BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Switchboard >

Gun control: a good idea? Or what?

  
  

Page: (1)2

 
 
Tuna Ghost: Pratt knot hero
08:49 / 14.02.02
I'd like to encourage any and all newbies to involve yourselves in this thread. I'd like to see what you're thinking on this matter...

You'll find, maybe to your surprise, that many people here at Barbelith are all for gun control. I'm sure the reasons will be given later on. And lets try to keep this civil, yes? No getting personal, no outright insults to your opponent's character, etc. etc.

Anyway! I'm not the sort to start a discussion and not put my foot in first, so I'll go ahead and begin...

I think one of the main arguments behind tighter gun control is "Less guns, less people getting shot". Seems like a good idea. Make owning handguns illegal, and children won't be accidentally shooting each other or themselves. Driving would be safer. An estimated 40% of the drivers on the road right now have handguns in their car. Not far from a town I lived in, a mother shot another mother in the face because of what is commonly called "road rage". A tragedy that wouldn't have happened if handguns were made illegal for civilians. I don't care how mad a mother is, she won't go through the trouble of dragging someone out of a car and fight them down to the point where she can stab them. I've heard some argue that the suicide rate would go down, because using a gun is so easy and so immediately irreversible, and without that being available, people will not be so inclined to end themselves. Successfully, anyway.

I've also heard some argue that the above is a crock o' shit, and that a determined person will find a way to kill hirself even without a gun; the suicide rate would not go down a significant amount. I'm not positive about that being the case, but I haven't seen any numbers on methods of suicides recently, so I can't say anything with any certainy.

Another argument against tighter gun control is that if the government takes away our weapons, we will have nothing to defend ourselves against the government with. I don't think that anyone needs to point out that your .38 special won't mean jack shit to the tank rolling down your street; this applies mainly to militias. No legal weapons makes for a poorly armed civil defense. A valid concern, I suppose.

Personally, I really don't give a flying fuck either way. I have no need of a weapon right now, and I never have in the past. I have no plans for joining a militia; if I have to battle with government forces, it'll be from the inside. I'm not sure that making handguns illegal would lower the crime rate. I myself have had numerous opportunities to purchase a handgun illegally. Naturally, it would be more difficult were they made illegal, but certainly not impossible.

[ 14-02-2002: Message edited by: Johnny the zenarchist ]
 
 
Haus about we all give each other a big lovely huggle?
08:49 / 14.02.02
Hmmm.

I believe that the Constitution guarantees the right of Americans to keep and bear arms as part of an organised militia. As I understand it, the National Guard is this militia. Which means I've never quite understood why civilians are allowed guns in the first place.

However, from our point of view; in the UK gun ownership is the exception. Members of registered shooting clubs are allowed licensed firearms, but I believe after one of them went bezerk and shot down a whole passle of adorable moppets that they are now required to leave their firearms at the club. Farmers may well have an unlicensed shotgun or two, but and aristos some hunting irons, but that's par for the course and, pace Tony Martin, not many people within these groups are particularly inclined to use them on other people with any regularity.

So, no guns? How do we defend ourselves against enemies of the state and the criminal element?

Well, the criminal element tends (tends) not to use guns. Partly because they are a bit fo a pig to get hold of, partly because the penalties for carrying guns is sufficiently severe to make the risk not worth it in most instances of petty crime. Firearms are generally carried by very serious nasties, who are usually too busy shooting at each other for you to have to worry about anything other than crossfire.

I forget what he statistics are, but I think about 10 people a year in the UK die of firearms injuries, and our national security is not sufficiently impaired.

The problem with the US is that it is *swimming* with handguns, so any attempt to regulate their purchase and consumption is going to have significant trouble. But the idea of a "gun shop" on the high street is a wierd and terrifying one.

(Actually, there's one at the top of Brick Lane, now that I think of it, but not sure whether you can actually get proper guns there..)

So, yes, I would in general support gun control, just because there are an awful lot of fuckwits out there and no real argument for arming them. I recall catching the news in New York a few years back and seeing that Long Island was in uproar about proposed plans to make it compulsory to sell a trigger lock with all handguns. Not to make the *use* of a trigger lock compulsory. Not the *possession* of a trigger lock, even. Just the *purchase*. That scared me.
 
 
w1rebaby
12:11 / 14.02.02
quote:Firearms are generally carried by very serious nasties, who are usually too busy shooting at each other for you to have to worry about anything other than crossfire.

this is unfortunately changing quite rapidly, particularly down brixton way. (They still tend to shoot each other, mostly, just with increased frequency, and muggings with guns are becoming more common.) On the other hand, I can't see how the situation would be improved by making it easier to get hold of guns.
 
 
passer
14:05 / 14.02.02
The bill of rights states, in the second amendment, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Most states have included this language or a variation in their own constitutions.

What's odd is that the court precedent in the US is so haphazard about this. So far the supreme court has failed to lay out clear guiding principles and swings wildly depending on the political make up.

Haus, I don't think it's just that the US is swimming with guns so much as that there is such a prevalent gun culture. Bearing arms has been equated with exercising your patriotic rights and enforcing the Constitution. Most of the debate isn't about getting rid of guns, just restricting who can own them and the types of guns sold. Every little "safety measure" is seen as step on the slippery slope toward the repealing of a valued right. Both sides have numbers that they'll throw at each other and at this point I've written the whole debate off as proof that statistics can be used to prove anything.

Johnny the zenarchist, as much as I hate to say this, but it's not true that presence of privately armed citizens can't hinder the army. Look at world conflicts, especially in urban areas. A man in the street firing at a tank won't work. However, snipers picking off the soldiers in that tank at every chance can cause a problem. Vietnam is the classic example of the failure of overwhelming technology. If you want further proof look at the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. There's a limit to what tanks and jet fighters can do against even lightly armed combatants when collateral damage remains a concern.

But to answer the more direct question, I support the right to bear arms with strict gun control. I don't think the gun culture can be eliminated, but it should be checked.
 
 
grant
17:15 / 14.02.02
Worth mentioning: the "organized militias" referred to in the Constitution isn't the National Guard. The militias were loosely affiliated, locally run organizations along the line of a volunteer fire department. The Nat Guard is a branch of the US Armed Forces.

I suppose the best way of illuminating the difference is point out that the Montana Freemen were charged with "criminal syndicalism", among other things. The idea is that strong, centralized governments are inherently untrustworthy should be a pretty familiar one to anyone on this board. The idea that you should arm yourself to defend against them, however, might be kind of alien.

(Another way of illuminating the difference: You probably won't find a local militia opening fire on anti-war protestors.)

The gun culture is strongly libertarian here. Which is kind of admirable, in a Rush
Limbaugh audience kind of way.

Personally, I loathe handguns, but think more people should have rifles in the home. And, you know, educate, educate, educate.
 
 
The resistable rise of Reidcourchie
19:56 / 14.02.02
I believe the inclusion of the idea of Militias in the US constitution was as a kind of oversight commitee for the government not just as yet another line of defense.

Nice to see this discussion come up again as it had run it's course just after I joined the board.
 
 
Ganesh
20:06 / 14.02.02
quote:Originally posted by The resistable rise of Reidcourchie:
Nice to see this discussion come up again as it had run it's course just after I joined the board.

Mmm. Seemed to be another of those cultural gaps, Americans and Britons getting quite heated (me included). Think I'll sit this out for a while to see whether the discussion develops differently this time.
 
 
Tuna Ghost: Pratt knot hero
00:07 / 15.02.02
See, that's why I want some new guys to step in. I was here for the last one, and I want to see what everyone else has to say. Come on, new kids, no one bites. As long as you debate in a rational manner, no one's going to attack you unwarranted.

Passer: very good point; I didn't see that side of things.

Let's look at the fact that a gun, as a tool, has no other purpose, no other use, than to kill. The majority of guns made today are made for shooting other people. You could call it a tool, but it's a pretty single purposed tool. It's not like a screwdriver, which you at least can use to pry a paint can open.

So owning a gun, at least a handgun, would mean that you think you might someday have reason to shoot somebody, or kill somebody, or at least threaten to do so. Can we agree on that?
 
 
Trijhaos
00:51 / 15.02.02
Gun control is not going to keep kids from accidentally shooting each other. If you keep a gun in the house it is your responsibility to educate your children about the dangers of guns.

There are a couple guns in this house and there's always been at least one. Whenever a new gun was brought in to the house for as long as I can remember, I was allowed to hold it and dry-fire it. I was also taught to always treat a gun as if it were loaded and not to point it at anybody even in jest. 2 years ago, I was taken to a firing range and taught to shoot correctly. Does this make me a cold-blooded, psychopathic killer? No. It just means I know how to use a gun if it ever comes down to it.

I have never thought about taking a gun to school and blowing away everyone who made fun of me because I've been taught that guns will not solve your problems.

Will a time come when a gun must be used to protect hearth and home? I don't know. I do know that I feel better knowing that the option is there if it ever comes down to it.
 
 
Persephone
01:01 / 15.02.02
I wonder... if there is a divide between the way Americans and Brits think about guns, is that just a coincidence? If I recall correctly, the Second Amendment was a reaction --or perhaps I should say response-- of the newly made Americans to their recent experiences with the British regime? That left them with a certain sensitivity that the central government should never overpower its citzenry, or rather its states. So I believe that this is how the guns got embedded in American culture from very early days. And on this specific issue, a two hundred-plus year old fork in the road between Americans and Brits... lots and lots of time to develop divergent philosophies and experiences. I also think that this is where comes from the vague notion in the American mind that the right to own guns is somehow patriotic.

That said, I wish I was living on the other fork. It's sort of like Lord of the Rings, now... instead of just throwing the damn ring into the fire to begin with, it's going to take three three-hour sequels to get rid of it now.
 
 
The Monkey
01:41 / 15.02.02
I started, but didn't get very far in, this book called

Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture. by Michael Bellesiles, published 2000 by Vintage.

Didn't get far enough to bring it to bear directly in this thread, but figured I'd pass along the reference.

Fascinating little factoid, though, that I picked up from some gun enthusiasts (hence don't have a verification point): all of those "weapons bans" on semiautomatic rifles in the US work like this [according to my earnest informants]: the government wonk bans the sale of further units of a single model of semiautomatic in a region. That means a specific patent #, design #, like an AR-16G. So next week the munitions company starts putting out the AR-16H, which has two or three screws with different names. With is why you can still buy Ar-16s [M-16] pretty much everywhere.

My time in Kentucky made me pretty familiar with guns, and brought me to the conclusion that the American problem with guns is teleological, not mechanical. I would claim there are in fact several varieties of "gun culture" in the US...anyone else chip in here....

What makes me nervous as the presentation of the gun as equalizer/problem-solver. Its mechanical function [killing humans] has now become intertwined with a mass of symbolic-power fantasies. I can't help but think of the last Invisibles cover, with the 9mm automatic being held up like Excalibur, complete with nimbus.

[ 15-02-2002: Message edited by: [monkeys violating the temple] ]
 
 
Tuna Ghost: Pratt knot hero
04:24 / 15.02.02
quote:Originally posted by Trijhaos:
Gun control is not going to keep kids from accidentally shooting each other. If you keep a gun in the house it is your responsibility to educate your children about the dangers of guns.

I absolutely agree with the second part of this paragraph. Teaching everyone in the house about the dangers of a gun is a must. The first part, though...I can't see how this is true. I mean, surely, if it were made illegal to keep a weapon in your home, we would see a significant drop in accidental shootings. Please elaborate on this.

quote:There are a couple guns in this house and there's always been at least one. Whenever a new gun was brought in to the house for as long as I can remember, I was allowed to hold it and dry-fire it. I was also taught to always treat a gun as if it were loaded and not to point it at anybody even in jest. 2 years ago, I was taken to a firing range and taught to shoot correctly. Does this make me a cold-blooded, psychopathic killer? No. It just means I know how to use a gun if it ever comes down to it.

No one is saying that the very act of owning a gun or learning how to use it properly makes you a dangerous psychopath. I'm a pretty good shot with a rifle, and pretty good with an assault rifle too. I also know how to use a gun "if it ever came down to it". I don't own one, though, and don't see a need to. And knowing how to use a gun certainly won't make a dangerous psycopath any less dangerous. I'm not seeing your point here. Again, please elaborate.

quote:I have never thought about taking a gun to school and blowing away everyone who made fun of me because I've been taught that guns will not solve your problems.

Will a time come when a gun must be used to protect hearth and home? I don't know. I do know that I feel better knowing that the option is there if it ever comes down to it.

I believe you when you say that you have never entertained the notion of bringing a gun to school or shooting any of your classmates. That would be the mark of a dangerously unstable person. But knowing how to use a gun doesn't mean someone won't in a rash decision.

Dig this: I have been taught all my life that violence solves nothing, that fighting will not help any situation. I fully realize that this is true. But that doesn't stop me from getting in fights. I'm sure this has some bearing on the topic, but I don't know what right now, so I'll get back to this later.

I can understand the desire to protect one's home. It's certainly rational to want to keep one's family safe. But if I had children in the house, I personally would rather have my house broken into than have a loaded gun in the same house as the kids precisely because I know the dangers of a gun. Living by myself would be a different story, but with young 'uns, I'd take robbery.

[ 15-02-2002: Message edited by: Johnny the zenarchist ]

[ 15-02-2002: Message edited by: Johnny the zenarchist ]
 
 
Tuna Ghost: Pratt knot hero
04:32 / 15.02.02
Ah ha! It's come to me. The bit about me getting in fights. I get in fights not because I'm uncontrollably angry and looking to hurt someone, but to blow off steam with a (eventually) willing partner. I think my idea was that knowing that using a gun in anger is a bad move won't stop someone from making a rational choice to use a weapon anyway.

Also, I don't want it to seem like I favor one side over the other. I just saw what I took to be flaws or misconceptions in an argument. And let it be known that however an argument sounds, no one on this board seriously thinks that anyone who owns a gun is a dangerous idiot.

Just letting everyone know...
 
 
Haus about we all give each other a big lovely huggle?
07:03 / 15.02.02
quote:Originally posted by Johnny the zenarchist:
Also, I don't want it to seem like I favor one side over the other. I just saw what I took to be flaws or misconceptions in an argument. And let it be known that however an argument sounds, no one on this board seriously thinks that anyone who owns a gun is a dangerous idiot.


Perhaps not. But it does remain the case that a lot of dangerous idiots own guns.
 
 
Kit-Cat Club
07:17 / 15.02.02
You know, I actually find it very very strange that you people have handled and shot guns, and can say with confidence that you would know how to use one in an emergency. The only person I know to have used a gun (or know well enough to know whether they have handled guns or not) is my father, who was on the rifle team when he was at school. The only guns I have ever seen have been behind glass cases. Talk about cultural difference.
 
 
Tuna Ghost: Pratt knot hero
07:22 / 15.02.02
Heh. My first job was at K-Mart, where I was taught (by a video) how to dismantle, load, and fire shotguns and rifles. Along with, y'know, how to deal with shoplifters and the like (the proper method being "do absolutely nothing). I'm guessing this doesn't happen much in the UK.
 
 
Trijhaos
08:34 / 15.02.02
quote: Gun control is not going to keep kids from accidentally shooting each other

I was asked to elaborate on this. Will gun control keep kids from shooting each other? It really depends on the type of gun control. If it were the outright banning of owning a handgun then yes, kids wouldn't be accidentally shot. If it were just a law that stated "one handgun per household", then kids would still be shot only on a smaller scale. It doesn't matter what you do, children are going to get hurt, the only way to keep them safe is to educate them properly.

I can't find the other part I was asked to elaborate on to quote but basically the whole point of that little paragraph was to say that proper education will keep children from shooting each other. If a parent wants to keep a gun in the house, they should bring it in show it to everybody in the house, explain its not a toy, and tell everybody about the proper way to handle it. If you bring a gun into the house, do not slink in and treat the gun like pornography or something else you're ashamed of being seen with.

Would this conversation being going on if guns hadn't been invented and everybody was still going around with a sword at their hip? Probably. Children are curious by nature, if you hide something dangerous from them, they find it, and play with; I guarantee that there will be a chance they get hurt or killed.

[ 15-02-2002: Message edited by: Trijhaos ]
 
 
Fra Dolcino
11:11 / 15.02.02
I'm from the UK and my Grandad was a gamekeeper. My Dad used guns, and I was taken along shooting a lot. I was taught the responsibility of guns. That isn't the problem. Wide accessability to firearms, particularly automatic weapons only ensures that weapons fall into the hands of people who don't carry the same sense of responsibilty. In the US (limited experience here, so please feel free to contradict), it seems as though this fear of being attacked with wepons leads to an arms race, 'do it to them before they do it to you', kind of mentality.

[ 15-02-2002: Message edited by: Fra Dolcino ]
 
 
BioDynamo
13:14 / 15.02.02
For a very long time (10 years, about) I was totally pacifist and thought the world would be a better place without any guns. I'm no longer pacifist, but I still think the world would be a better place without any guns.

However, I know, now, how easy it is to make one: a metal pipe, blocked at one end. Drill a small hole, add fuse. Fill with gunpowder, add bullet.

Thus, removing the guns does not in itself make the world a perfect place rid of violence. You need a change in culture, condemning the violence.

This on utopia.

In practice, two days I started concidering getting a gun, trying to get a legal permit to own it, and then buying one. (In Finland this is time-consuming and difficult, but not impossible.)

I would not wish to use it, ever. And it would be kept in a place where only I would get to it. The point would have been that when the cops have evicted us, they would see the gun, and know that there was a reason it wasn't used. Thus, they would, for a second, be grateful, and they would be more respectful during the next eviction.

This seemed like a good idea for about five seconds, and then it seemed like the worst idea ever. Made me feel sick to the stomach.

I understand people getting guns when they are at war with "their government" or some other force, like in Spain 1933-39. But keeping heaps of guns "just in case the government gets uppity" and not seeing that the way to counteract that is by building strong forces of counterpower, not by going in for extremism and preparing for terrorism, well, that's plain dumb. Appealing, yes, but dumb.
 
 
Trijhaos
15:30 / 15.02.02
Why is it that everybody here sees guns as just murder weapons? Yes, that is why guns were developed.

Some people collect guns, not because they're arming a militia or psychos, but because it is their hobby. These people collect guns the way some people collect coins, trading cards (do people still collect these?), or stamps.

For these people amassing a large collection of guns is fun. They may go to a swap meet, pick up a rusted old gun for 5 bucks and a few months later after some hard work turn around and sell it for a few hundred.

You can kill people with pretty much anything. Why are guns such an easy target?Yes they're readily available, but so are knives, bows and arrows, and gasoline.
 
 
angharad
15:39 / 15.02.02
quote:Originally posted by Trijhaos:

children are going to get hurt, the only way to keep them safe is to educate them properly.

... proper education will keep children from shooting each other. If a parent wants to keep a gun in the house, they should bring it in show it to everybody in the house, explain its not a toy, and tell everybody about the proper way to handle it.



Hmmm ... while I'm certainly not going to argue against education of any kind, I think this line of argument is very unrealistic.

Children do not have the reasoning capabilities of adults - heck, lots of adults don't have the reasoning capabilities of adults - and however well you teach them, you cannot 'gun-proof' their minds.

Children - in the US at least - grow up in a culture that contradicts this responsible attitude at every turn. Movies, TV, all kinds of media - even in kept away from the TV they will likely be exposed to the glorification of guns and violence by their peer group.

I was brought up to be compassionate, logical and thoughtful, but I remember still the burning, murderous rages I was capable of as a child. I'm not saying I'd have gone on a shooting rampage had I had access to a gun, but I feel I can understand how it can happen.

This leaves aside accidental shootings - I believe studies [URL=http://www.pediatrics.org/cgi/content/abstract/107/6/1247?maxtoshow=&HITS=&hits=&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=playing+with+guns&searchid=QID_NOT_SET&stored_search=&FIRSTINDEX=&volum e=107&issue=6]studies[/URL] have shown that children have an inherent fascination with guns, regardless of the education they've been given.
 
 
MJ-12
16:00 / 15.02.02
quote:Children do not have the reasoning capabilities of adults - heck, lots of adults don't have the reasoning capabilities of adults - and however well you teach them, you cannot 'gun-proof' their minds.

A colleague of mine who was an enthusiant, used to teach his nephews by first up having them fire a large caliber handgun into a watermelon from about a foot away, and leaving them in the sun for a couple of hours before hosing themselves off.
 
 
angharad
16:46 / 15.02.02


[ 15-02-2002: Message edited by: angharad ]
 
 
Tuna Ghost: Pratt knot hero
20:45 / 15.02.02
quote:Originally posted by Trijhaos:
Why is it that everybody here sees guns as just murder weapons?

Because that's what they're supposed to be. They were made to fire a small bit or bits of metal at high velocity. Very little application there except for wounding or killing.


quote:Some people collect guns, not because they're arming a militia or psychos, but because it is their hobby. These people collect guns the way some people collect coins, trading cards (do people still collect these?), or stamps.

For these people amassing a large collection of guns is fun. They may go to a swap meet, pick up a rusted old gun for 5 bucks and a few months later after some hard work turn around and sell it for a few hundred.

I have no doubt this is true. Again, no one is saying that owning makes you a dangerous psycopath. But a gun is a gun, no matter the reason for buying it. You can treat it as a coin, or a trading card, or a stamp, but that doesn't mean it's not a device made for hurting people/threatening to hurt people. And just because you see it that way doesn't mean that your kids will or a friend or maybe even yourself in a rage. That's the big differance here: a stamp, or trading card, can't be used to kill anyone, no matter how you treat it.

quote:You can kill people with pretty much anything. Why are guns such an easy target?Yes they're readily available, but so are knives, bows and arrows, and gasoline.

That's not why guns are a target for control. It wasn't always so, you know. But then people started seeing that using a gun was the easiest way (by far) to kill someone and get away with it. Even if that isn't true (I think it is, but I could easily be wrong), the vast majority of people think it is anyway. You can be the worst shot, terribly weak and cowardly, slow and unable to defend yourself, but using a gun will make up for all that against anyone without one.
 
 
Trijhaos
09:09 / 16.02.02
Ok I see your point. How can gun control be enforced? It can't, not completely. Look at drugs. They're supposedly illegal but if you really want some, you can score some.

By banning guns, they'll become a forbidden fruit, much like drugs are now.

Am I against gun control? Not really. I just don't feel that guns should be banned outright. If on the other hand you were to say "Ok you can have one gun" then I'd be all for it. People should have the right to choose whether or not a gun is in their home. If they don't like guns and don't want a gun, great don't buy one. But, if someone wants one and is able to register for one that's great too.
 
 
Tuna Ghost: Pratt knot hero
09:46 / 16.02.02
quote:Originally posted by Trijhaos:
Ok I see your point. How can gun control be enforced? It can't, not completely. Look at drugs. They're supposedly illegal but if you really want some, you can score some.

By banning guns, they'll become a forbidden fruit, much like drugs are now.



This merits inspection. I have had numerous opportunity to buy firearms illegally, but I was put in those situations because of my involvement in the drug culture. I would think it difficult for someone to buy a weapon illegally if they did not run in the same social circles I did, or at least similiar ones (by similiar, I mean social circles dealing with matters extra-legal in nature, to quote frank millar).

True, in high school, drugs are a forbidden fruit. But I found out pretty quickly that after you graduate, no one gives a fuck if you smoke pot use coke or whatever, and if they do, they certainly don't think it's "cool".

Of course, who's to say that this wouldn't be the case for firearms. But I find it hard to believe that people would have the same view of guns if they were illegal than they have with drugs now. To most non-users, drugs are illegal and maybe dangerous too. But dangerous only to the user, or people who he convinces to become users. Either way, they all made a conscious choice to take said drugs. A gun is dangerous to everyone, no matter what choices they made regarding the use, except the person behind it (sometimes not even then. One of my cousins died in a hunting accident when a bullet of his richoceted off a tree and got him in the leg, causing him to bleed to death).

Does everyone deserve the choice to keep a gun in his/her home? I certainly can't decide who has the right to own one and who doesn't, and I don't think anyone can. But I think we can both agree that we know people who we would rather not ever own a gun, because frankly we are pretty sure they are not nearly responsible enough to not be a danger. I suppose one has to weigh the value of the right to own a gun against the risk of these people being a danger.
 
 
Trijhaos
09:54 / 16.02.02
You're right, there are some people I would never want to see owning a gun. But if one is a responsible adult then one should have the right.

What about hunters? If gun control was instituted, how would it affect hunters? I know there are some people who hunt to support their family because they don't make enough money to do so otherwise.

Would we just be trying to control handguns that are easily concealed and gotten rid of or every kind of gun including hunting rifles that some people use to support their families?
 
 
Tuna Ghost: Pratt knot hero
09:54 / 16.02.02
That does sound reasonable. I haven't seen the numbers, but I would assume that most crimes committed with guns are done so with a handgun. I suppose shotguns are used often too, but not as much. But again, I haven't seen any numbers.

Re: responsible adults

The thing is I can't decide who's responsible enough. Sure, there are those I wouldn't want to risk giving a gun to, but I could be wrong about them, and i could be wrong about the people I do think are responsible. And there obviously are people who are not responsible enough to own guns, as accidents happen all the time. But it's too hard to decide who is what. Like I said, it's a matter of weighing the value of the right (maybe just a privledge?) to own a gun against the danger posed by dangerous idiots allowed to own guns.
 
 
Trijhaos
09:54 / 16.02.02
So its all about weighing the maturity and responsibility of the gun owners? I can see that.

There's really no way to measure the maturity/responsibility level of people. Not to go off topic, but look at some of the people given driver's licenses. These are supposed to be sane, rational adults yet they do some crazy shit. You can't look at somebody and say "You look mature and responsible, here's a gun. Enjoy" and look at the next person and say "You don't look so responsible, no gun for you".

I think gun ownership should be a privilage, not a right like getting a driver's license. "Oh, but look look right here. In the second amendment it talks about the right to bear arms". I believe it was previously mentioned that the second amendment deals with a militia. How many years has it been since we've had a standing militia?
 
 
Tuna Ghost: Pratt knot hero
09:54 / 16.02.02
New direction: does tougher gun control have a significant impact on crime? Would outlawing handguns be a good thing, or would it just arm the criminals and no one else?
 
 
Trijhaos
10:45 / 16.02.02
Do tougher gun controls affect crime? Probably not. If someone's decided to use a gun to murder, steal, or whatever then by god they'll figure out a way to get their hands on a gun. People can be really clever when they want to be.

Will outlawing guns mean only criminals are armed? I don't think so. If a supposed law-abiding citizen wants a gun in their home they'll figure out a way to get their hands on a gun and hide it from the authorities. Look at switchblades. They're supposedly illegal but I know a couple places I can go and get one.

Even if guns were outlawed, they're not exactly difficult to make if you want a simple one. If you want a more complicated one all you really need access to is a good machine shop and some schematics.
 
 
BioDynamo
12:17 / 19.02.02
quote:Originally posted by Trijhaos:
Look at switchblades. They're supposedly illegal but I know a couple places I can go and get one.


Sorry? Is this correct? In your country it is totally legal and acceptable to own weapons that kill with very high certainity over large distances, but not legal to own a small blade, only because of that blade's fuunctioning? What is the logic, reason and sense in this? That's just dumb. Or strange, maybe.
 
 
Ganesh
12:24 / 19.02.02
quote:Originally posted by Trijhaos:
Even if guns were outlawed, they're not exactly difficult to make if you want a simple one. If you want a more complicated one all you really need access to is a good machine shop and some schematics.

Well and good, but assuming that each and every gun-related crime carries that degree of premeditation. Relatively speaking, that's a rarity: violent assaults (against others or oneself) are far more likely to occur in the heat of the moment, possibly under the influence of alcohol or other drugs. One might impulsively overdose or impulsively grab a firearm and shoot.

One does not impulsively "make" a gun...
 
 
Dao Jones
12:35 / 19.02.02
quoteo tougher gun controls affect crime? Probably not. If someone's decided to use a gun to murder, steal, or whatever then by god they'll figure out a way to get their hands on a gun. People can be really clever when they want to be.Does that mean you don't want to be? Because you're arguing like an idiot. Yes, you can get hold of a gun if you want one. More relevant, perhaps, is the number of domestic arguments which end in guncrime because a weapon is available, in the house. Check the figures. See also suicides.

quote:Will outlawing guns mean only criminals are armed?Actually, it would mean that if you were armed, you were, de facto, a criminal. Which could have all kinds of interesting knock-on effects.

quote:I don't think so. If a supposed law-abiding citizen wants a gun in their home they'll figure out a way to get their hands on a gun and hide it from the authorities. Look at switchblades. They're supposedly illegal but I know a couple places I can go and get one.And why are switchblades illegal? Why are guns somehow perfectly okay? Could it possibly be because guns have some kind of acceptable civil war heritage, whereas your country associates switchblades with african and latin americans stealing WASP wallets?

quote:Even if guns were outlawed, they're not exactly difficult to make if you want a simple one. If you want a more complicated one all you really need access to is a good machine shop and some schematics.Irrelevant. But fascinating to wonder whether everyone would actually go take a course in metalwork and trust themselves to make a gun which wouldn't blow up in their own stupid face.

Guns do, indeed, kill people. You could even say that the presence of, the existence of, the gun, makes it more likely for people to kill people. To a man with a gun, any violent situation looks like a possible gun-worthy situation. It escalates violence. If you don't, you look for ways around, maybe back off.

Ask yourself why the two most long-lasting icons of Americana (Batman and Superman) are Gun-immune. Ask yourself why the Cowboy always draws second and why all he wants to do is retire, and why the Gangster has to die at the end of the movie. Your culture knows the Gun is death.
 
 
Haus about we all give each other a big lovely huggle?
12:55 / 19.02.02
Certainly it may be the case that, along with the death penalty and abortion, many citizens of the USA just don't see how astonishingly wacky their ideas seem to most Europeans....
 
  

Page: (1)2

 
  
Add Your Reply