Well why not? We've done every other controversial topic recently.
I have a friend who is a member of the NRA. We were talking recently, and he actually espoused a much more moderate opinion than I was expecting. I need to talk to him again to post the details, but he had what I viewed to be a relatively moderate plan mapped out in theory.
I believe some assault weapons would remain banned. He would allowed concealed carry in all 50 states, citing the fact that crime shifts from violent to nonviolent crime when this happens. It doesn't lower the crime rate but shifts the type of offense. To compensate for the anti-gun lobby, he would also require instant mandatory background checks for purchases of any firearm or amunition. Dealers of course would be under different requirements, but a flag would pop up at a predetermined rate, say if you bought 30 guns within a month. You could also get licensed as a collector and increase your purchase limit before the flag, but that would also require more extensive background checks.
I was surpised that he didn't have a problem with 'big brother' doing the background checks, but it does sound more moderate than most positions I've heard out there as well.
AJ
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
I would support gun control, except for that pesky little amendment that gives us the right to bear arms, and I don't like the idea of the Bill of Rights being ignored, even if it is for something that would make us safer.
Not that my opinion really matters at all, but there you go.
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
blackwolve:"I would support gun control, except for that pesky little amendment that gives us the right to bear arms"
What does one have to do with the other? In what way does the regulation of firearms necessarily violate the second amendment?
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
I don't know that much about this issue, but most people I've talked to (granted high school kids ina very liberal city) support making firearms illegal, which would violate the 2nd Amendment. I assumed that was the majority opinion.
Posted by Derrell (Member # 6062) on :
AJ, I like your friend's ideas. When I've made firearms purchases, they've always run computerized background checks.
I can't believe it. i'm actually posting in a thread about a serious topic. What's this world coming to.
I'm a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment, but feel that there have to be limits on peoples right to bear arms. For instance, there are som people who can't legally own firearms, such as convicted felons or those who've been declared legally insane.
The suggestions of your friend sound acceptable to me. Just my 2 cents.
Posted by Slash the Berzerker (Member # 556) on :
The constitution guarantees me the right to own a flamethrower that shoots chocolate 100 dollar bills, and anyone who says otherwise is a commie. Or possibly strong sad. Though I suspect he's a commie too.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I don't want guns in my home, but I believe folks have the right to have them. Though I hate to break this to the staunch 2nd amendment activists... the British Monarchy can still kick your personal butt. (Okay, so I get my views on the matter from the Simpsons.)
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
I know we've had this subject come up before, because I remember typing my opinion.
So I won't share my whole opinion here.
But I will say that is it sad that there is no possible way they can keep guns away from dangerous people, no matter what government tries to do.
My ex was a very violent man when I was married to him, and he once pulled a gun on me to threatened me. However, I know he has full legal right to go purchase a gun if he wants to -- he has nothing on record that would prevent that.
If they could keep guns away from people that have serious anger control issues, then many domestic violence tragedies might be averted.
But that is not realistic -- you cannot legislate what "might happen" with a person with a volatile emotional state.
FG
Posted by PaladinVirtue (Member # 6144) on :
I think most members of the NRA are actually pretty moderate on the issue of gun control. The orginization just gets a bad reputation becasue of it's policy of building a cushion around their true beleifs by ephasizing radical viewpoints. I mean who cares about ones right to own a sport rifle if you are busy argueing about assault rifles?
As for the second amendment arguement..that was written in a time when the ultimate in military fire power was the musket. People then wanted a way to make sure that if the new government got out of hand they could fight back. Today the arguement is kinda mute when Uncle Sam can land an Apache attack helicopter on your front lawn. Have all the guns you want, he wins.
Me? I support the NRA, but not officially. I would be a member but I am too lazy. I like guns so I say we should have 'em but there are logical limits. Who really needs a chocolate spewing flamethower anyhow?
[ March 05, 2004, 03:36 PM: Message edited by: PaladinVirtue ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Farmgirl I honestly don't remember what you typed and I would be interested in knowing what you think. Can you find the thread?
AJ
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
What BannaOj said is almost what we already have. At least in Utah, every time you purchase a firearm, they do a background check, unless you have a concealed carry permit, and then they've already done the more extensive background check and have your fingerprints on file. That alone is a reason for a lot of people to get concealed carry permits out here -- you don't have to pay an extra $20 for the background check when you purchase a firearm.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
To Blacwolve:
Well, call me crazy, but I think that if a so-called "right" in the Bill of Rights allows you to bear arms, and you consider this being unsafe it's about time you question that Bill of Rights. In my opinion, you are about to confound a law with the ultimate truth. There is no such thing as an ultimate truth...
Anyway, I must tell you that I come from Romania and I currently study in France. To my knowledge, neither of these countries has such an open view with regard to firearms as the US and frankly, I wouldn't want them to. This is just to give you an idea of my background and it's influence on me.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Every single right enumerated in the Constitution is regulated in some way. Why should the right to bear arms be any different?
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
When I was in college at the U of U, there was a guy running for Governor of Utah who wrote a letter to the school newspaper. He was a nut.
His stated position on gun control was that, if he were elected governor, he would not even be able to debate the issue, because of his oath to uphold the Constitution. In his view, the Second Amendment prohibits all regulation of firearms, period.
Thankfully, I think that very, very few people agree with that interpretation.
I think most people actually have a very moderate view on this issue, although there are vocal minorities on the fringes. I think there are legitimate purposes for owning and using firearms, and the right to do so is guaranteed to all citizens (except felons) by the Constitution. I think that there are classes of weaponry that have no legitimate connection with those Constitutional rights, and that they can and should therefore be outlawed. I think it is entirely reasonable for the government (state and/or federal) to conduct background checks, register guns, issue licenses, etc.
And if any nut with a concealed-carry permit ever pulls out his gun to protect me from a criminal, I will personally punch his lights out.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Attack a person who alread has a drawn firearm? That's a quick way to die.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
fugu13, was your post directed at me ? If so, I'll restate what I said in the above post: I don't think people SHOULD have the *right to bear arms*. I lived and live in societies not guaranteeing this right and I'm happy with it.
I should also mention that this year I studied American culture & civilization and one of the topics was *gun control*. So while I haven't lived in your country, nor do I pretend to have full (on near full) knowledge on the subject, I'm at least familiar with it. (Btw, the teacher was Californian, not French )
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
mr_poterio_head,
It is actually quite easy to beat any sort of gun pointed at you that is within arms length or one step beyond.
snipers are the scary people.
AJ
I also believe (but will have to double check) that Utah's gun laws are more lenient than many other states. The other thing that can happen is that individual counties and cities can microregulate to make it much much more difficult to own guns.
The law abiding people do go through all the regulation headaches for the most part. The criminals don't.
AJ
[ March 05, 2004, 04:17 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
This has been making news here in the chicago area recently.
The gun wasn't entirely licensed correctly due to an oversight. They went after the man protecting his property as if he were a common criminal.
It was more generally directed.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
I do not have any guns at my house. I respect them to much.
I have two friends who are very gun literate. One is a card carrying NRA member. He has bought guns on line and at trade shows, where background checks are not required.
Even though it would hurt some of his trading, he is 100% for background checks as well as licensing gun owners, and requiring them to take gun safety tests before every purchasing a gun.
Most of the people he deals with agree with him completely.
It is the 14 year old kid who waves the gun around like he's in a Rap Video that is libel to accidently kill some other kid. A safety training class might save a few lives.
PS, has any one else ever been to a gun & knife show? Its like GenCon for nazi's.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Dan GenCon for nazis
I have indeed been to a gun show or two. I went with a postal worker.
I met mostly sane and reasonable people at the shows I went to, but there are also the idiots who start salivating over what is essentially meant to be a "tool."
I don't think I would have guns in a household with children in it. I just can't think of an effective way to ensure that they don't get their hands on them. Even locked in a safe and with trigger locks installed, I have these scary thoughts of Junior getting out the power drill to make it so he can fire the thing. If he really wants to, he'll find a way.
I know, I know...lots of kids grow up around guns, learn gun safety and are just fine with it. It's definitely a bias of mine that I think kids & guns don't mix. If it wasn't the kids living in the house, it'd be their friends.
I also don't believe guns are useful for home protection. I think they are fun to shoot for target practice and that everyone should know the basics of gun safety, even if they don't own a gun. Just to be ready for the revolution when it comes. Or to deal with a Terminator...
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I suspect a power drill could acutally be every bit as lethal as a gun.
In fact there are so many household appliances that could be lethal even from a distance why bother getting a gun at all?
(Has a mental image of Bob hurling a blender and a toaster at any intruder.)
AJ
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Okay -- how many Hatrackers have lost immediate family members to murder, with the perpetrator using a gun? *Farmgirl raises hand*
How many Hatrackers have had a gun pointed at their head, and truly believed it would go off due to the anger of the person holding said weapon? *Farmgirl raises hand*
So you would think, with all that, I would be a huge advocate of gun control.
While I do think gun registration & permits, and background checks are all good, and I support most of those measures (haven't read up on all of them), I realize you really can't realistically legislate gun ownership. It just isn't enforcable. Period.
Although my dad was killed by a man with a gun, my dad liked guns. He had a healthy respect for them, and taught me the proper operation of one. He never had to draw one on someone until the day he died, and it looks like he was down before he could even do that.
Gun control would not have saved my dad. His killer was a kid who stole/borrowed a gun from his uncle, and had no prior record.
I have owned guns in the past. I do not currently own a gun, and no longer like firing them. I got rid of the only one I had (a .22 rifle) when I had my first baby. I didn't want to worry about having it in the house and worry about the kids finding it or curiousity getting the better of them, or having to lock it up all the time. I just really didn't have a NEED to have one, so I got rid of it.
And I will probably remain gunless.
Although I don't understand some people's hobby of collecting all sorts of guns, I give them that right, as long as they aren't harming other or being careless with them.
Farmgirl
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Farmgirl, I once had my father, during an argument, drag me into his bedroom, hand me one of his 9mm and tell me to shoot him.
I still enjoy target shooting. Though, if I ever owned my own gun, I think my friends would kill me themselves.
*flips them off*
But gun control wouldn't stop the violent crimes--those weapons aren't usually obtained legally. I don't think. Should look that up before I state it as fact.
Posted by T. Analog Kid (Member # 381) on :
No, Mack, you're pretty correct. Also, the whole "assault weapon" thing is literally about show. Real Assault Weapons are fully automatic, and you have to go through a special security check and pay a hefty tax to own them. No personal firearm is illegal, BTW, if you have enough money and can pass a strigent enough security check
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
Oh great. I really didn't need to know that postal workers are hanging out at gun shows.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
While gun control doesn't stop violent crimes I would bet that it reduces deaths in crimes of passion.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
mack, if you start keeping your own gun around the house, I'll give you something to flip off.
Yeah. I can be tough.
I could take you.
Maybe.
I could probably talk faster than you.
I did grow up in southern Indiana after all, and I do know how to castrate pigs.
So yeah, don' mess wi'me, girl, don' mess wi'me.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote: I would bet that it reduces deaths in crimes of passion
Fugu, I've been thinking about this comment of yours all night -- and still for the life of me I can't think of any instance where it might be true.
Crimes of passion -- I think of that like: man comes home and finds wife in bed with another man. Pulls his gun and shoots them both.
Now gun control wouldn't have had any effect here -- obviously he already owned a gun -- probably legally if he had no prior record.
Now if you are saying that in the above scenario, he runs out to BUY a gun -- and you think the waiting term might delay that -- well, I still think of running out and buying a gun immediately as being "premeditation" and not a "crime of passion" because in that scenario still he has plenty of time to think about what he is about to do, waiting term or not. If he goes out to purposefully purchase a gun just to kill someone, then I see that a premeditated murder, not a crime of passion.
Most domestic shootings & crimes of passion occur using guns these people already owned before the incident occurred. In that scenario, the gun control measures don't have much affect.
It is almost impossible to know who is going to "wig out" and shoot someone. I mean - -that is like a weird version of Minority Report. If we could predict this, then we wouldn't let them have a gun around. But basically, we don't know how to tell is someone is the type of person to pull a gun during an emotional scene, and we can't prosecute them before it happens.
So other than those people who have already been convicted of criminal offenses, I don't see how we keep these crimes from happening through gun control. Current gun control already supposedly keeps known criminals from purchasing a gun easily.
Don't misunderstand and think I'm against gun control. Purchasing a gun is a big decision and I think a lot of thought should go into it -- so I think the waiting term is a good idea. No one needs to buy one to have IMMEDIATELY -- we just are used to instant gratification, and some people don't like having to "wait." Sometimes I think there are many other items they should have waiting periods for -- so we don't do so much impulse purchasing!
I am against the NRA and most that it stands for -- as an organzation. I have several friends who are members, and I'm not against them -- just the organization. The NRA has in the past come out many times in favor of legalization and making publically available such things as "cop-killer" body-armor piercing bullets. I just don't see that as necessary for your everyday run-of-the-mill sportsman or gun enthusiast. That is terrorist weaponry.
Farmgirl
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
I actually have no inclination to own one. Mostly because I live in the city and it isn't like I can target shoot in my backyard. Firing range works fine for me.
Oh, maybe I'll go today!
And Sara, you could take me. I'm actually very reluctant in real life to hurt anybody. Unless I'm directly threatened or someone in my care or a defenseless person is threatened, I'm not a worry. Okay, maybe if we're playing a sport. I'm sorta ruthless in sports, but I'll be the first to help you up off the floor.
And I'll have you know, I haven't been suicidal in over six months. Almost a year. God bless lamictal. And for mania--ha! it was ADHD. God bless Ritalin LA.
Better living through chemicals. Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
mack, I love you, girl.
Posted by Jenny Gardener (Member # 903) on :
I'd like to own a gun and know how to use it. But then again, I also like knowing my own body can be a deadly weapon. I just think that knowing things like that can be useful.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
I dunno Andrea, I didn't feel very threatened by you.
Sara, when I meet you, you are SO getting a hug.
Posted by Jenny Gardener (Member # 903) on :
Engarde!
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
You're on.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
There is only one reply for the both of you: --I--
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
CT gives awesome hugs, I can testify to that!
AJ
Posted by Rhaegar The Fool (Member # 5811) on :
" The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" People, it doesn't get more obvious than that, shall not be infringed as in shall not be made illegal you stupid little liberal control freaks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Rhaegar
Posted by Theca (Member # 1629) on :
*Shoots Fool*
Ooops.
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
Wow, Rhaegar, it's all clear now! Your incredibly intelligent post has made me realize how stupid my liberal idea that there should be some regulation of guns really is. Thank you.
edit: Oh, and maybe it would be better to quote the full second amendment rather than taking it out of context, hmm?
quote: 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.
[ March 06, 2004, 07:38 PM: Message edited by: Rappin' Ronnie Reagan ]
Posted by LadyDove (Member # 3000) on :
quote:I have indeed been to a gun show or two. I went with a postal worker.
:::laughing::: I want to hear the joke that owns this punchline!
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Hmm. Oddly, I'm a liberal, Fool. Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:It is actually quite easy to beat any sort of gun pointed at you that is within arms length or one step beyond.
I have had training with how to do it. It is not difficult -- If you succeed. The problem is that they have to just move their triger finger 0.25 inches in the same amount of time that you have to either move your entier arm far enough to reach the gun. It's a losing proposition. It's even worse if you have to take a step also.
But yes, holding a gun on somebody within arm's reach like you see on TV is pretty ignorant.
Posted by aka (Member # 139) on :
I have guns and know how to treat them. They are like any of the other deadly tools I own, my car, my circular saw, and so on. I respect them and am careful with them. In the south guns are very natural and normal things to have, like cars.
Gun control is silly because anyone with a lathe can make a gun. The technology to make guns is very simple. There's no possible way to control it. All you do by making it difficult to own a gun legally is make for fewer law abiding people who have guns. So the criminals with guns go unopposed. Not such a good idea.
If someone went postal around here, someone else would probably be able to take them out pretty quickly. Guns are ubiquitous in this area. I feel much safer knowing that so many law abiding people around here have guns. It makes it a lot harder for the criminals to do what they want unopposed.
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
aka,
and how do you feel about drugs and the ease with which they can be manufactured?
actually, I was more curious about the cultural attitudes regarding guns and gun control. less of a logical thing, than an upbringing thing. places with gun control (europe - and I expect they have lathes) have arguably fewer casualities as the result of gunshot.
hunting is still an endearing part of our western expansionist culture. blazing away at our downright recalcitrant heathen neighbors has become steadily less so (not very endearing). self-protection or paranoia?
fallow
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
fallow, you're right in your assumption that European countries have less casualties from gunshots. And, as I already said in this thread, we have a very different idea on people's right to own guns.
However, I've just read an article in a Romanian newspaper saying that they're going to issue a new law about guns. Until now, besides hunting firearms, the only people allowed to carry a gun were policemen, the military, statesmen and magistrates. They are going to add "whoever can prove before a judge that he is in imminent danger" (?!). Of course, there are other conditions concerning age, criminal record, etc., but the fact remains: they are on the road to allowing more and more people having guns. Add this to the latest survey showing that Romanians are among the most frustrated and depressed (due to bad jobs, money problems, and so on) in all Europe and you can see where this can lead... Not after this single law, but perhaps as gun laws will become more and more permissive... Or maybe that's just me being pessimistic about it ?!
The main point is: do we need the law ? It's not like Romania is storming with guns, you'll never see gang fights which will go beyond someone holding his poor knife out just to *show'em who's da man* ! The government says they want this law in order to get closer to the European Union's own gun policy. So I ask: do you harmonize legislations just for the sake of it ? Yeah, forget the context, let's just all have the same laws ! Why ? Because the EU ordered so ! Never argue with your boss... Sheesh...
[ March 07, 2004, 09:04 AM: Message edited by: Corwin ]
Posted by Rhaegar The Fool (Member # 5811) on :
Guys, any law whatsoever having to do with any or all legislation about the regulation, control, banning, etc of firearms is in direct contradiction with the United States Constitution. It's as simple as that, it is both stupid, illogical, and illegal.
Dan_raven
quote: I have two friends who are very gun literate. One is a card carrying NRA member. He has bought guns on line and at trade shows, where background checks are not required.
You have two innacuracies here, one if he bought a gun online or via mail order it would have to be unusable as i filled in barrel, or a part of a gun such as the barrel itself, it is illegal to mail order a firearm, two bacground checks are required for trade shows, gun shows, pawn shops, gun shops, the only time it is not illegal is when a private perosn sells to another private person in his own house.
Rhaegar
[ March 07, 2004, 02:58 PM: Message edited by: Rhaegar The Fool ]
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
*raises eyebrow*
Well, that's that. End of discussion. Posted by Rhaegar The Fool (Member # 5811) on :
Yes, it very well should be.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Guys, any law whatsoever having to do with any or all legislation about the regulation, control, banning, etc of firearms is in direct contradiction with the United States Constitution.
I agree with Raeger on this point. In fact, I would go further. Any law regulating or banning the sale or ownership of any arms violates the 2nd Amendment. That includes nuclear arms.
The founding fathers had no idea what sort of weapons would be made possible by future technology. The 2nd Amendment is obsolete and needs changing.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Eh...but then the other Amendments could get the same sort of treatment.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
[Oracle voice] Change is inevitable ! [/Oracle voice]
Posted by aka (Member # 139) on :
Nuclear technology is still difficult enough that there's some hope of controlling it. You are right, though, that in the long run this won't be true. We need to realize that someday, in the not too distant future, nuclear technology is going to be in everyone's hands.
The same is true of biotech. As technology advances, it will always be the case that fewer and fewer people will have more and more power available to them until it finally gets to the point where any one person will be able to destroy the whole planet. How will we survive as a species then? It's certainly worth thinking about.
I don't think there will ever be any successful plane hijackings, post 9/11. I think if anyone tries to hijack a plane they will end up dead. The passengers will rise up and kill them. Is that what life will be like in the future? That anyone who tries to do something destructive will immediately be surrounded and overwhelmed by everyone in the area? That's one possibility. I'm not sure if it's such a great idea but it's an interesting thing to think about.
[ March 07, 2004, 08:10 PM: Message edited by: aka ]
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
On issues like this one, I think it is more illuminating to consider the whys tied to the origins of a particular viewpoint.
Why own a gun? In my personal experience, I've known many hunters who wouldn't use a firearm for anything other than this passed-down tradition of food-gathering. I've also known cityfolk (midwest cities included) who at some point or other felt out-of-sorts enough to think they needed to carry a handgun in their purse. Responsible individuals, to be sure. Licences, training. Hours spent at the shooting range. Still, from my POV, the origin of the need to own the gun wasn't as rational as the process undertaken to obtain one.
I don't think calling on the constitution is an end to this consideration. The constitution includes the capacity for amendments upon future changes and challenges to the society.
fallow
Posted by HRE (Member # 6263) on :
As soon as I am legally allowed to, I will get a gun permit and a permit to carry the weapon in public.
I would rather have it and never use it than be in a situation where I would need it and not have it.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
I think the laws are on the wrong side of this issue.
There shouldn't be severe restrictions on gun ownership... but there should be a lot *more* severe punishments for crimes involving guns.
Those law abiding people who wish to own guns should be able to do so - provided they take some sort of course on gun safety and use. However, the penalties for using the gun for any unlawful act should be increased three to five fold.
It's a matter of freedom vs. responsibility. You should have the freedom to own a weapon, just as you have the freedom to drink alcohol or drive a car. However, you bear the responsibility for those actions. If you use the weapon in commission of a crime, or if you consume that alcohol and then operate a car or other heavy machinery, or if you drive a car recklessly... there should be significant penalties.
But keeping guns out of the hands of the general public is not the answer. Making a law that bans a gun is meaningless. The criminal is *already breaking the law* in commiting a crime, already showing that the law is not important to him or her. Making one more law isn't going to stop that criminal from procuring and using a gun.
Making the penalties for using that gun for that act so severe as to be prohibitive - that's a better deterrent.
[ March 09, 2004, 12:00 AM: Message edited by: FlyingCow ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: However, the penalties for using the gun for any unlawful act should be increased three to five fold.
Do you think that a person who legally obtains his firearm should be punished more severely than someone who stole it? That doesn't seem to send a very good message.
Or do you mean that all punishments should be several times what they are right now?
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:The criminal is *already breaking the law* in commiting a crime, already showing that the law is not important to him or her. Making one more law isn't going to stop that criminal from procuring and using a gun.
This standard argument only works if you assume that those who break the law are never caught.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
Could everyone please list their specific reasons for owning/wanting to own a gun ? Besides hunting, of course.
My reasons for NOT owning or not wanting to have a gun are: - I don't think I'd use it; as stated in a documentary I've seen: you can defend yourself in many ways, but doing it with a gun will make things more "final" (like in killing the other person). You can beat up the guy that attacked you with a bat, but in order to kill him you'd either have to be unlucky or a little nuts... With a gun, it's a different matter: in the heat of the moment, you only need to not think for an instant and aim at one of his vital points and that's it. Notice that I practiced karate and I'm pretty much aware of a human's vital points even for hand to hand combat, and while I've never been in a real fight I see my knowledge of this as giving me a great responsibility. But I've been trained to control my natural weapons and my impulses to use them, not showed them without *instructions*. - safety; it's kind of linked to the gravity of an accident involving a gun. Even if you know how to handle it, you cannot guarantee that it won't end up in the hands of someone who doesn't. I'm thinking of children especially.
(have to go now...) -
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
The only people I'd like to see with guns are those who don't want them.
Gun shows scare me.
I mean, if our society ever reverted to judicial combat, I might get a gun...
------------------------
I think there's a Constitutionally acceptable middle ground between the "ban guns" liberal idiots and the "any regulation is unconstitutional" conservative morons.
Strict background checks (including banning all convicted felons and those convicted of violent misdemeanors from owning guns), mandatory safety classes, waiting periods, and significantly raised penalties are all reasonable.
Seriously, it's not the 1700s anymore. We're not dueling for honor with single-shot pistols, nor are we in any danger of being invaded and left without adequate military support.
I love the Constitution, and it's principles can't be beat--but when trivial specifics become obsolete, we shouldn't be afraid to say so. The right to bear arms should be treated like any other law--it applies to a person until he/she shows they don't deserve it.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:I love the Constitution, and it's principles can't be beat--but when trivial specifics become obsolete, we shouldn't be afraid to say so. The right to bear arms should be treated like any other law--it applies to a person until he/she shows they don't deserve it.
I've never taken the time to become passionate about this issue, but to play devil's advocate...
I love the Constitution, and its principles can't be beat -- but when trivial specifics become obsolete, we shouldn't be afraid to say so. The right to free speech should be treated like any other law -- it applies to a person until he/she shows he/she doesn't deserve it.
For example, those who've started riots with their speech should be denied freedom of it. They can cause deaths with their words, and civil unrest, potentially revolution -- this isn't the 1700's anymore. We're not debating changes in the Constitution (unless you're a rabid bigot) with the likes of Henry or Clay, nor are we really in danger of being oppressed by the British Empire.
To be fair, I realize limiting the prevalence of guns and the prevalence of free speech are two vastly different creatures -- but once we started restricting Constitutional amendments, when do we end?
And yeah, I realize that comes off as a slippery slope argument -- but it's not. If we can amend one right, we can amend another. And another. When do they become inalienable?
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
Is it legal to call in a hoax bomb threat? To slander? To say you're going to assassinate the president? Is assault legal?
I'd say we already have a couple restrictions on free speech.
Sure, the specifics don't work for both cases...but I don't think we have many rights that don't include some fine print.
Posted by Shepherdess (Member # 6115) on :
You know, it all comes down to personal responsibility. That's the backbone of a democracy. Unfortunately, laws multiply as irresponsible people do and we all suffer. The funny thing is that only the responsible people actually keep the laws, especially the gun control laws.
I have a gun and I started learning how to use it when I was 10 years old (under very close supervision!!). Over the years I've spent a lot of time practicing and becoming comfortable with it. I've thought carefully about the possible situations in which I might have to use it to protect myself or my family.
Unfortunately, it is illegal to even have it in my car in NC, so it stays "safely" at home. If I ever get mugged, raped, carjacked, etc., I'm going to blame both the person who does it, as well as the state that has such restrictive gun laws.
I know these aren't logical reasoned arguments, necessarily, just my personal opinions about a situation where I feel my freedom to protect myself has been limited.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
But Sheperdhess,
would you really be willing to USE your gun in those situations?
I mean, if someone were car-jacking me at gunpoint, I would just give them my car -- not shoot them. I don't think my car is worth a human life, even if it is a criminal's life.
I don't think I could live with myself in the aftermath of taking another human life.
Unless, of course, they were trying to kill my kids. I would shoot them in an instant if it meant their life or my kids' life.
But I don't own a gun because I never want to have to put myself in a position of deciding whether something is worth killing another person over.
Farmgirl
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
quote:I never want to have to put myself in a position of deciding whether something is worth killing another person over.
Boy, I don't have that problem. I'm reminded of the episode of The Family Guy where Death is on the date with that girl who won't shut up, so he reaches across the table and touches her shoulder and she falls into her soup.
Man, I would be touching people left and right. Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
It is sad that as a society, it seems like people value human life less and less all the time. Death and killing almost seem commonplace, and many people think murder in their minds.
I guess we could theorize on why this is (desensitization, etc.) yet we all also know the devastation that you feel when the death is someone close to you that you know and love.
Could you kill someone? Could you do it in good conscience? Could you live with yourself afterwards? If so, what is it that makes you feel like that life has no value?
Farmgirl
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:it seems like people value human life less and less all the time.
Considering the greater prevelance of law, the extended life expectancy, the fewer number of children per family, and a tighter society, I'd say society's value of an individual human life has EXPLODED in a postive direction.
Not that it's perfect, but at worst, it's the same.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
I'll admit that I own a firearm. It's a .45 cal flintlock made by Baretta and honestly not a threat to anyone. I can just see my trying to use it for self defense "Wait right there while I go get some black powder, a bullet mold and lead, hmm pour in the black powder, ram in a patch of cloth and a bullet, hold on a sec more... okay, prime the pan, cock the weapon, shoulder.. wait, don't move.. kablam! Crap, missed ya, hold on a second more... sure, go get a glass of water, this'll take a minute..."
I do believe in the sanctity of the second ammendment and the right for citizens of the US to bear arms. I believe that a hunter has the right to own appropriate weapons (if you need a fully automatic AK-47 with a 30 round clip for deer hunting, perhaps this isn't your sport...) and I believe in the right of a person to own a handgun for self-protection, target shooting and hunting. I also believe in the rights of gun collectors, with proper licensing.
I do believe, also, in the need for full and immediate background checks for ALL gun purchases. A national register is not a difficult thing. Heck, they can do a background check for a job interview now in a matter of minutes, surely a gun purchase should and could require the same. I also believe that a drug test be required, or proof of a negative drug test within the last 30 days.
I also believe each gun should be required to be sold with a gun lock (or chamber wire for long arms) and that consumers be required to keep the gun lock on at all times except for their own usage. I believe that smart gun technologies (which have a mechanism that requires the firer to wear a ring that electronically prohibits firing if the ring is not worn) is a good idea.
It's scary for some, but I do believe firearms have their place. Like any tool, however, the proper and safe use is a must. No one in the US should be allowed to purchase or own (many guns are inherited) a firearm without first taking and passing a firearms safety course.
And then, there's the far, far end of the spectrum. You really, really don't need a submachine gun, or assault rifle (or even a look-alike which can be converted to full-auto with a mod kit), or an auto-firing shotgun. A pistol does not need a 15-round clip, and the general public does not need Black Talon or frangible ammunition.
It comes down to common sense, but there are folks at the fringe of the discussion who speak loudly but apply little brain power to the discussion.
P.S. Dan, I loved the GenCon reference!
[ March 09, 2004, 09:58 AM: Message edited by: Sopwith ]
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
very well said, Sopwith!
FG
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Now as I read the 2nd amendment, it seems to me that the purpose of it is not to let people shoot targets or go hunting. The purpose of it is to keep arms in the hands (amrs in the hands? lol) of the common citizenry in order to keep the government in check.
Is this a fair interpretation? If so, then shouldn't it specifically apply to modern firearms that are used as weapons -- assault rifles, sub-machine guns, etc.?
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Do you feel the writers of the constitution felt that at some point the common citizenry would need to raise up arms against their own government?
Wow -- that just steps us back to the level of some third-world countries of un-rest. I hope we never come to that.
Farmgirl
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Mr. Port--- errr whatever head...
Let's distill it down to the basics. Ownership of a gun, can and does say, I am a sovereign of my own self. I can and will protect my life and property. I can and will provide food for my family if that need arises. I can and will protect myself from injustices.
To paraphrase Guevera, power comes from the barrel of a gun. It's true.
Is the Second Ammendment there to guarantee us the right to rise up against the government? Well, that is an aspect of it, but it's not the only one. To assume so is to put a very fine, minute definition on something that is much larger. It is oversimplification and does a disservice to our founding fathers, relating them to only the basest of thinking. Shame, there's much more to the issue than that.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Do you feel the writers of the constitution felt that at some point the common citizenry would need to raise up arms against their own government?
They absolutely thought that - they had just done it, hadn't they? And the founding document of that revolution made the normative case for doing so again, if needed.
Dagonee
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
What Dag said.
Much of the purpose of the constitution is to limit the power of the government. They were keenly aware that governments can get out of hand, and that sometimes it gets to the point where you do have to raise up arms against it.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Man, if I'm gonna take up arms against the US, I'd better have at least an M2 Bradley, preferably an M1A1 main battle tank.
Posted by Rhaegar The Fool (Member # 5811) on :
Destineer
quote: The founding fathers had no idea what sort of weapons would be made possible by future technology. The 2nd Amendment is obsolete and needs changing.
True, they did not know what weapons would be around otday, but still it is neccesary as it was then, now. If we had a society of unarmed law abiding people in this country, then the law breakers would have no one to stop them, the guns are the greatest deterent to crime in this nation. In this country, on average the pizza man will arive at your house before the police will. Their is a book I think many many people on this thread should read, " More Guns, Less Crime "
Rhaegar
Posted by Rhaegar The Fool (Member # 5811) on :
Oh and destineer, believe me if I were to take up arms against the government I would not want a tank, I would wish nothing more than an AR-15 with Acog sight, and an Springfield Armory 1911, quick, portable, urban warfare, and yes poertio thingie, we very well may need to take up arms against the government.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
You probably ought to have some sort of portable anti-tank weapon as well, say a Dragon missile launcher. Not to mention a Stinger launcher for use against helicopter gunships.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: yes poertio thingie
Feel free to call me porteiro or just port.
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
If you go by port, I'm going to be thinking Porter Rockwell every time anyone posts to you.
Of course, that may be quite fitting for this particular thread.
[ March 09, 2004, 04:19 PM: Message edited by: UofUlawguy ]
Posted by Shepherdess (Member # 6115) on :
quote: But Sheperdhess, would you really be willing to USE your gun in those situations?
To protect myself or my family, absolutely. I also understand that there are situations where its better just to let the criminal have what he wants. In fact, I was taught never to pull the weapon in the first place unless I was prepared to kill someone (otherwise, I'm more than likely to be killed myself).
Yes, it would be hard to live with myself if I had to kill someone, but it would be even harder if there was something I could have done to prevent an even worse tragedy, and I didn't. I value human life--I just happen to value the lives of those I love over the life of someone who wants to harm them.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
A lot of people ask me if I was named after Porter Rockwell (my name IRL is Porter). They always seem dissapointed when I tell them no.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote: Do you think that a person who legally obtains his firearm should be punished more severely than someone who stole it? That doesn't seem to send a very good message.
Not sure what you mean here, or how you got that from my statement. What I'm saying is that using a gun in a crime should have a direct and significant effect on the punishment for that crime. Regardless of whether you attained the gun legally or illegally.
If you have a gun in your hand, and you are aiming it at someone, or even just flashing it around, while committing a crime, you are showing irresponsibility with the weapon and should be punished accordingly. In addition to greatly extended sentences without the possibility of parole, your use of a gun in a crime a *second* time should have even greater penalties.
And I don't care how you got it. If you are using it inappropriately, that shouldn't matter.
quote: This standard argument only works if you assume that those who break the law are never caught.
Destineer, I'm having a lot of trouble understanding this statement. Please explain.
Why would this argument assume that? It seems that the counterargument assumes that all people who break the law are *never released*, or that all people who choose to break the law have been caught *already*. If your intent is to break the law by using a gun, would you really be stopped by someone telling you your owning a gun is illegal? No. Just like if you really want to drink alcohol, is a law saying you can't until you're 21 really going to stop you?
Locks keep honest people honest. Someone determined to break into your house will bypass the lock. Laws against gun ownership are a parallel case.
quote: Could everyone please list their specific reasons for owning/wanting to own a gun ? Besides hunting, of course.
Might as well list reasons for owning a katana. Or a flanged mace. Or a compound bow. Or a chia pet. Or a Kenny G album.
Should I really need to list a specific reason for buying something? I'm not sure what sort of precedent that sets.
I do not own a gun at present. However, growing up throughout my life, there were always two handguns in the house. My father was a police officer, it was part of his job. I was given a healthy respect for guns and other things that go "bang" (like fireworks), and have gone shooting at a private firing range in Pennsylvania on occassion.
It's fun. We buy a box of clay pigeons, and have fun making them explode into tiny bits. We set up reactive targets, and made them go "ping" when we hit them. We set up paper targets and check accuracy. All in all, the group of us has a great time.
And those trips are far more social, informative, and interesting than spending my money on some suped up game system or anything else.
If people are being responsible, there's no reason to limit their freedoms. Just because a small portion of the population is responsible doesn't mean you must limit the freedoms of everyone.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:If your intent is to break the law by using a gun, would you really be stopped by someone telling you your owning a gun is illegal?
No, but you could be stopped from using the gun if you were first arrested for owning the gun. That was my point.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
And how would you go about enforcing this "no ownership at all" law? Random searches of every house, garage, basement and shack in the country?
It worked so well for prohibition... drove crime waaay down. And, it was what the people really wanted... honest.
Posted by Shepherdess (Member # 6115) on :
I thought you all might enjoy this story my grandmother forwarded to me a few weeks ago. I apologize if you've already seen it.
Subject: Don't mess with Grandma!
An elderly Florida lady did her shopping, and upon returning to her car, discovered four males in the act of stealing her car. She dropped her shopping bags and drew her handgun, screaming at the top of her voice, "I have a gun, and I know how to use it! Get out of the car!"
The four men didn't wait for a second invitation. They got out and ran like mad. The lady, somewhat shaken, then proceeded to load her shopping bags into the back of the car and got into driver's seat. She was so shaken that she could not get her key into the ignition. She tried and tried, and then it dawned on her why.
A few minutes later, she found her own car parked four spaces farther down. She loaded her bags into the car and drove to the Police station.
The sergeant to whom she told the story couldn't stop laughing. He pointed to the other end of the counter, where four pale men were reporting a car jacking by a mad, elderly woman described as white, less than five feet tall, with glasses, curly white hair, and carrying a large handgun. No charges were filed.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Seems to me that prohibiting something which (a) is not a habit-forming drug and (b) takes considerable industrial effort to construct would be much easier than prohibiting alcohol or marijuana.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Except for the fact that the right to own firearms is deeply engrained in this society.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
You'd think, Destineer.
Cuz we've had so much luck with those other two.
Also, I'm pretty sure taking someone's gun away from them will have more of an adverse effect on your health than taking a beer away.
Especially the "cold dead hands" crowd.
And the actual standing american militias.
If the government actually tried to ban guns totally, to take them out of the hands of the people, I think you would see a *major* social uprising against that administration.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
If the United States government banned firearms from its citizens, I think a lot of people would consider the government as having been abolished and become enemies of the state.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
I don't deny that the US gun culture, as it's often called, would make enforcement of a handgun ban difficult. All I'm saying is that the practical details of enforcing such a ban, at least in the absence of that sort of culture, would not be insurmountable. It's not impossible, in the sense that prohibition or the war on drugs were/are impossible.
[ March 10, 2004, 12:44 AM: Message edited by: Destineer ]
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
What about the "well regulated miliita..." portion of the Amendment? How does a "well regulated militia" synch with the thought that any regulation of this "right" is a bad thing? I don't remember the Founders being interested in arming their populace so that it could rise up against itself but to prevent a British-style occupation. They didn't have giant standing armies like we have now and the defense of this country rested in the hands of armed citizenry, ready to stand up and be counted if invaded.
This is fine with me. I think if anyone wants to own and bear arms, they should be a part of a nationally supported "well regulated militia" and THEY can be the ones sent overseas to defend our country. Heck, all that gun training could be put to good use, then!
fil
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
fil, that's *exactly* what they were doing. The prime thing they were going for was "freedom from tyranny" and all that good stuff - the idea that England, simply because it was ruling over the colonies, could do what it liked with them.
That idea didn't jive with American sensibilities. The people thought they should have a say - not just the government. And if the government got out of hand, then the people should have the right to change that government - by force, if necessary.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson
The rights of the people were foremost - and the right to defend those rights was next in line. First amendment - you should be able to say adn worship what and how you want without the government hauling you away. Second amendment - if the government does get out of hand, you should have the means to overthrow it.
Just because the government has superior technology doesn't mean the people shouldn't have any. Who'd have thought a bunch of ragtag colonists could have defeated the English war machine?
Now, that said, I'm not looking to overthrow the government. But one of the keys to our freedom is the idea that we maintain the right to maintain arms and militias - in case the government attempts to take that freedom away.
The 2nd amendment shows remarkable foresight. It's the people who enjoy the freedoms it grants that are shortsighted. It provides the right to bear arms so as to maintain a regulated militia... well, the onus is on the people to maintain that militia. As it stands, most people see militias as being comprised of crackpot lunatics, and the ubiquity of such militias is gone.
But notice, it doesn't say "well regulated military" or "well regulated army"... the militias were meant to be run by the people, out from under the regulation and control of the government. Any attempt to deny the people the right to arm themselves and organize is counter to the letter and spirit of the bill of rights.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Flying Cow, I agree.
quote: Just because the government has superior technology doesn't mean the people shouldn't have any. Who'd have thought a bunch of ragtag colonists could have defeated the English war machine?
And technology isn't everything. Who would have thought a group of pajama-clad, hut-dwelling folks in a backwater jungle nation would have won out over the US's superior firepower and technology?
Who would have thought that backwards colonies in Africa could throw off the yoke of European nations like France, Belgium and Portugal (Algeria, The Congo and Angola)?
Or that a small organization hiding out in the mountains of Afghanistan could first thwart the Soviet Union and then threaten to send the world into a series of wars and conflicts using nothing more than donated weapons, and ultimately box cutters?
The Second Ammendment is there as a not-to-subtle reminder to our government that its power is granted by the people and allowed to remain at the will of the populace.
It does not remark to the huge undertaking that it would entail, but does pay homage to the idea that as individuals we are sovereigns in our own right and have the right to access the necessary tools if we so deem it.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
This is why it frustrates me to hear statements like "You don't need a machine-gun to hunt deer." The 2nd amendment was not designed to protect sport hunting. But the laws seep to keep getting further and further from the 2nd amendment. There are many types of firearms that an ordinary citizen cannot buy new legally. The purpose? To keep the populace from being as well armed as those in authority. That makes me sad.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Mr. Port, I've got to disagree with you there.
The reason some weaponry is not allowed for the general public is not to prevent them from using the weapons against the government, but instead to protect the public at large.
Take, for example, the ban on fully automatic weapons. It wasn't created because a few crazed militiamen were out there with Uzis. It was because the weapons were used (in the 1920s and later in the 1970s and 80s) in the commission of basic crimes. When the firearms were discharged, they became what was once called weapons of mass destruction... in other words, they sowed death and injury across large numbers of people.
It is illegal to saw-off the barrel of a shotgun for the same reason, because it creates an indiscriminate weapon. The same goes for explosives, flame throwers and the like.
Then you move to the ban on weapons that looked like assault rifles. It wasn't truly a ban on the look of a weapon, but moreso on the ammunition-carrying capabilities of the weapons. 30-round clips were readily available meaning that the gun offered a huge amount of shots before the user would have to reload. No justifiable reason could be found for allowing such ammo clips beyond the ability to be able to continually deal death and mayhem. Hence, they yanked such things from production (there are loopholes for priorly existing clips already in the marketplace).
You can, however, point back to the Gun Control act back in the mid-1960s that banned the sale of small, cheap handguns ("Saturday Night Specials") as an effort to take inexpensive weaponry from the hands of the poor. It's an easy one to make stick when arguing about the government trying to prevent unrest and armament of those in opposition. The truth, however, was that the legislation began from two distinct points, 1) the number of the cheap weapons used in violent crime (many times the weapons had been stolen) and 2) because of the shoddy manufacturing techniques on the two-bangers (some would only fire twice before breaking) they were actually a great danger to the users.
But it all comes back down to one very important distinction. It isn't the weapon, it is the person holding it. A weenie can go out and get an M-2HB .50 cal machine gun and a belt of ammo, layer on the protective gear, gird themself with a belt of hand-grenades and wade out into the streets thinking they have what it takes because they can churn out successful missions while playing Ghost Recon. A sufficiently trained police officer with a simple handgun can take that person down.
On the other hand, the renowned gunfighter Doc Holliday racked up most of his kills with a knife, rather than a pistol or shotgun.
What this rather lengthy post rolls around to in the end is that it isn't important that some legislation has been enacted for public safety, but that the basic right to own a firearm remains. It isn't about what type of weapon an American can choose to own, but that an American can own some form of weapon by which they defend themselves or their ideals with, should such a need arise. We can restrict the armory, but not the power each American truly wields.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I didn't say that the purpose of limiting what firearms we can own was to prevent an uprising. But many of the laws today, such as the Brady Bill, keep an ordinary citizen from buying new the same firearm that the law enforcment (those in authority) carry every day.
quote: No justifiable reason could be found for allowing such ammo clips beyond the ability to be able to continually deal death
That is the whole point of firearms in the first place -- to kill.
Now, I'm not saying that there aren't very reasonable and logical reasons for keeping such firepower out of the hands of the citizenry. But right or wrong, according to my reading, it goes against the spirit and letter of the constitution. But then again, IANAL, and never will be.
I didn't know about the legislation concerning Saturday night specials. Thanks for the info.
quote: It isn't about what type of weapon an American can choose to own, but that an American can own some form of weapon by which they defend themselves or their ideals with, should such a need arise. We can restrict the armory, but not the power each American truly wields.
This just doesn't make sense to me. You say we are supposed to be able to defend yourself and your ideals with firearms. Doesn't limiting the power of the firearms we can own limit our ability to use said firearms to defend ourselves and our ideals?
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
As I've said before, it isn't the capabilities of a firearm (rate of fire, range, concealability, ammo capacity, etc) that determines lethality to the target. Intent and skill determine that.
Box cutters were the weapons that brought about the fall of the World Trade Center. A pistol shot to the feet was what brought down the heavily armed and armored robbers in Los Angeles a decade ago. Lincoln survived the Civil War, but was brought down by a bullet from a cheap pistol fired with deadly intent.
Once again, it is not the type of weapon, but a weapon in and of itself wherein the last, final and terrible power exists. We walk a fine line around the Second Ammendment, curtailing it when we deem it necessary, but still holding to its basic premise. As long as that premise is upheld so is the intent and the possibility.
Please understand, I in no way am advocating the violent overthrow of our government, but simply debating on the semantics of an Ammendment.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
So, just to be clear on your point: we could rewrite the Second Amendment to make it clear that people are allowed to own box cutters in case they want to violently overthrow the government, and that would be fine?
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: As I've said before, it isn't the capabilities of a firearm (rate of fire, range, concealability, ammo capacity, etc) that determines lethality to the target. Intent and skill determine that.
While there is truth there, the statement is false on its face. Why do we give our military assault rifles instead of 22 handguns? Because they are more effective tools when you are trying to kill someone.
But I think I see what you are trying to say. You cannot get deader than dead, and against an unarmed person, you should have no trouble finding obtaining a firearm that would do the job. But in an armed conflict, which I think was envisioned when the 2nd amendment was written, with all else equal, the better armed side will have the advantage.
Posted by Boon (Member # 4646) on :
Hmph.
I have to admit, DH and I own several firearms, of all types. I carry one every single day, not because I'm paranoid, but because I've had reason to use it in defense of myself and my children.
I'm not saying I've ever shot someone, or ever pulled it out and threatened someone with it. But I do live in a rural area. Once, when I got home from work late and had the kids with me, a strange dog came into our yard while we were walking to the front door.
In a very calm, firm voice I told the kids to freeze and put their hands over their ears, which they did. The dog bristled and growled. I took out my 9mm and shouted at the dog to scat. It growled louder, and started to come closer. I shot it.
It yelped, barked, and growled louder, still advancing. I emptied what was left in my 10 round mag into the dog. It was still moving as I hurried the kids around it and into the house.
When I came back out with a shotgun to finish the dog off (and no, I don't see this as cruel, I thought the dog was probably suffering from the multiple gunshots) the dog was dead.
On the other hand, my husband shot a dog a few months ago that had been running the horses. He used his .308, and the dog dropped dead after the first shot.
We both have excellent marksmanship skills, and practice regularly. But after that, can you really blame me for wanting a larger capacity magazine? I can't carry a larger round, my hands aren't strong enough.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Boon, you do have a point there.
But how do we reconcile the needs of a responsible gun owner (yourself very much included there) whose life does have distinct needs for such accessories (meaning larger ammunition clips... and I can truly sympathize with the problems of dogs running the horses, my family has lost a number of horses to that over the past three decades and I worry for my wife's horse) with some of the ones who have used those larger clips for distinctly more dastardly purposes.
How do we separate those with real need from those with criminal intent or the borderline sociopathic gun bunnies?
It comes down to the situation now where the fringe elements of the situation have ruined it for those who sit responsibly in the middle. If there's a better way, I'd certainly like to both hear and support it.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
You cannot separate out those that will use it irresponsible, short of some sort of Minority Report magic.
But just because some people might (will?) abuse it, that does not give the government the right to deny it to everybody. That's how you treat children, not citizens, IMO.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"But just because some people might (will?) abuse it, that does not give the government the right to deny it to everybody."
Like, um, drugs? Posted by Boon (Member # 4646) on :
Like, um, innocent until proven guilty.
Make it less attractive and easy for criminals to get away with committing crimes with weapons. Really, it's very simple. Just enforce the laws we already have.
How's this: if you have a weapon during the commission of a crime, you get triple sentencing. If you use that weapon, you get triple sentencing with no probation.
Leave my guns alone. Does it make sense that I can own a suitcase full of 10 round magazines, but not one 15 round one...when it takes about 1.5 seconds to change a magazine? Especially when my gun was designed to hold 15, and feels better balanced and is easier to shoot when fully loaded? No wonder my husband calls 10 rounders "low-cap" mags.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Well, really, from my perspective, it doesn't make much sense that you're allowed to own guns at all, but YMMV. Posted by Boon (Member # 4646) on :
Well, if I didn't have that pistol, who would have kept me and my kids from being attacked? What would I have used? Think the dog would have listened to the 911 dispatcher on my cellphone?
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Had I been there I would have backed away slowly and not made eye contact, just like I've been taught to do and have done before. I'm not saying wild dogs aren't dangerous, but I am saying that there are plenty of people in rural areas who don't own guns who haven't been eaten beacuse of it.
Posted by Boon (Member # 4646) on :
Easy to say, but what about my kids? When they froze, they turned to me, not toward the dog. I know not to look an aggressive dog in the eye, and it still growled and advanced.
Okay, it's possible I may not have had to shoot the dog. But how else do you deal with all of the strays-turned-wild that wind up out here? Left unchecked, they pack. You think one aggressive dog is bad, try a group of them.
And what about the dog my husband shot? Should we let it continue running the horses until it kills one, runs it into a fence and cripples it, or forces it to jump the fence and endanger motorists?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I'm disinclined to rebuke her, Bob (tL), since she was with her kids. It's one thing to base one's actions on what's happened before, but when the chilluns enter the equation, the fact that it probably wouldn't attack them is somehow less important.
I don't know that I'dve done the same as Boon-in fact I probably would not have done so-but it was not irresponsible or worthy of criticism.
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
I guess what is saddest is that people really do feel that they NEED to carry a gun to be safe. I am curious why the "well regulated Militia" piece is so easily thrown off, though. "Regulated" and "Militia" bring to mind something more formal than wondering if the guy next to you is packing legal or illegal armnament. This is why police organizations aren't happy with all these Conceal and Carry laws. It is easy to pick out criminals on the street prior to that...if they have a gun, they are breaking the law. Now, though...they pull a guy over and see a gun, they have to hesitate long enough to cost them their lives.
But back to "regulated" and "Militia." What are those? Why are they ignored? "Regulated" means that there is SOME sort of regulation in terms of ownership, doesn't it? What is Regulated mean otherwise? The "Militia" part is even more intriguing? One could argue the State Police are, in fact, the well Regulated Militia. Remember, we tend to see ourselves as one country but in the late 18th Century, we were a collection of independent States who looked to the Federal government to help in the mutual protection. When the Amendment says "being necessary to the security of a free State" one wonders if they aren't talking about States having the right to be armed. In each State, then, we would need to have a well regulated militia to look after that safety. Madame Gunowner in her station wagon going to the mall toting a handgun just doesn't seem...well, regulated OR Militia. We are a nation that has been blessedly free of the NEED to have armed citizens in the street. We really don't have the need. Having talked with a family of survivors of some of the recent racial cleansing in East Europe, I can honestly say we have it pretty good and any paranoid delusion that makes one feel the need to go armed into the bright day is really, really sad. If people HONESTLY feel that the government is going to come into our individual homes, weapons in hand, en masse...well, you have more issues than simply carrying a gun around will help.
fil
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
I agree that we shouldn't judge Boon, without having been in her position first. Hard to know what each of us would do in the same situation.
That said, I also do live in the country, and own horses. I do not own a gun.
Now, on the up side -- what happened to Boon would probably not ever happen to me, because MY dogs would not allow it. No stray (and there are lots of strays dumped and dogs that run loose) can get anywhere near our property without our dogs making it clear they are not allowed. Same with our horses. So I would never have to be in a situation like Boon's. If there were a stray dog running my horses, I would probably call the appropriate county department and let THEM come out and take care of the stray.
I have had need, on one occassion, to call my neighbor to come to my farm with HIS gun to shoot a rabid skunk in my front yard that was chasing my dogs. That was one instance that I did wish I had a gun. But found a solution none-the-less.
And once a deer dragged itself up into my front yard -- had obviously been hit by a vehicle and survived -- but the impact had torn off it's hind leg. I called the county and they came out and destroyed it (not too good of shots either -- took them several tries).
Those types of things make me sometimes I wish I still had a gun once in awhile. I used to be an expert marksman. But when I really think about it, then I think....."nah"..... don't want one again.
Farmgirl
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
I didn't mean to rebuke her, for some reason I thought she'd asked what somone else would have done. My mistake.
Although, I still feel like the only stories people I know tell me that involve something dying are the ones where a gun is pulled. Where in similar situations where one isn't pulled everyone gets out with all their pieces. Granted, it's impossible to tell what might have happened had a gun been added/subtracted from any scenario. I just can't shake the notion that the last thing having a gun on hand does is make you safer.
Edit: What I wrote wasn't what I thought. It may will *still* not be, but it's one step closer!
[ March 10, 2004, 03:50 PM: Message edited by: Bob the Lawyer ]
Posted by Boon (Member # 4646) on :
ummm...
nevermind. I get really worked up and emotional about this issue, and I've spent way too much work time on it already. I'll bow out now, at least until I get home tonight.
Edit: crap, people posted while I was typing.
[ March 10, 2004, 03:49 PM: Message edited by: Boon ]
Posted by aka (Member # 139) on :
Someone asked why I own a gun. I bought my rifle for hunting, and I inherited my shotgun from my grandfather. I was really glad I had a shotgun when a guy who had done some yardwork for me a few times got aggressive and pushy not long ago. Some badguys don't give an angry woman much respect. But every badguy I've ever come across definitely WOULD give respect to an angry woman with a loaded shotgun.
I would hope I never had to hurt anyone. I am a very peaceful person. It bothers me to have to kill bugs. But if someone by being agressive made me feel threatened enough to have to shoot them, I would not think of it as something *I* caused to happen, but rather something *they* caused to happen, by threatening me.
I would defend other people, too, who were being victimized. I would hope I could manage it without hurting anyone, and in fact I've been able to stop fights and things several times just by standing up to people and saying "stop that at once" in a commanding tone. I am sure I would mourn, too, anyone whom I had to kill. I would hate that very much. But I would still do it.
Life is precious. But the life of the agressor is not MORE precious than the life of the victim.
[ March 10, 2004, 06:25 PM: Message edited by: aka ]
Posted by aka (Member # 139) on :
I wanted to point out to those who compare the U.S. with Europe, that in Switzerland, all males must serve in the army, and when they get out, they keep their fully automatic rifles. Nearly every household in Switzerland has an assault rifle. Yet their rate of gun violence is very low. Not the least reason for that being that everyone knows all law abiding citizens are well armed.
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
Well, at least in Switzerland, we also know that every man with a gun is trained in how to use it, when to use it and when not to use it. Not so, over here. If everyone who wanted to own serious gun hardware had to be in the military, there would be a lot of unrest. But, it DOES say "Well regulated Militia" so maybe THAT is what they are talking about?
fil
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
But do we have any such well-regulated millitia? Short of joining the National Guard, that is.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
The bulk of the militia is more commonly known as a police force.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
From what I understand of what a millitia is, the police force doesn't count. That's because if you are a police officer, that is your job and your career. A millitia is composed of non-career militiamen who answer the call to arms only when it is needed.
Posted by Rhaegar The Fool (Member # 5811) on :
Yes, A militia is an organization of private citizens who are armed, ready, and unemployed by any government to fight for the country, repelling of invaders, or the even the overthrow of a government if neccesary.
Rhaegar
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Here's an interesting forward I got today... not really any sort of valid argument. But I got a kick out of it.
quote: The number of physicians in the US is 700,000. - Accidental deaths caused by physicians this year is 120,000 - Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171 (US Dept of Health and Human Services).
The number of gun owners in the US is 80,000,000 - Accidental gun deaths per year is 1,500 - Accidental deaths per gun owner is 0.0000188
Statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners. Please alert your friends to this threat. We must ban doctors before this gets out of hand.
Scary thought: Not everyone has a gun, but almost everyone has at least one doctor.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
So we don't have a militia at all in this country. Interesting.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
I'm reminded of the episode of The Family Guy where Death is on the date with that girl who won't shut up, so he reaches across the table and touches her shoulder and she falls into her soup.![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)