Gun Control

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

I actually tend to agree that the 2nd amendment should prohibit all government regulation of gun ownership.  Maybe if we got rid of all our gun laws, people would see how ridiculous the 2nd amendment is and finally repeal it.  Then Congress could regulate weapons based on common sense and empirical evidence rather than obtuse constitutional arguments.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

It is my own private business what sort of weapons I may own.

Why should you have more right to own a weapon than to own a car, for instance?

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

It is my own private business what sort of weapons I may own.

Why should you have more right to own a weapon than to own a car, for instance?

Do I need a car to defend myself? No. I have the right to defend myself, my family, and my property, and to properly do so I feel the need to have the same advantages criminals have - weapons. No matter how hard you try, you won't stop criminals from getting them - you'll only advantage them because the innocent won't have the means by which to defend themselves available to them.

Europe has done a pretty good job of preventing criminals from getting them.  If the criminal there were so "advantaged", why wouldn't there be more gun-related crime in Europe?

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

It is my own private business what sort of weapons I may own.

Why should you have more right to own a weapon than to own a car, for instance?

Do I need a car to defend myself? No. I have the right to defend myself, my family, and my property, and to properly do so I feel the need to have the same advantages criminals have - weapons. No matter how hard you try, you won't stop criminals from getting them - you'll only advantage them because the innocent won't have the means by which to defend themselves available to them.

Europe has done a pretty good job of preventing criminals from getting them.  If the criminal there were so "advantaged", why wouldn't there be more gun-related crime in Europe?

Regardless of whether you're right or not, don't criminals find it easier to get a gun in the UK than the law abiding citizens? I'd rather my chances of getting a gun be at least equal to the criminals' chances. In the UK, you can't get a gun if you obey the law - but if you're a criminal you can, you just have to find a black market dealer.

They must not find it very easy to get a gun, because there is so little gun crime.  It is clearly harder for them to get a gun than for the police, which is not true in the US.  I'd guess that law enforcement officers in Europe feel much safer than those in the US because of it.  And I'll bet most European feel safer than most Americans.  And isn't that the purpose of owning a gun....to feel safe?

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

It is my own private business what sort of weapons I may own.

Why should you have more right to own a weapon than to own a car, for instance?

Do I need a car to defend myself? No. I have the right to defend myself, my family, and my property, and to properly do so I feel the need to have the same advantages criminals have - weapons. No matter how hard you try, you won't stop criminals from getting them - you'll only advantage them because the innocent won't have the means by which to defend themselves available to them.

Europe has done a pretty good job of preventing criminals from getting them.  If the criminal there were so "advantaged", why wouldn't there be more gun-related crime in Europe?

Regardless of whether you're right or not, don't criminals find it easier to get a gun in the UK than the law abiding citizens? I'd rather my chances of getting a gun be at least equal to the criminals' chances. In the UK, you can't get a gun if you obey the law - but if you're a criminal you can, you just have to find a black market dealer.

They must not find it very easy to get a gun, because there is so little gun crime.  It is clearly harder for them to get a gun than for the police, which is not true in the US.  I'd guess that law enforcement officers in Europe feel much safer than those in the US because of it.  And I'll bet most European feel safer than most Americans.  And isn't that the purpose of owning a gun....to feel safe?

Do everyone a favor - Don't say 'Europe', because Europe is not a country. In Switzerland all males are required to own a gun, in the UK nobody is allowed to own a gun. Both are in Europe - opposite extremes. Different countries, different laws. However, it looks to me like the UK still has higher crime rates than Switzerland.

Also, you didn't really answer my question - who can more easily attain a gun in the UK, law-abiding citizens or criminals?

Is everyone required to own a handgun in Switzerland?  I'm was generalizing from the UK; sorry if that is incorrect.   I imagine there are channels in which law abiding citizens can acquire guns...by joining the army, for instance.   So I don't think is is necessarily easier for criminals to get them, but I don't know the numbers.  But if the murder rate is so low that no one would be or feel safer by owning a gun, why does your question matter?

Violent crime rates in the US have been going down, but gun restirictions in the US have also been increasing.  Although there are other factors in this trendl, I would be very surprised if greater gun ownership was one of them.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

It is my own private business what sort of weapons I may own.

Why should you have more right to own a weapon than to own a car, for instance?

I also disagree with licensing of cars..

How would you make sure that everyone is insured?

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

It is my own private business what sort of weapons I may own.

Why should you have more right to own a weapon than to own a car, for instance?

I also disagree with licensing of cars..

How would you make sure that everyone is insured?

I wouldn't.  I don't care if they're insured, and its none of my business.

It's their business if they hit you, isn't it?  

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

I'd support Second Amendment repeal, rather than trying to devise a complex piece of legislation to regulate gun use.

And what exactly do you think would be required after the repeal? If you're going to go so far as to repeal it, obviously you'd require legislation for it, or would you prefer just to let everyone have guns? If that's the case why bother repealing it. Just repealing the second amendment wouldn't make guns illegal, you'd have to have legislation to illegalize them. But fortunately, it's not gonna happen.

Repealing the second amendment would not make guns illegal...and just because someone wants to repeal the 2nd amendment doesn't mean they want to make guns illegal.  

Repealing the amendment would allow Congress and the states to pass gun laws that would regulate ownership and manufacture (e.g. in the same way they do so for cars) without fear of constitutional challenge.  

Just because we don't have an amendment protecting car ownership doesn't make cars illegal...it just allows the government to regulate their use to the level that best benefits society.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

A government would have to be pretty crazy to use nukes against a rebellion. First off, a tyrannical government wants to rule, so they'd have to be a bit more selective in who they kill, rather than just launching a nuke. Second, nobody nukes their own soil - making your own soil an uninhabitable wasteland seems a bit dumb if you ask me. Nukes are clearly meant to be nation against nation weapons. Use of such weapons may also fuel more rebellion and dissent.

The Second Amendment is meant for guns, and possibly lower weapons like knives and swords. If indeed we were allowed to have tanks, grenades, rocket launchers, and other such military weapons, I would be fine with requiring people to keep them at home, since such weapons would be impractical in almost any situation except a military one, such as a rebellion. I do however, believe people should be allowed to carry handguns concealed on their person, as a handgun is a practical means to defend oneself against your everyday common street thug.

But neither handguns, automatic weapons, or any kind of easily concealable guns were around when the amendment was signed.  By your logic the 2nd amendment shouldn't protect those either.

Also, does would the prospect of living in England "scare the hell out of you"?  They don't have any constitutional rights at all, and yet they are in many ways more free!  For instance, they don't have a 1st amendment, but they have a lot less censorship.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

I have seen an interesting development on this thread, which occurs in the real world on the subject.

M made an absurd statement about firearms not helping the Jews.  I pointed out the case of Sobidor and he stopped posting on this thread.

Al made an absurd statement about "pump action" shotguns being "high velocity" and I repeatedly asked him where he got this silly idea.  He first tried to change the subject, then, like M, stopped posting when I made the point so clear that even a mildly retarded ten year old could understand my point.

NickG also made an absurd statement that handguns 'weren't around' when the Second Amendment was ratified.  I posted a challenge to that statement which he also ignored.

It seems that with M. Al, and NickG,  fthey have a viscerial dislike of firearms, are greatly ignorant about firearms, and believe a number of things about fireamrs which simply are untrue.  

Seems a lot like the real world.  

I will concede your point...you clearly have a better grasp of firearm history than I do.  I'm not trying to avoid that...it's just that there are a hundred active threads on this board at any one time and it is impossible to keep daily track of all of them.

I have a general dislike of firearms, especially handguns, but I'd like to think it is well-reasoned rather then visceral.  Gun kill people, intentionally and accidentally; they aid in the commission of other crimes; they generally create a culture of fear, which in many cases keeps communities from digging themselves out of poverty; and they encourage kids to think that violence is "cool".    

I think crime and fear would, over time, dramatically decreease if we outlawed private handgun ownership, and I think there is fairly convincing evidence of this in England and Canada.  Other factors influence these statistics (drugs, race, economic policies), but the difference is a few orders of magnitude too great to ignore.

I am also not afraid in the slightest that our government would become "tyrannical" if guns are outlawed.  Anyone who believes this is living in a different reality than I am.  For the moment, I will not pass judgement on whose "reality" is more accurate.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

http://www.a-human-right.com/

The best site about gun control. Ever.

OK, taken from this (obviously biased) site: (emphasis mine)

"Firearms have three main purposes. The first and the least important of them is sporting: clay games, such as skeet, and target shooting. These ritualized sports are of no more danger to the society at large than judo or fencing. The second is hunting. For many people, it is both an important source of protein and an integral aspect of their cultural identity.

The most important purpose of personal arms is self-defense. The definition and reality of self-defense is reluctant participation. The same people who learn to handle firearms, usually hold certifcates in First Aid and CPR. That does not mean that they are just waiting for others to choke or suffer a heart attack. However, if someone around them does have a problem, they can help."


Umm...these are the only three uses for firearms???  One it is obviously missing is war.  I don't know much about gun history but I believe that waging warfare is why they were invented, not personal self defense.

Another use for firearms it commit crimes.   This use seems to me to be far more important than self-defense.  First, if no one committed a crime using a gun, no one would feel the need to have one for self-defense.  And I would guess that guns are used to committee crimes AT LEAST 10 times as often as they are used in self defense.  

Why does this site so blatantly ignore the ways in which guns are most useful.  It is MUCH easier to kill someone using a gun than it is to defend your self with one.  About ten thousand people are killed by guns every year BY MISTAKE ALONE.  How many lives are saved by self defense?....I'm guessing it is much less.

The obliviousness to the negative consequences of firearms, especially handguns, by guns rights advocates is nauseatingly irresponsible.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

http://www.a-human-right.com/

The best site about gun control. Ever.

OK, taken from this (obviously biased) site: (emphasis mine)

"Firearms have three main purposes. The first and the least important of them is sporting: clay games, such as skeet, and target shooting. These ritualized sports are of no more danger to the society at large than judo or fencing. The second is hunting. For many people, it is both an important source of protein and an integral aspect of their cultural identity.

The most important purpose of personal arms is self-defense. The definition and reality of self-defense is reluctant participation. The same people who learn to handle firearms, usually hold certifcates in First Aid and CPR. That does not mean that they are just waiting for others to choke or suffer a heart attack. However, if someone around them does have a problem, they can help."


Umm...these are the only three uses for firearms???  One it is obviously missing is war.  I don't know much about gun history but I believe that waging warfare is why they were invented, not personal self defense.

Another use for firearms it commit crimes.   This use seems to me to be far more important than self-defense.  First, if no one committed a crime using a gun, no one would feel the need to have one for self-defense.  And I would guess that guns are used to committee crimes AT LEAST 10 times as often as they are used in self defense.  

Why does this site so blatantly ignore the ways in which guns are most useful.  It is MUCH easier to kill someone using a gun than it is to defend your self with one.  About ten thousand people are killed by guns every year BY MISTAKE ALONE.  How many lives are saved by self defense?....I'm guessing it is much less.

The obviousness to the negative consequences of firearms, especially handguns, by guns rights advocates is nauseatingly irresponsible.

Cool, I never read things before negatively replying to them as well.

edit: At first I thought it would be funny to reply with just the one line, but I thought I would also make the point that the site is intended to make the case for individuals owning guns and not governments. Only a government can wage war.

I don't understand....I read the site and I am replying  to a direct quote from it...the site makes it sound like there are no socially irresponsible ways to use guns.  In fact, handguns are far more often used for crimes than for self defense.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

I can't find those quotes anywhere, and I doubt you read the entire site this quickly. It would take at least 45 minutes to read the entire thing. It appears to me that you went to the site to search for a quote that you could disagree with. In this instance you looked for a quote so that you could say "But look, he did not include situation C!" which set you up to make the point that "In fact, handguns are far more often used for crimes than for self-defense." A statement which could never be proven.

It was basically the second thing that came up when I went to the site...right at the top of the page, after it gave me some "poll" that was really just a propaganda tool and wasn't even or calculated or evaluated in any way.  No matter what response you gave to the "poll", it just took you to the same page, featuring the exact quote that I quoted.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

NickG, I htink he is listing legitimate civillian uses.  He could do with a few more qualifiers in there.

Right, but I'm saying it is irresponsible to only list legitimate civilian uses when the entire problem with guns it their criminal uses, and when these criminal uses far outnumber legitimate cases of self-defense.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Oh, I'm sorry. I thought by you having registered for an internet forum all on your very own you would be able to navigate your way to through a website on the internet: http://www.a-human-right.com/introduction.html

You are assuming I clicked on "Useful tool" rather than "Liability" on the first screen.  Clicking on "Liability" takes you to the "poll", followed by some other propaganda which is not only biased but really patronizing.   Anyone who tends to believe guns do more harm than good going in is much more likely to be disgusted by its tone than convinced enough to read on to the point where it even gets to the second link you posted.

But judging from your own tone right now, I can see how you would agree with the site's methods.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

NickG, I htink he is listing legitimate civillian uses.  He could do with a few more qualifiers in there.

Right, but I'm saying it is irresponsible to only list legitimate civilian uses when the entire problem with guns it their criminal uses, and when these criminal uses far outnumber legitimate cases of self-defense.

If you got to that part of the site, even after you realized it was just a propaganda technique, then you obviously already "know" that the criminal uses far outnumber legitimate cases of self-defense. But you could never prove that statement with statistics. You can prove that all gun usages reported to the police and recorded by the police involved more criminal uses than uses in self defense, but that is all you can prove.

What are you claiming?  That there are millions of annual unreported cases of self-defense with a handgun?  I think there is probably more unreported gun crime than unreported self-defense.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

http://www.a-human-right.com/

You said

  I don't know much about gun history

Well, that's the truth.  Please stop and learn before you post unfounded 'beliefs.'

Next you said:

 if no one committed a crime using a gun, no one would feel the need to have one for self-defense.  

Firearms allow persons of lesser physical abilities to defend themselves from larger and more powerful attackers.  There are many instances of such defenses.

I don't think it is appropriate for a person to use lethal force to defend against a threat of non-lethal force.  (And this is basically what the law says about legitimate self-defense, with a couple exceptions.)  So anyone using a gun to defend against against non-lethal force is committing a crime, not using it for self defense.  So if no criminals had guns, there would be very few legitimate uses for guns in self defense.


BTW, it looks like I was wrong about the 10,000 accidental gun death a year.  I had though accidental deaths were about as common as homicides and suicides, so was just dividing the 30,000 annual gun deaths by 3.  But if the figures others have posted are right, this was obviously way off base.

But claims that there are 2.5 million cases of self defense with guns every years seem absurd to me.  This almost means that every American will, on average, use a gun to defend against a crime once in his or her life.  I have never met a person who has done this, other than people in law enforcement.  

Has anyone on this forum ever used a gun to defend against a crime?  I know that is only anecdotal evidence, but the 2.5 million number is so high that it should usually penetrate anecdotally.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

From my one year of law school training...
Rape is considered lethal force for the purpose of self-defense.   Unarmed robbery is not.  Some states have exceptions for defending your own home, but hte laws here are far fom universal.  Often, you don't have a "duty to retreat" from attacks in your own home, but still can't use force of greater magnitude than you are threatened with.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

I have tended to change my opinion on gun law. Basically I think so long as they're properly licenced people should be able to own guns if they wish. The UK has extremely tough gun laws however it hasn't stopped a relentless rise in gun crime. It's criminals who are the problem not responsible gun owners.

What are the current gun crime rates in England?...just curious.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

I presume your post was addressed to someone else.

Yeah, Gov. Nick G in partricular, but any gun control advocate would do.

I'm not specifically worried about the lives of criminals...more like people who might wander up to your house because they are confused, lost, or intoxicated, and might be shot for behaving erratically even though they mean no harm.  You shouldn't have the right to shoot someone just because they come on to your property or act belligerant.

I'm also worried that if people carry guns with them, arguments, fights, episodes of road rage, etc., might much more easily turn deadly.  A person who is drunk and gets in a fight, or who rear-ends your car is acting inappropriately and illegally, but they are not "criminals" in the sense that they are worthless to society and deserve to be shot.

People get angry all the time...that's only human...but we shouldn't give them an easy way to channel that anger into deadly force.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

I have tended to change my opinion on gun law. Basically I think so long as they're properly licenced people should be able to own guns if they wish. The UK has extremely tough gun laws however it hasn't stopped a relentless rise in gun crime. It's criminals who are the problem not responsible gun owners.

What are the current gun crime rates in England?...just curious.

It's still pretty low compared to the US, however it is rising fast. Most importantly, the laws relating to gun ownership were toughened up in 1996 following the Dunblane massacre. Ever since then gun crime has rocketed!!

Stats anyone?  Please?