Gun Control

[John Dibble]

This hasn't been mentioned yet, so I'm gonna mention it - gun control doesn't stop criminals from getting guns. Criminals are criminals, they aren't afraid to use the black market. Restricting law abiding citizen's ability to own guns only gives the criminals the advantage.

The city of Kennesaw, Georgia requires the heads of households(with certain exceptions) to KEEP at least one firearm in their homes since 1982. After the law went into effect in 1982, crime against persons plummeted 74 percent compared to 1981, and fell another 45 percent in 1983 compared to 1982. And it has stayed impressively low. Obviously criminals value their lives more than your property.

Now, personally I think that requiring citizens to own guns is wrong(even perhaps unconstitutional), but you get the point. Increased gun ownership decreases crime. There should only be two forms of gun control in my mind:

1. People who use guns in a criminal manner should be punished severly.

2. People who are negligent with guns should be punished. This includes irresponsible storage(especially in households with children).

[John Dibble]

On a side note, even if guns are banned for non-government use, criminals are always going to be able to find them. By making them illegal, crime will grow, because criminals will know that homes do not have weapons for defense. This is similar to drugs, where if we illegalize marijuana, we're making people break the law more.

Yes PERHAPS, but counter that by all the little children who wont accidentally shoot their siblings with daddy's gun if guns were banned completely. And thats a load of crap about criminals going into homes because they think their are unarmed.

Take new zealand and australia as examples. not only are guns prohibitively hard to get their (not banned mind you) but the police themselves are unarmed, yet as a percentage of population there is much less gun violence.

Clearly, Guns are not the solution to the problem, guns are the problem.

Raggage,

Actually there is all sorts of empirical data that indirectly supports the contention that home invasions occur less in areas where gun control is the weakest and gun ownership is the highest. Also, there is an even greater correlation to overall crime rates going down when concealed carry laws are expanded, as happened in Texas over the last two decades. All I know is that I'd rather have a gun and not need it, then not have a gun when I need one.

It's a sad day for a nation when one decides he has to protect himself with a lethal weapon.

It's a sad fact that I need to protect myself at all.

[John Dibble]

The best argument for gun control is anti-gun control fanatics

Seriously now... in the U.K handguns were banned because of a massacre in a school in Scotland which shocked and appalled just about everyone. There was a massive wave of support for banning handguns.
Very, very few people owned handguns.
Automatic weapons are also banned.

Shotguns, hunting rifles etc are *not* banned (except for certain high velocity weapons, eg: pump action shotguns).

Most gun fatalities are nowadays caused by converted replicas (although the police are trying to crack down on this) and gun deaths are far, far lower in the U.K than in the U.S

But overall crime is much higher.

And I'm sure that having some thug stealing your phone is *much* more serious than being gunned down by said thug...

The U.K does have a problem with petty crime (I blame Thatcher) and an influx of guns would make the problem worse. But I'd rather have a problem with petty crime than a problem with serious crime.

I am talking about serious crime, like burglary.

Has been falling for years. Fear of it hasn't, but that's the media's fault.

Right, I'm sure. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1-537568,00.html

And since you banned guns over a school shooting, how long until you ban knives when there's a school stabbing? Oh, and did you hear, in 2002 I believe it was the gun ban author's wife was mugged.

I'll also point you to Switzerland - all males there are issued assault rifles to keep at home, yet crime is low.

[John Dibble]

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

That's right. The ONLY time what weapons a person has is someone else's business is when they use them criminally or negligently. If you want to punish those people, I'm all for it, but otherwise you should mind your own business and leave those of us that use our guns responsibly and legally alone.

[John Dibble]

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.

[John Dibble]

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.

[John Dibble]

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?

[John Dibble]

Another thing - violent crime in European countries have in general been lower than in the U.S. even before gun control was implemented. Also, the crime rates have been increasing faster in Europe and other areas than in the U.S.

[John Dibble]

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?

No - only able bodied males, and they are required to own a full-auto weapon. They are each provided with a sealed tin of ammunition for their weapon when they are issued, to be opened only in the event of a foreign invasion. Opening this container under pretty much any other circumstance is punishable by imprisonment. However, attaining ammo isn't hard - gun ranges sell it(there's a lot of gun ranges in Switzerland, about 3000). Though technically ammo attained at a gun range is supposed to be used only at the gun range, it is a rule that is barely known and almost never obeyed.

I'd like to note that the high amount of guns in Switzerland was one of the reasons that the Nazis did not invade them during WWII(at the time, each household had a rifle). They realized it would be of great cost to invade, so they didn't.

I'd also like to point out I feel very safe knowing my neigbors have guns. At one point, our two of our bad neigbor's(who had something to do with the manufacture or sale of illegal drugs) akitas(huge fighting dogs) got loose and attacked one of our dogs. Fortunately, our good neighbor came to our aid and put a 9mm round into one of the dogs(and this was after firing two warning shots). Fortunately for myself, my family, and my neighbors, our bad neighbors were evicted some months later. Just showing an example of a use for a gun even if there isn't another gun involved. I'd also like to say that my family has been a victim of gun related crime - my father was killed a little over 10 years ago in a car jacking. Had he had a gun with him, he have lived through it. My mother shortly after took a gun course(and believe me, you don't want her pointing a gun at you, she can fire lethal shots). So, all in all, having guns on my side make me feel much safer.

[John Dibble]

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.

[John Dibble]

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

The Second Amendment means what it says. I'd never support its repeal.

When it says "well-regulated" that does permit some restrictions. The Second Amendment doesn't give people the right to go out and shoot each other's heads off for no reason.

Actually, the militia clause does not refer to the people. The second amendment gaurantees two rights(it does not grant them, like all the bill of rights it preserves a pre-existing right).

1. The right of the people to bear arms. 'the people' refers to individuals, not the militia.

2. The right of the states to form militias for the defense and security of the country.

A word on the militia - I believe it was declared in a Supreme Court Case in the 19th century(I think it was Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 [1886]) that all able bodied citizens willing to fight constituted the militia -

"It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the States, and in view of this prerogative of the general government...the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question [the Second Amendment] out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government."

I don't think this decision has been overturned by the Supreme Court as of yet, so since the Supreme Court's interpretation is the supreme one above all other court decisions, this decision stands as the viable interpretation of law.

[John Dibble]

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.

That's besides the point - he said that repealing the second amendment would avoid complicated legislation. Pretty much all federal legislation is complicated whether it involves the constitution or not.

And in the event of a repeal, it would become possible to illegalize guns. The possibility of the government doing scares the hell out of me. Our government is just like any other - corruptable. Whether it is corrupt now or not is questionable(thought definitely not to the point of tyranny), but I would rather have a well armed citizenry to overthrow an oppressive government.

In my opinion there should only be two forms of gun control -

1. Strict punishment for criminal gun use.
2. Strict punishment for negligent gun use.

[John Dibble]

Are laws against private ownership of nuclear weapons, hand grenades, tanks, etc. unconstutitional?

Considering none of those were around during the time the Second Amendment was made(guns were), those I'll accept as questionable. And the question is just plain silly, how in the hell could an individual use a nuke for personal defense?

[John Dibble]

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.

[John Dibble]

"This year will go down in history. For the first time a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future." -- Adolf Hitler, 1935

One wonders why some people don't trust gun control.

[John Dibble]

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.

Your knowledge of weapons at the time is severely lacking:
http://www.therifleshoppe.com/english_pistols.htm

Quite concealable.

And yes, the prospect of living in a country where the government has that much power scares the hell out of me. The government there is much more susceptible to the momentary passions of the people - I'm wondering exactly how long it took to pass that gun ban? My guess would be not long. Here, I know that such a ban can't take place so easily - the momentary passion will die before the bill gets anywhere. It takes something far more extreme than a school shooting, something like 9/11, to get things moving really fast(the passing of Patriot Act for instance).

[John Dibble]

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!

These days, that's true.

It's odd that in many parts of America you can't legally buy fireworks to celebrate July 4, a holiday that is supposed to be about freedom. Yet I have e-mail friends in Britain - the country that America broke away from - who have no trouble at all buying fireworks.

In other words, we no longer have the freedom to celebrate our freedom from a country that now has more freedom than we do. Strange.

America is not as free as it was 25 years ago.

Fireworks aren't legal in my state. Three things however:

1. The law isn't really enforced. Sale is restricted, but most people just go to Tennessee, Alabama, or Florida to buy them. The police really don't care about fireworks as long as you use them only on the 4th and New Years.

2. Certain groups are allowed to shoot off fireworks displays for the public for said holidays. Most of these are free(if you exclude the cases where taxes pay for them, but I think many of them have corporate sponsors). So yes we are still allowed to celebrate them.

3. Any of these laws are state or local, not federal. My biggest problem with our country is the federal government. It's gotten too big and should return more power to state and local government. Do I agree with the fireworks laws? Not really, but I have more influence over my state government than I do the federal government.

On England - they are more free in some areas and less free in others(like possesion of firearms).

[John Dibble]

1. The law isn't really enforced. Sale is restricted, but most people just go to Tennessee, Alabama, or Florida to buy them. The police really don't care about fireworks as long as you use them only on the 4th and New Years.

Kentucky used to be like this. Yeah, it was illegal, but nobody cared. A few years ago, however, they started throwing people in JAIL.

I told you how it is in Georgia. Personally I don't care what it's like in Kentucky unless I have to move there. If it is of concern to you lobby to make them legal.

[John Dibble]

I think many people are libertarian at heart. You are probably a moderate little 'l' libertarian. I used to be somewhat of a liberal myself, then I found out about the libertarian viewpoint. Personally, I don't like lots of government programs and such at any level, but I think if we allow them they should stay at the state level(if one state wants a program, they should just do it and not use the federal government to force it on other states that don't want them). I actually joined the party just because I want to spread libertarian ideas(actually I was converted by a non-party member). I don't always agree with the party(foreign policy for instance), but I do agree for the most part.

To paraphrase our current presidential candidate, it's not being libertarian that makes people independent and cantankerous, it's being cantankerous and independent that makes them libertarian.

[John Dibble]

Well, looks like you're an ideological libertarian. Though for a more extensive test you might try this: http://www.politicalcompass.org/

It also irks me a bit that we can't take federal funds, but I think standing by our principles gives us something the two major parties don't have. The Libertarian Party could become a major political force in a decade or two, provided they play their cards right. They are probably the most viable out of all the third parties to become a major party. I think they could make themselves a viable choice if they win control of a state government.

[John Dibble]

Looks like your two tests conflict. The political compass says you are moderately conservative if I remember the scoring correctly. The truth is probably between the two somewhere. Though it is really fun to take the test every few months to see how your views might have changed. Within the last six months I did a complete flip on economic issues.

[John Dibble]

Looks like your two tests conflict. The political compass says you are moderately conservative if I remember the scoring correctly. The truth is probably between the two somewhere. Though it is really fun to take the test every few months to see how your views might have changed. Within the last six months I did a complete flip on economic issues.

I'm not sure the Political Compas is a very good test.  I come out:
Economic Left/Right: 6.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.31
whereas the WSPQ I'm a 100/100 Libertarian.

There are a lot of social/moral value type questions that if I thought it was the government's job to handle would make the test accurate.  For example sex outside of marriage is immoral, I strongly agree, but I don't want the goverment telling me what is moral or immoral.

That's a good point. The results are probably more accurate if your answers reflect how you feel government should handle the issue.

[John Dibble]

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.  

When Liberals lose a debate they tend to flee in such a way. You should know that by now.

I've seen conservatives do it too. And I've seen the opposite extreme - the loser continues droning on and on even in defeat. At least the ones that go away stop wasting time.

[John Dibble]

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.

1. My sources may be incorrect on this, but doesn't Canada have a higher rate of gun ownership than the U.S.(and tougher gun control laws to boot). And yet, even with higher gun ownership, violent crime is on the decline(at least according to my sources, who also have a tendency to brag about their 'free' healthcare system, lol).

2. If guns were outlawed, it wouldn't matter if our government was a tyranny or not - they could still become one, or a foreign one could invade. The U.S. is like every other nation - it is not static, it is ever changing, for better of for worse. This country as it is may not always be around - any number of things could happen. Personally, I'd prefer to be prepared for bad happenings.

3. I agree on the Libertarian Party platform about guns:

"Guns are not the problem. They are inanimate objects. Gun control advocates talk as if guns could act on their own, as if human beings cannot control them, so the uncontrollable guns must be banished.

Let us put the responsibility where it belongs, on the owner and user of the gun. If he or she acts responsibly, without attacking others or causing injury negligently, no crime or harm has been done. Leave them in peace. But, if a person commits a crime with a gun, then impose the severest penalties for the injuries done to the victim. Similarly, hold the negligent gun user fully liable for all harm his negligence does to others.

Rather than banning guns, the politicians and the police should encourage gun ownership, as well as education and training programs. A responsible, well-armed and trained citizenry is the best protection against domestic crime and the threat of foreign invasion. America's founders knew that. It is still true today."

[John Dibble]

1. Accidental gun deaths:

Shocking Statistics:

The number of physicians in the US is approximately 700,000.
Accidental deaths caused by physicians per year are 120,000.
Accidental deaths per physician are 0.171.
(Source: US Dept. of Health & Human Services)

The number of gun owners in the US is approximately 80,000,000.
The number of accidental gun deaths per year (all age groups) is 1,500.
The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is .0000188.

Statistically,
doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners. (Data from 2003)

2. Crime: Criminals have been around before guns. Criminals have always sought to have the advantage over their victims. If they can't get a gun, they'll get a knife, if they can't get a knife, they'll make a shank. Yes, guns can be used by criminals, because guns are tools like anything else. Fire, cars, knives, power tools, and pretty much any tool you can imagine throughout history can be used for both good and evil, but that does not mean we should ban them, now does it?

A criminal is also less likely to attack if you have a gun: in fact, you put yourself at higher risk by not resisting at all(especially if you are a woman).

3. Self-Defense Use vs. Criminal Use:

If you include unsuccessful attempts at crime using guns(the attacker was warded off somehow), then you might be correct in stating that criminal use exceeds self-defense use, self-defense is not something you can initiate without being attacked, duh. I can't find data regarding the amount of crime perpetrated with guns though, so until someone does we can not be sure. Self-defense cases with a gun in the U.S. range somewhere from 1.5 to 2.5 million. Read this: http://www.gunowners.org/sk0802.htm