Gun control

[protege]

Since nobody started a thread on this yet... In light of the recent killings at Virginia Tech, what do you all think?

Advocates for it would have you believe that simply having a gun is dangerous. That is, "guns kill people." By that logic, shouldn't cars (which can also kill people) be subject to controls as well? A gun, like a car is just a tool. It does, whatever the person controlling it *tells* it to do. With that said, i think the responsibility should go on the head of the person in charge of the object--it doesn't belong anywhere else; not the victim, not the manufacturer...nobody else but the person holding it.

If anyone is wondering, I grew up in a household that had firearms. Both my father, and grandfather had rifles and shotguns. Did they kill anyone? Nope. All of their guns were for hunting...or if someone was to break in, they'd find themselves on the wrong end of a shotgun! Since there were always kids around, Dad kept his guns locked up, and the ammo locked up in a separate place. Even so, I was taught to respect firearms, and their power.

With that said, I don't think gun control is a good idea. No matter how strict it becomes, criminals will always find a way around it. Whereas, the law-abiding citizen who wants a gun for hunting or protection will suffer delays simply because they choose to obey the law.

[Boozy]

With that said, I don't think gun control is a good idea. No matter how strict it becomes, criminals will always find a way around it.

This has always struck me as a weak and silly argument. Watch what I can do with it:

"Crack cocaine should be made legal, because criminals can always find a way to get it anyway."

Before you all jump down my throat, I am not claiming that guns are the equivalent of crack cocaine. I am only saying that the availability of something on the black market shouldn't be a factor in deciding as a society what we find acceptable and unacceptable. Gun rights advocates would be well-advised to stop using this argument and focus on more solid proofs.

[squall]

"Crack cocaine should be made legal, because criminals can always find a way to get it anyway."

Amazingly I have seen this defense used on here repeatedly on other threads. I fail to see why people advocate this as a viable defense when the effects of implementing an action would be worse than controlling the problem. For such radical gun control, one of our primary bill of rights laws would have to changed or amended. Finding anybody in any branch of the US government who would advocate that would be a monumental task. I am all for using guns as self-defense, and certainly hunting if you live in an area far from any available resources. Do I think guns should be illegal like in Britain? Not really.

[AFPheonix]

I definitely think there should be restrictions on guns, perhaps even a more than there are now.
I also think there should definitely be more restrictions on the venues where one can purchase guns. We do that for hard alcohol, why not weaponry?
I also think that some types of guns, like military-style ones, should NOT be in the hands of citizens.

Yes, I realize that there's a lot of shooting enthusiasts on this board. Guess what, there's a gun cabinet 2 feet behind me with a rifle of my own in it. But I also realize that these suckers are ultimately meant for one thing, and one thing only: killing shit. Yeah, other things can and are used to kill people too, like knives, but stabbing people is not their primary use. Preparing tasty food is their primary use. They are a great tool when used appropriately, but I honestly think it's waaay too easy for freaks to get ahold of them at this point.
Think about it. We sell lethal weapons at freakin' WAL-MART. Let that sink in for a minute.

[rahmota]

Protege: Sorry about that I have been trying to formalize my thoughts on this. BUt I'll go on ahead and throw a few things out that are on the top of my head right now and maybe try and pretty up my words later.

First off let me caveat things by saying I am an NRA lifetime member and have been since I was 16. I grew up in a rural area where firearms are common and acceptable. I have seen people walking down the middle of the local town's main street at high noon with shotguns across their back and the local cop just stop and talk to them about what they got during deer season. My father was US Military and was very involved in my learning about firearms and their safe usage. I collect firearms and will be getting my concealed carry as soon as there is an opening in the classes (which in my area has a back log until june) for me to do so. I wish I was rich enough to get a class 3 liscence and build a much larger collection.

Okay that out of the way let me start.

First off yes the whole criminals will always have firearms because they dont obey laws is a rather weak argument but it is also a valid one in many ways. Why? Because first off they ARE criminals. Removing a person's ability to defend themselves from criminals gives the criminals an edge over common people. TO anyone in britain banning firearms has done what to the level of violent crimes being perpetrated over there?

As has been shown multiple times a person who is determined to do harm to another will find a way to do so. Firearms or not. Also criminalizing firearms is a way of takign power away from its citizens. A government that starts removing power from its law abiding citizens is a government that should be feared and if need be revamped or removed.

It isnt so much a matter of making or keeping something legal because the illegal people would have it it is more of a leveling the playing field issue.

Also firearms serve more than just the prime purpose of killing. Yes that is what they are designed for, that is what they where invented and refined over the centuries for. But there are some that are as much a piece of artwork as well as a fine functional machine. Think of some of the classic sports cars, rolls and such. There is also the historical value of some pieces. A classic colt peacemaker that helped tame (or wild) up the old west would have a value as well.

Sometimes it is just enough of a deterrence to know or suspect that a person is armed. Deterring a crime is better than even having to actively defend oneself.

As for the availability with firearms. I see nothign wrong with where they are being sold. In many ways I am disgusted by how many people are trying to make it impossible or insanely difficult to access firearms. I am quite unhappy that they used to be sold in Wal-Mart here. Notte I said used to be sold in walmart. Thanks to the nanny state whiners Wal-mart decided to just wash their hands of the BS and stop selling firearms in Ohio. Sucky indeed. Not far from me there is a gas station/quickie mart that has a firearms/hunting supplies/fishing section. I like that. There is nothign wrong with that. As far as I know this place has NEVER been robbed, held up or broken into. The owner carries a ruger .357 on his hip and has a short barrel mossberg under the counter. This is common knowledge and his station is one the sheriff's stop at and have coffee at and consider a safe hang out. I wish more gas stations where like that.

As long as the proper checks and balances are in place. A background check that is then thrown away (NO FIREARM REGISTY for the GESTAPO to have on hand) as well as age controls is good enough. Personally I would not be upset with mandatory firearms ownership required for all citizens. And I have to disagree that it is NOT too easy to get firearms. There are too many hoops, lopps, and BS to jump through to get one for just any freak to be able to stroll in and get one. I'm starting to get into black powder and it at least still just requires a driver's liscence to purchase. I am hoping that the anti-firearm nuts don't ruin that.

Of course along with firearm ownership is the need for training, education and knowledge of how to be responsible. This is why I think there should be mandatory firearm training courses in high school. Whether the person agrees to firearms , uses them or whatever. This is one of the few ways that the truth about firearms can be taught to people given how many lies and misconceptions hollywood promotes about them, also counteracting the lack of involvement or outright antifirearms propaganda many parents do.

I am sorry if some of this doesnt make sense or is kinda rambling but it is the way I feel. Firearms is one of the prime parts of the foundations of a free citizenry. An armed populace is a safe populace. Safe from their government and safe from those who would do them harm. It is the ultimate check to tyrrany of the masses, of the government and of the criminals. All a firearm is is a cold lump of steel and plastic. It cannot think, it cannot feel it cannot decide anythign on its own. It is the human holding it that has the mind. Has the will to do or not do harm. By criminalizing the item it does nothign to the thoughts, the actions done with that item. Or the things that caused the pain.

To touch on the virginia tech problems. This guy does not seem to be evil. It seems to me like he was pushed down and away and disenfranchised by society. He succummed to jealosy, anger and hatred of those more affluent or powerful than him. And he responded with the way, the only way for many. He used violence. If he had not had access to firearms he still probably would hav edone something. It may not have had as many deaths but it still would have been a tragedy.

[Rapscallion]

Okay, this is going to be interesting.

First off, I'm from the UK, and we have strict gun laws over here. After Dunblane (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunblane and scroll down a bit for the massacre - we've got fuckwits with guns too), the government put in laws to ban weapons of certain sizes etc. Of course, there was an amnesty, and the number of illegally held weapons handed in was minimal. The only people to hand their weapons in were people who were previously law-abiding. Shotguns and the like are still legal, but you've got to prove you have a reason for them. Our olympic shooting team was immediately unable to practice.

Illegal weapons were conspicuously not visible in the stuff handed in - there were some, including some souvenirs from soldiers who had served abroad - but the average 'gangsta' wasn't really willing to part with his moronity of choice. It was mostly knives back then. Guns were a rarity on the British streets, and comparatively they still are. There are more these days, mostly because of 'urban' (hah - a weasel of a word if ever I heard one) culture (a misnomer if I ever heard one).

Comparing guns to cars doesn't really work. A car is designed to move a person or people from one place to another without hitting anything on the way. People dying from use of a car is usually an accident. A gun is designed with the express purpose of sending a projectile at high speed in the direction of a target with the aim of hitting it. That is a gun's sole purpose. People dying as the result of a gun being used is generally a genuine act.

Sure, there is target shooting, but that evolved from the very origins of the weapon. Initially, all projectile weapons were conceived for either hunting or killing of other humans - it's unknowable which came first. I suspect hunting, but I have no evidence. It became primarily a weapon a person could use at a distance on other humans with minimal danger to him or herself.

A gun is designed to hit or kill. Practice ranged with targets and target shooting competitions? They're just a byproduct of the need to kill. Hunting with ranged weapons? Sure, a genuine use, but the aim is once again to kill.

There's no getting away from it - a gun was designed from the express purpose of killing or wounding.

Moving on - should said guns be restricted or not? I think the answer, from the perspective of a Brit, is simple - fuck yeah!

Switzerland has a higher number of guns per head than the US, and I think that Canada has as well. However, you can be certain that there is far less gun crime in either of those countries. Why is this? Culture.

Canadian culture hasn't embraced the image of a 'gangsta' (i'm going to say idiot or thug from here on) going down in a hail of bullets as glorious as the thug culture portrays it. However, there is a huge swathe of credence given to that idea by American culture. Switzerland? Very polite people, but not given over to thug culture.

Young people in America are given an image of guns being right and a means of solving a problem. Sure. they're great in a war, which is a problem, but someone from your social standing not giving you "'spec" is not something worth shooting them for. There's a huge lack of proportion in this. "You be disrespetin' me" is a common claim (and that's a gerund that should never have been born), but the idiots saying things like that think that a gun will make things better and that they will get respect for shooting the other person. The other part of the problem is that they will gain respect from their idiot peers.

Why do they get this? Mostly because they are spoiled. Sure, we're talking about people in ghettos for the most part, and the vast majority are considered to be in poverty. I saw a classic debate on television that exposes this for what it is - a campaigner against poverty was saying that ten percent of the population were living in poverty according to figures from his organisation, and he was asked how he defined poverty. The answer was the bottom ten percent of the population in terms of wealth. By those standards, there would always be a group who were in poverty even if they lived in mansions.

People in general have it too easy these days. Welfare/social security is a safe blanket for them - they aren't going to starve as long as they stayed in school long enough to read and write so they can fill in the correct forms. There will be a roof over their heads, no matter how crappy, and there are homeless shelters if they are desperate. If they want to get a better income, they can do what they were told in school - study.

Look at the situation a mere 150 years ago in the UK - Victorian times. Genuine poverty reigned amongst the lower classes. There were poorhouses, but you were expected to work your arse off and suffer for the privelege. Things weren't easy. Think about back in the great depression in the US - people had it genuinely rough back then. Now? Feh - don't make me laugh. Those children in the ghettos (colour of skin is not important, and there is a mix) don't know when they have it good. Yes, there are shitty jobs, but there are jobs. The cursing out coworkers sections proves that idiots can get basic jobs.

Until we change the attitude that the world owes the scum class - the ones who think guns are the answer to their problems - there will be idiocy. I'm not just talking about the apeshits in schools, but the general gun crime where people get shot singly. Until society can get rid of the self-indulgent bling culture, and get some form of pride instilled in people, then people cannot be trusted with guns. Sure, law enforcement and military need them, as well as people out in the boonies to defend from wild animals, but nobody else does need them.

"An armed society is a polite society."

Really? Go to the ghettos and ask if that's the case.

"Guns don't kill people."

True, people kill people. With bullets. Fired from guns. It's safer than getting close with a knife, eh?

"We have a constitutional right!"

Do you bollocks.

"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."

That says a militia is necessary and that the people (note the capitalisation, signifying a group of people, not individuals) need guns for security. America has a standing army, one of the largest in the world. Does anyone really expect to be called upon to be in a militia? Thought not.

When the police are in a shootout situation and people come along offering to help, are they accepted? Thought not. Where the frag is the militia then?

Put down the guns and make people grow up. You don't actually need them.

Rapscallion

[rahmota]

Wow Raps and I thought I was cynical and bitter.

Hmmm. Well I have to disagree with most of what you said. Especially about the uselessness or how people do not need firearms. Actually most of what you said I disagree with except the cultural issue.

Yes hollywood is guilty of glamorizing the gun battle, gangsta culture. That is something that would have to be changed. However the firearm is a major part of American culture. It has helped tame, build and otherwise defend this country and her people. The image of the lone gunslinger standing up for justice is an iconic one in this country. Unfortunately one that has been perverted by the gangsta culture. And what passes for justice on the streets is mainly just plain ego tripping. This is why the problem must be attacked form the roots.

That is one reason why compulsory high school firearms safety education should be in all schools. Teaching a person the truth about firearms safety and how to be responsible. I know this would be like bailing the atlantic in some cases but I do firmly believe that society and people can learn to behave appropriately if given half a chance.

This is also one reason why "rehabilitation" in the american justice system shold be forgotten and we go back to the punishment of criminals. The firearm is not the problem. It is merely a tool. The person holding the tool is the one that makes the choice to do or not do harm. If they choose to do harm then they should be punished for it. If the person is punished in such a manner as they would not wish to return to that punishment then they will be rehabilitated by not wanting to be punished again.

What is funny is if you look at statistics about murder and such in the old west there where a lot fewer firearm crimes than what hollywood portrays. And in the old west almost everyone had a firearm of some sort. This is because if you committed a crime you got punished for it, in many cases a nice rope dance would be the result of a murder. We need to go back to that sort of criminal justice system.

Change either comes from within because they want to or from the outside becuase something or someone else forces them.

In many ways I don't think the social services are as big a problem as what you are saying and calling them. True there are some who abuse the system but there are also a majority of people who need them thanks to not being able to achieve what our society calls middle class even. I mean there are members of our armed forces with families that are on food stamps thanks to corporate america's greed. So social services are not the free ride lazy way out for the majority of people but something they need just to survive and try and take care of their families. Not everyone can succeed just by studying and working hard and all that. Especially when corporations and the rich and elite have the tables and deck stacked against those they dont want in their little club. I can see why the guy in VT may have felt pushed against the wall and hopeless. I may not agree with what he did but I can see and understand it. Understand it is not always the fault of the poor and unemployed that they are in the position they are in.

But back to firearms. I say that firearms are a useful, in many cases necessary tool. I would not be uncomfortable living in a state where the citizens are trained and taught to be responsible with firearms and required to own firearms. And in many ways yes it would be a more safe society than one with a hodgepodge of anti-freedom laws. Personally I would like it where people have the right to have ANY class of firearm up to and including military hardware. It is not the tool that is the problem it is what is done with that tool that is the problem.

Which BTW the militia is defined in the Uniform Code Of Military Justice as all adult free males. (Not the exact wording but I don't have my copy of the UCMJ handy) This goes back to the colonial days. Which means that all individual people are members of the militia so it is a recognized and accepted part of our countries laws , for most people except the pansies that want to deny people their rights, that individuals have the right to keep and bear arms. All of the military personnel I associate with agree with this assessment. None of the military personnel I associate with favor firearms control in anyway shape or form other than firearm control means hitting your target. Also the militia and the publics right to keep and bear arms was an insurance policy against political tyranny the founding fathers agreed was needed after the excesses of the british kings. I happen to agree with that assessment. A governemnt that removes the right of its people to defend themselves is a government that is willing to do great harm against its people.

So in closing here, Firearms are a tool. Nothing more.

NRA forever!

[Boozy]

I have to disagree that it is NOT too easy to get firearms. There are too many hoops, lopps, and BS to jump through to get one for just any freak to be able to stroll in and get one.

"After showing a government issued photo ID and a driver's license to prove his Virginia residency, Cho Seung-Hui charged $571 on a credit card and walked out of Roanoke Firearms with a new 9 mm Glock 19 and 50 rounds of ammunition." - CBS News

His background check took thirty seconds.

[rahmota]

Ok so the system worked. There was nothign in his background to indicate that there was a reason to deny him a firearm. I see no problem with what you just posted boozy.

[squall]

I think mandatory firearm safety classes would be about as effective as abstinence education. The people who intend to misuse firearms (the urban culture, insane nuts) will be just as likely to misuse them afterwards. Amazing how threat of imprisonment and even death penalty does little to deter someone determined to kill somebody else. I feel like the situation that happened at Virginia Tech was very much unavoidable. This guy had nonspecific threats below surface level. No gun shop owner can immediately dredge up the psychological profile of a complete stranger who seems regular and has committed no violent crime. He went through the correct procedures to obtain his guns. Maybe records of his stalking should be taken into consideration before giving him a handgun. No matter what measures we take, somebody will always slip through the cracks. I think any amount of controls we take are hopeless. Britain has a good idea, but our country is too laden with guns at this point to really expect it to just let them go. I'd imagine people would protect their right to carry their firearm....with their firearm.

[rahmota]

One other thing I forgot to touch on in my earlier posts that I firmly and devoutly believe. If there had been armed students willing to act appropriately and responsibly at VT then the tragedy would have been stopped a lot sooner with a lot fewer deaths.

Squall: I will agree that a person determined to do harm and who no longer cares about their own or societies welfare will not be stopped or detered easily.That is one reason why we need more people armed, more right to carry laws enacted so that people who are responsible and law abiding are able to defend themselves in a case like this. Like I said if there had been armed students facing cho then his rampage would have been stopped dead in its tracks. And it would have been tragic still but not to the same proportion.

And as for Cho himself. He had not done anythign severe enough to warrent being in the system. The system worked. Yes stalking is a threat but if the person he was stalking was armed then he might have decided not to stalk them or he would have done somethign and they would have been forced to defend themselves and he would be dead. Either way it is a win-win scenario for everyone except cho who would still be a troubled person unless someone cared enough to intervene and help him. And the government already keeps too many records on people, there are already too many nannies in power trying to repress and homogolize and destroy individual freedoms and rights. We do not need anythign else added to a person's records.

Britain does not have the right idea in this regards I am sorry to say. Emasculating and removing a citizens ability to defend themselves and their family from aggressors or oppressors is wrong on so many levels. An armed person is able to remove threats to themselves, their family, and their property.

Also you are quite correct in how I for one would defend my right to bear arms. Anyone who comes for my firearms will get them barrel first. Death before disarmament! For if the government tries to deprive their citizens of firearms that is the first step in depriving them of other fundamental rights. One of the reasons this country was founded was to get away from such abuses of governmental powers and why the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms is a fundamental part of our constitutional limits on our governments powers. We have way too many firearms restrictions in this country as it is. A truely responsible person does not need their government, their church or anyone else to think for them.

[Rapscallion]

Wow Raps and I thought I was cynical and bitter.

I've had more practice

Hmmm. Well I have to disagree with most of what you said. Especially about the uselessness or how people do not need firearms. Actually most of what you said I disagree with except the cultural issue.

Yes hollywood is guilty of glamorizing the gun battle, gangsta culture. That is something that would have to be changed. However the firearm is a major part of American culture. It has helped tame, build and otherwise defend this country and her people. The image of the lone gunslinger standing up for justice is an iconic one in this country. Unfortunately one that has been perverted by the gangsta culture. And what passes for justice on the streets is mainly just plain ego tripping. This is why the problem must be attacked form the roots.

You just agreed with my main point. Canada and Switzerland have huge amounts of weaponry, but they don't have the apeshits. Society needs to evolve.

That is one reason why compulsory high school firearms safety education should be in all schools. Teaching a person the truth about firearms safety and how to be responsible. I know this would be like bailing the atlantic in some cases but I do firmly believe that society and people can learn to behave appropriately if given half a chance.

How about simply teaching people that guns are dangerous, rather than that and how to use them? The truth is that guns are there to kill.

In many ways I don't think the social services are as big a problem as what you are saying and calling them. True there are some who abuse the system but there are also a majority of people who need them thanks to not being able to achieve what our society calls middle class even. I mean there are members of our armed forces with families that are on food stamps thanks to corporate america's greed. So social services are not the free ride lazy way out for the majority of people but something they need just to survive and try and take care of their families. Not everyone can succeed just by studying and working hard and all that. Especially when corporations and the rich and elite have the tables and deck stacked against those they dont want in their little club. I can see why the guy in VT may have felt pushed against the wall and hopeless. I may not agree with what he did but I can see and understand it. Understand it is not always the fault of the poor and unemployed that they are in the position they are in.

You missed my point, I'm afraid. I'm not saying it's necessary, but I am saying that people have it far easier than they ever did. Who now has to wash their clothes by hand for hours? Not many people, I can assure you. He may have felt hopeless, but in comparison to what? He was able to go out and still spend over half a thousand dollars on a gun he didn't have the money for. How poor is that? The banking institutions were willing to lend him that much without thinking. Just an automated process. Sure, he could have not done what he did and ended up deeper in debt, but the fact is that the money was available. That's part of the problem.

But back to firearms. I say that firearms are a useful, in many cases necessary tool. I would not be uncomfortable living in a state where the citizens are trained and taught to be responsible with firearms and required to own firearms. And in many ways yes it would be a more safe society than one with a hodgepodge of anti-freedom laws. Personally I would like it where people have the right to have ANY class of firearm up to and including military hardware. It is not the tool that is the problem it is what is done with that tool that is the problem.

Sure, someone could use a knife instead of a gun. A man going apeshit in a school will maybe kill two or three (plus others wounded) before being brought down by people able to tackle him. This guy managed thirty-two last I heard.

Up to and including military hardware? What would the death toll have been if he had a tank?

Short version - if there are loonies in the system, make it harder for them to get guns. Get rid of the weaponry. Yes, it's part of the culture, and it will take time to change that, but you're never going to be completely rid of the loonies.

Which BTW the militia is defined in the Uniform Code Of Military Justice as all adult free males.*SNIP>

A militia, as defined by the 1903 Militia Act, is deemed as not required. Despite its name, it pretty much did away with the sort of militia that was around when the amendment was written. Modern warfare (of the time) required modern weapons and trained troops, not a bunch of men who could shoot but had no military discipline (I'm paraphrasing from Wikipedia here - I'll admit). Militias are no longer required, and they are not formed as they were. They are now a defunct concept and that, to me, anuls that amendment. It's outdated by events.

So in closing here, Firearms are a tool. Nothing more.

NRA forever!

A hunting gun is a tool. Anything else is a weapon to kill people.

Funny - I've not heard much from the NRA over the VT killings. I have to admit that I've not really listened much to the coverage. There's only so much drama and sorrow I can take.

Rapscallion

[Rapscallion]

Ok so the system worked. There was nothign in his background to indicate that there was a reason to deny him a firearm. I see no problem with what you just posted boozy.

Apart from the thirty-two dead. I'm sure more than that are killed on a weekly basis in normal (how crappy that sounds here) gun crime every week in the US, and that's what bothers me. This is a statistical blip, rather than a regular occurrence.

Rapscallion

[Boozy]

Ok so the system worked. There was nothign in his background to indicate that there was a reason to deny him a firearm. I see no problem with what you just posted boozy.

When the system "working" means that a legally purchased weapon is used to gun down 33 people, I would submit that something is wrong with the system.

[Rapscallion]

One other thing I forgot to touch on in my earlier posts that I firmly and devoutly believe. If there had been armed students willing to act appropriately and responsibly at VT then the tragedy would have been stopped a lot sooner with a lot fewer deaths.

I'm sure that if every student from the age of eleven had a gun issued as standard, most people going apeshit would be cut down before they got to five kills. I'm also sure there would be many more schoolyard fights that ended at a morgue.

Britain does not have the right idea in this regards I am sorry to say. Emasculating and removing a citizens ability to defend themselves and their family from aggressors or oppressors is wrong on so many levels. An armed person is able to remove threats to themselves, their family, and their property.

We're perfectly free to go around. If we can prove we need a shotgun to hunt wildlife or protect our herds, we can get one. After that, we have the police and armed forces to defend us. We're free to go around our business - you know, like working or relaxing - without being insecure enough to need a weapon. It's a matter of perspective.

An armed person has to put the gun down at some point. Would be pretty embarassing to be killed by the gun yo bought to protect your family, eh?

Also you are quite correct in how I for one would defend my right to bear arms. Anyone who comes for my firearms will get them barrel first.

I think you've summed my argument up perfectly at this point. Thank you.

Rapscallion