Gun Law

[Glide]

Armed in AZ. It's my RIGHT. If you don't like it, don't come to my house. (more beer for me)

 

[OFFicerJACK]

You know, they say "If your criminalise carrying a gun, only criminals will have guns." Or something like that. But if you have an environment where crims are much less likely to have guns, then general people don't need one either.
In Australia, we don't have the right to have guns unless we are farming, and we have very little gun crime. In the US, you guys have rights to guns, and shitloads of gun crime. To be honest, if I lived in the US, I'd think about getting a gun.
Because your criminal are fucking evil, and are armed. There can be no turning back for the US, the floodgates are already open. If criminals had never had clean access to guns though, do you think the US would still be as heavily armed?
The problem in the US started long ago, and now it can't be fixed until everyone has a small, thermonuclear weapon stashed under their jacket. And yeah, it's an outsiders view, but for a country who generally leads the world, we worry about what the fuck you're doing.

You don't have to worry about us, it's the criminals who have a thermonuclear weapon stashed under their jacket that you have to worry about. We call them TERRORISTS! They've already tried that as a fix. I don't think you want to go there.

True, we have our own brand of terrorists. Remember the Unibomber, Timothy McVey and others? But they didn't use guns.

The World Trade Center was not brought down by a handgun or rifle.

By the way, guns for farmers? Why just them? What makes them more special than you?

 

[endymion]

Farmers need guns to shoot wildlife who threaten their livestock - dingos, kangaroos, wild dogs etc. And no-one that I know thinks "Damn, how come they get guns and I don't! That"s not fair!" because no-one I know would want the general public of Australia to be armed.
Duke, I think you've just actually helped me realise what I wasn't getting. See, I get the hamburger analogy. My thing is, I can't understand why anyone would WANT the right to own a gun. That makes no sense to me. I don't see the point for gun ownership unless you need a weapon, but if people who want to own one have the right to, then so be it, arm yourself to the teeth.

 

[Brianwp]

Ah, here's a good one for resurrection. I consider myself pretty liberal about most issues, but like Jack Bruce, "I support the left, but I'm leanin to the right" on this one.

First of all, we in the States still have the right to bear arms. I know we don't live in the 1700's anymore, or have a militia, but if they would make an amendment to the Constitution to change that, they could. But they haven't. It's like abortion. Every politician talks a big talk about it...but there's no politician that's going to murder his career and actually do anything about it. And the reason they would be murdering their career is that too many Americans want to keep their guns, and their abortions. It's all very fine to have superior ideals, but in the harsh light of the real world, it would be political suicide. We don't need any more rights stripped from us.

I own firearms mainly because I've hunted since I was young. I also like having a sidearm around for home defense. I've known a lot of other hunters in my lifetime, and none of them were the types to hold up the corner 7-11. They are respectful of weapons, and know how to handle them responsibly.

Switzerland is one country that does have a militia, and a lot of homes there have a fully automatic weapon in them. Yet they have one of the lowest crime rates in the world. I remember reading about two towns in the US...in one town, (in Michigan, I think), guns were banned by a local ordinance. In another town down south, a town ordinance ordered that every home had to have a firearm..and if they couldn't afford one, the town would help supply one. Well, guess what happened? In the gunless town in Michigan, the crime rate soared, while in the other town with guns, the crime rate dropped to zero! I mean...if you were a crook, would you go breaking into houses in a town where you knew everyone was armed?

Personally, I have no need of assault rifles, or teflon bullets, or any of that. So in a perfect world, I wouldn't mind them doing away with that. But the reason the NRA, and other groups like it fight against laws banning assault weapons, and all, is because if they take away assault rifles, that will make it easier to take away automatic rifles. And if they do that, next will be handguns, and on and on, till we're left with nothing. So, yes, this old hippie is on the side of the Marines on this one. Don't fuck with my guns.

 

[Snapper314]

The Second Ammendment is not about "Sporting Use" or "Home Defense".

The 2nd Ammendment was made to PRESERVE ALL OF THE OTHER AMMENDMENTS. They made it the 2nd for a reason (not the 5th, 6th or 8th). It was and is to ensure that OUR GOVERNMENT continues to be FOR and BY the PEOPLE. It is to ensure that Our Government never gets to powerful and unresponsive to the wishes and demands of The People.

Our founding fathers had just fought a long, hard, and bitter war to force out the old government that had stopped working For The People. They wanted to do everything possible to ensure that didn't have to happen again.

If you look at crime statisics, you will notice that those places with the most gun control laws usually also have some of the highest crime (Chicago, Washington D.C., New York City, ... the list goes on).

The fact is, Gun Control does not prevent crime or violence; CRIME CONTROL does! The problem is not the weapon or tool a Criminal chooses to use. The problem is the Criminal.

There are a lot of folks that don't trust their fellow citizens. These are usually the folks who favor gun control. They also usually want Government to make all of the hard decisions in their life.

:flipthebi

And since criminals Do Not Obey the Law, they usually won't care what kind of laws are passed!

 

[marquis]

The Second Ammendment is not about "Sporting Use" or "Home Defense".

The 2nd Ammendment was made to PRESERVE ALL OF THE OTHER AMMENDMENTS. They made it the 2nd for a reason (not the 5th, 6th or 8th). It was and is to ensure that OUR GOVERNMENT continues to be FOR and BY the PEOPLE. It is to ensure that Our Government never gets to powerful and unresponsive to the wishes and demands of The People.

Our founding fathers had just fought a long, hard, and bitter war to force out the old government that had stopped working For The People. They wanted to do everything possible to ensure that didn't have to happen again.

If you look at crime statisics, you will notice that those places with the most gun control laws usually also have some of the highest crime (Chicago, Washington D.C., New York City, ... the list goes on).

The fact is, Gun Control does not prevent crime or violence; CRIME CONTROL does! The problem is not the weapon or tool a Criminal chooses to use. The problem is the Criminal.

There are a lot of folks that don't trust their fellow citizens. These are usually the folks who favor gun control. They also usually want Government to make all of the hard decisions in their life.

:flipthebi

And since criminals Do Not Obey the Law, they usually won't care what kind of laws are passed!

There's some truth in what you say but it isn't THE truth.
From the very wording of the 2nd Amendment which BEGINS with a phrase about the militia it's clear that the purpose of the Amendment had nothing to do with private gun ownership but everything to do with securing an atmed force to serve the President (this was clarified by the Militia Acts)
But at the time there was never any restriction on gun ownership anyway except for the cost.Nor was there any restriction in the UK either and none was envisaged.So why did they even consider an Amendment at the time at all? Because it was simply a security measure.
There are those who arm themselves for protection and here we have a can of worms.Overall the statistics prove overwhelmingly that they offer very little protection but clearly there are occasions (which the gun lobby will trot out) where they do.The fact is though that in say cases of burglary more householders are shot in error by their own family members than by the criminals.
Why do the Swiss have a low gun crime rate despite full gun ownership?Probably because they see owning a gun as a reponsibility and not as a right.Guns are kept securely locked away.

 

[Brianwp]

That was a little confusing, marquis. First of all, the fact remains that there may have been a militia back then, but I don't think the writers were saying.."ok, you have the right to keep firearms to protect us". Since there was no real army in the early days of the Revolution, I think everyone knew they needed to have firearms. A rifle in those days, besides the militia, was as much an essential tool as an ax or a saw. Everyone knew that, they didn't need permission to hunt and defend themselves, uphold the peace, and defend themselves from slave uprisings. Nobody in their right mind would expect their citizens to wander around the New World without proper protection, or a way to hunt.

No, I think the framers were assuring the people that their right to own a firearm would never be taken from them. In the earlier years of the revolution leading up to the war, yes, the UK had no restrictions on gun ownership...for it's citizens. But Britain and the loyalists tried to push laws on the colonists to disarm them and stop all imports of firearms, for obvious reasons. The Second Amendment reassures us that this will not happen here.

"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"

Some see the first part of this statement as a "prefatory" or amplifying clause to the second part, as the "operative" clause. But the first part is simply explanatory, it justifies the right to bear arms, but it is not a pre-condition to that right. If you notice, the first part refers to the militia, but the right to bear arms is given in the second part to the people. In other words...

A well prepared and armed militia is necessary to our nation's security, and likewise, the same right to keep and bear arms shall not be taken from the people, either.

As far as the Swiss go, the guns may be locked away, but not from the owner who has the key. Sure, they see gun ownership as a responsibility. So do American gun owners. But before you have the responsibility of owning a gun, you have to have the right to own a gun. Hmmm? I think the Swiss know that, too.

 

[scoundrel]

Gun Control starts with society rather than with the law?

Now this is an interesting thread. I'm not posting with any pat answers but with an observation. I live in the UK, where the gun laws are draconian.

It is possible to have very little gun crime in a society which effectively prohibits gun ownership (UK) and is a society like Switzerland, where all adults have to do military service and all have service weapons. Both Switzerland and the UK are controlled societies: even in the fallen world of 2010, they both to a very considerable degree police themselves. This can be quite repressive and would be anathema to lovers of their own personal liberty, but it means that it is harder to do just as you please. It is this rather than guns or the lack of guns which influences crime levels, I think. However I would accept that levels of knife crime might go down if the crims could get their hands on guns instead. I don't want to imply that Britain is an exceptionally peaceful or crime free society: we Brits can be very naughty and are quite bad tempered...

We do get reports about how terrible our situation is, with street gangs armed like a Popular Liberation Front (to read the Daily Mail you would think these gangstas had an air force:snore::snore::snore but I note with great satisfaction that our police force never carries guns unless responding to an armed robbery or a similar incident where guns are known to be in play. This is at no small risk to their own lives, but it is the correct strategy to prevent street violence escalating. Here is a link to the British police national Roll of Honour 2009: in 2009, 12 policemen died on duty in the UK (we have a population exceeding 60 million). The breakdown:

• Killed in road traffic accidents: Seven
• Died of natural causes: Two
• Accidental death (guarding an unsafe road bridge which collapsed and killed him): One
• Died of head injuries sustained in pursuit of suspects: One
• Shot by armed criminals: One

Out of 12 deaths, one was gun related: this officer of the Police Service Northern Ireland was murdered by terrorists. Due to the special situation in Northern Ireland, the police there always carry guns, but this did not save Constable Carroll. His was a death related to our politics rather than to the routine social violence which police are normally required to deal with. As far as I can tell the officer who died of head injuries sustained them accidentally: the suspects ran away but did not try to harm him themselves.

My sincere condolences to the families of all 12 of these police officers: however, the list tends to show that Britain, Daily Mail notwithstanding, has her streets under control. For this reason I would vehemently oppose legalising handgun ownership here. Of course each nation must make its gun laws to suit its' own culture and values and the situation it lives with.

.

 

[Brianwp]

Well, in the US I found the following numbers...

Total Line of Duty Deaths: 126
9/11 related illness: 3
Accidental: 1
Aircraft accident: 4
Assault: 1
Automobile accident: 34
Duty related illness: 3
Gunfire: 47
Gunfire (Accidental): 2
Heart attack: 9
Motorcycle accident: 3
Struck by vehicle: 7
Vehicle pursuit: 3
Vehicular assault: 9

Which I would say isn't all that much worse for a country who in 2009 had 305 million people, or more than 5 times as many people as the UK. Of course, this is only police...not counting sheriffs, correctional officers, military police, etc.

Let's face it, America is a much younger country, and we're very adamant about our personal rights and freedoms. I mean...that's pretty much why we came here in the first place.

Also, the UK was pretty much explored and settled by the 1700's, but over here...we had a vast unexplored wilderness, full of dangerous wildlife as well as game, not to mention the Native Americans, along with the Spanish, Mexicans, etc. Then the Civil War, where over 500,000 Americans were killed. Then, of course, there were you guys...heh heh. So firearms have had a real importance in our survival. There are still fairly vast areas of the country where people live in near wilderness conditions, and firearms are still as pertinent as they were a hundred years ago.

The NRA is still one of the most wealthy and active lobbyist groups in Washington. A lot of politicians talk big, but the truth is, they don't want to give up those hunting trips for deer, moose, elk, antelope, bear, etc. any more than anyone else does. Down South where I now live, probably every other home has a shotgun or rifle or two. Hunting here is a young man's rite of passage. This ain't the wild west anymore, but truthfully...the law would have a real hard time trying to disarm Americans...especially in these parts.

 

[Brianwp]

Scounds, you said: "The USA is not my country and it's none of my damned business what Americans decide to do there"

Well, truthfully, between your replies on this and the "Is America a Christian Nation" threads, I would say you know more about the US than most Americans!:jawdrop:

Anyway, I agree with your observations, but I might enlighten you a little on your last paragraph. First, we do, of course, have restrictions on purchasing firearms. The laws vary from state to state, but most commonly your name is run through the FBI for any past arrest records. Some states also have waiting periods so a person has time to calm down if he wants to shoot his neighbor because his dog shit on his lawn.

Of course, fully automatic weapons have much, much stricter regulation. Fully automatic weapons cannot be imported, and if you buy one, it has to have been made and registered with the BATF prior to 1986. They're very expensive, and if you buy one it has to be done through a licensed dealer. They cannot be shipped or transferred across state lines without the proper paperwork, or through dealers.

When you're ready to buy, you have to get two sets of fingerprints, passport photos, forms and the FBI check. Then you have to pay a $200 transfer fee to the Treasury Dept. Then your records are sent to the BATF and reviewed, which can take anywhere from 50 to 90 days. You are then issued a tax stamp, a copy of which must accompany the weapon at all times. You can transport it to a range to shoot it, but there is no carrying permit allowed anywhere in the US.

Now, back to regular sidearms and longarms. Shooting a weapon is not exactly the same as driving a car, because you're not really supposed to be shooting on the street. Likewise for sighting or inspecting guns...that's up to you. If you want to hit something, you'd best sight it in. Hunting is another matter...each state has their own hunting licenses, which involves a whole other set of rules, and to get one (unless you're past military), you usually have to pass a hunter safety course. Except for Dick Cheney.

As far as the NRA goes, they do promote safe gun handling, and have free courses both in gun handling and marksmanship, as well as safe hunting. They also hold classes for law enforcement. So, all in all, we really don't just run around shooting shit up willy-nilly. Again, except for Dick Cheney.

 

[scoundrel]

Scounds, you said: "The USA is not my country and it's none of my damned business what Americans decide to do there"

Well, truthfully, between your replies on this and the "Is America a Christian Nation" threads, I would say you know more about the US than most Americans!:jawdrop:

I will admit to being a bit of a fan of things American and I do take a close interest in what goes on there, but I will also admit that I have never yet visited the United States and my sources of information aren't always unimpeachable...

Just another day at the Mall.

Conflict resolution techniques.

So this stuff isn't documentary realism?

 

[Sam Spade]

I hate guns, i hate gun nuts, in today's society they are nothing more than penis extensions for the inadequate .

If you support the right to bear arms then you forfeit the right to bitch and moan when some loon armed to the teeth walks into a school and starts blasting away at the children.

The west ain't wild any more.


We will not progress as a species until we stop the blood lust.

Oh yeah, i hate hunters too.

​

 

[Brianwp]

Ok, fair enough, Sam. But tell us how you really feel...

Still sounds funny coming from a guy with a side by side in his hand...no, don't change it...I love that picture!

But I disagree with the part about bitching when somebody shoots up a school. A gun is a tool like a knife or a hammer or even a car. I support the right to drive, and so do you...but you're not going to ban cars because they kill people...far, far more people than guns, I might add.

I have no desire to ever have to kill another person with a gun. It's a thing like a fire extinguisher...you hope you never have to use it. But if you're home alone tonight, and you wake up late to hear someone moving around downstairs in the kitchen, or climbing the stairs, or turning the doorknob on your bedroom door...you might suddenly have a change of mind about owning a gun. Unless you sleep with a crossbow next to the bed.

 

[izzystradlin]

A gun is tool? No offense mate, but tell me one practical use for a Handgun.....
Practical meaning something you can use it for in everyday life. Swinging a Hammer, driving a Car ect. Keeping one stashed under your pillow so someone with the same thing doesn't get you first isn't that practical. Guns are good for shooting things. That's all.

Does someone get hurt every time a Car is used? Someone doesn't get hurt every time a Gun is used but I think you get my point.
Guns will always be around in the US because they make a lot of money.

 

[marquis]

Ok, fair enough, Sam. But tell us how you really feel...

Still sounds funny coming from a guy with a side by side in his hand...no, don't change it...I love that picture!

But I disagree with the part about bitching when somebody shoots up a school. A gun is a tool like a knife or a hammer or even a car. I support the right to drive, and so do you...but you're not going to ban cars because they kill people...far, far more people than guns, I might add.

I have no desire to ever have to kill another person with a gun. It's a thing like a fire extinguisher...you hope you never have to use it. But if you're home alone tonight, and you wake up late to hear someone moving around downstairs in the kitchen, or climbing the stairs, or turning the doorknob on your bedroom door...you might suddenly have a change of mind about owning a gun. Unless you sleep with a crossbow next to the bed.

I'm afraid you have either missed or avoided the point.A car or fire extinguisher and a hammer are tools specifically designed to be useful and enhance life.A gun is specifically designed to do harm.Certainly the intentions of the user come into things but you must question the motives of those who buy a gun against those who buy a car or fire extinguisher.
As for offering protection this is generally (but of course not always) illusory.Overall experience demonstrates that far from giving protection it increases the risk.One factor is-what does the other guy do if he knows you're armed? HE is carrying for his own protection too.It's simply raised the stakes in a confrontation.
As for
" wake up late to hear someone moving around downstairs in the kitchen, or climbing the stairs, or turning the doorknob on your bedroom door...you might suddenly have a change of mind about owning a gun"
I hope you haven't a son who might arrive home unexpectadly not wishing to wake you up.I hope you haven't got kids going for the cookie jar.Because it's a firm statistical fact that far more family members get killed like this than do burglars or other intruders.

 

[scoundrel]

As for
" wake up late to hear someone moving around downstairs in the kitchen, or climbing the stairs, or turning the doorknob on your bedroom door...you might suddenly have a change of mind about owning a gun"
I hope you haven't a son who might arrive home unexpectadly not wishing to wake you up.I hope you haven't got kids going for the cookie jar.Because it's a firm statistical fact that far more family members get killed like this than do burglars or other intruders.

I find this distressing idea credible but since you say "firm statistical fact" I am a little curious to know the statistics and where they come from?

 

[luddite]

I still remember seeing an interview on 20/20 with a woman in Texas who was very upset because some nut with a gun came into a restaurant, shot her parents and several other people, and none of the law abiding citizens had guns with them because Texas law made them leave their handguns in their cars.
No law can stop a nut, but it can prevent you from defending yourself.
Ther were three shootings in schools in Montreal, Quebec and all the guns were legally bought and registered.
In Canada, a large part of the population wants the Natioal Gun Registry to stop because it is so expensive (Over 1 Billion pissed away) and ineffective.

 

[Sam Spade]

Ok, fair enough, Sam. But tell us how you really feel...

Still sounds funny coming from a guy with a side by side in his hand...no, don't change it...I love that picture!

But I disagree with the part about bitching when somebody shoots up a school. A gun is a tool like a knife or a hammer or even a car. I support the right to drive, and so do you...but you're not going to ban cars because they kill people...far, far more people than guns, I might add.

I have no desire to ever have to kill another person with a gun. It's a thing like a fire extinguisher...you hope you never have to use it. But if you're home alone tonight, and you wake up late to hear someone moving around downstairs in the kitchen, or climbing the stairs, or turning the doorknob on your bedroom door...you might suddenly have a change of mind about owning a gun. Unless you sleep with a crossbow next to the bed.

Cars are not designed to kill, nor is a hammer, or a baseball bat, guns are.

Cars, hammers and baseball bats all have other, necessary functions, guns do not.

I remember an incident used as an argument against gun ownership.

A guy goes to bed the night before his birthday, his teenage daughter (16 - 17 year old, i think) is out, staying at a friends house, dad awakes and hears a noise downstairs, he knows it must be an intruder as his wife is beside him in bed and his daughter is out, he grabs his gun, creeps to the top of the stairs and on seeing a movement at the bottom blasts away, on turning on the light he sees his daughter lying dead in the hall, she had decided to come home in the early hours so that she could surprise her dad.

Now every time he celebrates his birthday he must also mourn his daughter.

And how many "little Timmys" find dads gun in the bedside drawer and decide to play cops and robbers with their little friend, or their little sister, and then spread their brains across the bedroom wall?

Guns are designed to kill.

Humans are an aggressive species.

Not a good mix.

On a sick side note, i do have a good laugh when i hear that a hunter has shot himself or another hunter by mistake.

Same as when a matador gets gored, or a huntsman falls off a horse and gets injured.

 

[marquis]

I still remember seeing an interview on 20/20 with a woman in Texas who was very upset because some nut with a gun came into a restaurant, shot her parents and several other people, and none of the law abiding citizens had guns with them because Texas law made them leave their handguns in their cars.
No law can stop a nut, but it can prevent you from defending yourself.
Ther were three shootings in schools in Montreal, Quebec and all the guns were legally bought and registered.
In Canada, a large part of the population wants the Natioal Gun Registry to stop because it is so expensive (Over 1 Billion pissed away) and ineffective.

There's a wise old saying that hard cases make bad law.
Not asking how the gunman in the restaurant acquired his weapon but to justify arming the population because some nut might come into a room and blast away is just a little excessive.I said there are cases where being armed is of benefit but in the actual world it results in more not fewer deaths.It might seem counter intuitive; you feel safer with a lump of metal available but it leaves what the other guy or guys can do out of the equation.
To put things in perspective, I live in a county with over a million people.In 2008 there were just eight recorded illegal gunshots and no injuries.

 

[scoundrel]

Policy on gun ownership is one of those emotive issues where it is really impossible to take an official line which will not be unacceptable to a sizeable group of dissenters, no matter how hard you try to follow a line of pragmatic common sense. Some of the influential opinons on both sides of the argument are based on gut feeling rather than reasoned logic.

This is one reason why each country or state or self-governing community must be allowed to frame rules which a majority of the people there can accept, and no outsider can justly claim that they know better what another group of people should be doing. In the UK, I am totally opposed to ordinary citizens having hand guns. I do think our laws have erred where sportsmen representing the UK at the Olympic Games or England, Scotland or Wales at the Commonwealth Games are forbidden to keep a weapon or practise with it on UK soil and have to go abroad before they can even take a weapon out of a locked gun-safe. That sort of irrational overkill brings the law into disrepute.

Yet horrendous killing sprees and individual murders have occurred here and the guns were legally held by cowardly scum who would have been toothless worms had they not had access to these weapons. At least with a knife or a blunt instrument such as a baseball bat, you are much less powerful, your victim is not quite as helpless. It takes more courage to murder in this way: the Thomas Hamiltons and Michael Ryans of this world just wouldn't dare try it. Even if they did, they would never manage to clock up the awful tally which they did clock up. We British banned hand weapons to remove temptation from such disgusting people and it was feared that sports clubs would be a source and a weakness: a malign person could join, smuggle his weapon past security into the outside world, then run amok. No thank you.

I don't share Sam's take on hunting though. That's a whole seperate conversation. I myself have never killed an animal. But if I opposed all hunting I should also be a vegetarian. Hunting is nature's way and we humans are part of nature, not detached from it. I would merely say if you kill it, you should eat it, unless it's vermin. Hunters enjoy their sport and that's also nature's way, but I would never ever kill something merely for the fun of it, always to eat what I kill. This is why I hate riding to hounds (fox hunting), hare coursing, so-called bull fighting and other such blood sports, where the animal is killed only for the pleasure of those who kill it or an audience. But deer hunters and their ilk are engaged in a legitimate activity. There's no reason to hold it against them.