys but from the good guys as well.

No American needs an automatic weapon they are made for killing not protecting.

So because one does the same thing only faster, it is a tool for killing not protecting? Are you opposed to using hollow tips?

As an American, that lives in a rural area that sometimes goes without 24 hour police patrols, and when there are officers on duty the nearest one can be as far as 30 min. away, I view it as my responsibility to my family to protect them. For their sake thank God that I do. The following anecdote illustrates my point.

As I lay in bed sleeping one night, I awoke to a strange noise outsider my bedroom window. As I looked outside I was startled to find a figure, dressed in dark clothing attempting to break into my home. I quickly phoned 911 and informed them of the situation, put on a pair of sweats, grabbed and loaded my single shot 12 ga. shotgun, threw a couple extra rounds in my pocket and proceeded outside in order to confront this person, What I found when I came around the corner of my home was a person under the influence of methamphetamines, fiending for his next fix and willing to do whatever it took to get it. By this time he had given up on my window and had moved to my children's window. I ordered him to the ground and held him there for what seemed like an eternity (probably 20 - 30 minutes) while waiting for the police to show up. As the police searched him, they found on him a large bowie style knife, I cannot say that he would have used that knife on myself or my children, but I can say he wasn't given the opportunity. I realize that this anecdote (and yes it is true) is the exception to the rule, however I am very grateful that i had the foresight to act in a responsible manner and took steps to be able to protect my family, before I needed to.

Btw I hunt deer w/ a .357 magnum revolver (that's a handgun) so don't try to tell me it's ridiculous to think that people hunt w/ a handgun.




*edited to fix the ever-present typo's*

Here is a situation where I'll buy the need for a gun; namely, where police presence is not assured. This is more akin to the circumstances under which the second amendment was conceived.

Priceless.

Don't try to make my choice for me, and we have a deal. :) If you seriously think that you can talk a druggie with a knife out of injuring you or your family, pleasant dreams. People who don't like guns shouldn't own them, as they probably will misuse them if forced into a situation such as the one I suggested above.

I asked a simple question, there's no need to jump to ridiculous conclusions. If you, oh benevolent one, have absolutely no need to ever defend yourself against anyone with the use of violence, I am really interested in finding out how you would do so. If your stance is just an idealistic one, then I sincerely hope you are never in a life-threatening situation which requires a violent method of self-defense.

Newsflash. Police presence/protection is not assured anywhere. Response times are generally horrible, as are police-to-citizen ratios. As has been stated many times, police do not generally stop crime, they investigate it after the fact.

I tend to take a strict interpretation of the Second Amendment.

I actually know that one by heart. Yay me. Anyway, I believe the militia clause is in there for a reason. See, we do have a formalized militia in this country; it's called the National Guard. I really think that if someone wants to own a weapon, then they should serve a term in the National Guard or in the armed forces.

Now, I'm also in favor of strong registration and weapon tracking, trigger locks, and stiffer penalties for gun offenders, as well as criminalizing failure to keep a gun safely. But barring that, I say go ahead - anything short of an assault weapon, you can have it, given that you've served the purpose the Framers of the Constitution intended.

Well, the Supreme Court disagrees with you.

From an earlier post of mine: "..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."

A "well regulated militia" is NOT the National Guard. The National Guard is officially a branch of the military.

How does gun registration help prevent crimes? It doesn't. Many criminals simply file off the serial numbers from guns they repeatedly use in crime anyhow, and it's already illegal to do so.

Trigger locks are good. Forcing people to use them is bad.

As for criminalizing "failure to keep a gun safely", I don't think there is a need for this. Negligence laws already would cover this if someone was directly at fault for an accidental shooting.

Lastly, "assault weapon" is a seemingly arbitrary determination. Is a .22 cal that looks like an AK-47 an "assault rifle"? An "assault rifle" in the hands of a law abiding citizen will be just as safe as a BB gun.

You would be astonished to realize how many times I have disagreed with the Supreme Court. It may have something to do with the fact that it's highly conservatively tilted, but then, that's not always been the case.



We could argue that point back and forth all day long. To keep it short, I strongly disagree on the principle, if not the organizational status, of the National Guard. That said, then we should turn to the regulation clause, indicating that the militia - taken in your argument to mean any American citizen who owns a gun and is capable of defending his country - should be closely regulated. This dovetails nicely into your next point:

Mostly because registration efforts have, to this point, been spotty and insufficient. I'm personally quite interested in the ballistic profiling of weapons. I also think there's a way out there somewhere to trace back any bullet fired to a specific gun, or at least to a small subset of guns which would at least aid in the solving of gun crimes. Registration is not a magic bullet, but it sure as hell can't hurt.

In some cases; any home lacking another means to keep children from getting to a gun kept in that home should require them.

Unfortunately, that's a strawman argument. Negligence laws have been specifically hamstrung to avoid dealing with cases of gun negligence. Stronger anti-gun-negligence laws are needed. Full stop.

As far as assault weapon, I personally define this as any weapon capable of carrying more than twelve rounds at any time, firing in full-automatic mode (already illegal), any weapon capable of firing a round heavier than .45 caliber, or any military-grade ammunition (e.g. jacketed rounds, teflon rounds, tracer, etc.). Mind, there are weapons that defy categorization, those need to be dealt with individually. But this usually works for me as a good basic definition.

I don't think guns should be eliminated (though sometimes I think they never, ever should have been permitted outside of the military). But I do think that they should be more tightly controlled, and that commission of gun crimes should carry the stiffest penalties possible under our legal system.

So conservative that they overturned sodomy laws? By the way, the clarification of the second amendment was done in 1939 I believe, I have absolutely no idea of the make-up of the Supreme Court back then.

I would interpret "well regulated" as meaning that those able-bodied Americans able to defend their country should be trained in the usage of said firearm and how to defend themselves with it. This is the case somewhat in Minnesota, where you have to acquire a "purchase permit" in order to buy a handgun. Getting a "purchase permit" requires that you take a firearm safety course, much like the course that you take to get a firearm safety certificate (which is required for any hunting license). I'm not entirely sure what the purchase permit course entails, as my firearm carry permit also serves as a purchase permit so I had no need for a separate purchase permit.

Aaaanyhow, I am very in favor of educating people on how to use a firearm, and teaching children how incredibly scary and bad that guns are to dissuade them from playing russian roulette with daddy's revolver. I would oppose any sort of national gun registration, as it is really a first step to disarmament. Ask Germany.

Criminals do not register their guns. As for "well, it sure as hell can't hurt", wasting time on something which hasn't worked in the past is indeed harmful. It's energy, time, resources that could have been used eficiently elsewhere.

In my home, I learned how dangerous that guns were at a very young age (5 or 6) and knew to stay the hell away from them if I happened to see one laying around. I learned this because I had parents who did their job and cared more for their childrens' safety than the cost of gas. The secret is proper parenting, not mandatory trigger locks. Wouldn't a careless parent neglect to put a trigger-lock on their gun anyhow? How would putting one more law on the books at all prevent gun accidents in the home?

Are law-abiding citizens less capable of using a firearm with a 13 round clip than a 12 round clip? I have fired a full auto before (a pre-ban Uzi) and it really isn't difficult to handle. I still have the silhouette target and iirc there were a lot of holes in the kill-zone. :)

Even if you thought that guns should be eliminated, it simply is not possible. All that a full-out disarmament would do is take guns from law-abiding citizens and provide a slew of easy victims for the already-armed criminals.

I absolutely agree with you here. Using a gun in the commission of a crime should cause the punishment to be much more severe. Robbing a bank with a paper bag is not nearly as much of a threat to life as robbing a bank with a gun.

I'm surprised you finally got around to answering.
I didn't make your choice for you. You are the NRA. *huggles*
Yes, you're right. Asking me how I would defend my wife from being raped and murdered isn't at all an incredibly negative and horrible way to argue gun freedom. "Oh benevolent one" comment noted.
The presence of police is intended to deter crime as well as investigate it after the fact. And news flash, it does. But let's not fucking argue any more. You like your guns, and that you can have them. I like not having resorted to guns. We both hope we are never in life-threatening circumstances, whether we have guns or not. That's called "goodwill toward your fellow man." I consider this topic between us closed, barring a dramatic change in either's ethos.

But your personal definition is completely irrelevant (as well as arbitrary). Why twelve rounds instead of eleven or thirteen? Define "heavier than .45 calibur", are we talking bullet weight, TRW, speed? Jacketed rounds are now off limits? Every rifle round is jacketed (except .22), and 90% of pistol rounds are too. Some modern pistols cannot fire a non-jacketed round. You just defined my single shot target pistol as an assault weapon. I think that you have actually just defined how ignorant you are about guns in general, no offense. Perhaps you should become more versed in the subject, and reconsider your "definition".

BTW an assault weapon is:

A semi-automatic rifle, capable of accepting a detachable magazine, which incorporates two or more of the following features:

1. A pistol grip which protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon. Pointless: the pistol grip provides no increase in functionality or accuracy over a straight stock

2. A bayonet lug.Pointless: number of bayonet murders in the US = Zero

3. A flash suppressor, or threaded barrel capable of accepting a flash suppressor.Pointless: Flash suppressors are notoriously inneffective, and any criminal not wanting to be seen will just aquire a pre-ban gun.

4. A grenade launcher.Pointless: Already considered a Class 3 weapon under NFA34. Number used in crimes in the US = Zero

5. A collapsable or folding stock.Pointless: The weapon still needs to conform to overall length reulations when folded or collapsed, this has just led to manufacturors making smaller, more concealable (all the time) weapons.

Putting some metal in/through a guy will sure do a lot to stop a him. If he is in my home with far less than hospitable actions on his mind, I'd like to be able to stop him if the police do not arrive in time to do it for me. That is how I see guns used for defense in the home.

Gun control legislation, and supporting it, is essentially an attempt of making the decision for me that "guns are unnecessary" and "you, common citizen, are unable to safely operate a firearm". In fact, quite the opposite is true. I haven't shot myself in the foot yet ~

Complete lack of attempt to back up the idea that a non-violent response to a violent crime in progress will in any way be effective, noted. I don't see why I should try to think up a positive happy-joy hypothetical when one isn't at all practical in the situation of self-defense. Guns are rarely seen around pink bunnies and smiling flowers, and so are not a happy or positive thing to have to resort to using.

Police presence is only effective if it is visible. Having 1 police officer to every 3,000 citizens (or worse) is not what I would call a deterrant.

I'm glad that you see this topic as closed, but as long as you are in favor of taking a law-abiding citizens guns away, we will have something to discuss. :) The huggles in my title is for you.

Ok, so your wife is dead, daughter is pregnant by the rapist, you've locked yourself in the closet while screaming out " your a bad man please stop" You have no idea what the guy looked like, and your neighbors didnt hear or see anything. Guess what, the police will investigate it, but the chances of them finding the guy are slim at best.

But ya wanna know what? You would probably try and kill the guy with a hair brush, a knife, a plunger anything you could get your hands on if anyone tried that to someone in your family, at least I hope you would.

I know I know " omg you're evil " stfu rapists, thieves, and murderers dont go around giving chocolate and roses to people of course your going to talk about a bad scenario.

The police deter crime, yes. But they cant stop it all.
Thats like saying customs deters illegal immigration. Hey guess what? It still happens.

The bedrock of most arguments against guncontrol is the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution. What these people fail to do is read the entire amendment which states that we have the right to keep militias of armed men. Well don't we have this? I think it's called the National Guard, so do we need every yahoo and his grandma armed to the teeth?

The national guard is controlled by the government and is a branch of the armed services

It is not a bring your own gun militia

I like being armed to the teeth!

The National guard is under government control, so they are not a militia, the founding fathers intended for civilians to keep and bear arms so as if the government became tyrantical they would have some recourse.

And grandmas that are armed to the teeth with the knowlege of how to use firearms are less likely to be robbed of their social security check.

If people are afraid of firearms, just stay away from them.

This has been discussed in several posts, already. The National Guard is not the "well regulated militia" which is referred to in the Second Amendment.

Interesting, I posted an actual personal experience in which owning a firearm, and using it in a responsible manner, actually prevented four people from being injured or killed (Myself, my 2 small children, 6 and 8 y.o. at the time, and the criminal) yet only one person who appears to be in favor of stiffer gun regulations even acknowledged it. I stand by my opinion that it is not only my right to own a firearm, but my responsibility. If, in light of my experience in using a firearm to defend my family, you can show me where owning a firearm is a bad thing, then I will respect your opinion, until then, if you are anti-gun, and American, please don't vote.

First off I should be able to buy any gun i want.

Freedom isn't the safest way to live ones life.

It just happens to be the best.

Our current gun laws are fine with the exception of one.

We need a Federal Conceled weapons licence, because its very lame to need one for every state you go to. Yes many states will recognize a licence from another state, however many more do not.

If you don't want the freedoms that this country permits move to canada. They don't have guns.

They also have serial killers with woodchippers and pig farms, but they don't have guns.

Also accorind to the United Nations Canada is number 8 now in best countries to live in US is number 7

EAT THAT CANADA!!

number one is Norway

i'm half norwegian :D

I would argue here that if the National Guard is not, in fact, the "well-regulated" militia specified in the Constitution, then said militia does not in fact exist, because what militia there is is not well-regulated. It is too easy for criminals to acquire guns in contravention of law, it is too easy for people to commit gun crimes.

If we must have a militia, then it must be well-regulated, and ours is most certainly not. I think that no matter how you slice it, gun laws are insufficient as they stand, and need to be tightened. Exactly how is open to debate.

Neither do I. But I think it's very, VERY obvious that the modern Court is drastically conservative in nature. But that's neither here nor there, except to provide some context for my frequent and vehement disagreements with the Supreme Court.

I agree insofar in that gun training really ought to be mandatory; we license people to drive. We make them take classes, tests, and acquire insurance. Maybe there's a solution that way. After all, a car improperly used is as much a threat to life and limb as a gun improperly used. What an interesting idea... an actual licensing process and liability insurance.


I think you might have missed where I pointed out that there are potential solutions in "fingerprinting" guns and so on. This could actually be done in the factory, providing law enforcement at least someplace to start. The whole point here is to begin collecting data on guns. If we're not to remove them - and I'll say it again, we shouldn't, then it is not a bad idea to know as much as possible about each gun out there. Sure, incomplete data happens. But you can't say it would be a failure, because it's never been tried before.

The number here is based on casual observation of guns. I won't touch them myself, but I do pay some small amount of attention. It seems that most legit handguns have 12-round clips at most. You may call that arbitrary, and there you have it. But that's what happens when you use a personal definition. Believe me, I'm not a lawyer, and reciting the gun laws is quite beyond my powers of recollection. The definition I gave was simply culled from my observation of guns.

Good thing I don't think guns should be eliminated, huh? I thought I was fairly clear on that one...

On that we can agree... and I hope that things like this can form the foundation of future gun legislation. But I'm still hoping for an ounce of prevention to go with that pound of cure.

Hmm. I think not. Since I operate in no legal or law enforcement capacity, my personal definition becomes relevant. Since that sort of personal definition is at the core of my personal opinion, it is totally relevant, if arbitrary. Huzzah, welcome to humanity. My personal opinion irrelevant? No more so than yours is, dear.

Le'ts call it years of casual observation, combined with a perhaps misguided desire to be as flexible as possible.

Yes. I take particular exception to .50 caliber handguns. What earthly need has anyone for that much bullet?

Hmmm. So you say technology has made more powerful bullets mandatory? I think not. My definition stands, and you'll note that I made mention of some weapons needing alternate classification. Rifles would be a good example. Just because your pistol fires cop-killers doesn't mean that such bullets and weapons should be legal.

You're saying your target pistol is a .50-caliber pistol loaded with teflon or tracer rounds, carrying thirteen or more rounds? You have just defined your "target pistol" as vastly in excess of what you could almost ever conceivably need to defend yourself, unless perhaps you are regularly assailed by platoons of elephants wearing body armor.


(... alternate definition of assault weaponry, notably excluding any post-ban weapon converted to full-automatic fire trimmed for space)

I'm so glad you have an opinion, but I think perhaps you shouldn't be quite so quick to call other folks' opinions irrelevant.

A rather large black bear killed several of our animals,then raised up at me from the other side of our childrens pool last year.I'm very glad I was not armed with a broom.

I disagree, I've yet to see a unanimous vote in favor of something that I would define as a "conservative decision".

Many many many more people die from car accidents than from gun accidents, but yes, some form of safety training should definitely be required. Personally, I would implement this through the school system. Perhaps an elementary school Eddie-Eagle-like "Hey kids, stay the hell away from guns, they're bad" program coupled with a required course on firearm safety in high school.

"Shall-issue" conceal/carry handgun laws are a deterrant of violent crime. Do you support such empowerment of law-abiding gun owners, or would you rather that only police and the military are able to carry a gun?

Perhaps irrelevant was to strong. Lets stick with ignorant.

Lets call it vague instead.

I would much rather be assaulted with a .50 caliber handgun. The assailent will have less rounds to shoot at me, his follow up shots will be less accurate, and he will tire far more easily than if he were using, say, a 9mm (which, to a human is every bit as lethal using modern ammunition). A .50 calibur bullet is just 5 hundredths of an inch bigger than a .45 calibur bullet, it is not some magic death machine because of it. (I assume you know the difference between a .50 AE and a .50 BMG, since we are talking about handguns here)

You may "think not" all you like, but you cannot fire LRN bullets out of a polygon rifled barrel. So yes, jacketed rounds are neccesary for some weapons. Also, any weapon capable of firing a non-jacketed round is equally capable of firing a jacketed round, so unless you reinvent the wheel you aren't going fix that issue.

Oh, do all the conditions have to apply? Mine just fires jacketed ammo, but by the phrasing of your definition above, that makes it an assault weapon.
It is not an "alternate definition", nor is it my opinion. It is the definition of an assault weapon as layed down by the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 (18 USC Chapter 44 as amended by Public Law 103-322). Converting any weapon to full auto has been against the law since the NFA of 1934.

Real quick, which gun is an assault weapon?

http://www.ont.com/users/kolya/AR15/awc6.jpg

http://world.guns.ru/assault/ruger_ac566_1.gif

Ignorants with guns are worse

Hand guns are specifically designed for killing PEOPLE. no one takes their friggin pistol to go shoot a deer. no-they take it to 7-11 to shoot the cashier for $100 and a free slurpee. Holding up a conveniance store witha rifle isnt very conveniant.

i also dont understand how having a gun in the home is so safe. it protection? NO! how can it protect you when the gun is hidden in a differant place then the amunition? If they arent hidden, how do you expect to protect your children from themselves? I'd rather give the guy whatever the fuck he wants than risk the lives of my potential children.

I have never taken my ACP .45 to the 7-11 for a slurpee or $100, that is why I have a ATM card, a responsible life.

I am a law abiding citizen, with all the proper papework that is involved with owning a firearm, training in use of it, I am sure that I have more than most in this area.

My handgun is loaded in a place that I can get to it quickly but my children can not. I can be out of bed and armed in less than 10 seconds,
does that make me feel better living in a metropolis with more than 12 million people?

You can bet it does.

I've tried to trim your post down to get rid of the ad-hominem argumenta, and a bit of the techno-weenie stuff. I recognize that you are far, far, far more conversant with guns than I will ever care to be, but I'm sure you'll pardon me when I say that that doesn't make me feel any more secure. Much less so, actually.

I think I see the crux of your argument here: so long as guns are legal in any form, you appear willing to concede that a non-trivial number of gun deaths will occur in the United States every year. This is, apparently, where we diverge: you're quite willing to frame the debate in terms of a gun duel, which presumes that one or more participants will wind up dead or wounded. I would much rather frame the debate in terms of finding a way to prevent such situations and to, with any luck, minimize or eliminate gun accidents and homicides in America. It's as simple as that. I want to try to fix a badly broken system; you want to talk about things like muzzle velocity and the relative merits of this gun over that gun.

(... a point dodging the issue of technology versus gun laws).

You don't, apparently, see what I'm getting at. Just because people have come up with a way to make handguns fire rifle ammunition, or that such-and-such a gun requires such-and-such an ammo, it does not automatically follow that said gun should be legal. Again, there's the "more power than you'd ever need" aspect, which has a lot to do with this.

You like quibbling with my definition, I see. That's fine, but you've managed to completely miss the forest whilst you were counting trees. But, for your information, no - all the conditions need not apply. If a gun has a thirty-round clip loaded with Teflon rounds, I don't see how the size of those rounds matters. It's the people who are probably about to die because of that gun that matter.

Well, actually, it *is* an alternate definition to my own. And I don't recall ever calling it your opinion...

In your hands, I'd probably say any gun is an assault weapon. You'll pardon me for saying so, but without looking at your profile, you strike me as a high-schooler. You're very fond of guns, I see that, and you're always very happy to talk about them, much in the fashion that other high-schoolers do about cars or other things. All technical, with no thought given to the actual impact of what you're saying. You can argue the technical all you like. I don't think I'll be listening too closely: technospeak outside my own professional field tends to bore me intensely. I would rather be fixing the problem.

Thanks all the same.

I've decided that though guns should be legal, I can still shun those who own them.

There's a lot of non-lethal alternatives which are even more efficient at stunning the opponent than a .50 desert eagle. Would save a lot of lives too.

Cute:

What ad-hominem? I called your opinion ignorant, as it is obvious you don't know much about the subject you are speaking to. As far as the "techno-weenie stuff", you are the one who brought up the technical aspects of firearms in your post. I didn't realize that you were using them without knowing what they meant. From now on I will exclude such details from my arguments.

The sad irony of the situation is that while you may not feel safer, the presence of competant, armed, law-abiding citizens in this country actually makes you much safer. Every criminal who will ever size you up will do so under the assumption that you may have a gun. You're welcome.
No, I have come to terms with the reality that there will always be guns available to the criminal element in this country, and have seen the folly of passing laws that restrict only those people who follow laws in the first place (generally not the type killing people with guns).

Yes, so long as there are guns, there will be deaths. The same goes for knives, lawn-darts, cars, and shampoo.

And also, you were the one discussing the relative merits of one gun over another by arbitrarily labeling one of them an "assault weapon". I was simply pointing out the folly of such logic.
No, what you are trying to say, in a round about way, is that we should ban all guns. Period. You see, your definition of what is dangerous includes every gun I have ever seen. I was trying to explain that to you, I apologize if I got lost in minutia.

I was simply trying to allay your irrational fear of firearms using humour. I find it funny that my target pistol is suddenly such a dangerously out of control device that I am likely to go out and start mowing down the innocent masses with it.

:rolleyes:
And as for the definition, yours would be the alternate. You see, the term assault weapon carrys legal weight, therefor the term is defined in balck and white. If you are going to discuss gun control and banter around technical terms, make sure you know the meaning.
Not even close, though I am very fond of guns. I make my living with them, you see. And you buy them for me. :D

[quote][b] All technical, with no thought given to the actual impact of what you're saying. You can argue the technical all you like. I don't think I'll be listening too closely: technospeak outside my own professional field tends to bore me intensely. I would rather be fixing the problem.
Yet you have proposed no feasible way to fix "it". Your methodology is akin to waving a magic wand and making all the bad, evil guns just dissappear. Not gonna happen. I have addressed the technospeak issue, If you don't like it, don't bring it up.
You are most welcome.

Wow. I lay out some basic terms, e.g. military-grade ammunition (with a couple of examples), and I'm going technical. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. So anyway, where were we:

I can think of at least 55,000 people who might disagree with you. At least, they would if they were still alive. You can talk comparatively all you like, but you're not addressing the basic point: guns do kill people. "Guns are neat little things, aren't they? They can kill extraordinary people with very little effort. " -- John W. Hinckley

I'm trying very hard to see where I should be thankful; the odds are that he just wants to make sure his gun is bigger. Oh, look! Our very own arms race. The fact that the "bad guys" have guns does not mean that people should buy ever more of them. It means that alternate solutions to the problem are required, or the U.S. will rapidly come to resemble Beirut.

I've never seen anyone quite so complacent about death before. What a saddening thing. However, we license people to drive; we require that they are trained in automotive safety. We also restrict cars to within certain boundaries of power. Why, pray tell, do we not do the same with guns? You're in the military; you've had that training. What about Joe-Bob out there, who bought that Desert Eagle or what have you because it looks cool? What safety training has he got? In most states, the odds are that he has none.

Right. Don't tell me what I was trying to say. I don't believe in banning all guns, FYI. But you're right: all guns are dangerous. The sooner society wakes up to this simple fact, the sooner we can begin working on fixing the problem. That's the trick about those little implements designed from their very inception to kill people; they're inherently hazardous to health, both yours and that of anyone around you.

Irrational fear of guns? What a load of tripe. My fear of guns is entirely rational. I've seen firsthand precisely what they can do. I've also seen firsthand how carrying a weapon is no guarantee of safety; but it can increase the likelihood of your being a victim of gun violence. And as far as your pistol goes, are you trying to tell me that if you were not of a mind, you couldn't begin "mowing down the innocent masses"? Or someone else with exactly the same weapon? Your intransigence awes me, as does your utter incapability to realize that my fear of guns is every freaking bit as rational as your fear of gun control.

Not from where I'm standing. The difference is that perhaps I trust my own judgement better than I trust words on paper. It's a perspective thing.

I have never heard of a more laughable notion than that which states laws are black and white, outside of narrow ink-color-on-paper-color terms. Laws are fluid. Laws change. Laws are inconsistent. Laws come and go. Laws are passed to supersede other laws. No law is static, inflexible, or absolute.

Tell me, would you like me to expound upon just why your being in the military only reinforces my earlier assessment?

Somehow, I am not reassured.

You raise a good point. I wonder if the few people (was it two or three?) posting here who have resorted to utilizing a firearm in their defense would have been able to use a Tazer, rubber bullets, or some other disarming/incapacitating device.

So to those posters:

Are there reasons you would not have felt equally safe or think you would not have resolved the episode to your satisfaction by resorting to current or future non-lethal devices?

If you wouldn't have felt just safe or feel current non-lethal devices would not have resolved the episodes to your satisfaction, why not and which improvements would you suggest to reach comparable results as lethal means?