|  |
| Author |
Gun control |
Tedsc
Steering Committee Member
Posts: 19 |  Posted: May 09, 2003 - 01:56 AM |
The conversation on gun control seems to be dominated by either those who would have us beleive any legal restriction that peripherally relates to firearms is a grab at our Constituional rights or by those who would have us beleive guns themselves are the source of all violence.
Their are very relevant cultural influences that are rarely leveraged in this debate and their are very relevant analogies that are typically left out too. I currently live in an urban setting, but I gre up in a rural community and went to college in an even more rural community. Those of you that have lived in small towns know all too well that it is actually quite common for the gun population to outnumber the human population in small towns yet violent crime rates per capita tend to be very low. Guns are stores of value in small communities and as odd as it may seem, objects of heritage. It is also worth noting that most gun owners in these communities have a gun safe, or a locking gun cabinet where they keep their weapons. CHildren attend hunter safety classes in the first years of elementary school and responle handleing of firearms is embedded perhaps even more than responsible handling of motor vehicles.
Which brings me to my next point, motor vehicles are extremely deadly machines, but we have wisely chosen to make irresponsible use of motor vehicles the crime, not having a car in the first place. When we recognize safety issues with cars, we legislate approprately to correct them. Isn't this a suitable example for gun laws? We require seat belts isn't it also fair to require gun owners to keep guns with trigger guards? We say that car theft is car theft, but the car owner has a degree of culpability if they used negligence in failing to lock their car. I think gun owners should equally be considered negligent if they failed to responsible store their weapons and they were in turn stolen and used in a violent crime or accidental shooting. Outlawing guns though is like outlawing cars, it doesn't address make people any more or less safe.
| | |
Bill
CC Volunteer
Posts: 157 | Posted: May 09, 2003 - 01:35 PM |
That's a nice analogy, Ted, and one I hadn't heard before.
It makes a lot of sense to me that basic safety measures be required of gun owners.
| | |
Guest
Unregistered User | Posted: Jul 10, 2003 - 03:41 AM |
Perhaps, but I don't need a gun to go to work each day. At least not yet. So, it's not an essential part of everyday life. At least not yet. Those points (and they're certainly not hollow...oh, man...that was bad) may spin any such analogy out of focus (and what would any debate about guns and gun control be without spinning and debate participants being out of focus?).
Hey, if you can use the car license analogy for gun control, can we also apply it to people having kids? It still amazes me that it's more difficult to get a driver's license than to be responsible for the creation and raising of another human being.
But, I digress (surprise, surprise).
My wife - the firearms expert of the family - agrees with your analogy, by the way. She's both lived a significant portion of her life in rural communities AND has worked in the gun industry.
Here's my take: Why not make the use of a firearm in the commission of a crime - any crime - worthy of an immediate 20 year prison term in addition to whatever sentence is levied for the crime itself? What's the downside? It might discourage both crime in general and the criminal use of firearms. It'd provide a little legitimacy and - for want of another word - "honor" to those who legally own and safely use them as well.
On the other hand (there's always another hand), I've been the victim of gun theft. The pistol I purchased for protection (after two break ins...in a rural community, ironically enough) was stolen during the third break-in. I felt enraged, violated, and really, REALLY foolish. The sheriff that answered the call said, "Hell, that pistol is probably half-way to New York City by now."
So...am I an innocent victim? Or part of the problem? Or both?
Stick out.
| | |
Goldwingj1
Posts: 19 | Posted: Jul 14, 2003 - 04:11 PM |
Theft of guns is always going to be a problem; does it make you a part of the problem? No, I don't think so. Does it make you a victim? Yes, it does. Good reason to buy a trigger lock/locking gun cabinet, to help prevent such thefts.
Here in MN., we just passed a major revision to our concealed-carry law; now, just about any private citizen can obtain a concealed-carry permit; however, you also need to take a state certified training class, before the permit will be issued.
Up until now, it was only the citizens of our rural counties that were able to get permits; the Sheriffs/police dept's of the major metro areas, would readily discriminate against most legitimate people that wanted to obtain the permits. hence, the major push for revising the law.
I have spoken to several sheriffs that I have worked with in the past, and they have alll told me basically the same thing: especially out in the rural areas, we feel "better" knowing that some of our citizens are armed; and that we could contact them for help, if need be.
We believe that the major deterrent, at least here in Mpls/St. Paul, will be that once the criminals realize that many more people may be armed, that they will definitely think twice, before attempting to commit a crime.
Hope all is well elsewhere.
J
| | |
Guest
Unregistered User | Posted: Sep 06, 2003 - 03:21 PM |
I have a different opinion on gun control (yep, I'm from the gun toting South, and an expert marksman too). 
I don't like sidearms (i.e., pistols). They're too portable and doesn't have the stopping power to hunt and protect property. True it can protect a person on the street, but the consequence is a stray bullet can injure kill a bystander too. They also are so easy to grab when angry and pop off rounds, making them extremely lethal tools to have around (as unlike rifles and shotguns, ammo is not stored outside of the firearm for safety).
Have no problems with single shot hunting rifles and shotguns. Both can bring food to table and protect property usually with just one shot (10gauge magnum load will do the trick even for a 300lb man -- 2 for one on PCP). For women, a shotgun also doesn't take an head-shot-at-3am-right-out-of-bed-down-a-dark-hallway to drop an attacker. Just aim down the hall and shoot (birdshot will nail the attacker, a 10gauge magnum load will almost cut him into two). Don't play with attackers at 3am, you bring them down cold.
My beef with the pro-gun crowd is that they take any limits as a limit to defend themselves from the government. Ah, wake up it's the 21st century. A mini M-14 (or even the sniffy H+K pieces) isn't going to do much with the arsenal the US military carries now, nor will it matter when the bombs drop. The days of an armed militia overtaking a company of US troops are over.
What gun lovers can do is protect their rights to protect life, limb and having the opportunity to hunt for food -- responsibily.
1. Registration (including fingerprinting) -- OK
2. Background checks (72hr holds) -- OK
3. Trigger locks -- OK
4. Buying weapons only from licensed gun dealers -- OK (law abiding citizens will, those who don't will be jailed).
5. Make ammo expensive to curb wholesale hoarding by extremists -- OK (drug dealers and such rarely reload ammo anyway)
6. Limiting sidearm sales to those in need -- OK (because most folks don't NEED one, especially in a urban environment. Alternatives are available).
7. Enforce existing gun laws: commit a crime with a weapon and do serious time -- OK
Some may disagree with the above, but there must be some limit to thugs/mental cases/angry spouses getting their hands on weapons for no good.
Some limits/banning are okay, but not for protection and hunting for food.
A Right Wing Centrist
| | |
nicrivera
Posts: 235 | Posted: Sep 06, 2003 - 11:55 PM |
OUCH! For a bunch of self-described centrists, you all seem to come down pretty hard on the gun issue. I don't consider myself either pro-gun or anti-gun--merely pro-choice on the issue.
Cars can be dangerous. Thousands of people die from them each year. But you don't see the federal government getting involved in the issue. All regulations are left to the individual states to decide. I believe gun regulations would also be best left for the individual states to decide. This, of course, will not magically solve the solution, but a one-size-fits-all solution that the federal government has been trying doesn't seem to have been that successful.
I consider myself left-of-center, but yes, I do believe in the 2nd Amendment. Gun regulations should be left to the individual states, not the federal government.
But then, that's just my biased opinion.
| | |
Guest
Unregistered User | Posted: Sep 11, 2003 - 09:34 PM |
i agree with you. According to research in California more children under the age of twelve die from drowning in 5 gallon buckets, than from gunshot wounds. I guess its time to start fighting our wars with 5 gallon buckets.
| | |
Hegemon5487019
Posts: 6 | Posted: Sep 29, 2003 - 04:56 AM |
Guns should just be completely outlawed period. I know that many of you think that guns are necessary for protection, but in reality, they only increase the danger. Having a gun in the home is especially dangerous to any kids living there because there is always a way to get the gun. Having a gun in the home is also dangerous to the owner of the gun as well. As the person several posts above said, a person can break into a persons home and use the gun against them. And relating guns to other things such as cars or even...buckets is completely absurd. Cars are pratical and where not created to purposefully injure/kill things. And to adress the bucket thing, kids are not the primary target in gun fire, death by gunshot is extremely high probably second only to car accidents, and again, cars were not made to be killing devices.
| | |
nicrivera
Posts: 235 | Posted: Sep 30, 2003 - 12:59 AM |
Quote:
| Guns should just be completely outlawed period. I know that many of you think that guns are necessary for protection, but in reality, they only increase the danger. Having a gun in the home is especially dangerous to any kids living there because there is always a way to get the gun. Having a gun in the home is also dangerous to the owner of the gun as well. As the person several posts above said, a person can break into a persons home and use the gun against them. And relating guns to other things such as cars or even...buckets is completely absurd. Cars are pratical and where not created to purposefully injure/kill things. And to adress the bucket thing, kids are not the primary target in gun fire, death by gunshot is extremely high probably second only to car accidents, and again, cars were not made to be killing devices. |
|
Oh boy . . . where do I start on this one?
Let's start by making one thing known. I offer a rebuttal to your post not as a personal attack or to belittle you in any way. The fact that you've shown some interest in a "centrist" website suggests to me that you've got more sense in you than those on the far-left and far-right who (in my humble but admittedly biased opinion) are pretty much unsalvageable. I don't know that I can convince you to abandon the anti-gun cause, but maybe I can give you reason to ponder whether your well-intentioned solution will truly achieve the ends you want.
I am not Democrat, and I am not a Republican. I have grown to truly disdain the two-party system that we have today. But in the end, when all the cards are laid down upon the table, I definitely lean to the left. That means I must be anti-gun, right?
Wrong.
I try to keep up with the ever-shifting positions, slogans, and soundbytes that the politicians shove down our throats, as well as the reason why the 2 parties adopt the platforms they do. But for the life of me, I will never understand why the Democratic Party is so antagonistic towards gun rights. Liberals should be standing up for personal and civil liberties. They oppose the government telling us what we can do with our own bodies, telling us what drugs we can take, and who we can have sex with. Why should they not also oppose the government telling us whether we can own guns or not (or for that matter, what types of guns)?
Let's assume for a moment that you are completely convinced that guns should be outlawed, and that nothing I or anyone says can change your mind. Good people can disagree about politics, but it you truly believe in your convictions on this matter, you'll have to do nothing less than repeal the 2nd amendment. Right or wrong, it protects our rights to own a gun, and I doubt congress, irregardless of which party dominates it, would ever repeal this amendment. So you're left advocating a law--a prohibition--that directly contradicts the Constitution.
But let's assume the odds are in your favor--that somehow congress sees the wisdom of your ways and either votes to repeal the second amendment or to ignore it altogether and pass anti-gun laws in spite of it. Would you really want that to happen? If Gun Prohibition could start tomorrow, would you want it? Would it even manage to achieve the ends you want? In fact . . . what are these ends that you seek?
I imagine (perhaps wrongly so) that you abhor the violence that you see in this country, and that you are seeking a way to reduce this violence. Guns kill people. They have in the past, they're doing so now, and they'll continue to do so in the future. Why not just get rid of them, you say?
But such an argument assumes that guns themselves are the cause of violence. Your solution does nothing to prevent people from stabbing one another, or beating one another over the head with blunt objects, or poisoning one another. What would you have us do? Prohibit the use of steak knives, baseball bats, and chemicals? Would that do anything to solve the underlying roots of violence?
When you identify a problem in society, you cannot simply legislate it out of existence. Government already tried that. It was called Prohibition. In order to save us from alcohol, politicians passed an amendment in the early 20s to prohibit the use of alcohol. Boy did that backfire! Prohibition created a black market for alcohol and a disrespect for law enforcement. As a result, crime went up, not down! And let's not forget the most important lesson: alcohol use CONTINUED in spite of the law.
Politicians learned their lesson and ended prohibition in the 30s. You'd think they'd learn a lesson from that fiasco, but alas, during the early 70's, prohibition returned in the form of the War in Drugs. And has the War on Drugs been a success? Of course not! It has been failure! And look at all the unintended consequences of those laws! A nonstop 31-year war both at home and abroad . . . fueling black markets that have artificially inflated the price of drugs . . . the creation of cartels . . . gang wars . . . innocent children caught in the crossfire . . . the diversion of law enforcement away from apprehending violent criminals so that they can catch some crack addicts.
All because some politicians though America would be a nicer place without drugs.
Those are the very real effects of prohibition. Just imagine what America would be like if instead of a War on Drugs raging in our cities we had a War on Guns. How would politicians see to it that guns were truly gone? They'd have to send law enforcement to do it for them. Certainly we'd need more law enforcement officers to get the job done. On second though, better call in the FBI. Anyone else see the abridgment of civil liberties on the horizon? Isn't this how police-states are formed?
But I'm being rather dramatic. I'm responding to your call to outlaw guns altogther. The great majority of people in this country are against the complete prohibition of guns but are open to the idea of banning certain TYPES of guns.
But you have to get down to the philosophical level and ask yourself, is this a legitimate function of government? Does the mere OWNING of a gun make you a criminal? Of course not! A nonviolent gunowner, irregardless of how many guns he own, is no more a criminal than a nonviolent crack addict, irregardless of how many grams of cocaine he owns. Sure, you may have serious concerns about these people, and you may very well indeed disapproval of the lifestyles they're living. But why can't why all just mind our own business and let people live as they wish. The instant those people commit a violent crime, then of course, society has a right to intervene.
Even if you still think I'm grossly overdramatizing you're position, you're still left with one flaw in your argument: All evident points to the conclusion that prohibition never manages to get rid of the problem. Guns will continue to exist in such an "anti-gun" society of the future, just as alcohol continued to exist in our "anti-alcohol" society of th past, and just as drugs contiue to exist in our "anti-drug" society of the present.
Unfortunately, the only people who would bother to pay attention to anti-gun laws are the peaceful, law-abiding citizens, while violent criminals would either ignore them or find ways around them. In other words, anti-gun laws would be likely to make us MORE vulnerable towards violent criminals, not LESS.
Whether guns laws exist or not, the criminal who breaks into my house at 2 o'clock in the morning is probably going to be armed.
Shouldn't I at least have the option of being so too?
| | |
Hegemon5487019
Posts: 6 | Posted: Sep 30, 2003 - 02:25 AM |
Well, when you look at the Constitution and see under what circumstances it was made, the colonists of the 18th century felt they were in danger of being invaded by more powerful nations, mainly Britain but also France and Spain. We of course have no such fears today, so there really is no necessity for the 2nd Amendment. Futhermore, to relate guns to alcohol and Prohibition is fairly absurd due to alcohol's addictive nature. Such a need for guns does not exist. There is no need for a person to have a gun. If people understood the danger of owning a gun, maybe they think twice about purchasing one.
Quote:
| The instant those people commit a violent crime, then of course, society has a right to intervene.
|
|
Isn't that a little too late? How many people have to die by gunfire before society has the right to intervene? We should take the initiative and outlaw the guns to prevent such crimes. Other countries have done so and their crime rate dropped drastically.
Effect of gun control in countries.
| | |
Guest
Unregistered User | Posted: Sep 30, 2003 - 04:09 PM |
It's amazing what you can find from a google search.
http://www.kc3.com/editorial/responsible_citizens.htm
| | |
Hegemon5487019
Posts: 6 | Posted: Oct 01, 2003 - 12:07 AM |
Kentucky Coalition to Carry Concealed? What a reliable source.
| | |
nicrivera
Posts: 235 | Posted: Oct 02, 2003 - 01:01 AM |
Quote:
| Well, when you look at the Constitution and see under what circumstances it was made, the colonists of the 18th century felt they were in danger of being invaded by more powerful nations, mainly Britain but also France and Spain. We of course have no such fears today, so there really is no necessity for the 2nd Amendment. Futhermore, to relate guns to alcohol and Prohibition is fairly absurd due to alcohol's addictive nature. Such a need for guns does not exist. There is no need for a person to have a gun. If people understood the danger of owning a gun, maybe they think twice about purchasing one.
>> The instant those people commit a violent crime, then of course, society has a right to intervene.
<<
Isn't that a little too late? How many people have to die by gunfire before society has the right to intervene? We should take the initiative and outlaw the guns to prevent such crimes. Other countries have done so and their crime rate dropped drastically.
Effect of gun control in countries. |
|
Firstly, the idea that the 2nd Amendment is "outdated" is an opinion. No amount of evidence that I could offer could ever PROVE you wrong. But if you truly wish to prohibit the use of guns, you're going to have to have congress repeal the 2nd Amendment. Sure, politicians may prohibit the use of assault weapons and extend waiting periods on guns, but no congress will ever vote to repeal the 2nd Amendment.
Secondly, is it really that absurd to relate gun prohibition with alcohol prohibition? When people talk about prohibition, they are generally referring to alcohol prohibition, made famous (or notorious) by its dismal failure. But the very word "prohibition" means the act of forbiding something that people might otherwise do, and the government does this with the implicit threat of force. Does you see the IRONY of your position? In order to stem violence in America, you would have the federal government employ FORCE to prohibit people from owning something they feel they have every right to own. As Lincoln once said (or is claimed to have said):
“Prohibition will work great injury to the cause of temperance. It is a species of intemperance within itself, for it goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation, and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes. A Prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded.”
Thirdly, when you say "there is no need for a person to have a gun" whoever said anything about a NEED? The freedom to do something does not rest of the NEED to do something. We don't NEED to smoke pot, or to shoot up herioine, or to smoke cigarettes, or to eat fast food. Does that mean we should simply forbid people to do it? Of course not! You taking a piece of advice that seems perfectly reasonable to you and advocating that the entire population be FORCED to take your advice. Gee, and I thought this was a free country.
Fourthly, you linked to an article that argued in favor of drug prohibition and provided some information to support that opinion. The next poster linked to an article that argued in favor of gun rights and provided some information to support that opinion. So what does that tell you? That everyone has a opinion and is willing to offer any evidence that just happens to support their side. Your article, while interesting, does not prove that guns cause an increase in violence. Could it be that violent crime in America is not a result of lax gun laws but rather that the United States is simply a more violent country? I mean, look at us! What other nation is as militaristic as we are? What other nation is as bent on dictating the rise and fall of foreign governments as we are? What other nation is willing to exploit a national tragedy in order to carry out a pre-emptive war against a third-world country, thus causing the deaths of thousands of innocent people?
Of course there's violence in our country. Being pro-war is considered cool, and being anti-war is considered uncool, and questioning the bombing of innocent people is considered downright unpatriotic.
Lastly, you never addressed the main point from my last post: Owning a gun is a victimless offense. Does the mere owning of a gun, make me a criminal? If you answer "yes", than you have a pretty warped idea of what a criminal is. And if you answer "no", what would you have the government do to me if it finds that I have a gun?
- If I own a gun, and I use it to kill someone, then I'm guilty of murder.
- If I steal a gun, and I use it to kill someone, then I'm still guilty of murder irregardless of who owns the gun.
- If I own a gun, and I leave it somewhere for someone else to find--someone who then uses it to kill someone, then I'm guilty of negligence, but it's the OTHER person who is guilty of murder.
- But if I own a gun, and no harm comes from that, then what am I guilty of?
Nothing. Nothing more than doing something that you don't approve of, however stupid you might consider it to be.
Where's a good place to start in order to decrease violence? Repeal victimless crimes laws. If law enforcement spent less time arresting drug users, gun-owners, and prositutes, it could spend more time arresting real criminals--you know--the murderers and rapists? Let's end the War on Drugs so that drugs may be bought and sold in pharmacies instead of on the streets. Let's stop filling our prisons with drug users so that we don't have to let violent criminals go free on parole.
Let's focus more on being more responsible in our own lives before we ask the government to take away the freedoms of our fellow citizens.
| | |
VirginiaBuckeye
Posts: 79 | Posted: Oct 02, 2003 - 01:35 PM |
Recently, hurricane Isabel went though the area where I live and 90% of the homes lost electrical power. At night, there were only gas lanterns, candles, and flashlights. Many of our phones were down also.
I do not own a gun, never have, and hopefully never will but our circumstance in the aftermath of the storm gave me pause. In such a case, where is our protection? The communications were spotty at best, the police were overburdened, and all the securities systems were disabled through loss of power. I only heard of a very few instances of looting but don't people have a right to protect themselves, their familes, and their property?
I am blessed to live in a safe neighborhood but what about those who are not? Can we provide 24/7 police protection for them? How about victoms of stalking? The police cannot even do anything until the stalker does something first. What about people living in remote, rural areas? What defence do they have?
In the L.A. riots after the Rodney King verdict the only protection store owners had against looting and burining was their own fire arms.
This world can be a very dangerous place and I do not believe we should take away people's ability to protect themselves when their is no other protection available.
VA-Buck
| | |
Guest
Unregistered User | Posted: Oct 05, 2003 - 07:15 PM |
I. Ok, here we go. First of all, it is possible that the 2nd Amendment could be removed, similar
things have happened in American history. For example The Articles of Confederation were
replaced with the Constitution because the people realized the current system was not working
out well and it needed to be replaced. It could happen if there was a majority of the states in
favor of it.
II. Yes it is absurd to compare the alcohol prohibition to gun control because alcohol is addictive
and is not quite a killer as guns are. People saw alcohol as harmless because it basically is. And
people did create alcohol and sold it illegally but will that happen with guns? No, because the
people who sell their guns on the black market get them from the legal market, store bought.
You outlaw guns, you cut off the source for the black market.
III. There is no need for a person to have a gun and there should not even be a want. Guns are
killing machines. If you wanna practice shooting things for some reason, buy a paintball gun, if
you want protection, buy a security system. It is a free country but we don’t allow people to go
out a kill people whenever they want do we? We need to outlaw guns for everyone else’s safety.
Quote:
|
Being pro-war is considered cool, and being anti-war is considered uncool, and questioning the bombing of innocent people is considered downright unpatriotic.
|
|
Owning a gun is a victimless offense...now. But, we need to outlaw guns for the safety of our
families and the countries populace.
Here-
| | |
|
|
|
|
