Gun control

To be honest, I think that low-power hand-guns should be available to the public. Rifles should be available, as long as it is reasonable (no automatics, etc).

To be honest, self-defense has gotten to the point that guns may not be needed. If you've ever taken a tazor to the chest....you'll realize that it is as effective (initially) as shooting someone in the leg. Pepperspray can neutralize someone fairly well.

Oh, and people NEED self defense. If you doubt that, look up "The Kitty Genovese Case" or 'the bystander effect'.

Narcissus said:

Right now we have two places, our home here in Arkansas and a rental house in Oklahoma.  Yet we travel a lot as well.  Also, when you carry anywhere from five to fifty thousand dollars to the bank, wanting protection shouldn't set off any warning lights.  Thats just good sense.

Click to expand...

You know the fact that you need some sort of protection arises from the fact that everyone carries guns in the US. If there were anti-gun laws you could go with large sums of money without problem. Its a vicious circle in the US.

Didn't I read in another thread how every "chav?" carried a knife in the UK?

Llew2 said:

No, no and NO. It's the same concept that locks keep honest people out. If you take away guns, all you will be doing is leaving the honest people defenseless. The criminals will still have guns, because TaaDaa! They are criminals! Any anti-gun laws will only keep guns away from the public and leave them without means to defend themselves from the bad guys that do have them. 

Click to expand...

Being criminal does not magically grant you access to guns. Obtaining illegal firearms requires two things: intent and know-how. With firearms freely available you eliminate the need for know-how. Also, illegal firearms will be EXPENSIVE if not readily available to the public. So your Joe-schmoe cat-burglar is NOT going to be packing. Your desperate crack-head won't be able to afford it legally OR illegally, and most muggings will be performed as indeed they are even in the US now: at knifepoint. "Make guns illegal and only outlaws will have guns" is typical NRA logic that has no grounds or backing in reality.

Guan_Chung said:

If someone was breaking into your house and you had a gun that you were, by law, allowed to use in protection wouldn't you use it? Being put in jail for that is like taking our constitution and pissing all over it.

Click to expand...

I would not use it. Wakes up the whole damn neighbourhood. Seriously, though, I have no desire to shoot another human being, even if our legislation allowed it. I'd much rather use a bludgeon, because I know I would use it -- I cannot know that I could actually bring myself to fire a gun at a person. I can deal with having broken a few bones of an intruder. But how well would I deal with actually killing him?

Hack McSlash said:

Didn't I read in another thread how every "chav?" carried a knife in the UK?

Click to expand...

And there is a giant campaign against the "knife culture" and its working.

Kissaki said:

Guan_Chung said:

If someone was breaking into your house and you had a gun that you were, by law, allowed to use in protection wouldn't you use it? Being put in jail for that is like taking our constitution and pissing all over it.

Click to expand...

I would not use it. Wakes up the whole damn neighbourhood. Seriously, though, I have no desire to shoot another human being, even if our legislation allowed it. I'd much rather use a bludgeon, because I know I would use it -- I cannot know that I could actually bring myself to fire a gun at a person. I can deal with having broken a few bones of an intruder. But how well would I deal with actually killing him?

Click to expand...

Problem is, you have to get close to bludgeon them. A gun (and certain types of tazors) would garuntee you more safety with distance.

I didn't say what kind of gun. It could be a pellet gun for all I care. You don't have to shoot to kill either. You could aim for their legs and incapacitate them long enough to call authorities and get out of the house.

Kissaki said:

That's funny. You don't need any sort of license to handle black powder weapons in Norway, as they are not practicable as "lethal weapons".

Click to expand...

You don't need to licence the actual gun, however gunpowder is a restricted explosive, hence you need a licence to own and purchase it.

here in England, If any harm comes to the criminal while he is doing criminal things,its your fault.

Click to expand...

Not exactly. If you harm the criminal then you're comitting assault, and must therefore prove the 'minimum necessary force' was used to claim self defence.

E.G. a few years back 2 men broke into a farmer's house. He was elderly and scared so shot at the intruders, killing one. Amazingly the surviving intruder got away scott free (and 50,000 pounds richer) and the farmer got life in prison.

Click to expand...

If your talking about Tony Martin, it would be prudent to point out the dead teenager was shot in the back while attempting to flee the house. He also stated prior to the incident that he intended to kill the pair if they came to his farm. What you have there is cold blooded murder, not self defence.

The criminals will still have guns, because TaaDaa! They are criminals

Click to expand...

Funnily enough most of those criminals aren't actually career criminals, just regular people  who made a bad or stupid decision at some point. Organised criminals will always have the contacts and ability to purchase weapons, but it's rare that these kinds of people stoop to mugging or common assault.

Didn't I read in another thread how every "chav?" carried a knife in the UK?

Click to expand...

Yup. Ever here of any knifing anyone? Simple answer is that most Chav's are more of a danger to themselves than others, and they only carry the knife to look hard

You could aim for their legs and incapacitate them long enough to call authorities and get out of the house.

Click to expand...

Problem with a gun is you don't necessarily hit what you're aiming at. It's somewhat pointless to be honest, even though any weapon (even a fist) can be lethal in the right circumstances, guns are much more lethal, and represent a danger to more than simply the target. At least with a hand to hand weapon you're unlikely to accidentally kill a bystander.

Hack McSlash said:

Problem is, you have to get close to bludgeon them. A gun (and certain types of tazors) would garuntee you more safety with distance.

Click to expand...

What good is that, if I won't shoot anyway? Besides, from a safety POV, your best option would be to NOT hunt down the intruder, but rather let him come to you. Doors make vulnerable.

Obtaining illegal firearms requires two things: intent and know-how. With firearms freely available you eliminate the need for know-how.

Click to expand...

Basically anyone who lives in a city knows where the shady parts are.  A few discrete inquiries will probably get whatever illegal thing you desire.  And criminals are -SURPRISE! - not allowed to legally buy guns, so they have the know how already.

For all those thinking banning guns will suddenly make them all go away and criminals stop using them, read this:
http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel120501.shtml

So your Joe-schmoe cat-burglar is NOT going to be packing. Your desperate crack-head won't be able to afford it legally OR illegally, and most muggings will be performed as indeed they are even in the US now: at knifepoint. "Make guns illegal and only outlaws will have guns" is typical NRA logic that has no grounds or backing in reality.

Click to expand...

Ah, loads of assumptions to back up gun control arguments.  Can't say I'm surprised.

A few facts:
2 million + per year use their guns to defend themselves.  Think about it.  That's a lot, and by banning guns, you would make every one of those people victims - 2 million plus crime victims.

Around 15,000 people are killed by others per year using guns.  On the threat scale, it's rather low.

Banning guns gives criminals the advantage - they already choose who to attack and now don't need to worry that the person may be packing heat.

Gun ownership is the last defense against a tyrannical government.  Governments killed tens of millions last century, so it's foolish to give the government complete control over your life.

CR

Anyone got the numbers on how many "house defenders" actually shot a member of their own family during the night? Quite a high percentage, IIRC.

Crazed Rabbit said:

Gun ownership is the last defense against a tyrannical government.  Governments killed tens of millions last century, so it's foolish to give the government complete control over your life.

Click to expand...

This argument is ludicrous, unless you propose to legalize the sale of RPG-7s, fully automatic weapons, anti-tank weapons, and heavy machineguns.

Merentha said:

Crazed Rabbit said:

Gun ownership is the last defense against a tyrannical government.  Governments killed tens of millions last century, so it's foolish to give the government complete control over your life.

Click to expand...

This argument is ludicrous, unless you propose to legalize the sale of RPG-7s, fully automatic weapons, anti-tank weapons, and heavy machineguns.

Click to expand...

Iraq is going through a huge amount of trouble due to homemade bombs and AKs.

People across the nation taking up arms - even semi autos - would not be possible to be put down.  It's also a rather big deterrent effect.

CR

Merentha said:

Narc, I asked at the end of the last thread:  Are you a licensed, registered user who routinely goes in for firing range practice?

Click to expand...

Somewhat, yes.  The gun is legal, but is in her name.  I've fired the thing maybe twenty times.  Thirty, tops.  remember that I really do despise guns.

Ursca said:

Actually, you can buy little holster strap things that hold it under the drivers seat.  It is a small gun, and I'm unsure if that makes a difference or not ... but that is where we carry ours.

Click to expand...

'thing is, what are you going to do with it? If someone holds up your car, are you going to whip it out and start shooting the criminal?

All that does is turn it into a gunfight. Instead of handing over the money and the hijackers running away, someone's going to get shot.
I don't see the point. 

Click to expand...

I hope I don't offend you, but I'm going to be blunt here.  What would I do if someone tried to take that money away?  I would shoot them.  I wouldn't even try and shoot them in the leg or arm or anything like that ... I would aim for the chest and probably put several bullets into him.

I realize that sometimes good people are in a bad situation, blah, blah, blah.  If someone thinks that I will just sit there and let them steal from me, they should expect that I will defend what is mine.  You could say that it goes with the territory.  I am not a politically correct type of guy and there is no way that I would allow something like that to happen.  Hence the reason we have the gun in the car.  It wouldn't be there unless we were mentally willing and prepared to use it.

I realize that to a bleeding heart liberal, that may sound evil and cold and inhumane.  My answer to that is simple:  tough.

Ursca said:

Guan_Chung said:

That is ****ing retarded.

Click to expand...

Even if he was robbing your house, you're still trying to kill him. Burglary's one thing, murder's another.
But I agree that compensation is a bit much.

Click to expand...

And?  I killed him to protect my property.  If he didn't want to take the chance of being killed, then he shouldn't have placed himself in that situation.

What kind of sense does that make, anyways?  The arguments you people are making are the same type that grants burglars the chance to sue homeowners when they fall when robbing a person's house.  PC FTW!!!

morgoth2005 said:

Narcissus said:

Right now we have two places, our home here in Arkansas and a rental house in Oklahoma.  Yet we travel a lot as well.  Also, when you carry anywhere from five to fifty thousand dollars to the bank, wanting protection shouldn't set off any warning lights.  Thats just good sense.

Click to expand...

You know the fact that you need some sort of protection arises from the fact that everyone carries guns in the US. If there were anti-gun laws you could go with large sums of money without problem. Its a vicious circle in the US.

Click to expand...

Thats a complete and total load of bull.  If it wasn't guns then it would be something else, just more physical.  The same mindset that would hold a gun on a guy for his money is the exact same mindset that would hold a knife (if that were the best he could get).

Think on this for a bit.  I'm disabled and cannot move or feel my right arm and shoulder.  If a guy were unable to get a gun ... or a knife ... or even a baseball bat to try and rob me, he could still easily do so.  As a cripple, there is virtually nothing that I could do to protect myself, my wife, my money, or my possessions.  A gun, however, puts me on equal footing.

I hate guns, do not misunderstand.  Yet to remove them is an injustice to everyone.  Yes, the laws based on firearms should get a huge dose of common sense applied ... but that doesn't change the fact that guns can be as good as you guys paint them out to be bad.

Narcissus

Guns are not required to kill somone, If someones determined to kill somone chances are they can unless that person is aware of the atempt or has proper protections.
If we banned guns, there would no longer be drive-bys but now bombings would be the mainstay of violence. Its not hard to make a powerfull bomb, the majority of people have all the supplys in their house, and a quick trip to certain sites tell you how to make one and do it safely, You can even be able to detonate it remotely with ease,

Banning guns will not stop violence, it will just spawn a new form of it. Guns are easer to regulate than bombs so I say guns stay. They just need to regulate who can buy them more effectivly, Like thourgh background checks and mental evaluations, a 1 month waiting peroid, Simple stuff like that and gun deaths would drop.

Narcissus said:

And?  I killed him to protect my property.  If he didn't want to take the chance of being killed, then he shouldn't have placed himself in that situation.

What kind of sense does that make, anyways?  The arguments you people are making are the same type that grants burglars the chance to sue homeowners when they fall when robbing a person's house.  PC FTW!!!

Click to expand...

I am a bit confused about the two-facedness of the law. If breaking and entry constitutes a death penalty if caught red handed, why shouldn't it otherwise? It's not self-defence if the burglar shows no intent of harming you (say you sneak up on him), it's a legal murder.

(someone else said

2 million + per year use their guns to defend themselves.  Think about it.  That's a lot, and by banning guns, you would make every one of those people victims - 2 million plus crime victims.

Click to expand...

You are assuming there aren't other ways to defend yourself. Indeed there exist such things as tazers and peppersprays for ranged self defence and stunguns for melee defence.

Banning guns will not stop violence, it will just spawn a new form of it. Guns are easer to regulate than bombs so I say guns stay.

Click to expand...

Are you implying that the farmer mentioned before would've googled a bomb blueprint, built one and then chucked it after the fleeing burglar, if he didn't have the shotgun in the house during the night of the incident?.. and of course, criminals can build bombs AND have guns.

In the end I don't know whether I'd like to be able to commit legal murder if someone enters my house without my permission, but I will argue for this side of the discussion for the sake of arguing. The way I see it is that it boils down to whether you have more respect for the inherent value of human life or your material possessions.

Well, going back to crazed origional argument: If everyone was allowed to carry them, if they wished, they can, which would, by his line of reasoning, stop gun crime.

Now, at current, anyone is allowed to go learn froms of hand to hand combat that teach you how to kill someone in less than a second. Most poeople don't (just as, he said, most people wouldn't carry a gun), however some do. This doesn't seem to stop fist fights takeing place.

I agree with... someones comment about it: it would stop mass shootings, yes. It would increase small scale shootings a whole lot more though.

Crazed Rabbit said:

Iraq is going through a huge amount of trouble due to homemade bombs and AKs.

People across the nation taking up arms - even semi autos - would not be possible to be put down.  It's also a rather big deterrent effect.

CR

Click to expand...

Yes, and that's assumeing you actualy get and entire populus to unite against a governemnt (it might happen in an invasion, but not in a government), and then you actually have to get everyone to fight.

Look at it this way. I don't join the army because i don't wan't to be the unlucky bastard who's the only one to be killed in the year (we don't loose many people in the ADF, but the rate is still way to much for me)

Ilex said:

Banning guns will not stop violence, it will just spawn a new form of it. Guns are easer to regulate than bombs so I say guns stay.

Click to expand...

Are you implying that the farmer mentioned before would've googled a bomb blueprint, built one and then chucked it after the fleeing burglar, if he didn't have the shotgun in the house during the night of the incident?.. and of course, criminals can build bombs AND have guns.

In the end I don't know whether I'd like to be able to commit legal murder if someone enters my house without my permission, but I will argue for this side of the discussion for the sake of arguing. The way I see it is that it boils down to whether you have more respect for the inherent value of human life or your material possessions.

Click to expand...

I wasnt talking about the farmer, I was talking about the generic criminal or crazy.

I'm of the personal opionion that if someone infiltrates your personal property with the intention of stealing or looting that they're taking their life into their own hands, Though said farmer is at fault for shooting a fleeing man in the back I dont think he's at fault for killing him if he would have stayed his ground.

Also I dont think that trigger happy people should have guns, hence the second part of my post that you left out about gun controll.

sneakey pete said:

Well, going back to crazed origional argument: If everyone was allowed to carry them, if they wished, they can, which would, by his line of reasoning, stop gun crime.

Click to expand...

Who are you refering to? Me? If so you have me mistaken, I'm for gun controll, not making it easer to get.

Crazed Rabbit said:

Basically anyone who lives in a city knows where the shady parts are.  A few discrete inquiries will probably get whatever illegal thing you desire.  And criminals are -SURPRISE! - not allowed to legally buy guns, so they have the know how already.

Click to expand...

Criminals aren't branded with a mark in their forehead. It's not only those with a rap sheet who commit crimes, you know. Most criminals are NOT carreer criminals. And most criminals do NOT use guns, even in the US.

For all those thinking banning guns will suddenly make them all go away and criminals stop using them, read this:
http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel120501.shtml

Click to expand...

That article fails on the most basic level: research. It completely fails to take into account countries where guns aren't common, such as, oh I don't know, Norway. Sure, there are gun-related crimes every now and again, but they are rare. And it's not that guns are banned, it's just nowhere near as easy to obtain a lilcense as in the US. And because there isn't that great of a legal flow of guns, there isn't that great of an illegal flow either. All illegal guns were legal at one time (except zip guns and such). Granted, a smaller population is easier to provide for in all ways than a larger one, so a comparison with the UK would be more appropriate. Roughly 60 million, but still dense enough for the same types of crime as the US. The overall crime rate (counting everything) isn't that much different in the US from the UK. Or from Norway, for that matter. But crime rate involving guns is much higher in the US. Murders with firearms in the US (per capita): 0.0279271 per 1,000 people. And in the UK: 0.00102579 per 1,000 people. That's 27 times higher in the US than in the UK.

So your Joe-schmoe cat-burglar is NOT going to be packing. Your desperate crack-head won't be able to afford it legally OR illegally, and most muggings will be performed as indeed they are even in the US now: at knifepoint. "Make guns illegal and only outlaws will have guns" is typical NRA logic that has no grounds or backing in reality.

Click to expand...

Ah, loads of assumptions to back up gun control arguments.  Can't say I'm surprised.

Click to expand...

Can't say I'm surprised at the above argumentation, either.

A few facts:
2 million + per year use their guns to defend themselves.  Think about it.  That's a lot, and by banning guns, you would make every one of those people victims - 2 million plus crime victims.

Click to expand...

I am thinking about it. I'm thinking about where you got that number. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, there are two million incidents of violent crime each year as of 2003. 10% of these are gun-related. If what you are suggesting is correct, then a ban on guns would double these rates, which is absurd. I would really like to see the parameters of those statistics of yours, as I have a feeling they include far more than they ought to.

Around 15,000 people are killed by others per year using guns.  On the threat scale, it's rather low.

Click to expand...

That's still very high compared with other countries.

Banning guns gives criminals the advantage - they already choose who to attack and now don't need to worry that the person may be packing heat.

Click to expand...

Typical paranoid NRA talk (now I got you back for your "loads of assumptions to back up gun control" comment ). Ok, let's look at how these criminals operate. They use surprise. They are not going to relax in a gun-less environment because a knife or keys can be just as dangerous (and easier to apply). They are also going to make sure that whether armed or unarmed, you will not have the time to defend yourself. A lone attacker never confronts you cowboy style, he is going to stalk you unseen and be right up in your face. They're not going to take any more risks than they have to. If he confronts you cowboy style, he's got friends nearby. You won't have time or opportunity to use a gun.

Gun ownership is the last defense against a tyrannical government.  Governments killed tens of millions last century, so it's foolish to give the government complete control over your life.

Click to expand...

So, if the police had a legal warrant for your arrest, you wouldn't go without a fight?