Gun control debate thread

[Major Fubar 0]

Where do you draw Joe-Blow's right to own military style weapons: grenade launchers, flamethrowers, AT missles? Seriously, what is the line?

As I have said before, I am against a total ban on guns, but I think you have to reasonable about it. If you like hunting, surely a nice bolt or lever action rifle, or double-barrel shotgun is enough. If target shooting is your thing, there are plenty of task specific target weapons (pistols and rifles), that aren't semi-auto or paramilitary style weapons.

Or, if you really, really need to own and fire assault rifles and machine guns, why not have a system where they are stored in a safe at the range you will be shooting at?

I am convinced that there must be some middle ground between total bans and everyone having the right to own military weapons ...

[blackdog~ 0]

I'm really really itching to just scream...

"BECAUSE HER ASS IS SO BIG!!"

But, I just did so...

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

I support the ownership of weapons by responsible people (which means I support testing and registrations etc), but I don't agree with this strange notion of having a firearm in your house just to defend it, or carrying one around all day.

[denoir 0]

You have to be shitting me. Please tell me that this is a joke. Please tell me that you are not trying to make a point by showing a goddamn village with the population of 20,000!

What the hell difference would it make if the town was 20,000 or 20,000,000?

A little thing called "statistical certainty". You have to have examle that is statistically relevant, representative and comparable. Comparing a small place like that to a national average is just as pointless as saying "Peter has a gun and he has not killed anybody. Hence guns are not dangerous" or "Frank has a gun and kills people. Hence guns are dangerous".

Quote[/b] ]I am from the United States - not sweden, not Britain, not Japan, and in the United States, the task of protecting oneself lies upon the induvidual. I know the concept might be confusing for somone from a more socialistic country, but that's how it is here.

No, no. Do you know what the big difference is? That you feel a need to protect yourself. That you think people in your society are out to hurt you. And yes, there is a cultural difference. You tend to be very scared of all possible things: criminals, terrorists, WMD, your government infringing on your rights, poor people, black people etc etc

I may be wrong, but to me it seems like a rather stressful way of living. You need to relax a bit and realize that not everybody and everything is out to get you. How real is your need to protect yourself?

And sure, there are considerable differences between Europe and USA in terms of social and racial segregation. Now to me it makes much more sense to focus on those problems, instead of arming all factions that fear each other.

To take an example: unlike you, we don't have armed guards in banks. Does that mean that they get robbed all the time? No. We have of course bank robberies now and then but thanx to the more relaxed situation, nobody ever gets hurt. And the robbers always get caught by the police. And there is no risk of innocent people getting in the cross fire. There's no need for the criminals to use excessive force.

Quote[/b] ]We have a violence problem here in the United States - true. But a violence problem does not equate to a gun problem.

While I agree that a violence problem does not necessarily equate to a gun problem, I'm not sure that I agree that you have a violence problem. Sure, to some extent, but I really think that your biggest problem isn't violence, but fear of violence. And scared people should not have guns.

The bottom line is if you truly need to defend yourself, then something is fundamentally wrong with your society and you need to rework your entire system. In a civilized society people should have no need for protecting and defending themselves. If I'm on the other hand right that you're being hysterical and paranoid - then you just need to relax a bit. There are of course all forms of interest groups that thrive on propagating this fear, but you should try to look beyond that.

[canukausiuka 1]

Unless you get a retarted one they will allways detect strangers around the premises and at least alert you - but once you are alerted by your ankle biter dog, what do you do if you have no effective means of defense?

Hmm, call the police?    

Some of us live over 10 miles from the nearest town, and the police are none-too-quick to arrive. The police cannot protect us all at once, we are responsible for our own safety. As far as paranoia, I dont think that's the case. The firearms in my house are for target shooting and hunting. And yes, some of them are semi-automatic.

I think the key to firearm ownership is common sence. No, I don't need a fully-automatic gun. But just because I don't need it doesn't mean I should not be allowed to own one. But if you are going to have something more dangerous, it makes sense to be required to demonstrate that you are proficient with it, and understand the safety that must accompany such a device.

Firearm ownership is a right, but it is also a serious responsibility. And if you just approach it with that attitude, its not that hard to prevent either ridiculous extreme: almost complete firearm bans or machineguns sold in convenience stores. Neither makes sense, but sometimes it seems like thats what some people want.

Why can't we all just get along?

[Heatseeker 0]

I guess that to ensure the safety of American people the authorities would have to disarm all the criminals first, the country is just too big and its understandable why ppl feel safer posessing guns, but are they really safer because they own a pistol or a shotgun

My opinion is no! Consider that someone is going to shoot you and you dont expect it, you wont stand much of a chance of reaching your gun and shoot back unless you believe what you see in movies , then theres all the accidents involving children, people that have no experience handling guns and stuff like that.

Weapons are not allowed here, sometimes theres the ocasional news about the jealous drunk guy who kills his wife or neighbour with a hunting shotgun but i have no fear of being shot when i go out and it feels great, guns? no thank you .

[toadlife 3]

Quote[/b] ]

No, no. Do you know what the big difference is? That you feel a need to protect yourself. That you think people in your society are out to hurt you. And yes, there is a cultural difference. You tend to be very scared of all possible things: criminals, terrorists, WMD, your government infringing on your rights, poor people, black people etc etc

I may be wrong, but to me it seems like a rather stressful way of living. You need to relax a bit and realize that not everybody and everything is out to get you. How real is your need to protect yourself?

This might clear up some misperceptions you have about me.

<ul>

[*]I'm white

[*] White people are a minority in my area

[*]My wife is a nice mix of Italian/Black/Mexican

[*]My best friend is Mexican

[*]I've roomed with black people when I was younger

[*]I've been poor (very poor)

[*]I've been arrested and been through the [juvenile] criminal justice system

[*]I live next door to a known drug dealer (and I could care less), who probably owns lots of guns

[*]I don't constantly worry about my safety

[*]I don't own a gun

Quote[/b] ]

And sure, there are considerable differences between Europe and USA in terms of social and racial segregation. Now to me it makes much more sense to focus on those problems, instead of arming all factions that fear each other.

I completely agree except for the 'arming all factions that fear each other' part. For me, it's a right issue, not a fear issue.

Quote[/b] ]While I agree that a violence problem does not necessarily equate to a gun problem, I'm not sure that I agree that you have a violence problem. Sure, to some extent, but I really think that your biggest problem isn't violence, but fear of violence. And scared people should not have guns.

The bottom line is if you truly need to defend yourself, then something is fundamentally wrong with your society and you need to rework your entire system. In a civilized society people should have no need for protecting and defending themselves. If I'm on the other hand right that you're being hysterical and paranoid - then you just need to relax a bit. There are of course all forms of interest groups that thrive on propagating this fear, but you should try to look beyond that.

By your words, the United States has never been 'a civilized society' since it's inception. It shows your misunderstading of our culture. Things are different here, an thats why we like it. We value the right to make the wrong choice. Yeah it may sound foriegn to some, but it really is that way to live.

[ralphwiggum 6]

What the hell difference would it make if the town was 20,000 or 20,000,000?

a big difference. with your idea, what does a small town where most of the residents know each other differ from a large city like LA?

Quote[/b] ]I am from the United States - not sweden, not Britain, not Japan, and in the United States, the task of protecting oneself lies upon the induvidual. I know the concept might be confusing for somone from a more socialistic country, but that's how it is here.

i think you are forgetting that right to protect ones property is almost an universal value, certainly in G8 nations. America is NOT the only country.

Quote[/b] ]We have a violence problem here in the United States - true. But a violence problem does not equate to a gun problem.

but pro 2A people says gun is the answer to most if not all crimes!

Quote[/b] ]@Ralphwiggum

I think you are mistaking my point of view a bit...

I don't beleive that all citizens should be able to own whatever gun they want. Having an M16 in your gun rack would be a bit over the top IMO, but the way things are going the average citizen will soon not be able to defend themselves because the only gun they will be able to posses is a [sarcasm]daisy CO2 powered bb pistol with a trigger lock, that is locked inside of a bomb proof safe 500 feet from the house underground [/sarcasm].

as 11b said, you made him drop his jaw.(no he is not eating lunhc right now )

the so called pro 2A people always come up with the most lame IF scenario and your scenario, although covered with sarcasm remark, is one of them. according to pro2A people, Brady bill would have increased crimes, which is not true.

[ralphwiggum 6]

By your words, the United States has never been 'a civilized society' since it's inception. It shows your misunderstading of our culture. Things are different here, an thats why we like it. We value the right to make the wrong choice. Yeah it may sound foriegn to some, but it really is that way to live.

and i'm pretty sure withthat logic, slavery was indeed fitting for Southern states

Quote[/b] ]

[*]I'm white

[*] White people are a minority in my area

[*]My wife is a nice mix of Italian/Black/Mexican

[*]My best friend is Mexican

[*]I've roomed with black people when I was younger

[*]I've been poor (very poor)

[*]I've been arrested and been through the [juvenile] criminal justice system

[*]I live next door to a known drug dealer (and I could care less), who probably owns lots of guns

[*]I don't constantly worry about my safety

[*]I don't own a gun

hmmm.....one conlcusion about you

Quote[/b] ]If I'm on the other hand right that you're being hysterical and paranoid - then you just need to relax a bit. There are of course all forms of interest groups that thrive on propagating this fear, but you should try to look beyond that.

this is what i'm saying about your position!

[toadlife 3]

the so called pro 2A people always come up with the most lame IF scenario and your scenario, although covered with sarcasm remark, is one of them. according to pro2A people, Brady bill would have increased crimes, which is not true.

Can either side prove that the Brady bill had any effect on crime one way or the other?

[ralphwiggum 6]

the so called pro 2A people always come up with the most lame IF scenario and your scenario, although covered with sarcasm remark, is one of them. according to pro2A people, Brady bill would have increased crimes, which is not true.

Can either side prove that the Brady bill had any effect on crime one way or the other?

that's the point. pro2A people claim that current laws are designed to hurt self-defense. yet they cannot provide the statistics to support it.

on the other hand, if someone shoots in self-defense, it is reported since there is an injured person or dead body. if someone had negligent discharge and injures someone else, same thing. but there is not a single statistics on how many lives were saved by enforcing strict gun laws since there is no way to determine such since by definition, the success cannot be reported. and this is where pro2As come up with their argument.

then as soon as they comeback, they say, "IF you had the M4gery with collapsable stock with 30 rd mag, someone would be alive!"

[toadlife 3]

hmmm.....one conlcusion about you

LOL. No!!

One more thing.

<ul>

[*]I don't like rap/r&b/hip-hop music

one conlcusion about you...

[m21man 0]

Quote[/b] ]that's the point. pro2A people claim that current laws are designed to hurt self-defense. yet they cannot provide the statistics to support it.

Quote[/b] ]In August 2001, the Center for Defence Studies at King's College analyzed gun crime and concluded that the criminal use of handguns increased 40 percent in the two years after British authorities confiscated all legally owned handguns from private hands.

Sigh...If only the U.S. would be ban guns and be more like Britain. Then we could get rid of our pesky lowering crime rate and get more good, wholesome muggers and rapists onto our streets.

[ralphwiggum 6]

another victim of percentage.

100 to 140 = 40% increase, 40 increase in units

1000 to 1100 = 10% increase, 100 increase in units

as i said earlier, you cannot gauge the crimes that would have happened in one situation(in this case when guns were still in private hands) in another situation since it did not happen. did the report also say just how many would be crimes were not happening due to lack of guns?

edit: toadlife, i have no idea how you concluded that i was like Ozzie....

[m21man 0]

Quote[/b] ]100 to 140

Damn, I never knew that the U.K. was that small. Sorry about that.

[m21man 0]

Quote[/b] ]did the report also say just how many would be crimes were not happening due to lack of guns?

I don't think so, it just reported on the number of crimes committed by criminals who'd strangely disobeyed the gun laws and continued packing heat. Who do these people think they are, criminals?!?

[ralphwiggum 6]

it's an example to show that percentage is a tricky tool.

http://www.crimereduction.gov.uk/statistics27.htm

Quote[/b] ]Title: Crime in England and Wales: Quarterly Update to December 2002

Authors: David Povey, Sian Nicholas and Heather Salisbury

Series: Home Office Statistical Bulletin 05/03

Number of pages: 12

Date published: April 2003

Total Crime

The figures for all crime show that crime has fallen over the course of the reporting period. The British Crime Survey (BCS) shows a 9% fall in the number of crimes against adults living in private housing, including a 13% fall in household crime.

After manual adjustments have been made, (see Methodology, below), the Recorded Crime Statistics (RCS) show a 7% fall in recorded crime in compared to the corresponding period in the previous year.

Violent Crime

Violent crime appears to have leveled off in recently after falls in the late 1990's. Between October - December 2002, violence against the person has risen slightly, where as robbery has fallen significantly.

The BCS shows a 2% fall, down to 2.7m incidents, while victimisation rates (the risk of being a victim) have stayed constant.

The RCS have risen significantly for this period. This is thought to be due to the new reporting system as most offences are relatively minor assaults and are particularly susceptible to increased recording. Once this has been allowed for, there is still a 1% more reported incidents compared to the corresponding quarter the previous year.

In contrast to this, robbery has fallen by 23% in the last quarter. This fall has coincided with the Street Crime Initiative, which was introduced in spring 2002.

Domestic Burglary

As with violent crime, reductions in domestic burglary seem to have leveled off after success in the mid to late 1990's.

The BCS does show a fall of 11% in the estimated number of incidents (taking the total to 950,00), although this figure is not statistically significant.

For the year 2002, the RCS show that the numbers of burglary offences have stayed pretty consistent. The figures rose slightly in the early part of the year, followed by a flat period. The figure for the last quartile showed a decrease of 4%.

Quote[/b] ]I don't think so, it just reported on the number of crimes committed by criminals who'd strangely disobeyed the gun laws and continued packing heat. Who do these people think they are, criminals?!?

see that's the point i told toadlife. when a crime happens, pro 2A people can claim that that would not happened if there were guns, but when some criminal was not able to obtain a gun and decided to not commit crime, that cannot be reported. just becuase there is nothing on record doesn't mean that it doesn' exist.

[m21man 0]

Quote[/b] ]see that's the point i told toadlife. when a crime happens, pro 2A people can claim that that would not happened if there were guns, but when some criminal was not able to obtain a gun and decided to not commit crime, that cannot be reported. just becuase there is nothing on record doesn't mean that it doesn' exist.

If the criminal decided not to get a gun, then he probably wasn't determined enough to kill someone in the first place. On the contrary, if someone wants to murder, then they will be able to find a gun. They may need to find an illegal vendor to get the gun from, but they'll be able to find one.

However, if their target had a gun himself he (the target) would at least have a chance of defending himself.

[m21man 0]

As a side note, here are some quotes from dangerous, ultra neo-conservative, fascist pro-gun nutcases:

"If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun." 

~ The Dalai Lama, (May 15, 2001, The Seattle Times)

"Where the choice is between only violence and cowardice, I would advise violence."  ~ Mohatma Gandhi

"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest."

  ~ Mahatma Gandhi, Gandhi, An Autobiography,  M. K. Gandhi, page 446.

"Though defensive violence will always be 'a sad necessity' in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men."

-St. Augustine A.D. 354-430

[ralphwiggum 6]

If the criminal decided not to get a gun, then he probably wasn't determined enough to kill someone in the first place. On the contrary, if someone wants to murder, then they will be able to find a gun. They may need to find an illegal vendor to get the gun from, but they'll be able to find one.

However, if their target had a gun himself he (the target) would at least have a chance of defending himself.

there is something called a discharge caused by reflex. upon encountering a situation, if you can employ deadlier powere, you will use it.

and if someone wants to murder, there will be other ways, not just guns. knives, choking, and although quite rare in general public, poisoning.

second, just becuase i have a gun doesn't mean that i can defend. in other view,a criminal who is attacked by police can "protect himself". however, most cases show that police are better shooters and that chance of criminal shooting the police officer was never realized.

Quote[/b] ]"If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun."

~ The Dalai Lama, (May 15, 2001, The Seattle Times)

for those who are not able comprehend the whole article, he was asked about the morality of killing in some cases, not about gun rights.

Quote[/b] ]"Where the choice is between only violence and cowardice, I would advise violence."  ~ Mohatma Gandhi

read carefully. given two choices. world has more than two choices.

Quote[/b] ]"Though defensive violence will always be 'a sad necessity' in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men."

-St. Augustine A.D. 354-430

did he say guns?

and least but not the last!

http://www.quoteland.com/author.asp?AUTHOR_ID=303

Quote[/b] ]"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest."

 ~ Mahatma Gandhi, Gandhi, An Autobiography,  M. K. Gandhi, page 446.

Quote[/b] ]N.B.: This quote refers to the British disarmament of the Indian Army. Gandhi never advocated the individual right to bear arms.

[denoir 0]

By your words, the United States has never been 'a civilized society' since it's inception.

No, that is obviously your conclusion. I'm saying that you don't have as much of a violence problem as you think. I said that the basic thing in a civilized society is that you don't have to defend yourself to survive.

Quote[/b] ]It shows your misunderstading of our culture. Things are different here, an thats why we like it. We value the right to make the wrong choice. Yeah it may sound foriegn to some, but it really is that way to live.

LOL. Here we go. I was waiting for that one. Well, for your information I'm pretty sure that I've got more rights than you, as I live in a more liberal soceity. Everybody in normal western democracies have more or less the basic freedoms (freedom of speech, religion, politics blah blah blah). So what exactly do you think that your freedoms are? Oh, and by the way I do own a gun.

You want to talk about individual freedoms. How about this - do you allow these in the US:

Quote[/b] ]

[*] Drugs

[*] Euthanasia

[*] Same sex marriages/adoption

No, instead you have Bush trying to overturn abortion rights. Yepp, truly impressive individual freedoms.

You have the basic rights that were really groovy in 1792, but today - You are a fairly conservative country. For one thing you are still rather religious and let such things dicate your rights (plenty of states still banning darwinism, all the "one nation under god" "god bless us all" crap....)

You know, USA and Sweden have one problem in common: hubris. Sweden had in modern history it's moment in the sun in the 60's/70's but most Swedes are still today convinced that Sweden is the best country in the world, in any and every way. That's why we didn't join Eurozone and for that we'll be paying a high price, because Sweden isn't all that great any more. Most of Europe is actually better - even in terms of social security, healthcare etc (Sweden's pride).

USA had its moment in 1792 when you really had unique individual freedoms. Not today anymore. Just like Sweden's social infrastructure today is standard (often even improved), so are the individual freedoms in democracies around the world. On the contrary, you have a constitution that strangles you and leaves you back in 1792.

[Grizzlie 0]

I vote for control of baseball bats

Here we do not have baseball teams but a lot of no-neck, very-short-hair-cut guys looking like bulls with baseball bats, and i'm asking what for?

But seriously. As men without criminal history and heathly on body and mind ;) i would like to have ABILTY to bear gun. With registration, training, ect. I can aggre to prohibit full autos, limited magazine capacity and to keep it in safe place.

But i do not want to be treated like criminal only because i want a gun.

Well, if i remember in Switzerland is alot of full auto weapons military style,and they still have some population...

[toadlife 3]

Quote[/b] ]

You want to talk about individual freedoms. How about this - do you allow these in the US:

[*] Drugs

[*] Euthanasia

[*] Same sex marriages/adoption

Same sex marriages are allowed for the most part in the more 'civilized states'. Because of the extreme right here throwing a fit (as if marriage isn't a secular institution allready), it's not called "Marriage" but "civil union". All of the rights that are recieved via marriage (visiting your spouse in the hospital, inheritance, health benefits for your spouse, ect) apply to civil unions. If you're gay and want a church marriage, then you go to a church (there are lots of em') that will perform the ceremony for you, and then you apply for a civil union with the state.

I won't address euthanasia.

As for drugs, you've got me there. I think it's hypocritical to allow people ther responsibility of owning guns but not allow them the responsibility of using drugs for recreational purposes.

It gets me how you can bash a coutry for allowing the choice in one matter (guns) while not allowing the choice in another matter (drugs, gay marriage, ect). It's akin to the ever circular argument - "Our set of morals is bettter than yours".

Quote[/b] ]No, instead you have Bush trying to overturn abortion rights. Yep, truly impressive individual freedoms.

You are generalizing here. He's trying to ban abortions where the baby is fully developed in the womb and the doctor is forced to suck it's brains out with a vacum in order to abort it. While his ultimate goal may be to ban abortions ouright he will (thankfully) not succeed.

Quote[/b] ]...For one thing you are still rather religious and let such things dicate your rights (plenty of states still banning darwinism, all the "one nation under god" "god bless us all" crap....)

That's rediculous. "Creationism" (or whaterever they call it) is not taught in ANY public school in the United States. It hasn't been for quite awhile. Private schools can do what they please, but government funded schools teach scientific theories on the begginings, not faith based theories.

[canukausiuka 1]

You want to talk about individual freedoms. How about this - do you allow these in the US:

Quote[/b] ]

[*] Drugs

[*] Euthanasia

[*] Same sex marriages/adoption

No, instead you have Bush trying to overturn abortion rights. Yepp, truly impressive individual freedoms.

You have the basic rights that were really groovy in 1792, but today -   You are a fairly conservative country. For one thing you are still rather religious and let such things dicate your rights (plenty of states still banning darwinism, all the "one nation under god" "god bless us all" crap....)

Frankly, I do not believe the people have a right to drugs, euthanasia.  Same sex marriage, no, but I do believe they should have a social institution that means the same thing and entitles them to the same rights.

Drugs would not be so bad, actually, if people who did them would not interact with those who did not while under the influence.  That sounds a lot like discrimination, but frankly I do not want to be in the presence of many drunkards, much less weed addicts.  If you are going to take something that alters your thinking, you do not need to be out in public.  But what folks do in the privacy of their house, so long as it is not infringing others' rights, is their business, including drugs.  As a point in case for folks not coming out when under the influence: when I was trying to find a house where a party was going on this past weekend, some drunk ass pulled in against us as we turned around, trapping us there, then proceeded to berate us for stalking him or spying on him or somesuch nonsense.  Hell, I was afraid he might even attack us, and it was completely unprovoked.  People like that should not be allowed to leave their house until they are of an able frame of mind.

Euthanasia to me is an absolute crime.  It is one thing to cease life support willingly, but if a person is just old and ill, there is no way you can justify killing them.  It has no more justification than suicide, but I'm not so radical as to equate it to murder.  But it is not right to take a persons life, be it because they are senile, or because they are not wanted.  It would be like Jews asking to be part of the Holocaust, for feeling there was no more hope in being a Jew.  Just because they feel there is no hope does not mean that the action becomes right. (this is just an example, I do not mean to imply that any Jew would do that, but its the same system... one which kills just because of what a person is)

Frankly, I am glad I live in what you call a "conservative" country.  We may not be as socially "advanced" as you, but we still have many of the values that brought us here, while Europe seems to have had its values drained.  And I think that's a shame, because it is from Europe that values and progress first managed to cooexist.  Now its just progress, and that is a sad state for any people.

But I'm way off-topic here.  As I said before, gun control is just a matter of common sense and protection of rights.  Here in the US, gun ownership is a right, and it should not be infringed on.  But that does not mean that every Joe Blow on the streets should own a ma deuce.  But if you are able to demonstrate your responsibility with such a weapon, and are willing to assume responsibility for its proper use and safeguarding (within reason here... if it is stolen either from you or from a locked gun cabinet, what can you do?), then I see no reason to prohibit them.  And yes, licensing is a completely viable solution, as long as it is provided that the licenses can never be used to retake firearms (the big fear of the NRA and other groups, regarding licensing).  Seems to me if you need a license to drive a car, you need one to own a firearm as well.

Common sense and reason... thats all it takes.  

[Blink Dog 0]

When I become dictator everything will become illegal including breathing.