Gun control debate thread

[Major Fubar 0]

I still say the best form of home defence is a dog.

Even if it's not a traditional attack breed (doberman, German shepperd, rottweiler etc.), it will still alert you of an intruder, generally with enough time for you to call the cops. I know Police response times aren't instantaneous, but in most cases, a burglar confronted with a yapping dog and some guy yelling down the stairs "I've called the cops!" is going to high tail it off your property in 99% of cases.

And lets face facts, the vast majority of home breakins are simple robberies...only serial killers or someone with a personal grudge is going to break in for the sole purpose of killing you or your family.

Is the social situation is the USA really so fecked that people feel the need to keep guns under their beds so they don't get murdered through the night?

Another point: can you really, really justify killing someone who has broken into your house to steal some stuff? I'm not saying thieves are in any way justified to do what they do, but isn't blowing someone's head off over a VCR a little extreme? Once you wave a gun in an intruders face, he really only has three options: surrender and wait to be arrested; turn and run; or confront you. Unless he takes option 1, there's likely to be some form if violence. If he runs, your gut instinct is going to be to shoot him - it's a highly volatile situation and your pumped full of adrenaline, and you don't want him to esacpe. If he confronts you, either by trying to snatch your gun off you or by pulling a weapon of his own, again, someone will probably end up shot, either him or you.

Society really should have evolved beyond the point of the "wild wild West" mentality that the only way to defend yourself, your family and your property is by packing heat.

If you don't feel your police force is sufficient to protect you, then you should really be demanding more of them, and the government. You should also be demanding a better social equity system where there aren't as many people living in such poverty that they need to break into housing and steal things to make a living.

Finally, bear in mind that most guns that criminals do use were, at some stage, legally owned and registered firearms (with the possible exception of a tiny number illegally smuggled into the country from overseas). If you cut back on the number of legally owned firearms, or at least demand that they be kept in safes etc., then ultimately you are making it harder for criminals to get access to guns. Obviously not straight away, due to the number of illegal guns in circulation at the moment, but in the long run. The shiny, new SPAS-12 you buy for sporting use today could well end up being used in an armed robbery sometime in the future. Like I've said before, I am very much against total firearm bans, but I am all in favour of anything that limits the negative impact guns are going to have on society. To me, it's not unreasonable that licensing be much stricter (even to the extent of mental health and other background checks), greater testing of competency before you can buy guns, and the requirements for the storage of guns be more stringent. Here in Australia, all registered guns MUST be kept in certified gun safes, and I don't think that is unreasonable.

[Grizzlie 0]

Few years ago i saw crime staticics comparision for Washington DC and Texas.

Try to gues where were higher rate of crime counted per 1000 ppl per year?

[EiZei 0]

Few years ago i saw crime staticics comparision for Washington DC and Texas.

Try to gues where were higher rate of crime counted per 1000 ppl per year?

So, dont you think there might have been other factors than gun control?

[Guest DKM-jaguar]

Hmm.. it seems that a recent report into the british police force and crime rates etc has resulted in their findings calling for more armed officers. I don't know if this is representitive of the report, but i heard on the news it claimed the gun availability in areas like london was almost equal to that of the US. I don't know if armed police are the answer, but look where we are now and how our current stance is on gun laws. I don't think it can do any worse.

Crime rates in general are dropping though. I guess that all criminals now are just imbeciels and need guns to do what they can't. I hate criminals so much.. i cannot describe how badly.

[Assault (CAN) 1]

Bowling for Columbine and anything touted as 'fact' in it is purely fictional.

Have a read.

Tyler

[Judge Rabbi 0]

I've only just seen the film recenly, and now this article explains, with some proof, that the viewer was deceved. To tell you the truth I can't seem to trust most thing from the media these days.

As for gun control...what is someone gonna do with a full-auto rifle? Methinks ownership of weapons is pointless, but that raises a new set of problems.

Oh dagnamit, human beings are so imperfect...

[The Frenchman 0]

Hey boys and girls! You know what ballistic fingerprinting is? Good! But do you know what ballistic fingerprinting FOR POLITICIANS are?!?

[Guest DKM-jaguar]

Hey boys and girls! You know what ballistic fingerprinting is? Good! But do you know what ballistic fingerprinting FOR POLITICIANS are?!?      

Urm.. no.

sounds a bit like the "fingerprint" a gun leaves on a cartidge casing with the fireing pin, which is unique and implicates a specific weapon with a casing, enabling the gun to be linked to the crime and thus convicting the owner.

is this the same thing?

[madmedic 0]

Just a little stat for you all. 80% of all guns used in crimes in the US were purchased for home protection. Bottom line = You cannot shoot someone if you don't have a gun. Simple really, I would have thought.

Sorry...incorrect...that figure came originally from the "Kellerman Study" done in the 80s by a professor named Kellerman.

Less than a year after the study was published, it was proven wrong, and Kellerman himself admitted to "playing" with the statistics.

However, the "anti-gun" entities continue to quote that study to this day, and to "re-invent" its wording because they know that the average "soccer mom", or person who does not happen to have an interest in the subject...will not bother to check the facts, and accept anything presented as a "study" to be gospel.

[Harnu 0]

Hey boys and girls! You know what ballistic fingerprinting is? Good! But do you know what ballistic fingerprinting FOR POLITICIANS are?!?      

Urm.. no.

sounds a bit like the "fingerprint" a gun leaves on a cartidge casing with the fireing pin, which is unique and implicates a specific weapon with a casing, enabling the gun to be linked to the crime and thus convicting the owner.

is this the same thing?

I think you missed the point of Frenchman's post, either that or I did. I though that was a great flash animation

[The Frenchman 0]

Hey boys and girls! You know what ballistic fingerprinting is? Good! But do you know what ballistic fingerprinting FOR POLITICIANS are?!?      

Urm.. no.

sounds a bit like the "fingerprint" a gun leaves on a cartidge casing with the fireing pin, which is unique and implicates a specific weapon with a casing, enabling the gun to be linked to the crime and thus convicting the owner.

is this the same thing?

I think you missed the point of Frenchman's post, either that or I did.  I though that was a great flash animation  

Nope your right.

[denoir 0]

Bowling for Culumbine and anything touted as 'fact' in it is purely fictional.

Have a read.

Tyler

Hehe, sure Columbine is biased and fairly leftist but it hits pretty much close to the mark. The link that you posted points out very minor details about possible inconsistencies in the movie.

It should be added that Michael Moore disagrees strongly about the inconsistencies. As a matter of fact he has a webpage where he deals with exactly those questions.

BTW, have you watched the movie yourself?

[Harnu 0]

Here in Australia, all registered guns MUST be kept in certified gun safes, and I don't think that is unreasonable.

And exactly where are these saves located?

[Commander-598 0]

And who makes sure you have a safe and how much do they cost?

Quote[/b] ]still say the best form of home defence is a dog.

Even if it's not a traditional attack breed (doberman, German shepperd, rottweiler etc.), it will still alert you of an intruder, generally with enough time for you to call the cops. I know Police response times aren't instantaneous, but in most cases, a burglar confronted with a yapping dog and some guy yelling down the stairs "I've called the cops!" is going to high tail it off your property in 99% of cases.

I have a rottweiler. She's deaf. I also have two blind poodles that bark at their own shadows.

[canukausiuka 1]

Quote[/b] ]still say the best form of home defence is a dog.

Even if it's not a traditional attack breed (doberman, German shepperd, rottweiler etc.), it will still alert you of an intruder, generally with enough time for you to call the cops. I know Police response times aren't instantaneous, but in most cases, a burglar confronted with a yapping dog and some guy yelling down the stairs "I've called the cops!" is going to high tail it off your property in 99% of cases.

I have a rottweiler. She's deaf. I also have two blind poodles that bark at their own shadows.

I have 2 dogs, and both of them walk right up to strangers tails wagging, hoping for a good pat. Lazy things only bark at deer and other dogs. No way I would trust my home security to them. I can say the same is true of almost all the dogs in this area, too (they are almost as lazy as the people). But I wouldn't trust a gun, either, because there's no way I could get to the gun closet from my bedroom in any short time. Rather, I choose to trust a security system. Even if the cops would take 10 or 20 minutes to arrive, that would be enough to scare off any intruders.

Unfortunately, most of the people in my area are too poor to afford a security system. Everyone has guns though, because everyone hunts. And almost all of them know proper gun safety, and practice it. But its the way of life here, out in the country. And good for us, we have very low crime rates. Almost all the crimes we do have were committed under the influence of drugs or alcohol (which is also illegal in my county). And trust me, we lose a lot more people to drowning because they were stupid than guns. Naturally, there is occasionally someone who has an accident while hunting, but no activity is completely safe.

The thing I honestly object to most about gun control is the fact that those in Washington are trying to tell us what to do, when we don't have a problem. While it may fix some problems in some areas, it won't help us here, and will just restrict us further. And if there's not a problem here, you really can't blame us for not wanting to take action to "fix" it. For this area, it just boils down to "If it ain't broke, don't fix it".

[Schoeler 0]

I'm a frothing liberal and I'm all for gun ownership. I don't have a gun, and I don't know if I ever will, but I fully realize that there's no way that I, we, the country or the world can keep guns out of the hands of people that will do harm with them.

If I feel threatened, I want to know that there's something I can do to protect myself. Yes, that entails owning a gun because it's simply the most effective means of protecting myself. I have enormous faith in the police, at least where I live, but I can't expect them to be there immediately when I need them. Case in point - about two years ago, when I was still in college, someone tried to rob me in the hallway of my apartment building. He had his hand stuffed into his pants and said that he had a gun. Knowing full well that a pistol does NOT look like an outstretched index finger, I called his bluff, punched him, and called the police.

I'm not saying that in this case a pistol would have helped me, unless I had been carrying it on me at the time, which is another debate entirely (concealed carry). But later that night, after the little shit escaped and the police left, you're damn right I wish I had a rifle or a pistol. I don't know if he was the kind of kid (yes, he was not older than 19 - probably 17) who got really stupid and wanted revenge or something. So I slept with a carving knife beside my bed for a week.

That said, I am very much in favor of gun control. I think owning a gun should only come after attending a gun safety class (I had two days or so in the Army of classed before I ever got to see a rifle). I also think that guns should come with mandatory gun locks. I also think that the government SHOULD have a database of the particular ballistics of privately owned weapons. Above all, I just want to have the option.

It sounds kinda hokey and overwrought, but really, in the United States you do have to take your personal safety into your own hands, and for a lot of people that means owning a gun.

And I'm sure a lot of people, assuming this topic doesn't get spoiled and locked, will make a lot of great arguments against gun ownership, but no argument can give you the peace of mind that just knowing that you have a way to fight back on at least equal terms can give you.

God... I sound like a Republican.  

Hellfish, you had me laughing. I too am a democrat, despise the Republicans, most members of the NRA and especially Charlton Heston, but I believe in gun ownership for two reasons:

1) Its gotten crazy in this country and I don't like the feeling of helplessness or relying on someone else to assure my safety. I'll look out for myself thank you very much and the cops can come and take over by arresting the now disarmed and prone criminal, or the very dead criminal who threatened my safety or that of a loved one.

2) The right to keep and bear arms was put in the Constitution for a reason. The framers knew that democracy is the form of government most likely to degenerate into tyranny. We as free people have the right and the obligation to rebel against our government if it becomes tyrannical. This is why we have firearm ownership as a right. So that we can form citizen militias in case the government goes bad. I'm inclined to keep that right for Americans, especially when viewing legislation like the Patriot Act.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

2nd Ammendment. Simple as that. Denoir's banging his head against his monitor right now, but that's just how it is. I don't have a problem with background checks, safety courses, or licenses- none of these infringe upon our right, they merely act in the same manner as guardrails on other Ammendments do (shouting 'Fire!' in a theater springs to mind). And no, I'm not a Democrat- unlike these granola munchers who've posted as such above and yes, I will be reporting both of you to the Attorney General's office

[ozanzac 0]

2) The right to keep and bear arms was put in the Constitution for a reason.  The framers knew that democracy is the form of government most likely to degenerate into tyranny.  We as free people have the right and the obligation to rebel against our government if it becomes tyrannical.  This is why we have firearm ownership as a right.  So that we can form citizen militias in case the government goes bad.  I'm inclined to keep that right for Americans, especially when viewing legislation like the Patriot Act.

He he. Does the government let you keep Stealth Bombers, Grenades, Tanks and Missiles for use against the government should ever it go rotten!

Don't let it find out you've got WMD's in your garage, like ammonia for killing ants. They'll say you can kill ants by the million, then they'll invade you for it. Or would that be a violation of your rights stated in the constitution?

Seriously though, where does the right to bare arms stop? Where does it go "Ok thats enough. Anything more lethal than a "X" and thats considered too lethal, or crazy. And if there is a point where you can't own a peice of equiptment just in case the government goes rotten, how on earth did it pass as law without a civil war resulting, seeing as most Americans display a most patriotic feeling towards their 'rights'.

I honestlly think having a country full of people with pistols is about as comforting as having a country full of land mines.

Heck, under your constitution, would it be acceptable to mine and booby-trap your home claiming that it's for use against your government should it ever go rotten?

I don't think it makes sense to have citizens with guns for use in case the government goes rotten. Shouldn't that be the military, national guards or at least local law enforcements responsibility? You have to ask yourself, are guns in society, under everyones bed or in everyones car glovebox, really beneficial for society as a whole?

I think your military, professional/recreational shooters and Hunters, and Law Enforcement Agencies should be the only members of your society to have firearms. If anyone still feels threatened, use a non-lethal form of weaponry, like Tasers, or even ban the use of lead for small calibre bullets, and replace it with rubber. You still have your arms, you can still defend yourself, and you still can overthrow your government if ever it turns bad.

[denoir 0]

2) The right to keep and bear arms was put in the Constitution for a reason.  The framers knew that democracy is the form of government most likely to degenerate into tyranny.  We as free people have the right and the obligation to rebel against our government if it becomes tyrannical.  This is why we have firearm ownership as a right.  So that we can form citizen militias in case the government goes bad.  I'm inclined to keep that right for Americans, especially when viewing legislation like the Patriot Act.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it was not put into the constitution. It was an ammendment. Just like the one that banned booze during the prohibition. Right?  

[CosmicCastaway 0]

The one country that's least likely to disagree with anything it's government says. Likes to have gun ownership as a given right, just in case their elected representatives get out of hand? Nice.

[EiZei 0]

Its not like the conservatives have been respecting constitution lately..

[toadlife 3]

2) The right to keep and bear arms was put in the Constitution for a reason. The framers knew that democracy is the form of government most likely to degenerate into tyranny. We as free people have the right and the obligation to rebel against our government if it becomes tyrannical. This is why we have firearm ownership as a right. So that we can form citizen militias in case the government goes bad. I'm inclined to keep that right for Americans, especially when viewing legislation like the Patriot Act.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it was not put into the constitution. It was an ammendment. Just like the one that banned booze during the prohibition. Right?

An amendment is as much part of the constitution as any part. The 2nd amendment and many others were added very soon after the foudning fathers penned the original constitution - they kind of rushed to write the original constitution, so they had to add all the little stuff they forgot soon after.

The argument agaist "Why can't the citizens form militias" is that the 2nd amendement gives the states rights to arm their citizens, not the induvidual citizens the right to arm themselves.

Here is some good reading on the 2nd amendment and related court cases:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment02/

[toadlife 3]

Its not like the conservatives have been respecting constitution lately..

no shit. Ashcroft will be out soon enough, and hopefully the patriot act will be repealed.

[Major Fubar 0]

Ozanzac raises an interesting point: how far does "the right to bear arms" go? Assuming that the ammendment is there so that citizens can defend themselves from both corrupt dictatorships and foreign invaders, will small arms cut it?

Surely, if the US government became a dictatorship, a few rifles and shotguns wouldn't allow a mass uprising of the people to throw off the shackles of oppression. Citizens obvioulsy need access to AT and AA weapons, APCs, tanks, attack aircraft and so on...

[toadeater 0]

Using guns as self-defence is a rubbish argument. If you want to defend yourself, take up a martial art such as Ju Jitsu or Krav Maga.

I don't know where you live, but the kinds of criminals (and in some cases just plain ignorant teenagers) we have in NY, Ju Jitsu is just going to get you a bullet in your head. The police don't help either, they're never around when you need them.

Anyway, I don't want a gun for carrying around, I want it in the home to scare off burglers or whatever else shows up uninvited.

Ever see the interview with Lord British, the guy who made the Ultima games? A gun saved his life, when a lunatic fan broke into his home.

I think the bottom line is, if you live in a country where criminals have guns, you should probably have access to one yourself.