What's new
By:
Filters

Gun Control

Well, I couldn't read the whole thread; too much water under the bridge. But - I thought I'd post my POV and see what it stirs up.

Firstly, the argument "Guns don't kill people, PEOPLE kill people" is flawed. It takes no account of consequences and likelihoods. It's glib and too often quoted. Imagine the scenario where two armed people approach one another. One's the aggressor, the other just wants to finish his day. in Scenario One, they both have knives. Aggressor attacks with his knife, other defends with his knife. It's long, it's messy, and someone might actually give up and stop before there's a death.

Now make the weapons guns. I give you a maximum of five shots before there's at least one death. I also give you at least three ricocheting bullets either injuring or killing other people in the area. What about if only the defender has a gun? Out comes the knife, aggressor attacks... out comes the gun and BLAM - another life lost and still danger to the bystanders.

Now - I don't advocate a total ban on guns. It's (a) unachievable, and (b) inneffective... for reasons already given. i.e. people will get them anyway.

What you have to do is legislate to make it MUCH MUCH HARDER to come by guns LEGALLY. How does that help? Well, it means that some bozo can't go into a shop, put down his ID and $200, and walk away a week later with a gun. He has to go through checks, applications, system searches, suitability tests. He has to have a license and three referees "of reasonable standing" in the Community. and because guns are so hard to come by legally in this scenario, they're bloody expensive.

Next, you legislate to make it illegal to own, or posess, or even handle, a gun without one of those licenses. Next, you make it so that if someone buys a gun, they have to go to a different place to get ammo - a gun club or suitably licensed premises.

All these measures won't STOP illegal guns being around... and they won't STOP legal or illegal gun owners going nuts and blowing people to bits. But the measures will significantly reduce both gun ownership and deaths. That can only be a good thing.

Never forget - if someone attacks you, and you retaliate, that's not defence, it's counter-attack. It's also counter productive. If the weapons used are guns, the potential for loss of life and/or serious injury are VASTLY increased over other non-projectile weapons.
 
p.s. - to those who think of using a gun as "protection", it's rubbish. All they do is INFLAME. If you pull a gun on your attacker, what if he has one too? What if he killed three people this morning, and you've never killed? Could you even pull the trigger at a person? Gun's aren't a protection device, or a deterrent. They're a killing device, an attacking device, and they make violent situations MUCH more dangerous.
 
Well it seems using guns as protection for self is the main consensus behind your view. I'm a rural owner literally in middle of nowhere. The quickest a sheriff/trooper can get out here (If I can call them) is 30 minutes. So what do I do let the attacker go ahead and shoot me? Not all people carrying guns to rural areas intend to just rob. Of course I'll let them rob me (no property is worth my life) but what if they are a killer bent on killing me, I obviously cannot wait 30 minutes for someone else to handle the situation if confronted. They pull it on me I'll pull it on them, it's self defense. That's like asking someone of the law to not use guns to counter an attack by guns. Or asking a soldier to not use guns at all against those who choose to use them instead.

Also because I live on a huge ranch I have to control vicious animals like cougars/coyotes and limit population of rabbits. I've tried all humane ways to deter them but to "protect" animals (and young children) that cannot protect themselves (horses) I need to kill said vicious animals. If I called animal control to get the wild animals they'll just come out with gun themselves to shoot it so what's the difference of me doing it? I'm a skilled marksman (I don't hunt as sport) so it's always a clean shot and straight to kill a coyote, etc.
 
When someone calls at your ranch, at 3am, with a gun, hell bent on killing you. OK. Right. I can see the scenario now. Whoa, there, attacker! Wait a second! I'll just pop down to my gun cupboard, and fetch my rifle, then I'll go down to my ammo box and get some ammo, and then I'll load up and THEN we can have a gunfight, OK?

You're not telling me that living out in the countryside with virtually nothing to fear, you're going to keep a loaded rifle right there by your bed. And if it's a handgun? I return to my original point; it's not a weapon of defence and all that can come of it is deaths. In my view death (in this context) is A Bad Thing(tm) and is to be avoided by all concerned; how is a gun going to PREVENT deaths in a one-on-one?

I can understand the "control of predators" argument, absolutely. Farmers here are allowed guns with appropriate licenses, checks, balances and controls. But if they use 'em on a person... guess what? Our farmers don't keep loaded guns by their beds either; and there are VERY strict laws about where they can keep any firearm while it's not actually being used... and ammo MUST be kept separately from them and also under lock and key. All very sensible in my view - and while gun crime is getting worse here, it's at least an order of magnitude less than gun crime in the Good Old Yoo-Ess of Ay.
 
There's no way a perpretator can get in house unless I let them in. I answer the door at nights with a loaded rifle! During the day we have numerous employees as this is a full blown business ranch so some ranch hands can use "non-lethal" weapons such as pitchforks, the bulldozer?, machetes, and fence pliers!

All in all until I learn to swing a knife or some martial art skill all the strength to muster off an attack is a bullet coming out a gun. Plain and simple. That IS my protection on a ranch.
 
At the end of the day, Psi, there is no way to convince you. Guns are A Bad Thing(tm). You won't ever agree. I won't ever agree with you. People kill people, and guns make it a hell of a lot easier to do that. That, to me, qualifies them for Bad Thing(tm) status.

Notice also I haven't advocated banning them; I just want to make it a hell of a lot more difficult than walking into a store and saying "I'd like a gun please".
 
He-he ... I am feeling something especial when I am keeping gun in my hands.

Yep. It is Bad Thing but it is very seductive, it is acting like alcohol. Did You ever shot out full cartridge of AK-47 in some direction? That's so cool! That's like playing on the Stradivary's violin! :woohoo:

Anyway - killing peoples is BAD!
 
Let me get this you're saying NOBODY should use a gun in their home? What about an off-duty officer of the law? Would you tell that guy hey you're not on duty you can't use your gun for a "CRIMINAL". What is the difference? Are you saying the regular person that has paid dues, paid for classes, shouldn't use a gun at all? I've gone through educational classes for use of a gun and I do keep the guns locked in a safe, taken apart on 90% of them WITH trigger locks on ALL of them (and in safe), all unloaded, AND the bullets are locked in a completely different safe. All I'm saying I'll will go to ANY extreme to save human life be it my family or myself. Of course I'll tell the m-f-r that's bent on killing me to put down his weapon when I draw mine on him to give the chance of redemeption. But get this Stone if he fires or isn't going to put that down I'm popping him one....that's self defense (I'd like to see your definition of self-defense) because knife doesn't beat gun unless you're a seal or ninja. And like I said I would love to do anything other than but I can't, I don't have the necessary skills but I'm a good marksman. Now back to the officer. Should he turn in his gun in at night at the station? I still don't get your picture of WHOM should or should not have guns at all.
 
Average Joe in the street should not have guns unless he has a license. It should be stored as you say you store yours. Most people in the States with guns, unfortunately, don't bother with any secure storage at all, but keep their handgun in the kitchen drawer or some such idiotic nonsense.

The Police Officer who carries a gun as part of his duty should absolutely store his gun in the police station armoury under guard like all the other police forces in the world do. Are you saying that an off-duty police officer in the USA still carries his police firearm while he's not at work?!?!?! That's complete crazy talk. It opens up a humungous can of worms if he shoots someone while he's off duty - who will bear witness that he was justified in firing? If he's off duty, he has no policing rights or responsibilities, and absolutely should avoid policing work - he's off duty so that he can rest up for his next shift, for which he must be bright-eyed and bushy-tailed.

Like I said, all I would like to see, is a stop to "Could I have a gun please" followed by "Sure you can sir, that's one hundred dollars please". I would like to see some sort of responsibility involved in selling legal guns... at the moment in the States it's almost as simple as I say, and nowhere NEAR everyone is responsibly storing them like you do.
 
People who are legal to own guns in the US are not walking around with handguns. It is not a $100.00 for a handgun. Try more like $1000(559.134 GBP) Police officers are citizens of the United States and are entitled to carry a concealed weapon if they choose to and qualify to do so. Not all of them do. Also not all citizens of America choose to do so. There is many citizens who do not own firearms. This country don't have a gun store on every corner. I wish it did though, be easier to get it after I got my applications filled out and permits. That has a 14 day cool off period....

The United States has a contract with its citizens. This can not be broken by the government. Specifically it it our Second Amendment Right. We have the rights as citizens to bear arms. It does however don't give us the right to carry hidden guns. Act like an idiot with one and be dumb with one. IF your a nut a crook and other factors, you wiave this right. Concealed firearm permits..that is a privilege. Not everyone qualifies for this privilege.
Prior to purchase of any firearm in the united states an application is filled out. It is send to Washington DC and is checked by the FBI. Any criminal history, mental illness will disqualify you. There is others but it is not important to my point. You just can't buy handguns and firearms at the local corner store.


I grew up around firearms from since I can remember. I never never ever seen a gun in a silverware drawer or other drawer that was not intended for firearm storage. Gun in the US are sold with trigger locks by the way. This brings me to another point I would like to address.

Every state has different firearm laws. The one standard being handguns. You must apply and be accepted in a gun safety school. It has to be certified and you must pass the profiency to complete the course. Not cheap and not easy.

So in other words, Americans can carry handguns under their shirt if they have the privialage or credentials to do so.. The ones who will run around and just go bonkers are mostly weeded out. The crooks who have guns will not see the light of day for a long time. Most penalties for a conceal weapon without a permit are 5+ years in a state prison. It is not a federal crime. Unless you are comitting a federal crime.The ones who are proven able to control a firearm are not going to risk the right and have guns laying around. Plus gun woners may be voical thier rights, the yare however sometimes very smart indivuals. It is not the movies, and books. There is limited spaces were guns are not allowed to be carried. Unless you are a civil servant under oath to uphold the law. The one spot no one can carry a firearm is a jail.

There is a funny joke that comes to mind. You don't fart on a bus. You don't carry a gun on a bus. You don't fart on a bus carrying a gun. Then it will draw attention to you.

It is a social thing, and the edicate is very very sincere.

Americans are armed and have been armed from the beginning of the US. For a non American it seems barbaric. To an American it is part of us and only the criminals have the right to fear an armed person. The rest go hunting or don't flash guns like you would expect. We have jobs, we have families, we teach our young ones gun saftey. We are who we are.
 
"Average Joe in the street should not have guns unless he has a license. It should be stored as you say you store yours. Most people in the States with guns, unfortunately, don't bother with any secure storage at all, but keep their handgun in the kitchen drawer or some such idiotic nonsense."

I agree 100% with you stone. What we need is a national Law. I believe any person who wants to purchase a firearm should be required to take a NRA safety course. It's common sense.



" The Police Officer who carries a gun as part of his duty should absolutely store his gun in the police station armoury under guard like all the other police forces in the world do. Are you saying that an off-duty police officer in the USA still carries his police firearm while he's not at work?!?!?! That's complete crazy talk. It opens up a humungous can of worms if he shoots someone while he's off duty - who will bear witness that he was justified in firing? If he's off duty, he has no policing rights or responsibilities, and absolutely should avoid policing work - he's off duty so that he can rest up for his next shift, for which he must be bright-eyed and bushy-tailed."

Stone whether a police officer carries a weapon off duty is determined on the municipal level. This can vary from an officer being required to carry off duty, being up to the officer. I and not completely sure but I do not think any departments ban and active Officer from carrying a weapon off shift.

A Police Officer while on active duty is bound to up hold the law 24/7/365 they may be off shift but they are always duty bound. Imagine the public outcry if a citizen was being assaulted and an off duty officer walked by and ignored the situation.

"Like I said, all I would like to see, is a stop to "Could I have a gun please" followed by "Sure you can sir, that's one hundred dollars please". I would like to see some sort of responsibility involved in selling legal guns... at the moment in the States it's almost as simple as I say, and nowhere NEAR everyone is responsibly storing them like you do."

There are federal standards in place. They consist of these points:

* Those convicted of crimes punishable by imprisonment for over one year, except state misdemeanors punishable by two years or less.
* Fugitives from justice.
* Unlawful users of certain depressant, narcotic, or stimulant drugs.
* Those adjudicated as mental defectives or incompetents or those committed to any mental institution.
* Illegal aliens.
* Citizens who have renounced their citizenship.
* Those persons dishonorably discharged from the Armed Forces.
* Persons less than 18 years of age for the purchase of a shotgun or rifle.
* Persons less than 21 years of age for the purchase of a firearm that is other than a shotgun or rifle.
* Persons subject to a court order that restrains such persons from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner.
* Persons convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

State laws vary widely from a 3 day "cooling off period" to nothing at all. Handguns have different rules. I do believe there should be a national law with some type of training for the person who has never used a weapon however no law is going to stop a criminal intent on acquiring a gun from doing so. Gun laws only affect people who obey the law.
 
This gun question is a lot more complicated than the old "people kill people not guns" bumper sticker slogan. Guns are a way of life in America. It's part of our history. It's ingrained in the minds and hearts of millions of people around the country, and on top of that, it's a multi-million (or billion) dollar business, and I'm not just talking about selling guns and ammo and reloading equipment. There's a huge gun culture in this country today, and that culture is made up of many different kinds of individuals and well organized groups, (not just deer hunters and target shooters) and some of these groups are very powerful politically...the NRA for example.

Go to the bookstore and read through some of the articles in a few of these popular gun magazines and then come back here and tell me these people are well-balanced individuals. Some of their rationale and thinking borders on paranoia. There's one mag I read a few times which has a regular feature of alledgedly true stories where a gun owner or some kind of law enforcement person is in a shootout with a criminal, and the whole thing is designed to impress the reader with the gun owner's expert handling of the situation and his shooting skills. They even go into minute detail about what kind of ammo was used...the type and make of gun...how many shots were fired and what part of the body was hit..this is real people shooting at other real people here and it's being used to entertain folks. I've never seen anything remotely entertaining about killing people.

Then there are those letters to the mag readership from people like the editor or maybe the head of the NRA, and it mostly consists of an emotional rant about how the mean old pinko liberal Democrats (who are always portrayed as unpatriotic gun control advocates or traitors) are out to take everybody's gun away from them, which is just plain silly.

Their goal seems to be to vilify anyone who even suggests supporting sensible gun control. To hear them tell it, we should only support and vote for those in congress and elsewhere who do not support gun control..in other words..the right wingers in the Republican party. They remind me a little of these scary people who go around saying Christians should only vote Republican because the Republican Party most reflects what Jesus taught! Uh-huh, right. I guess Jesus would have belonged to the NRA too if they'd had guns 2,000 years ago in Palestine.

We will never have the kind of gun control they have in other countries like Canada, Australia, Europe, Japan, etc...this is America, and we're still hanging on to the Old West frontier mentality that's still a part of our culture. If you are not a convicted felon or a mentally ill person, you can go right across town here and pay 2 or 3 hundred dollars to some indoor shooting gallery/gun dealer place and go thru concealed carry classes and walk out of there with a loaded 40 cal. Glock auto under your jacket. That's a sobering thought when the guy in line in front of you at the Piggly Wiggly store might be packing a Glock 40!

I grew up with guns. I had my first one when I was 12 years old, and I bet I have owned at least 30 or 40 since then. I only have one now. I used to be a deer hunter, but I quit hunting because too many crazy badly trained (in gun safety) trigger happy people were in the woods. I've never wanted to own an AK-47 or an M-16 or some other type of assault rifle. What's the point? Do these people actually believe they'll wake up one morning and have to defend themselves against an invading force of foreign infantry which has somehow breached the borders of the US and is advancing behind heavy armor on their hometowns? That would be the only scenario where an assault rifle would be useful. Sounds like an episode on the Simpsons.

Guns are just another product which is in demand by the consumer, and the politicians are not going to do anything drastic which will negatively impact the sale of guns in America. Lot of other consumer items go along with guns...hunting clothes, boots, tents, camping gear, ATV's, animal calls, animal scents, body armor, gun accessories like nite lights, laser sights, trigger locks, gun cabinets, gun safes, gun cleaning kits, ammo pouches, ammo boxes, reloaders, then you have gun shows, gun clubs, gun mags, gun books, gun TV shows, gun movies, cowboy shooters which means you gotta have gun holsters, modern reproductions of antique six shooters...the list goes on and on...muzzle loaders for deer hunters...muskets for Civil War re-enactment buffs, etc....We yanks looooooooove our guns.
 
Well I see some good to the points of agreement here but I still disagree with officers turning their guns in at station. Rural officers like Sheriffs and Constables in small villages live faraway because houses are further apart. Are you going to make a single rural officer go from point A to point B (Station) to get his/her gun to go back to point A' (A prime that is near point A)? Explain your perspective of logic to save time if there was a need to have a gun.
 
Most police officers that carry off duty do so in order to protect themselves. Many of them have put hardened criminals behind bars, and they have most likely received multiple death threats from people who would most likely be very willing to carry the threat out.
 
Personally i think that gun control is for pussies and green peace ****s who dont even kno how to shoot a **** gun so if you want to take my ****in guns away your goona have to kill my redneck **** to get them so screw off **** :soldier: :beer:
 
Hot_Shizzle42 said:
Personally i think that gun control is for pussies and green peace ****s who dont even kno how to shoot a **** gun so if you want to take my ****in guns away your goona have to kill my redneck **** to get them so screw off **** :soldier: :beer:
Click to expand...

I'm just curious here, Shizzle42, but exactly which member of alien soup are you calling a "****?" Is this the way you talk to all the women in your life? I can see why you might need to carry a gun around if that's the case. Oh, and not everyone who is in favor of some type of sensible gun control are pussies or ****s. How old are you anyway? Does your mommy know you've been using bad words online? Naughty naughty. Just for that you have to go to bed with no din din and no Teddy.
 
Im calling green peace pussies a **** not anyone on here i like everyone on here if i was little i would hope i had a lab top in school cause they allow you to chat all day. Number one i have more guns then you have toes and fingers and i dont carry them around i have my permits and my hunting licenses all up to date. To preach to me about gun control i have been to the moon back on PETA are some ****s who need to shut the **** up them tree hugging ****s im from the farms of md and i dont take **** if you know what PETA is big adult man who talks on a teenager web site all day go back to your yahoo messanger porn and streaming video of *** farts ****!!!
 
now now. This is a debate about guns not about flaming each other. Try to keep your cool guys. However you did point out that some of us in this forum may own guns so I would like to hear from those that do if they:

A: use a gun safe
B: use trigger locks

I think half of those posting to this thread own guns.
I on one hand use only rifles and shotguns (Not a Quigley down under kind of guy) but only in that most of my usage of these weapons are on animal control at a distance. Any handgun that comes through estate sales usually get thrown into auctions. I do have a lot of antique rifles in safes (with trigger locks) that I don't even use at all and will probably auction them all off. I'll probably only keep a high powered rifle, shotgun and a 22 rifle. Yeah 22 is the most used is (it's a 10/22 Ruger Carbine Rifle). That's considered a less powerful rifle but it handles most critters with hollow point long rifle bullets.
 
:soldier: We have assembled the key facts at one site, Gun Control. For example, the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states,

"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."

Both sides agree that the final authority for interpreting the meaning of the Second Amendment of the Constitution (above) is the U.S. Supreme Court. A key case, according to both sides of the argument, is United States v. Miller 307 U.S. 174 (1939). In this case, the Supreme Court was asked whether the Second Amendment protected Miller's right not to register a "sawed off" shotgun, despite a federal law requiring it. The Supreme Court examined the original records of Congress to determine why the Second Amendment was written into the Constitution. They clarified the intent of the Second Amendment with this statement:

"The Constitution, as originally adopted, granted to the Congress power -- To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress. With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces, the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view."

The Supreme Court then ruled that Miller's shotgun was not for a militia-type purpose and that it therefore was not protected by the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court further explained that at the time the Second Amendment was adopted, Congress favored using the civilian population (adult males) as the State Militia for national defense rather than building an army of professional soldiers. The purpose of the Second Amendment was to support the national defense. Therefore, the only purpose for which owning and carrying a gun is protected under the Second Amendment is as part of "a well regulated militia," acting on behalf of the national government.

The NRA agreed that the Supreme Court ruling meant that only militia-type uses for guns are protected under the Second Amendment. However, the NRA has an additional interpretation of the ruling: Because the Supreme Court wrote about the purpose of the weapon, and did not specifically mention Miller's lack of membership in the military, the NRA therefore concludes that individuals not in the military have a right to bear arms, as long as they do so for a military purpose.

More recently, an individual right to bear arms was affirmed in the trial court of U.S. v Emerson, but overturned on appeal to the Fifth Circuit. Although Emerson lost the case, the NRA regards the opinions of two of the appellate judges as support for their position that the right to bear arms is an individual right.

Regarding the Emerson case, the Brady Center states, "This suggestion that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms is contrary to the holdings of the U.S. Supreme Court and every other federal appellate court to consider the issue."

According to Brady Center sources, Congress debated whether the Second Amendment should include the right of individuals to carry guns for personal reasons and decided to limit the Second Amendment to include only the right to bear arms for the military purposes, national defense.

To summarize, the Brady Center concludes that individuals do not have the right to keep and bear arms for personal uses under the Second Amendment since the Second Amendment's purpose is solely for national defense. The NRA, on the other hand, concludes that the Miller ruling supports the right of individuals to keep and bear arms, as long as they do so for a military purpose.


Do More Guns Mean More Deaths and Injuries?
The Brady Center argues that when the civilian population has more access to guns, more teens and children die from gun wounds. For example, during a year when over 5,000 teens and children died from gun wounds in the USA, in Great Britain, where gun ownership is very restricted, 19 teens and children died from gun wounds.

The Brady Center also argues for laws that promote gun safety, such as requiring child-proof locks on gun triggers. They have praised Smith and Wesson (gun maker) for starting to make guns with safety features. The Brady Center asserts that the public good is served by enacting laws that more carefully protect children from access to guns.

The basic reason NRA is against regulation of gun ownership is the belief that each piece of federal regulation will lead to more until finally, gun ownership will be very restricted. Research findings provided by the NRA conclude that gun ownership results in protection from crime. They argue that when more people have guns, crime rates are reduced. They argue that research results provided by the Brady Center and others in favor of gun controls are false or overstated.

The NRA is strongly against Smith and Wesson adding safety features to guns. The NRA's position is that if gun manufacturers build guns with safety features, then the federal government will start requiring those safety features. If the federal government requires safety features, that will provide momentum to the federal government for passing more regulations. :soldier:
 
Prox said:
Most police officers that carry off duty do so in order to protect themselves. Many of them have put hardened criminals behind bars, and they have most likely received multiple death threats from people who would most likely be very willing to carry the threat out.
Click to expand...

That's true of Police Officers in the UK too... but very VERY few police officers here carry firearms, and we seem to get by ok. NEXT!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top