The Big Gun Control Rant

Remove all ads!

Feel free to discuss the pros and cons of the politics of gun control in here. A neverending topic, which in itself deserves a separate thread. Go.

 

You know, on another forum I visit, there was a whole long debate on the subject.

The long and short of it is, one guy was arguing that he should be allowed to own an assault rifle. And I just cant see why he would need one. I can understand why someone might want a pistol or shotgun, or even rifle, for home defense. Or target shooting. But an assault rifle, or any automatic or semi automatic weapon, is not the kind of weapon I think a civilian should be allowed to own.

I guess most Americans are very anti gun control because its part of your Bill of Rights (isnt it?). But.... I dont see it as a fundamental right, I dont know why. I guess I think any gun owner has a responsibility to ensure that his gun is properly used. Nobody should be sold a gun, or ammunition, without proving that they a) know how to use it, b) wont misuse it. Some say that its necessary for civilians to own guns so that if the government starts causing trouble, they can band together and form a militia. But.... in these days, I dont think small arms will be much use against whatever the government is packing, and I think civil disobedience is much more effective (ie withold taxes and stall the economy).

On the other side of the coin, I dont believe in disarming police, like the UK has done. In the UK, the police arent really even allowed to use tasers! No wonder they get killed by thugs all the time, all they have are bullet proof vests and night sticks! They need to carry sidearms at all times.

 

Legality and politics is all well and good but there are other issues here:

criminals have guns
people don't feel safe
they can't legally buy a gun
they illegally buy a gun in the name of 'protection'
they now own an illegal gun
suddenly, they can decide to give out their own justice
in order to escape retribution, they join with the 'criminal underworld'
criminals own guns

 

So the solution is "roll over and become the criminals <female dogs>?"

Aside from that, what about the thousands, if not millions, of legal gun owners, not only in the US but elsewhere? Is it just to punish them for the actions of a few, especially when we proceed to NOT punish actual perpetrators effectively?

I say that in order to get a gun, you should pass a course and pass a thorough criminal records check. You should also have to pass a psych exam. Once you have done that, you should eb able to access reasonable guns. I have to say, I'm not so sure about fully automatic assault rifles or suchlike, but handguns are fun for sport, and there's no need to keep them out of the hands of people with absolutely no criminal record who have proven their responsibility.

 

I wasn't meaning everyone who has a gun is like that, sweetheart.
It's just that that seems to be the excuse a lot of people come out with to justify owning a gun (up to the point where they become criminals) or they trot it out to explain that socirty is at fault for making them criminals!

 

You forgot gay marriage, Tal. That one probably has its own server.

 

hehe, bad chandos, what do you mean 1 server? more like an even dozen.

 

I remember following a pick-up on the highway once in Texas. He had a gun rack (with two rifles) in the rear window and bumper sticker that read "I do what the voices in my head tell me to do."

 

Gun Control is a sticky subject. On one hand, you have people that legitimately require firearms. I wouldn't want them to be denied. On the other hand, there are those that would use the guns to commit crimes. Some control is needed, but let's be reasonable with it...

What I propose would be a way to review the candidates. Look at their needs. A farmer might need a rifle to kill a predator that threatens his crops and livestock, or to put down a mortally wounded or terminally ill creature. Something like a .22 should handle that. A hunter may need a more powerful rifle to take down the object of their hunt. A sportsman may choose a different gun yet for target shooting. Maybe have someone that can assess the needs of the candidate and recommend the appropriate firearm.

As for military and Law enforcement, they should have whatever arms are necessary and proper to the objective at hand. If that's a .44 magnum, taser and a shotgun for cops, then so be it. Specially trained officers may need other guns (like snipers, swat teams). That's subject to review. As for the Army, I would assume that assault rifles would be standard, with other arms as training and missions warrant.

From there, training in legalities and safety should be MANDATORY for the issue of any liscence or permit involving firearms. Let's face it, guns are designed to kill, and when used recklessly or improperly, they are dangerous.

Finally, get REAL tough on gun crime. I don't care if a criminal that uses a gun to commit a crime ever gets out of the cage he's going to be locked in...

 

@Tal: Hm, yes true, it might be a better idea to put this thread into the AoDA.

 

Well, this is the thing you've hit on the head, Silvery -- western democracies need to stop seriously entertaining utterly stupid statements of defense -- we need to stop looking for excuses for bad / antisocial / criminal behaviour and actually punish the perpetrators. No more blaming your behaviour on "society" or "poverty" or "my bad childhood" or "whitey" for that matter. All of those may be factors but they sure as hell aren't excuses.

As Martaug mentioned in another thread, what we actually have is a violence problem, and violence is committed by people, not by inanimate objects. The people who are committing these violent acts need to be stopped, on way or the other. Target the criminal, take away HIS guns and his ability to get them, but leave the non-criminals alone.

 

LKD this is off-topic but the main reason "liberal democracies" are as you claim "soft" on crime isn't that they are are bleeding hearted wussies. It is because believe it or not it is the approach that tends to work best in minimizing crime and turn criminals into non-criminals. Brutalizing criminals and crime really doesn't work, the only gain is the sense of satisfaction people get from vengeance. Yes it might be frustrating to see criminals be "cuddled" but from a pragmatic point of view it is a lot more efficient in keeping crime down than chopping off hands or locking people up for hundreds of years. The US has way harsher penalties than Canada, do they have less crime? Iran is really tough on crime and I do not have any idea about how much crime they have except that whatever official numbers they give I wouldn't trust but the only way to lower crime through harsher penalties is to go all the way into the police state and extremely harsh measures for any crime. Would you want to see your child get his hand cut off because he stole an apple from your neighbours apple tree?

 

You do realise this is a form of gun control. Not all advocates of gun control want to prevent everyone from having a fun. Some of them want to make it a little more difficult for anyone to walk in and buy a gun as if they were buying beer. Which, in light of certain people who had a known history of problems and should not have been allowed to buy one (the Virginia Tech incident springs to mind), may not be such a bad idea.

 

Virginia Tech isn't the best example. In hindsight, we can say he shouldn't have been allowed to buy a gun. But, if we didn't allow gun ownership for anyone with a history of mental illness, that might mean no guns for someone who at any point in their life was on even a mild anti-depressant.

"You had a Valium prescription 10 years ago? Sorry, no gun for you."

 

Half of all murders are commited by people on conditional release(parole or probation) - "probation & parole violators in state prison" - survey of state prison inmates - Bureau of justice

81% of all homicide defendants had an arrest record
67% had a felony arrest record
70% had a conviction record
54% had a felony conviction record
Brian Reeves "felony defendants in large urban counties" bureau of justice nov 2001

As far as only police having guns, almost 11% of police shootings kill an innocent person - only about 2% of shootings by citizens kill an innocent
C cramer & D kopel "shall issue: the new wave of concealed handgun permit laws"-oct 1994

In 2000, 20% of US homicides occured in just 4 cities that have 6% of the population, New York, Chicago, Detroit & Washington DC. - most of which have/had a virtual prohibition on private handguns - FBI Uniform Crime Reports sep 2001

Many of the countries with the strictest gun laws have the highest rate of violent crimes. Great Britian & Australia, which have virtually banned gun ownership, have the highest rates of robbery, sexual assault & assault with force of the top 17 industrialised nations - Dutch Ministry of Justice, Criminal victimization in 17 industialised nations, 2001

Sadly, firearm use in Great britain has doubled in the decade since handguns were banned - "weapons sell for just 50pounds as suspects & victims grow ever younger" - The Times, Aug27, 2007

As far as murders per capita the us is 24th overall & 8th for murders by firearms
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir_percap-crime-murders-firearms-per-capita

 

Well, it would seem rehabilitation isn't working that well. I don't suppose you have any statistics from the old method? Joacqin, why do you say that corporal or severe punishment doesn't work? Just because we gave it up doesn't necessarily mean it didn't work, it just means we thought we had a better idea. We may have been wrong (wouldn't be the first time).

Now I'm not saying we need to go back to the days of chopping off hands, but hard labor in the prisons? Sure.

 

martaug, I believe those statistics exclude acts of domestic violence. It also fails to account for all gun related deaths, such as accidental shootings and suicides. All of these things should be weighed in arguments about gun control. It's not just the crime aspect that is important.

That said, I believe the main focus should be on enforcement of current laws. Too often criminal charges involving weapons are dropped in favor of convictions in other crimes (most notably drugs) -- IMO, gun related charges should never be dropped or allowed to be reduced as a plea deal. Always enforce the harshest standards for weapon charges and make it very painful to commit a crime while possessing a weapon.

 

T2, you're right that those statistics don't specify gun-related violence or accidents, but why would you think they exclude domestic violence that ends in murder?

 

Again, as was my main point but which I did not stress enough. Are there less crime in countries where criminals aren't "cuddled"? Is there less crime in "tough" USA than in "soft" Canada? I only go on my perception here and that is never reliable but it is my firm perception that the countries with the "softest" laws are generally a lot safer than countries with "tougher" laws.