Forums » Off-Topic
So this is mainly to Chaos, and other people who I know are against gun control, but I've never really been able to form an opinion on it. However I did run across a short one page piece that has the for/against arguments, and a few things stuck out to me, and I'm wondering how anti-gun-control peeps account for them. Please don't make this a debate, I just want your opinion and will stay neutral on the subject :) (except insofar as to probe you for more information!)
1) On average, 29,000 Americans are killed by firearms every year. 11,000 of those are murders, 17,000 are suicides, and 1,000 are accidents. In Britain and Canada, where there are strict gun control laws, the annual rate is 100 deaths and 168 respectively. In Australia, a gunman killed 35 people in 1996. The Prime Minister then launched a campaign, which "culminated in laws banning 60 percent of all firearms then available, and restrictions and licensing of the rest. Since 1996, the rate of gun deaths in Australia has fallen by half. Australia today has a per-capita gun-crime rate less than one-tenth of that in the US." So as supporters for less gun control, how do you reconcile what seem to be great success from gun control in other countries?
----
I'll have more stuff later, just wanna go through one at a time :) This is from "The Week's Big Briefing Book," the section on gun control
1) On average, 29,000 Americans are killed by firearms every year. 11,000 of those are murders, 17,000 are suicides, and 1,000 are accidents. In Britain and Canada, where there are strict gun control laws, the annual rate is 100 deaths and 168 respectively. In Australia, a gunman killed 35 people in 1996. The Prime Minister then launched a campaign, which "culminated in laws banning 60 percent of all firearms then available, and restrictions and licensing of the rest. Since 1996, the rate of gun deaths in Australia has fallen by half. Australia today has a per-capita gun-crime rate less than one-tenth of that in the US." So as supporters for less gun control, how do you reconcile what seem to be great success from gun control in other countries?
----
I'll have more stuff later, just wanna go through one at a time :) This is from "The Week's Big Briefing Book," the section on gun control
Banning alcohol, tobacco, ATVs, and fattening foods would likewise reduce deaths (probably in all the categories you mentioned, plus heath related ones). Banning any of them, however, would be a grave infringement on individual liberties: the end does not justify the means; what's safest for the lowest common denominator doesn't justify infringing the liberties of others.
Moreover, the right of a mortal being to possess an effective means of self defense has been established as a fundamental human right for centuries. See http://www.davekopel.com/2A/LawRev/The-Human-Right-of-Self-Defense.pdf Nor does the modern police force, a peace keeping instrument that is legally unaccountable to the citizens it "protects," displace this right.
In addition, what your statistics, allegedly reflecting a "great success," fail to show are the increases in aggressive crime that results from the prohibition on civilian gun ownership. The rate of home invasion/robbery in Australian cities since 1996 has jumped far more than the 50% decrease in "gun deaths."
Query if the statistics you cite include a definition of "gun death" or "gun crime"? You wouldn't believe the stuff that gets poured into those numbers--criminals killed by police, criminals killed by civilians, any guns seized during an arrest for another crime, etc.
Finally, were there a national movement to allow service style handguns to be carried concealed by any civilian who passed skills, legal, and background checks . . . we'd see a lot more compromise on this issue. Check out the rates of crime in states subsequent to the enactment of "Shall Issue" concealed carry laws.
That being said, given the election results I'm stocking up on 20 round .45 mags, buying a Fulton Armory M-14, and generally preparing for another 4 years of "Assault Weapons Ban."
Moreover, the right of a mortal being to possess an effective means of self defense has been established as a fundamental human right for centuries. See http://www.davekopel.com/2A/LawRev/The-Human-Right-of-Self-Defense.pdf Nor does the modern police force, a peace keeping instrument that is legally unaccountable to the citizens it "protects," displace this right.
In addition, what your statistics, allegedly reflecting a "great success," fail to show are the increases in aggressive crime that results from the prohibition on civilian gun ownership. The rate of home invasion/robbery in Australian cities since 1996 has jumped far more than the 50% decrease in "gun deaths."
Query if the statistics you cite include a definition of "gun death" or "gun crime"? You wouldn't believe the stuff that gets poured into those numbers--criminals killed by police, criminals killed by civilians, any guns seized during an arrest for another crime, etc.
Finally, were there a national movement to allow service style handguns to be carried concealed by any civilian who passed skills, legal, and background checks . . . we'd see a lot more compromise on this issue. Check out the rates of crime in states subsequent to the enactment of "Shall Issue" concealed carry laws.
That being said, given the election results I'm stocking up on 20 round .45 mags, buying a Fulton Armory M-14, and generally preparing for another 4 years of "Assault Weapons Ban."
Statistics also claim more gun violence is between "acquaintences" than strangers.
Except, drug dealers killing drug dealers, are filed as "acquiantences" among other things..
When it comes right down to it, ask yourself this, which scenario would you rather be in?
1) You are in your home, someone breaks in, he has a gun, you do not.
2) You are in your home, someone breaks in, you have a gun, he does too. However, you have a conceal-n-carry permit, which means you've undergone at least -some- training in the -use- of said firearm, and he's just a street thug with a gun in his hand, so he's pretty confident it'll scare you.
I know which one I'd rather be in.. and it's the exact opposite of the one 99% of the criminals would want you to be in.
Murder is illegal, people still do it. Stealing is illegal, people still do it. Yet, somehow, you think if guns are illegal, no one would have one? riiiiight.
Face it, there -will- be people with guns. Look at the statitistics posted, there are -still- guns in those places where they are supposedly illegal..
break19
Except, drug dealers killing drug dealers, are filed as "acquiantences" among other things..
When it comes right down to it, ask yourself this, which scenario would you rather be in?
1) You are in your home, someone breaks in, he has a gun, you do not.
2) You are in your home, someone breaks in, you have a gun, he does too. However, you have a conceal-n-carry permit, which means you've undergone at least -some- training in the -use- of said firearm, and he's just a street thug with a gun in his hand, so he's pretty confident it'll scare you.
I know which one I'd rather be in.. and it's the exact opposite of the one 99% of the criminals would want you to be in.
Murder is illegal, people still do it. Stealing is illegal, people still do it. Yet, somehow, you think if guns are illegal, no one would have one? riiiiight.
Face it, there -will- be people with guns. Look at the statitistics posted, there are -still- guns in those places where they are supposedly illegal..
break19
To expand on my human right point, hopefully without degenerating into "debate," even if making guns illegal across the board would result in nobody having one, it would still be an immoral law.
I'll let Smittens ponder why that might be.
I'll let Smittens ponder why that might be.
There's a saying that if you outlaw guns, only the outlaws will have them.
With regards to crime rates: I don't know what the actual numbers are (Lecter or break19 probably could fish them up) but I would expect that a fair percentage of people planning to commit a crime (for simplicity's sake we'll use robbery or mugging as the example) would *not* commit the crime if they knew there was a high probability of their intended victim having a firearm on their person.
With regards to crime rates: I don't know what the actual numbers are (Lecter or break19 probably could fish them up) but I would expect that a fair percentage of people planning to commit a crime (for simplicity's sake we'll use robbery or mugging as the example) would *not* commit the crime if they knew there was a high probability of their intended victim having a firearm on their person.
Just a few questions:
How many jurisdictions require proof of hands-on training in gun safety and use before allowing the sale of firearms to someone?
What is the recommended firearm for defense of one's home?
How does the availability of non-lethal weapons impact the self-defense argument for gun ownership?
What is the breakdown between urban and rural inhabitants and their respective needs and views on gun-control?
What is an acceptable level of gun-control, if any?
How many jurisdictions require proof of hands-on training in gun safety and use before allowing the sale of firearms to someone?
What is the recommended firearm for defense of one's home?
How does the availability of non-lethal weapons impact the self-defense argument for gun ownership?
What is the breakdown between urban and rural inhabitants and their respective needs and views on gun-control?
What is an acceptable level of gun-control, if any?
Just letting you know I see this thread, and am very busy for a couple days but I promise I will respond!
As a victim of this exact subject, I can firmly say this: Your right to own a deadly weapon should not infringe on the right of my family to live.
If the purpose of guns is to keep the government in line, then you people are underequipped and delusional. Not to mention, never really act.
If the purpose of guns is self defense, then I must say that a small minority of people are truly bad, but everyone can make mistakes. Guns amplify those mistakes manyfold, as I found out.
I seriously think that in many regards, America is a nation too proud and stubborn about some freedoms while they restrict others, like California and Proposition 8.
If the purpose of guns is to keep the government in line, then you people are underequipped and delusional. Not to mention, never really act.
If the purpose of guns is self defense, then I must say that a small minority of people are truly bad, but everyone can make mistakes. Guns amplify those mistakes manyfold, as I found out.
I seriously think that in many regards, America is a nation too proud and stubborn about some freedoms while they restrict others, like California and Proposition 8.
Others have already presented the "pro" arguments, so I'll just go after the misconceptions, starting with those numbers. Such statistics are fairly easily manipulated to draw incorrect conclusions. I'd throw out all the murders and suicides as being irrelevant- guns are simply highly efficient at those tasks. Once someone's decided to go about one of them, they can accomplish it through a wide variety of means that do not involve guns. Had guns been unavailable, they simply would have done them via another means. The only relevant death figure is the accidental one- and car accidents outweigh gun accidents by over a factor of ten.
The main ammo, pardon the pun, that the gun-ban proponents have are the occasional tragic accidents wherein children are shot. My view on the matter is that the blame lies on the parents for not keeping tabs on their children and/or their firearms, combined with a lack of knowledge on how to properly deal with a firearm. At a young age, I received a strong admonishment for playing with a toy rifle, with a very graphic explanation as to why. While the specifics have been lost over the years, the lesson stuck with me- GUNS ARE NOT TOYS. They are deadly serious items, and portraying them as anything but is inviting tragedy.
That said, I do support the restriction to outright ban of high-end weapons because I have not see any reasonable arguments for their unrestricted use, and plenty for their restriction. Fully automatic weapons are intended to rapidly take down multiple targets, and I simply can not find a situation where that would be called for aside from a lunatic rampage. The main argument I've seen here is that such weapons are needed to protect people from "The Government". If "The Government" wants to get you, they'll send in a sniper and you'll never see it coming.
For the more reasonable "People's Right to Revolution", they seem to forget that if shit truly does get that bad, the armed forces will split just as much as the country at large will, and will take their equipment with them. Our armed forces have been remarkably neutral in political affairs, which is a considerable testament to their discipline and professionalism, but it should not be forgotten that they are still residents of the individual states. If the unthinkable does happen and they cannot serve and protect the whole country, I expect them to serve and protect such parts of it that contain their homes and families. Such a terrible choice has not had to be made since the Civil War, and I sincerely hope it will never have to be made again, but the precedent is there. If the world goes wrong, there will be professional, well-trained armed forces with the high-end equipment on your side anyway, making the personal possession of such items unnecessary.
And quite frankly, I'd rather not have the local street gang able to deploy Surface-to-Air missiles and ransom the local hospital for the safety of their Medivac helicopter. There's a cutoff point for everyone, where even the staunchest among us have to pause and say that it's really too much.
The main ammo, pardon the pun, that the gun-ban proponents have are the occasional tragic accidents wherein children are shot. My view on the matter is that the blame lies on the parents for not keeping tabs on their children and/or their firearms, combined with a lack of knowledge on how to properly deal with a firearm. At a young age, I received a strong admonishment for playing with a toy rifle, with a very graphic explanation as to why. While the specifics have been lost over the years, the lesson stuck with me- GUNS ARE NOT TOYS. They are deadly serious items, and portraying them as anything but is inviting tragedy.
That said, I do support the restriction to outright ban of high-end weapons because I have not see any reasonable arguments for their unrestricted use, and plenty for their restriction. Fully automatic weapons are intended to rapidly take down multiple targets, and I simply can not find a situation where that would be called for aside from a lunatic rampage. The main argument I've seen here is that such weapons are needed to protect people from "The Government". If "The Government" wants to get you, they'll send in a sniper and you'll never see it coming.
For the more reasonable "People's Right to Revolution", they seem to forget that if shit truly does get that bad, the armed forces will split just as much as the country at large will, and will take their equipment with them. Our armed forces have been remarkably neutral in political affairs, which is a considerable testament to their discipline and professionalism, but it should not be forgotten that they are still residents of the individual states. If the unthinkable does happen and they cannot serve and protect the whole country, I expect them to serve and protect such parts of it that contain their homes and families. Such a terrible choice has not had to be made since the Civil War, and I sincerely hope it will never have to be made again, but the precedent is there. If the world goes wrong, there will be professional, well-trained armed forces with the high-end equipment on your side anyway, making the personal possession of such items unnecessary.
And quite frankly, I'd rather not have the local street gang able to deploy Surface-to-Air missiles and ransom the local hospital for the safety of their Medivac helicopter. There's a cutoff point for everyone, where even the staunchest among us have to pause and say that it's really too much.
Just a few answers:
How many jurisdictions require proof of hands-on training in gun safety and use before allowing the sale of firearms to someone?
Most don't; U.S. jurisdictions fall into one of two categories with very little in between. Catergory one, buying a gun is like getting a bank account: you go to a store, you show two forms of ID, fill out a Federal background check form, and assuming you pass the instant background checks, they sell you the gun. There are some jurisdictions with "waiting periods" for handguns, ostensibly to prevent impulse killings. Most other jurisdictions require a lengthy, expensive, and deliberately vague/discretionary "application for a license/permit" process to even buy a BB gun. However, the application process tends not to involve a focus on training in firearm use, law, or safety. Instead, the goal is to keep people from buying guns, and to deny most applications of those who apply to do so.
Conversely, all jurisdictions that issue concealed carry permits require legal, safety, and skills training before issuance. Sorta makes sense, as the gun is less of a threat if not carried concealed in public. Open carry legal states (more than you'd ever guess) place no restrictions or training requirements on the right to open carry (i.e., wear it on your hip, out in the open, and you're fine assuming you own it legally).
What is the recommended firearm for defense of one's home?
VERY long debate. Many prefer the compactness of handguns; others like the power and potentially lower overpenetration of shotguns. Almost nobody likes rifles for home defense, but the very best tool would also be the hardest to get: a three round burst submachine gun with a suppressor (i.e. H&K MP5-SD). Multi round accuracy, without complete full auto lack of control; small size; very little flash or sound to blind you or let your intruder know where you are; subsonic rounds have less chance to shoot through walls and harm unintended targets.
How does the availability of non-lethal weapons impact the self-defense argument for gun ownership?
Growing issue here, but still not relevant because of disparity in effectiveness and reliability. Once phasers with heavy stun become available, then we can morally discuss banning handguns.
What is the breakdown between urban and rural inhabitants and their respective needs and views on gun-control?
Politically loaded question with no real answer. My take is that populations don't have needs w/r/t guns--only individuals do. If someone is a mentally healthy non criminal who wants to learn guns and the law on use of force in their jurisdiction, and can meet minimum competence standards in those areas, they have a fundamental right to carry a reasonable handgun to protect themselves. End of debate, full stop. Sorta like gay marriage or integrated schools--lots of people don't like it, but it's really none of their business.
What is an acceptable level of gun-control, if any?
This doesn't deserve an answer in a thread entitled "NOT A DEBATE"--so, my answer is the level that allows you to control your gun well enough to hit your intended target and nothing else ;)
How many jurisdictions require proof of hands-on training in gun safety and use before allowing the sale of firearms to someone?
Most don't; U.S. jurisdictions fall into one of two categories with very little in between. Catergory one, buying a gun is like getting a bank account: you go to a store, you show two forms of ID, fill out a Federal background check form, and assuming you pass the instant background checks, they sell you the gun. There are some jurisdictions with "waiting periods" for handguns, ostensibly to prevent impulse killings. Most other jurisdictions require a lengthy, expensive, and deliberately vague/discretionary "application for a license/permit" process to even buy a BB gun. However, the application process tends not to involve a focus on training in firearm use, law, or safety. Instead, the goal is to keep people from buying guns, and to deny most applications of those who apply to do so.
Conversely, all jurisdictions that issue concealed carry permits require legal, safety, and skills training before issuance. Sorta makes sense, as the gun is less of a threat if not carried concealed in public. Open carry legal states (more than you'd ever guess) place no restrictions or training requirements on the right to open carry (i.e., wear it on your hip, out in the open, and you're fine assuming you own it legally).
What is the recommended firearm for defense of one's home?
VERY long debate. Many prefer the compactness of handguns; others like the power and potentially lower overpenetration of shotguns. Almost nobody likes rifles for home defense, but the very best tool would also be the hardest to get: a three round burst submachine gun with a suppressor (i.e. H&K MP5-SD). Multi round accuracy, without complete full auto lack of control; small size; very little flash or sound to blind you or let your intruder know where you are; subsonic rounds have less chance to shoot through walls and harm unintended targets.
How does the availability of non-lethal weapons impact the self-defense argument for gun ownership?
Growing issue here, but still not relevant because of disparity in effectiveness and reliability. Once phasers with heavy stun become available, then we can morally discuss banning handguns.
What is the breakdown between urban and rural inhabitants and their respective needs and views on gun-control?
Politically loaded question with no real answer. My take is that populations don't have needs w/r/t guns--only individuals do. If someone is a mentally healthy non criminal who wants to learn guns and the law on use of force in their jurisdiction, and can meet minimum competence standards in those areas, they have a fundamental right to carry a reasonable handgun to protect themselves. End of debate, full stop. Sorta like gay marriage or integrated schools--lots of people don't like it, but it's really none of their business.
What is an acceptable level of gun-control, if any?
This doesn't deserve an answer in a thread entitled "NOT A DEBATE"--so, my answer is the level that allows you to control your gun well enough to hit your intended target and nothing else ;)
Your right to own a deadly weapon should not infringe on the right of my family to live.
And unless I'm a criminal who legally owns a gun, that right doesn't infringe on anything. Don't blame the rock that someone chose to use.
Also, not to pick on an unhappy subject, but didn't wasn't the murderer of your father some form of government agent? Wasn't he issued a weapon?
And unless I'm a criminal who legally owns a gun, that right doesn't infringe on anything. Don't blame the rock that someone chose to use.
Also, not to pick on an unhappy subject, but didn't wasn't the murderer of your father some form of government agent? Wasn't he issued a weapon?
Very interesting! I like what's been said, but have to clarify/ask questions about some. Point by point...
Lecter 1) Are private citizens allowed to have nuclear weaponry? (I guess I don't know for sure, but I assume not, and if I'm wrong just replace "nuclear weaponry" with something big powerful and illegal). The ban prevents accidents, reduces deaths, etc, but it by your definition it also infringes on people's rights. Obviously a handgun isn't in the same category as a nuke, but also I wouldn't categorize it as the same thing as alcohol, or fattening foods. It really is it's own category, and I don't know if you can translate assumptions about one group onto another.
That is a good point about increased robbery in Australia, and the hidden part of the statistics. Still, I'd rather have twice as many break ins and half as many murders!
---
Break: Hah chill man, you seem to be taking this like it's personal :P I don't really get your first point. One part of a statistic isn't accurate, so we should throw it all out? Obviously stats aren't the end-all answer, but they do shed some insight. For your perfect scenario, obviously everyone would choose 2. However, ask yourself this. Which of these scenarios would YOU rather be in!
1) You do not own a gun
2) You have a gun that your kid probably doesn't know about (he does know about it), and one day when you're not home he wants to show his friends and maybe reenact some of his favorite movie scenes.
I think I"d take #1! My point is not "GUN CONTROL!" (As I said, good points on both sides, still undecided), but for you to reduce it to a black and white situation doesn't really help.
Obviously even with the strictest gun control, people will still get guns. But that's not an argument for not trying. Saying that is the equivalent to, "Even if we make murder illegal, people will still kill each other, so I guess we shouldn't bother with any laws about it." I don't think gun control would solve the problem (again, you didn't seem to pay much attention to my stance), but I'm not willing to write it off just cause bad people will always have access to them.
--
Lecter 2) Again that comes down to the first thing I was saying. Technically it's limiting someone's freedom to say "It's illegal to steal" but does that make it immoral? I'd like to see more about where you draw the distinction :)
--
Miharu: That is a very strong argument for no GC. Thanks for bringing it up.
--
Chaos: Can't wait to see what you've got :)
--
Moldy: Thank you very much for chiming in for the pro-gun control side. This is the stance I find most often around me in day to day life, and definitely deserves voicing. It's got a lot of merit. I've always thought it silly that people consider it at all possible to defend against the government. And very good point about prop 8. I can't fucking believe that passed! I'm confident that like blacks and women, gays will eventually get their rights, but it's sad that it's taking this long.
--
IRS: Maybe the stats are total BS, but I would definitely believe that a world with guns is gonna have more murders than a world without it. Guns make killing other people incredibly easy, and there are numerous situations where something could have gone wrong if it wasn't just *Pull trigger*
I wrote my above example for break19 before reading your post :) But I'm not saying that kids & accidents are a great reason for gun control, merely mirroring his simplified situation.
Very good point about heavy weapons! The overall debate (not the one in this thread, cause it doesn't exist!) really seems to be "All guns or no guns" and I haven't heard/seen much about breaking it down based on the size. Certainly they are different issues! Of course this could circle back to "Criminals will still get them," but I think you're point is that for private defense you wouldn't even need a heavy weapon?
And yes, the government would be very efficient where it counted.
Lecter 1) Are private citizens allowed to have nuclear weaponry? (I guess I don't know for sure, but I assume not, and if I'm wrong just replace "nuclear weaponry" with something big powerful and illegal). The ban prevents accidents, reduces deaths, etc, but it by your definition it also infringes on people's rights. Obviously a handgun isn't in the same category as a nuke, but also I wouldn't categorize it as the same thing as alcohol, or fattening foods. It really is it's own category, and I don't know if you can translate assumptions about one group onto another.
That is a good point about increased robbery in Australia, and the hidden part of the statistics. Still, I'd rather have twice as many break ins and half as many murders!
---
Break: Hah chill man, you seem to be taking this like it's personal :P I don't really get your first point. One part of a statistic isn't accurate, so we should throw it all out? Obviously stats aren't the end-all answer, but they do shed some insight. For your perfect scenario, obviously everyone would choose 2. However, ask yourself this. Which of these scenarios would YOU rather be in!
1) You do not own a gun
2) You have a gun that your kid probably doesn't know about (he does know about it), and one day when you're not home he wants to show his friends and maybe reenact some of his favorite movie scenes.
I think I"d take #1! My point is not "GUN CONTROL!" (As I said, good points on both sides, still undecided), but for you to reduce it to a black and white situation doesn't really help.
Obviously even with the strictest gun control, people will still get guns. But that's not an argument for not trying. Saying that is the equivalent to, "Even if we make murder illegal, people will still kill each other, so I guess we shouldn't bother with any laws about it." I don't think gun control would solve the problem (again, you didn't seem to pay much attention to my stance), but I'm not willing to write it off just cause bad people will always have access to them.
--
Lecter 2) Again that comes down to the first thing I was saying. Technically it's limiting someone's freedom to say "It's illegal to steal" but does that make it immoral? I'd like to see more about where you draw the distinction :)
--
Miharu: That is a very strong argument for no GC. Thanks for bringing it up.
--
Chaos: Can't wait to see what you've got :)
--
Moldy: Thank you very much for chiming in for the pro-gun control side. This is the stance I find most often around me in day to day life, and definitely deserves voicing. It's got a lot of merit. I've always thought it silly that people consider it at all possible to defend against the government. And very good point about prop 8. I can't fucking believe that passed! I'm confident that like blacks and women, gays will eventually get their rights, but it's sad that it's taking this long.
--
IRS: Maybe the stats are total BS, but I would definitely believe that a world with guns is gonna have more murders than a world without it. Guns make killing other people incredibly easy, and there are numerous situations where something could have gone wrong if it wasn't just *Pull trigger*
I wrote my above example for break19 before reading your post :) But I'm not saying that kids & accidents are a great reason for gun control, merely mirroring his simplified situation.
Very good point about heavy weapons! The overall debate (not the one in this thread, cause it doesn't exist!) really seems to be "All guns or no guns" and I haven't heard/seen much about breaking it down based on the size. Certainly they are different issues! Of course this could circle back to "Criminals will still get them," but I think you're point is that for private defense you wouldn't even need a heavy weapon?
And yes, the government would be very efficient where it counted.
I was intending it more of an argument for concealed carry than a lack of gun control.
I'm more towards the middle of the spectrum on this subject, but I have to leave for my "morning" class in a few minutes, so I'll post later this afternoon when I get back.
I'm more towards the middle of the spectrum on this subject, but I have to leave for my "morning" class in a few minutes, so I'll post later this afternoon when I get back.
Smittens, read the Human Right of Self Defense article. Your responses have been so simpleminded as to make me think you're actually looking for a debate. On a non gun related note, your concept of liberty, as evinced by your "banning stealing is an infringement on liberty," shows that you need some serious education in philosophy. Start with Rawls, Locke, Mill, and Hobbes.
In case you're just dense this week, I'm not saying that all infringements on any liberty are equal. Only that an effective means of self defense is a fundamental right. The lines are fuzzy, but not that fuzzy: I have a right to a semiautomatic handgun of reasonable caliber and capacity; I probably don't have a right to a fully automatic weapon; I surely don't have a right to a nuke.
Moreover, while you remain perfectly free to not own a gun over concerns about children, you surely don't have a right to prevent Break from owning one because you're worried about his kids.
Were you planning to address my question as to why removing all guns from society--actually getting rid of ALL of them, not just making them illegal--would be a fundamentally immoral act?
In case you're just dense this week, I'm not saying that all infringements on any liberty are equal. Only that an effective means of self defense is a fundamental right. The lines are fuzzy, but not that fuzzy: I have a right to a semiautomatic handgun of reasonable caliber and capacity; I probably don't have a right to a fully automatic weapon; I surely don't have a right to a nuke.
Moreover, while you remain perfectly free to not own a gun over concerns about children, you surely don't have a right to prevent Break from owning one because you're worried about his kids.
Were you planning to address my question as to why removing all guns from society--actually getting rid of ALL of them, not just making them illegal--would be a fundamentally immoral act?
Lecter, on the danger of asking twice (I think we already had this discussion once), why exactly is something as important as firearms laws and regulations being handled by each state individually and not by the government in D.C.? Wouldn't it make things easier, also concerning individuals moving across the border of a state?
That said, I'm in favour of the MP5SD (or the MP7 and similar PDW submachine guns in semiautomatic or burst-fire mode) being allowed as self-defense weapon provided it stays at home (it's not exactly practical to carry it as CCW either, unless you're used to it...) for the reasons you mentioned, Lecter.
I have another question, though. For a CC permit, do you have to periodically do an 'aptitude' test or are you required to fire a certain amount of rounds in a firing range, supervised by suitably skilled personnel?
That said, I'm in favour of the MP5SD (or the MP7 and similar PDW submachine guns in semiautomatic or burst-fire mode) being allowed as self-defense weapon provided it stays at home (it's not exactly practical to carry it as CCW either, unless you're used to it...) for the reasons you mentioned, Lecter.
I have another question, though. For a CC permit, do you have to periodically do an 'aptitude' test or are you required to fire a certain amount of rounds in a firing range, supervised by suitably skilled personnel?
Toshiro: the "importance" is irrelevant; the Feds have no power to regulate purely intrastate issues, and what guns are allowed in the state is such an issue. Obviously there has been errosion around the edges (ATF regulating suppressed and select fire weapons across the board, for example), justified on various commerce clause arguments--but basically, it's not within the scope of their power to do so.
I would love to see a national concealed carry permit issued for an approved list of handguns, along with a training system actually designed to facilitate gun use. Never happen, and would also violate the federalism principle outlined above.
For the CC permit, it varies; I believe all require it, just depends how often. I'd support a semi-annual qualifing requirement, using a system admnistered by private instructors certifying aptitude to the State's CC issuing body. Legal knowledge on justification would need to be reupped then as well.
I would love to see a national concealed carry permit issued for an approved list of handguns, along with a training system actually designed to facilitate gun use. Never happen, and would also violate the federalism principle outlined above.
For the CC permit, it varies; I believe all require it, just depends how often. I'd support a semi-annual qualifing requirement, using a system admnistered by private instructors certifying aptitude to the State's CC issuing body. Legal knowledge on justification would need to be reupped then as well.
That makes a lot more sense Lecter, thank you for taking the issue deeper and not just simplifying it. Also I think you missed my point about kids/break19...
1) I have a handgun. It is kept within reach of my bedside, technically not loaded. (Here "not loaded" means no round in the chamber, but the clip is inserted, and I can load it nearly instantaneously, flip the safety out, slip out of bed and have the gun pointed at the door in approximately 2 seconds from when my wife says "now"
2) My little girl is 14 months old, cannot -reach- the drawer of the bedside table, so she cannot -get- to it.
3) When she is old enough to know what a gun is, and does, she will also know -how to use it- and -when- to use it.
4) You do not -brandish- a firearm. If you point it at someone, you should pulling the trigger less than a second later. Guns are for shooting, not scaring people. You point it a person, you'd better be ready to assume the person will attempt to take it from you, and so already be pulling the trigger. Do NOT think a gun will 'scare off' the bad guy.
5) I was raised with guns, and shot my first 12g shotgun when I was 8, it knocked me on my butt, and I missed the tree I was aiming at.. 5 feet away.. My pride was hurt more than my shoulder, but I practiced whenever I could.
There are common sense rules about guns, whether they are handguns or long guns. Some people don't follow them, it's not the gun's fault, it's not their neighbor's fault, don't blame either of those two. Blame the moron who didn't follow the common sense rules.
Dont let kids -play- with guns. loaded or not.
Teach your kids to respect the gun, from as early an age as possible.
If some stupid parent doesn't teach the kid about the gun, who's fault is it? Mine? No. The gun's? No.
Yea, it sucks when accidents happen. I know about the bad side of guns. Big time.
One of my buddies was shot, accidentally, by his dad while hunting, and was killed. His dad tripped over a root. He was walking forward while bringing the rifle up to his shouldere to take aim at his intended target when he stumbled, the rifle jerked to the right, and blew a 4inch diameter hole in the side of my friend's head.
Not the gun's fault.. was the father's fault. Stand still to aim a rifle or a shotgun. Period.
Another friend of mine got high, broke into .. my grandfather's pawn shop, of all places, carrying a .45.. The alarm went off, and the local PD showed up. The officer called Petey outside, but Petey was high, pulled the gun and began firing at the officer.. The officer was wearing a vest, returned fire, striking my friend in the chest with 3 tightly placed rounds.
Was it the gun's fault my friend died there? No. It was my friend's fault. He got high, and thought it'd be cool to break into something and to shoot at a cop.
2) My little girl is 14 months old, cannot -reach- the drawer of the bedside table, so she cannot -get- to it.
3) When she is old enough to know what a gun is, and does, she will also know -how to use it- and -when- to use it.
4) You do not -brandish- a firearm. If you point it at someone, you should pulling the trigger less than a second later. Guns are for shooting, not scaring people. You point it a person, you'd better be ready to assume the person will attempt to take it from you, and so already be pulling the trigger. Do NOT think a gun will 'scare off' the bad guy.
5) I was raised with guns, and shot my first 12g shotgun when I was 8, it knocked me on my butt, and I missed the tree I was aiming at.. 5 feet away.. My pride was hurt more than my shoulder, but I practiced whenever I could.
There are common sense rules about guns, whether they are handguns or long guns. Some people don't follow them, it's not the gun's fault, it's not their neighbor's fault, don't blame either of those two. Blame the moron who didn't follow the common sense rules.
Dont let kids -play- with guns. loaded or not.
Teach your kids to respect the gun, from as early an age as possible.
If some stupid parent doesn't teach the kid about the gun, who's fault is it? Mine? No. The gun's? No.
Yea, it sucks when accidents happen. I know about the bad side of guns. Big time.
One of my buddies was shot, accidentally, by his dad while hunting, and was killed. His dad tripped over a root. He was walking forward while bringing the rifle up to his shouldere to take aim at his intended target when he stumbled, the rifle jerked to the right, and blew a 4inch diameter hole in the side of my friend's head.
Not the gun's fault.. was the father's fault. Stand still to aim a rifle or a shotgun. Period.
Another friend of mine got high, broke into .. my grandfather's pawn shop, of all places, carrying a .45.. The alarm went off, and the local PD showed up. The officer called Petey outside, but Petey was high, pulled the gun and began firing at the officer.. The officer was wearing a vest, returned fire, striking my friend in the chest with 3 tightly placed rounds.
Was it the gun's fault my friend died there? No. It was my friend's fault. He got high, and thought it'd be cool to break into something and to shoot at a cop.
Eize, in my opinion you (actively) fail to address the issue of what should be done in order to avoid the possession of firearms by people who are not adequately trained and mentally 'ready' (I'll not get into this, it's been talked about before in this thread).
E.g. a person who was not taught by their parent(s) (or someone else) what a firearm means and does, and still can buy one later on. That is a walking risk, as I see it, and not because of the gun, but because of an error in the system.
I am not for the patronizing of people, but I'll reiterate that I think quite high hurdles for gun ownership make sense. The ones for concealed carry as Lecter mentions it sound just about right to me. Of course you won't be able to prevent all accidents, I'm quite aware of that.
I'd also like to point out the irony of the thread's title.
Edit: I tried to read up on Barack Obama's stance on gun control, and I don't agree with all of it; however, I don't think that he's totally wrong, either.
E.g. a person who was not taught by their parent(s) (or someone else) what a firearm means and does, and still can buy one later on. That is a walking risk, as I see it, and not because of the gun, but because of an error in the system.
I am not for the patronizing of people, but I'll reiterate that I think quite high hurdles for gun ownership make sense. The ones for concealed carry as Lecter mentions it sound just about right to me. Of course you won't be able to prevent all accidents, I'm quite aware of that.
I'd also like to point out the irony of the thread's title.
Edit: I tried to read up on Barack Obama's stance on gun control, and I don't agree with all of it; however, I don't think that he's totally wrong, either.
Tosh, you may not be very clear on the reality versus the ideal of "gun control" here in the States, so I'll try and give a bit of context.
Never, NEVER, not ONCE has a control been enacted with the purpose--much less the effect--of encouraging responsible gun ownership and use.
Instead, such controls have invariably been deliberately drafted to be vague, and administered so as to obstruct and deny gun ownership and use. Regulations are arbitrary, oversight and accountability for the burecrats involved is zero, and published--much less reasonable--standards for evaluation are nonexistant.
Understandably, Eize and most gun owning Americans have come to the conclusion that the State has no business in evaluating the competency of an otherwise capable (i.e., not a violent criminal, drug addict, or mental incompetent) adult to own basic firearms.
We're a bit more tollerant of State evaluation of competence to carry such weapons in public . . . but not much. Those governments who have pushed for gun control have not done so because they think guns are neutral or even desirable objects in properly trained hands--they think it their business to make them as scarce as possible without getting voted out of office.
Never, NEVER, not ONCE has a control been enacted with the purpose--much less the effect--of encouraging responsible gun ownership and use.
Instead, such controls have invariably been deliberately drafted to be vague, and administered so as to obstruct and deny gun ownership and use. Regulations are arbitrary, oversight and accountability for the burecrats involved is zero, and published--much less reasonable--standards for evaluation are nonexistant.
Understandably, Eize and most gun owning Americans have come to the conclusion that the State has no business in evaluating the competency of an otherwise capable (i.e., not a violent criminal, drug addict, or mental incompetent) adult to own basic firearms.
We're a bit more tollerant of State evaluation of competence to carry such weapons in public . . . but not much. Those governments who have pushed for gun control have not done so because they think guns are neutral or even desirable objects in properly trained hands--they think it their business to make them as scarce as possible without getting voted out of office.