Gun control

[Boozy]

Raps, you're proposing a system where every person who undergoes psychiatric evaluation is reported to the government, and that information becomes public

I don't know as though he was actually proposing that (correct me if I'm wrong, Raps). I was under the impression that he was proposing, and I agree, that because not every nut job can possibly be flagged in a system, then maybe the correct system should be that no one gets a gun. Again, I can't speak for Raps, but that's what I was sort of getting at.

Also, when I said that cultural differences were acceptable, of course I meant it, but I should add that I feel very strongly that there should at the very least be an acknowledgement by gun rights advocates that gun ownership is inherently dangerous. I still see arguments being put forth that having a gun in the house actually increases safety. This is an absolute falsehood. Study after study has indicated that the presence of guns significantly increases the risk of accidental death, homicide, and suicide. Even in the most crime-riddled areas of the States, you are more likely to be killed with a gun that is kept in your home than by one brandished by a criminal (or those supposedly incredibly untrustworthy government agents). From a statistical standpoint, this is an argument that gun rights advocates cannot win.
The only argument left to stand must be a philosophical one: That gun violence, no matter how rampant, is an acceptable cost of preserving the freedom of gun ownership. Again, I completely disagree with this statement, but I cannot argue that it is illogical. It is just not in keeping with my personal values.

[rahmota]

Her eis an interesting, non-NRA link that has some statistics and points that you might want to see. They do tend to debunk the lies and myths of the anti-firearms crowd.http://www.lizmichael.com/ninemyth.htm

It is plain out BS to say that owning a firearm decreases a responsible person's safety when it is a proven fact that it actually increases safety! Increase the ability of a citizen to defend and protect themselves and their families and property.

An armed person is a citizen an unarmed person is a subject.

[KaeZoo]

Also, when I said that cultural differences were acceptable, of course I meant it, but I should add that I feel very strongly that there should at the very least be an acknowledgement by gun rights advocates that gun ownership is inherently dangerous. I still see arguments being put forth that having a gun in the house actually increases safety. This is an absolute falsehood. Study after study has indicated that the presence of guns significantly increases the risk of accidental death, homicide, and suicide.

You can make a very similar argument against ownership of a motorcycle. Or a horse. Or skis.

As a responsible adult, I am capable of analyzing the risks of gun ownership to myself and to those in my home. I am capable of taking measures to reduce or eliminate some of the risks. I am capable of weighing the potential benefits against the potential risks and coming to an informed decision. And here's the important part: I am MORE capable of making that decision for myself than any other person or any government agency.

The vast majority of gun owners present no substantial danger to themselves or to their neighbors. They do have a constitutional right to arm themselves (yes, I'm aware that some do not interpret it that way, but I strongly believe that when the framers wrote about "the People" they were talking about ME, and not the appointed guardians of some state-sponsored armory).

[rahmota]

Exactly personal freedom requires personal responsibility. The great majority of firearm owners know, understand and accept this. They do not cause problems or issues. They do not sell newspapers or advertising spots on tv. Only those who are not responsible, which are the minority, are the ones you hear about in the media.

[squall]

Her eis an interesting, non-NRA link that has some statistics and points that you might want to see. They do tend to debunk the lies and myths of the anti-firearms crowd.http://www.lizmichael.com/ninemyth.htm

The site read like propoganda to me. It's hard to follow up scientifically on the figures they are giving. I think they are shooting at numbers in the dark.

An armed person is a citizen an unarmed person is a subject.

That is a very black and white statement. It depends on the perspective of the society you are in. I don't believe the whole world deals in these kinds of absolutes. What this statement says to me is that I'm not responsible because I choose not to own a gun. That I am automatically a second class citizen subject to the will of the so called "responsible gun owner" waving the gun. And if I live in Britain, I am a pawn because I let the government tell me I can't own a handgun. That all the people that obey the laws and the rules of public institutions and don't bring a gun to campus made the decision to hasten their demise at the hands of a madman.

If I choose not to own a gun, it is my own RESPONSIBLE decision. I have a wife is depressed more than she really should be, especially under the influence of alcohol. She has admitted suicidal thoughts before. As long as she keeps the same habits, I shall not bring a gun into my house. Any gun that is left out intentionally or by accident is a safety hazard to children, especially young ones. And the more you tell children not to mess with something, the more some want to do it anyway. I don't have kids, but that's not the point.

I hear alot of talk on here about fear of police and government, and the need to protect yourself from THEM. Paranoia much? I don't believe for a second that this country will stoop to the level of door-by-door disarmament or execution style killing. But then again I have been criticized as having too much faith in man. I just choose not to live in a state of panic and fear....it keeps my blood pressure the way it should be.

I don't think more guns is the solution. It mean more guns in the hand of the irresponsible, and I think I would get along well in Canada. You don't hear any complaints from them. Or in Britain for that matter. If you want to own a gun, that is your decision and I don't hold ill feelings toward you. But when people start telling me that I SHOULD feel the same way they do about guns, or that it is my "responsible" duty to arm up, that is when the conversation does not go in their favor.

[rahmota]

Squall: Did you look at the footnotes on the site? They are all respectable sources well thought out and researched. It is not propaganda. But then again I have always heard that anythign that does not agree with the bias of the individual can be referred to as propaganda. Like the one comment says an actavist judge is a judge that disagrees with your interpretation of the law. And as for shooting numbers in the dark thats not uncommon with a lot of the anti-firarm places and "propaganda" I've seen.

I am sorry for your wife and hope that she gets the help she needs. Though if she was really suicidal she would have done so, firearm or not. All one needs is a steak knife and an arm handy. Those who are talking about suicide are generally not going to do it those who do it do so without talkign about it generally.

And I will agree with you that some cultures are more comfortable being subjects and submitting their will to the authorities. America was founded on the principle of the responsible citizen being the final arbiter of how far the government and society can go. Remember Americans where rebels and rogues from the begining of this country. It is a part and parcle of our cultural heritage to be an armed society.

I do not worry compleately about the police coming to take my firearms away. I actually dont worry about too much since I am an armed individual. I sleep rather well at night. When I took my recent trip to washington I made sure my wife had access to all the firearms and plenty of ammo available for her 9mm. (She has her own) that made me a lot more comfortable about leaving home azs she was protected. Since the police cannot be everywhere adn I previously posted the response time for the authorities cannot be trusted. One has to be self sufficient.

As for children. I have 4 children in my home ranging from age 7 to 12 (8 and 9 are the other 2) I have worked with them since they where first able to understand me to know the difference between a toy and a real firearm. That firearms are not something to be casually played with. That it takes a great deal of responsibility to handle a firearm. I know that I can trust them. I could leave a firearm on the dining room table and they will not touch it. Of course being a responsible parent means I do not just leave them lying around on the tables un-attended liek that. People like to exaggerate how dangerous it is to have a firearm in your home. All those exaggerations can be countered by a responsible and reasonable degree of precautions.

And I will say that people telling me I should not enjoy, like or that I should be ashamed to be a firearms owner and responsible citizen does not sit well with me either. I will never surrender my firearms as I have a constitutional right to them, a duty as a citizen to be armed, and a duty as a parent and huisband to protect my family by any means necessary.

A person may wish to remain unsafe and unarmed and that is their right and choice to do so. It is my right to be armed. If we can agree to both go our own paths on this then things will be fine and peace will prevail. If people still try to be bossy nannies and tell responsible firearms owners they are wrong and evil people for having a firearm then there will continue to be disagreements and strife.

[xld17]

I think the source of disagreement on this comes between the people who grew up/live(d) in Appalachia and rural Ohio versus (my guess is that most of the anti-gun crowd lives) in cities, towns, or the suburbs.

You're right that if you grow up in an area where guns are a part of life and you have responsible parents who teach proper handling of them, that they will raise children who also are unlikely to cause problems by owning guns later in their lives. You also have a point that you live in an area where they actually may be necessary for personal protection or for hunting.

The problem is that Cho, and most other people, do not grow up in such an environment. For most kids from (sub)urban areas, their only exposure to guns is what they see on TV and that, I think we can all agree, is mostly neither accurate nor responsible.

1. My neighbors' houses are less than twenty feet away on any side. 2. The closest thing to a game animal that we have is the squirrel, but you can't really shoot them-see #1. 3. The county has over forty fire/rescue depts., and the average response time is under seven minutes. 4. The last "crime watch" section of the local paper reported kids whacking at mailboxes with bats and and abandoned car, and the police response times are even lower than the fire depts. So tell me, what could the people here possibly need guns for in this area, unless they are for sport, and kept locked away until needed.

Exactly personal freedom requires personal responsibility. The great majority of firearm owners know, understand and accept this. They do not cause problems or issues. They do not sell newspapers or advertising spots on tv. Only those who are not responsible, which are the minority, are the ones you hear about in the media.

The above quote was probably written by one of those responsible gun owns in a rural area. It may seem to you that most people who own guns are responsible, because that is what you see in your surroundings, but by definition, there are going to be more people raised in (sub)urban areas where their entire gun education comes from what they see on TV.

These are the people who get a hold of guns when they have no legitimate use for them. They might claim they are for protection but those few classes in the gun shop will never impart the level of knowledge as being raised with a gun and proper teacher. They don't clean them properly, they "hide" them from their children in a dresser drawer, and the only time they have to use them is when they are angry. Perhaps most of all, they cannot shoot. Is Mr. Suburbia-I-took-a-three-part-class-and-fired-at-a-couple-of-targets-that-one-time really going to be accurate enough to hit an intruder? When panicked? In the dark? (Most guys have to fumble for the condoms in the bedside drawer and then can barely get the wrapper off. I really don't have confidence in the inexperienced gun owner.)

So some people do have a use for them, and do use them responsibly. I just beg to differ that those people are in the majority. I still wouldn't ban gun ownership entirely. I just think that most of the responsible people who have a real use for guns overestimate everyone else.

Honestly, I wouldn't mind making people show that they have a use for their gun before they are allowed to buy it. That would pretty much exclude all military weaponry and hopefully, the ones like Cho who's big plan was to go nuts.

[rahmota]

Well I'll agree that the cultural and physical differences between urban/suburban and rural societies/people are a major issue. The problem with creating a one size fits all legislation to protect the idiots and the irresponsible from each other and the responsible from them as well is that it would harm and infringe upon the responsible as well.

This may sound rather cold but if some dipwad urbanite manages to blow his own foot off or his neighbor away or his little dog toto too because he thinks he's wild bill hicock then he should be arressted and punished for his troubles. Innocent until proven guilty (or retard as the case may be)Irresponsible use of a firearm is not the fault of the firearm or the responsible people, because an irresponsible person could just as well as run over the neighbor with his car trying to show off or just in road rage on the freeway, talkign on the cell phone or for a variety of any other reasons. Yet we allow people to have multi ton death machines every day with no background checks, no major in depth training really and none of the hassles or BS that responsible firearms owners have to face.

So why should I as a responsible citizen be forced to be punished because mr idiot decides to try and play wild west show in his suburban backyard or because a person who had no official record decided that he wanted to go out in a blaze of glory? Who has the right to tell responsible people that they may not have their items becuase bily dumbbutt can't play with himself without directions?

You are right though teaching people to be responsible adults is a more basic and pressing need in many ways than just mere firearms safety. One of the thigns american society has forgotten how to do in many ways is be a responsible common sense using adult. For people to worry about their own house before trying to bust in and run someone else's life. The whole nanny I know how to live your life better than you stupidity is a more basic problem than mere firearms control in the first place. But even with all you pointed out it would be better that as long as billy dumbbutt just has the firearm in his dresser drawer and only takes it out to fire it at the range once a year or so evolution will catch up with him. Sucks to be him or near him when it does but thats his fault and his problem and he should be punished for it if he lives and not everyone else who owns a firearm and knows which end to look down.

[Lace Neil Singer]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccAn8XjeFX8

Sorry, I know this is a serious debate and all, but something Rahmota said made me think of this. I will now step outside and leave you guys to carry on.

[EmiOfBrie]

The police cannot be everywhere, true, but let's compare gun crime. In the US, where guns are part of the culture and easy to obtain, gun crime is relatively high. In the UK, where guns are not part of everyday life and are hard to obtain, gun crime is relatively low. See what I'm getting at?

You need to take a look at not the USA as a whole, but the seperate municipalities within the USA.

Washington DC has the strongest gun control of any city in the country, but has the worst crime rate per capita than any other city.

Places that have little to no gun control have the least crime. In fact, per capita, the municipality with the lowest crime rate in the USA actually makes gun ownership MANDATORY for every household!

The reason why this is, is because most criminals here won't screw with someone who may have a weapon. In Minnesota, businesses have the choice of whether or not to allow guns, and most of them do not, but those who do not have to post a notice on the door stating the policy. It's often been joked around here that such signs are an invitation to criminals, as they can be perceived to say to crime: "Hey, look! No one is armed here! Hit this place and get no resistance!"

This is why the issue of gun control is not so black and white within the USA.

[AFPheonix]

The reason why this is, is because most criminals here won't screw with someone who may have a weapon. In Minnesota, businesses have the choice of whether or not to allow guns, and most of them do not, but those who do not have to post a notice on the door stating the policy. It's often been joked around here that such signs are an invitation to criminals, as they can be perceived to say to crime: "Hey, look! No one is armed here! Hit this place and get no resistance!"
.

Honestly, crime rates are affected by multitudes of different variables, not just one like you are proposing here. You didn't mention what municipality had the lowest crime rate, but I'll hazard to guess that there's also a huge difference in a lot of other areas that could affect the level of crime.
Drug use and availability, intersections of major highways and other routes of travel, education levels, race relations, poverty and gaps between rich and poor are other things that can contribute.

[ditchdj]

http://www.mlive.com/news/flintjourn...740.xml&coll=5

-You know if THAT would have happened in the UK there would be some serious time being done: Not by the surviving robber but by the pizza guy! Anyone that sees nothing wrong with that needs to understand that laws were originally created to protect the people. The "people" in this case was ONLY law-abiding citizens, NOT the criminals.

[Rapscallion]

Back to this one, mostly delayed due to being stupidly busy.

Boozy's point about the psychiatric evaluation - generally speaking, an evaluation that says that someone is a danger should flag them up as unsuitable to own a gun. If the evaluation says that they're no danger, then there should be no flagging. Sound reasonable? As you are quite willing to point out, Rahmota, responsible gun owners are not a problem, right?

Now, having only skim-read this, I have to point out that I won't be able to deal with every point, but I will admit that there were some valid facets given on the pro-gun side. However, I'm talking about the part where it's necessary to have a gun in the wilderness where there is the possibility of wild animals. In an urban setting? Nah - just make sure nobody has a gun and you'll be fine.

Sure, they could use knives, but that's a poor argument. Thugs are going to use something, no matter what - a half-brick, a lump of lead pipe, whatever. Guns are easier to use than knives and they are effective at range - guns can hurt many more people than hand-to-hand weapons in untrained hands. Get rid of the guns completely save for law enforcement and army folk, and you've got the basis of proper safety.

How would this work? I'll pass you over to something told by me by a guy introduced as 'Liberal Ken'.

I'd deal with guns simply. Ban them. Anyone found to have a gun - apart from police or army etc - I'd have them arrested. Then at noon on a Monday, we'd have a get-together. Everyone in the town square sort of thing - get a band playing, maybe a ride for the kids and the like. We'd get the people who were arrested for carrying guns and shoot them with their own guns.

I liked him.

Interesting comparison you make between subjects and citizens. I'd rather be a subject of a just and caring monarchy than a statistic.

Rapscallion

[MadMike]

Nah - just make sure nobody has a gun and you'll be fine.

That's easier said than done. The criminals are never going to give up their guns, regardless of the law, because by definition, they do not obey the laws. All this would do is take them away from law-abiding citizens, who would then become sitting ducks for the criminals.

Let's say you were going to carjack someone. You see two potential victims. The one car has a bumper sticker that says, "Ban guns NOW!" The other has one that says, "Fight crime -- shoot back!" Which one are you going to pick?

Get rid of the guns completely save for law enforcement and army folk, and you've got the basis of proper safety.

That's assuming that no members of the police or the government are corrupt, and will never be. Hitler did the same thing back in the days of Nazi Germany. First came gun registration, then confiscation. After that, he and his followers were able to take over, with little fear of anyone fighting back.

Sure, they could use knives, but that's a poor argument. Thugs are going to use something, no matter what - a half-brick, a lump of lead pipe, whatever. Guns are easier to use than knives and they are effective at range - guns can hurt many more people than hand-to-hand weapons in untrained hands.

Or they could build a bomb out of common household materials, which can do even more damage than a gun.

How would this work? I'll pass you over to something told by me by a guy introduced as 'Liberal Ken'.

I suppose that might work with the criminals who only have the guns to intimidate, but have no desire to actually use them. But the ones that aren't afraid to kill? They already know that if they commit murder and get caught, that they can be put to death. Why would they be afraid of what would happen to them if they're caught with a gun?

Interesting comparison you make between subjects and citizens. I'd rather be a subject of a just and caring monarchy than a statistic.

But what happens if the monarchy changes, and becomes something other than "just and caring? The worst thing anyone can do is put their blind trust in anyone or anything.

[rahmota]

Raps: Opening the door to psych evaluations is a dangerous thing. Because an evaluation is just that an evaluation to see if there is a problem. Until there is a determination that there is a problem with the full court ordered psychiatric commitment and rugs and all the person is innocent. No flagging on evals only full court ordered commitments.

And you are right responsible firearms owners are not a problem.

The person you are calling Liberal ken does not sound very liberal to me. To me they sound like a neo nazi fascist hitler fan. Killing people for wanting to be able to stand up for themselves in public like they where somekind of criminal? That Ken needs to have a craniorectomy.

As for a subject i would rather be a citizen able to stand on my own feet than a sbject of a monarchy that can change from just and caring to intolerant and unjust.

Madmike pretty much beat me to most of what else I would want to say in response to you raps.

DitchDj: that pizza guy deserves a medal not the hassle and BS he is going to get. Defending himself in a life and death situation is somethign everyone has to be able to do. Thanks the gods he lives in America and was able to have a firearm otherwise the pizza driverwould be dead and tere would be one more crime statisic instead of one more street scum removed from the world.

AFP: I'll agree that there are quite a few variables to look at when considering crime statistics. But there is some anecdotal evidence that a highly armed populace does have less violent crime than a less armed area. At least in my experiences and region. Maybe its the culture thing. I dont know. But I will agree that when it comes to crime there is no on thing that can be pointed to as the one sole reason for crime. Poverty beng one of the biggest though IMO.