Gun Control...

[BTGBullseye]

Just figured I'd start this topic since the ones I started on other forums seem to have died.

 

 

I'm against gun control in almost all it's forms.

 

What's your opinion?

[alphabetagamma]

I suppose it depends what country you live in but as a Canadian I feel that it's important to limit the type of weapons people can have. I don't think anyone needs a fully automatic weapon for "self defense". I don't see guns having any other use than destructive.

[Average Internet Guy]

I think small limits to ownership are needed, except the current ones are for the wrong reasons. An assault weapon is currently defined by its cosmetic features, and that is completely stupid. People should have no reason to own high explosives/destructive devices though, simply due to the dangers in storing and transporting them. I have no problem with automatic rifles though. There have been examples of automatic rifles saving peoples lives from intruders(see http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/7087082.html). A light machine gun, on the other hand, should only be used as a collector's item, anybody claiming to own one for self defense is bullshitting someone.

 

Criminals are always (ALWAYS) going to find a way to get a hold of weapons illicitly, but background checks/psychological evaluations are a good idea to prevent the wrong people for acquiring these weapons.

[alphabetagamma]

There have been examples of automatic rifles saving peoples lives from intruders(see http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/met ... 87082.html)

The intruders weren't really after their lives but even if they were, the rifle being automatic only made things end worse. Most 17 year olds (or any age for that matter) burglers will run at the sight/sound of a gun, but instead of simply being scared a kid ended up being hit.

 

Criminals are always (ALWAYS) going to find a way to get a hold of weapons illicitly, but background checks/psychological evaluations are a good idea to prevent the wrong people for acquiring these weapons.

 

The criminal isn't usually the one buying the gun. A background check or evaluation is helpful but it's hardly fool proof

 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html

[Doom Shepherd]

Gun control is being able to hit your target.

 

Meh, I grew up surrounded by firearms, I was about 7 when I shot my first rifle and handgun. And yet nothing bad ever happened to me because of these facts. Mainly because from even earler than that, I was taught about exactly what guns are and what they can do to you if you misuse them.

 

My father used jello-filled gallon jugs to great effect - not to mention my observing what happens to a groundhog when it's hit by a high-powered rifle bullet. EWW.

 

The only thing that I think should be required for gun ownership is training in the responsible use of said weapons. When you go to buy a weapon, you should have to show your training certificate that says "I am not a moron."

 

Morons, crazies, and felons should be prohibited from owning weapons. (In reality, they already are - but it's hard to identify the crazies 'cause we don't mark'em, and the felons, being felons, don't care.)

 

As to whether an SMG is useful for home defense... ask in Afghanistan and Iraq, then remember the words of Pastor Niemoller. (Personally, if the Fundies ever start rounding up Atheists, I want access to nuclear fuckin' weapons.)

[Doom Shepherd]

but instead of simply being scared a kid ended up being hit.

 

How long do you reckon that "kid's" rap sheet is? You think he was much interested in the well-being of the actual kids whose home he was breaking into? I've heard stories of kids who were home alone during break-ins. They don't generally end well.

 

This is a clear case of "Nex Bardibus."

[alphabetagamma]

I need some backup! It's 3 against 1!

 

Meh, I grew up surrounded by firearms, I was about 7 when I shot my first rifle and handgun. And yet nothing bad ever happened to me because of these facts. Mainly because from even earler than that, I was taught about exactly what guns are and what they can do to you if you misuse them.

A good point, more people (like me ) need to learn how to use guns properly. If you know what you're doing you're in better control of a situation. It's the same with Martial arts.

not to mention my observing what happens to a groundhog when it's hit by a high-powered rifle bullet. EWW.

0_O

As to whether an SMG is useful for home defense... ask in Afghanistan and Iraq

Well I like to think that the situation is a little different in the US and Canada and even in Afghanistan and Iraq it seems like overkill to me... but I've never been so I don't really know. The only place I'm sure of that you need an SMG for self defense is Black Mesa

How long do you reckon that "kid's" rap sheet is? You think he was much interested in the well-being of the actual kids whose home he was breaking into?

Treating him like that is probably what sent him into crime in the first place. I doubt he's had the kind the care that he needs. He should obviously still be punished, but as the minor that he is. People should try to reform him now "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure"

I've heard stories of kids who were home alone during break-ins. They don't generally end well.

I don't think any home invasion ends well

[BrainBlow]

Depends on the country, yeah.

[Michael Archer]

Now when you say "Gun Control," I assume you mean like people have to obtain a permit, no handguns, you have to call the government every time you want to transport one; I assume you mean how it's like in Canada.

 

If we're taking the liberal's definition of Gun Control, no; gun control is bad. There's lots of practical reasons why gun control laws are stupid (is a psychopath who is willing to commit one of the most egregious crimes of all (murder) really going to follow gun control laws?), but we should be talking from a moral stance. Morality always wins over practicality, as it should.

 

If life is the standard of all rights, and our society is founded on those rights, then absolutely we should be allowed to own guns. There are a lot of legitimate and peaceful reasons a civilian would want to own a gun e.g. target practice, sport, hunting. We have the right to pursue our own happiness and if shooting guns in our backyard (assuming you're not putting anyone's life in danger), there's nothing morally harmful in that.

 

But what about handguns? Aren't they specifically designed to kill human beings? Yes, but they should also be allowed. If you have the right to life, logic dictates that you must also have the right to self-defense. If you have the right to self-defense, it also follows that you have the right to own tools for self-defense. Think about it: it would be weird to say you have the right to life and self-defense without saying you have the right to weapons necessary for that. It would be like saying you have the right to life, but not the right to buy food. Pistols, were designed for defense. Only Jack Bauer assaults a building with a dinky little handgun. A handgun was designed for quickly defending yourself while you fall back to find ammo for your assault rifle or something.

 

There are some weapons that should be banned, however e.g. there is no reason someone would own an RPG. An RPG is a fully offensive weapon; it is used for no other purpose. You don't compete with an RPG, nor do you defend yourself against a mugger with an RPG.

[danielsangeo]

I think it's kind of silly to go after laws because, well, if criminals aren't going to follow them anyway, why have laws at all?

 

Also, for anyone that says that "gun control" is something liberals want, I would suggest that they not stereotype.

[alphabetagamma]

Also, for anyone that says that "gun control" is something liberals want, I would suggest that they not stereotype.

I think he meant the Liberal Party of Canada

[Jay Steinman]

I think it should be implemented only in certain areas. In the cities, there should be some while in the rural areas it should be at a lax.

[Luis]

This reminds me of another topic discussed in a photography forum where I participate. Picture this:

 

You're a photographer shooting a bird somewhere or doing a photoshoot in a big urban area. Most serious photographers carry SLRs. You can't see what's near you when you're looking through a SLR's viewfinder (even if you were taking pictures with a compact camera using the LCD you're kinda focused on it)so you're pretty vulnerable, some silent guy can put a gun agaisnt your back and say ''give me all your gear''. The low-end DSLRs are about $600, plus the lenses (that are mostly more expensive than the camera itself if it's a pro lens) so photographers are kind of ''easy targets''.

 

Some people suggested that carrying a gun with them would only cause more trouble, if you're not fast enough they could only not take your camera but also your life... Some other said that most people don't know WHEN to put out their gun. I remember this chick who said ''If a robber wants my purse, my camera or my car I'll say ''go ahead it's yours''. ''If a rober tries to kidnap me or rape me I'll get out my .22''.

 

I think she's completely right. You shouldn't use your gun to protect your material belonging because they're not worth a penny when comparing them to your life. I think you shouldn't hesitate to use your gun if YOUR life is in danger...

 

 

IMHO people should have guns if they were educated and know what they are for. Here in Costa Rica every once in a while you can see kids that get shot because daddy didn't put a lock in his gun or because they frankly don't know what it is for and found it while playing. I remember a story about this cop who took her 6 years old daughter with him to the range and taught her how to use the gun and what it is for. That's what everyone should so responsible citizens know what guns are for and don't cause more than they would without a gun.

[IneptGuard]

I know that all of you aren't Americans, but as an American, a veteran and a firm believer in the constitution, I believe that people have god given rights that must be respected. One of those is the right to defend their family and their land by any means necessary.

 

"Amendment II:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

 

While this may not apply to anyone outside the US, some of you might find it to be interesting as there are good reasons for its creation. Unfortunately it's not very well worded and that has led to massive debates concerning it's interpretation. However one cannot deny it's meaning.

 

Here are the primary functions that I gather from the 2nd amendment:

 

1. It gives the people the ability to protect their country, their friends and families, and their freedoms from enemies both foreign and most importantly, domestic. To quote the movie V, "A people should not fear their government but rather a government should fear their people". It is the one and only insurance policy that will protect our way of life, be it form an invading army or our own governments.

 

Draw your own conclusions but I will always believe that the people have a right to own guns, be it a machine gun or pistol. that doesn't mean that there shouldn't be laws that regulate the ownership of firearms in the interest of preventing crime and keeping order but striping every one's rights is not the way.

[danielsangeo]

I somehow highly doubt that someone's personal stockpile of weapons will protect someone against the federal government (Half-Life notwithstanding ).

 

The pen, in this case, really is mightier than the sword.

 

As for this issue, I cannot possibly fathom how a simple registration and required training course is "banning guns" (like some, not necessarily in this thread, seem to be saying).

[BTGBullseye]

As for this issue, I cannot possibly fathom how a simple registration and required training course is "banning guns" (like some, not necessarily in this thread, seem to be saying).

Ah, but that is some of the most relaxed gun control laws, and are only available in certain counties in certain states in the US. Most states and counties still have Sheriffs that can arbitrarily delay giving someone a firearm, and there have been many issues with those Sheriffs putting indefinite delays on all firearm licence applications they receive.

 

I personally want to own an AUG. I think it's a really cool gun, and would be very useful for hunting. Now, to get one (normally ~$5000 from the manufacturer) I have to get permission from my local Sheriff, (who won't like someone having a better gun than him) the state government, (who thinks everyone is going to use them to slaughter people at banks) and the US government. (who now believes me to be a National Security threat, simply because I applied for ownership)

Cost of the permits exceed $10000, and the waiting time on average is 10 years or longer. (if you don't get an instant 'no' from the Sheriff or the State)

 

Otherwise, you can't own it. If it can accept a clip of larger than 10 rounds, and/or has automatic/burst fire modes, it is not legal to own the gun without the previously mentioned bullshit.

 

Why does the clip size matter? It shouldn't.

[danielsangeo]

That wasn't what I was asking.

[Doom Shepherd]

I somehow highly doubt that someone's personal stockpile of weapons will protect someone against the federal government (Half-Life notwithstanding ).

I suppose that depends on whether or not you think the Iraq and Afhgan wars are "winnable." In guerilla warfare, personal stockpiles can go a long way.

 

As for this issue, I cannot possibly fathom how a simple registration and required training course is "banning guns" (like some, not necessarily in this thread, seem to be saying).

 

While even the NRA supports training courses, registration is always going to be a very sticky issue because lists of names can always be abused. They have been in the past. Because criminals usually obtain their firearms off the books, registration does not appear to have much use to the government, except to allow for the possibilities of (1) confiscation or harrassment of gun owners, and (2) to allow guns to be banned without taking them away from anyone who already owns one (which could get messy).

[danielsangeo]

The way I see it, in order to operate a car on any public road in the United States, you need to be able to show that you can operate the car and that you need to be licensed to do so.

 

Are there people out there operating cars on public roads without a license? Yes. Does that mean that we shouldn't have laws for it? NO.

 

Criminals will break the law (hence why they're called "criminals")...but essentially, the argument here is that, since a criminal won't follow the law anyway, why have the law? See how silly the argument is?

 

As for a registration list being abused, that's why there are watchdogs out there....from the checks and balances system to other private groups such as the ACLU (which, by the way, protects an individual's right to own a gun) checking the government to make sure that things like this can't be abused.

 

Also, if people feel they have a stake in the government (like they do, but too often, they shirk their responsibilities as a citizen to be a watchdog of the government, then wonder why the government turns to shit), the government is more apt to shy away from these kinds of abuses.

 

Can you imagine millions of gun-owners going to the government and asking what is being done with the registration lists? Baby, they'll turn paper-white with fear and make sure they're not abusing the lists!

 

And that's a good thing. People should not be afraid of government. GOVERNMENT should be afraid of US.

[IneptGuard]

I somehow highly doubt that someone's personal stockpile of weapons will protect someone against the federal government (Half-Life notwithstanding ).

 

Well, history will always provide the answer.

April 19, 1775 a bunch of farmers and city boys took on the most powerful military empire in the world.

 

American Civil War (1861–1865), though the Confederacy lost, the war itself changed America forever.

 

2001 - Present, A bunch of farmers have been doing a pretty fine job of fighting one of the most powerful military alliances on earth for the last 10 years with little to no training and sub par weaponry.

 

A government isn't some invincible all knowing machine. It's clumsy, slow and unstable and all it takes to change every thing, is for the voice of the people to be heard and if their voices aren't loud enough, then the sound of their guns will be.

 

As for this issue, I cannot possibly fathom how a simple registration and required training course is "banning guns" (like some, not necessarily in this thread, seem to be saying).

 

While I agree that people should have training, it's difficult to enforce that policy as it violates the second amendment. In fact most gun laws do, registration included. However I understand the need for such laws. Times have changed and people are more ignorant then ever. I agree with the training and the need to register, I just hope that what happened during Katrina incident never happens again.