Gun control: What is your position?

[Mark of Zorro]

Okay, so here is the opinion thread on guns. I want to keep this separate from the fact thread on guns because I know this one will get extremely messy (not that the fact thread is so neat because some people have serious difficulty following directions). The focus will of course be America (as usual) but information from other countries is invaluable and America needs to heed it.

I am all for gun control. The trouble is that most gun control laws I see in America are either stupid in their conception, watered down too much by compromise to be effectual, or just another random law in a chaotic patchwork of them whereas what is needed is coordination.

What I have long proposed is setting up a system of privately run local gun clubs that would have the authority and duty to train all gun owners, license them and register their weapons. To purchase guns and ammo a license would be required. Regular training would be required to own a firearm.

These clubs would also have the power to reject anyone for any reason and at any time, and revoke all licenses and registration, so any members who suddenly had behavior changes and problems would be spotted and sorted quickly and locally.

I also propose these gun clubs provide storage for the firearms of the members, and licensed members would only be allowed to have in their home up to two firearms and for home defense and hunting purposes only, or, with further training and licensing, to carry regularly.

If you cannot convince any gun clubs to take you, then there must be something wrong with you, so no guns.

All of this takes into account the right of private citizens to own firearms for the purpose of a WELL REGULATED MILITIA. The gun club would basically be a militia. And damn but is that "well regulated" part important, but gets ignored!

The government would only be involved in the general legal and taxation aspects. This would leave community gun clubs running their own, free of government control.

I think this would pretty much satisfy all but the true gun nuts who should not even get a say. Naturally, nutty people would be rejected by their local gun clubs, so no nut would want this.

On the flip side, so much security and safety would be ensured, that so many current restrictions could be dropped. Automatic weapons could become commonplace (like in Switzerland) and things like body armor could become generally available (and every militia should certainly have it).

For sane gun owners, it would be a paradise. For people who don't want to get shot, it would be only slightly more risk than living in, say, Japan. (people do get shot here).

 

[GaijinGolfer]

Youre really upset about that other thread, arent you? LOL As for gun control, Im all for no assulat rifles and nothing that holds more than 5 shots. For someone who uses a gun for hunting or target shooting, theres no need for more than 5 shots.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

Youre really upset about that other thread, arent you?

More like disappointed as far as the thread goes. Certain posts have got me upset though, sure. I think for good reason.

As for gun control, Im all for no assulat rifles and nothing that holds more than 5 shots. For someone who uses a gun for hunting or target shooting, theres no need for more than 5 shots.

Sounds like good opinions to me.

 

[alecgraham]

My opinion is that nations with a virtually gun-free populace should try to stay that way. In the U.S., where guns are already everywhere, I think that the more well-trained gun holding citizens there are, the better.

Btw, I took my wife & elderly in-laws to a shooting range yesterday, and we had a great time. It was booked before the tragedy in Connecticut.

 

[RolandtheHeadless]

I control my guns. I keep them locked up in a safe, except for a couple I keep hidden in the house for self-defense, or when I'm carrying concealed.

I lecture my guns regularly about not hurting anyone. None of them have ever escaped my custody to harm a human being.

---------- Post added at 12:59 ---------- Previous post was at 12:56 ----------

Youre really upset about that other thread, arent you? LOL As for gun control, Im all for no assulat rifles and nothing that holds more than 5 shots. For someone who uses a gun for hunting or target shooting, theres no need for more than 5 shots.

Five shots? You're kidding, right?

You'd ban even the time-honored six-shot revolver, like the cowboys use in Western movies?

 

[Mark of Zorro]

I control my guns. I keep them locked up in a safe, except for a couple I keep hidden in the house for self-defense, or when I'm carrying concealed.

I lecture my guns regularly about not hurting anyone. None of them have ever escaped my custody to harm a human being.

One has to wonder why gun advocates have to resort to these sort of crappy obtuse statements. Could it be they just don't have enough reasonable arguments for their pathological love of hot steel?

You will notice they are always whinging about their right to bear GUNS, but they never talk this way about hand grenades, samurai swords, crossbows or NUKES, all of which are ARMS. Why? Because when it comes to making the absurd seem reasonable, you have to be very careful and have focus. They have pissed and moaned so much about guns, that while even so much of it is absurd, it has begun to seem reasonable.

Guns don't kill people. BULLETS kill people. Bullets fired from guns by people. But remove any one of the three from the equation and you save lives.

Five shots? You're kidding, right?

You'd ban even the time-honored six-shot revolver, like the cowboys use in Western movies?

I think he was only talking about rifles in that post, even when he said "anything". I think he mean any rifle.

---------- Post added at 09:29 ---------- Previous post was at 09:23 ----------

My opinion is that nations with a virtually gun-free populace should try to stay that way. In the U.S., where guns are already everywhere, I think that the more well-trained gun holding citizens there are, the better.

I agree. But I don't think its such a bad idea to take a long-term step by step approach to making America gun free.

But in the context of what you said, anyone thinking of trying to disarm America over-night is thinking a very stupid thought.

 

[RolandtheHeadless]

I wouldn't care that you seem to take pride in displaying your ignorance, if only you weren't so shrill and insulting about it. No wonder you make friends everywhere you go.

Yes, "arms" includes swords and crossbows. You're allowed to buy and own both in the US, and many states allow hunting with crossbows. The term "arms" itself comes from the old English reference to weapons carried by the human arm; thus, the reference to "bearing arms" in the Magna Carta. The term didn't include large weapons like catapults, and no reasonable gun-owner today would say that it includes nuclear weapons.

Incidentally, your opening proposals here are so clearly unconstitutional that they don't merit a serious response.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

I wouldn't care that you seem to take pride in displaying your ignorance, if only you weren't so shrill and insulting about it. No wonder you make friends everywhere you go.

It was you that was insulting with your speech about how you lecture your guns. You just don't realize it.

Yes, "arms" includes swords and crossbows. You're allowed to buy and own both in the US, and many states allow hunting with crossbows.

There are bans on both depending on the state. But where gun advocates went on and on and on about the D.C. gun ban citing the right to bear arms, they are pretty mum about the non-gun bans.

The term "arms" itself comes from the old English reference to weapons carried by the human arm; thus, the reference to "bearing arms" in the Magna Carta. The term didn't include large weapons like catapults, and no reasonable gun-owner today would say that it includes nuclear weapons.

Cannons are legal to own in America. Again, you think your nitpicking should enjoy general application. Worse, you think the English Magna Carta applies to specific definitions in the America Constitution. Used to be some Americans held their own private and fully armed warships.

Plus hand grenades are quite readily carried in hand.

If you don't like nukes, how about RPGs and shoulder launched SAMs? Surely a well-regulated militia in today's world would need some of those?

Incidentally, your opening proposals here are so clearly unconstitutional that they don't merit a serious response.

Don't bother being specific. That would mean risking getting shot down. Instead, just cowardly insult my ideas and dismiss them out of hand. That should make you feel much more secure.

 

[Tamayo]

I'm fully supportive of gun control, but not gun-outlaw. I am absolutely, wholeheartedly against disarming US citizens unless there is some fool-proof plan to make them nearly 100% inaccessible for crime like they are in Japan (that would require an advanced and intuitive breakthrough in stopping crime first, though). The idea of disarming innocent people in America only makes the gun violence more horrifying. To be honest, the idea of completely disarming our society is just delusional.

I think it should be easy for a law-abiding citizen to obtain a firearm, and far more difficult or impossible for those with even minor discrepancies in their record to. America's crime situation is too progressed, though -- Even coming close to eliminating half of the crime would require absolute cultural revolution, but that's another story.

 

[RickNZ]

Here in New Zeland, handguns are relatively rare among criminals, automatics are pretty much non-existent. Even a sawn-off shotgun will make headlines. You need a license to own guns ( ie. rifles and and shotguns, anything else is extremely difficult to get), I used to have one, but I didn't renew because I hadn't been out shooting for years. To get a license, among other things, you need to prove you've got a secure lockable cabinet to keep them in. This does seem to help reduce random thugs doing a burglary getting themselves a gun. I think gun control works well IF the gun supply to criminals has not already got out of hand. We're lucky here that it hasn't. If it already has, there's no point having laws that mean only the bad guys will have the guns. Law abiding citizens with proper training should be able to have weapons if the criminals do. Whatever's appropriate in different parts of the world.

 

[Tamayo]

To get a license, among other things, you need to prove you've got a secure lockable cabinet to keep them in. This does seem to help reduce random thugs doing a burglary getting themselves a gun.

That's actually a great idea. I'm not too sure if we have any laws like that in the US since I've never really been concerned with getting my hands on firearms (yet), but a law like that alone would make me a bit more confident in the safety of guns.

I think gun control works well IF the gun supply to criminals has not already got out of hand. We're lucky here that it hasn't. If it already has, there's no point having laws that mean only the bad guys will have the guns.

I second this with every fiber of my being.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

I think gun control works well IF the gun supply to criminals has not already got out of hand. We're lucky here that it hasn't. If it already has, there's no point having laws that mean only the bad guys will have the guns.

It is possible to make a plan to remedy the situation. But to do it with as little grief as possible will require a step by step plan that gets followed over the years. A random law here and a random law there will not turn it around.

As I have said before, even those labeled criminals follow most of the laws most of the time. If just having an unregistered firearm will mean 5 more years in jail on top of getting caught doing some other criminal activity, many will choose to either get rid of the gun or register it.

What is ridiculous is to say that anyone who ever committed a crime is now a "criminal" and that criminals ignore all the laws all the time. They don't.

 

[Tamayo]

What is ridiculous is to say that anyone who ever committed a crime is now a "criminal" and that criminals ignore all the laws all the time. They don't.

I agree with you to a certain extent. Or course your chances of obtaining a gun shouldn't be hindered by having received a speeding ticket, or something of that nature. On the other hand, it would be a travesty for someone who has made a conscious decision to participate in organized crime to ever have legal access to weapons.

I support the idea of very strict laws in that regard. I understand that being rehabilitated is possible, and it does happen on a regular basis, but there are some crimes that should simply destroy your chances of getting lethal weapons.

 

[Michael Paulson]

You can change the laws all you want. The real issue will be enforcing them. If the war on drugs has thought people anything is that the law of unintended consequences will be in full effect. The war on drugs created a massive increase of demand for illegal drugs. This pretty much created street gangs and the drug cartels. The 2nd most illegally trafficked item in the US is of course firearms. Restrict firearms and more people will simply buy firearms off the street.

Also, people really need to stop jumping for what ever scapegoat is convent for them. Firearms,video games, and music should be the last thing we are talking about right now. People need to research these things and think of them in a case by case basis. Take the Sandy Hook shooting for example. Its clear that Adam Lanza had some mental issues. Therefor his mother shouldn't have had firearms in the house in the first place, let alone several unsecured firearms and a stockpile of ammo. If for what ever reason she felt the need to have firearms, the firearms and ammo should have been secured. There are so my options when it comes to securing a firearm/ammo there is simply no excuse for not having the secured. A bulletproof case with a 6 digit locks/padlock and a cable lock for an AR-15 will be less then $200 for both. You can go to any army surplus store and buy military style metal ammo boxes that you can also padlock shut for $25 or less. We should be talking about better parenting and responsible gun ownership. Both have been issues for a longtime now that no seems to be willing to admit or talk about.

 

[Tamayo]

Also, people really need to stop jumping for what ever scapegoat is convent for them. Firearms,video games, and music should be the last thing we are talking about right now. People need to research these things and think of them in a case by case basis. Take the Sandy Hook shooting for example. Its clear that Adam Lanza had some mental issues. Therefor his mother shouldn't have had firearms in the house in the first place, let alone several unsecured firearms and a stockpile of ammo. If for what ever reason she felt the need to have firearms, the firearms and ammo should have been secured.

I agree completely. The thing that really bothers me about the whole gun control issue is that it really doesn't have much to do with the laws in the first place. We need our culture to change for the crime to go away. Even if the government had some way of completely removing all guns from society, legal or illegal, people will find other ways to kill one another. This stupid "People don't kill people, guns kill people!" attitude is going to cost tax payers an astronomical amount of money, and it'll all be for nothing. Meanwhile, more and more innocent people will die because everyone is too focused on what people murder one another with instead of getting to the real root of why they do it.

Next you'll see people trying to tighten laws on knives, and make power tools "safer", and create loads of needless regulations. It really kills me to think that this country used to be so much more respectful and safe. I'm not particularly scared or nervous about being killed, but it's the attitude that everyone has. The way people are here is the biggest reason why I started looking into moving to Japan in the first place.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

what[/b] people murder one another with instead of getting to the real root of why they do it.

So how do you propose to get into everyone's head?

When that is done, surely we can get rid of car registration, driving tests and driver's licenses, right?

Um, no, I am sorry, but here in the real world we have to deal with objects and make sure people are equipped to properly deal with dangerous objects like cars, guns, hand grenades, nukes (both kinds) etc. To just make commonly available objects that allow the easy killing of a half dozen people is completely nuts.

And yes, certain knives are already restricted and indeed, banned. Nunchaku and crossbows as well, although none of them nationwide, but state by state.

And frankly, I would rather lose the freedom to own a gun than have the government meddling with society and people's heads to make us all safer. I cannot imagine that scenario being anything less than a Big Brother type loss of freedom.

---------- Post added at 15:09 ---------- Previous post was at 15:03 ----------

You can change the laws all you want. The real issue will be enforcing them.

Like I said, it depends on HOW you do it. When was the last time we had a serious problem with unregistered motor vehicles? Surely they are more useful in the commission of most crime than a gun!

Done right, there won't be so much need for the overt, pro-active sort of enforcement you seem to be referring to.

If the war on drugs has thought people anything is that the law of unintended consequences will be in full effect. The war on drugs created a massive increase of demand for illegal drugs. This pretty much created street gangs and the drug cartels. The 2nd most illegally trafficked item in the US is of course firearms. Restrict firearms and more people will simply buy firearms off the street.

As much as I support the analogy of the war on drugs when speaking of the unintended consequences of a BAN, gun control is not necessarily a BAN.

We need to regulate guns, ie control them. If people have legal access to guns with RESTRICTIONS, most people, even the so-called criminals, will go the legal route. Why? Because its SAFER for them.

 

[Tamayo]

So how do you propose to get into everyone's head?
Um, no, I am sorry, but here in the real world we have to deal with objects and make sure people are equipped to properly deal with dangerous objects like cars, guns, hand grenades, nukes (both kinds) etc. To just make commonly available objects that allow the easy killing of a half dozen people is completely nuts.

You seem to have misunderstood what I meant. I've already mentioned in this thread that I fully support regulation on weapons, and now that you bring it up, I also support stricter rules when it comes to other common dangerous things such a cars. I never said that we shouldn't care about regulating guns, but I did try to get the point across that we do so to a fault.

My point is that I believe deeply in the idea of human accountability. We should definitely have laws and regulations to make it difficult for the wrong people to obtain weapons, but not solely. Like I said, it doesn't matter how many regulations or laws you have -- people will kill one another. I'm just saying that all of this hype about gun control every time there's a school shooting is a waste of time. Isn't it a wonder why guns are a bigger problem in modern times even in spite of the fact that they're under heavier regulations?

As for the solution to the problem -- What I meant is that society must be fixed, not our laws. The gun issue is mainly a matter of culture, not laws. Let's compare and contrast America with Japan. Suppose for a moment that Japan adopted the exact same policies on gun control in America; guns are now legal. Which society do you think will have more gun violence, and why? Having access to guns doesn't turn a person into a murderer, and not having access to guns won't turn a murderer into a law abiding citizen.

 

[RolandtheHeadless]

"And yes, certain knives are already restricted and indeed, banned. Nunchaku and crossbows as well, although none of them nationwide, but state by state."

Some states restrict crossbow hunting, but can you name a state that bans crossbows?

"We need to regulate guns, ie control them. If people have legal access to guns with RESTRICTIONS, most people, even the so-called criminals, will go the legal route. Why? Because its SAFER for them."

That makes little sense. Criminals (felons and violent misdemeanants) are already banned by federal law from owning firearms.

And why would a criminal who uses guns in crime follow restrictions? They're already violating the law by committing their crimes, so why in heaven's name would they follow registration requirements or whatever "restrictions" you're talking about?

"Safer for them"? It would be safer for them to follow the law and not commit the crime! Unless you're talking about white-collar criminals, forgers, embezzlers, and the like, who don't rely on guns in the first place and are therefore irrelevant to the discussion.

 

[SevenStarsHK2N]

Any one who thinks that having the population armed - so that they may form militia - is in some way going to provide a "check" or "balance" against possible US tyrany against it's own people - needs to get their head examined.

Also people claiming that it would be impossible to get the guns off the streets now - are also wrong

The assumption that your are safer because you own a gun is also false. You are far more likely to be shot and killed if you have a gun - and thus present a potentially lethal threat - than if you are unarmed.

 

[RolandtheHeadless]

You're also more likely to be injured or killed in an automobile accident if you have an automobile. You're more likely to cut yourself if you have a knife. You're more likely to fall off a ladder if you own a ladder.

These of course are meaningless statistics. People who keep and use guns, autos, knives, and ladders can learn to use these items safely and decide for themselves if their usefulness outweighs the risks.

The aphorism goes, "There are lies, damn lies, and then there are statistics." Statistics can be twisted to show just about anything. How many gun deaths are suicides, which if not for a gun would have been achieved by a car or knife?

If you have no use for guns, autos, knives, or ladders, then by all means don't get them. You probably won't care enough to store or use them safely. Ownership of dangerous items carries with it the responsibility to handle them safely.
If you can't or won't learn not to drive at excessive speeds or when drunk, how to use a knife safely, or not to stand on the top rung of a ladder, you shouldn't own these things.

Keeping or carrying a gun is a personal decision that is not based on statistics. Do I want to be a helpless victim, a sheep awaiting slaughter, or do I want to have a chance to defend myself against armed, dangerous criminals? If I hear glass breaking in the middle of the night, gun accident statistics will be the last thing on my mind.

 

[SevenStarsHK2N]

NO - your logic is flawed.

it's "your money or your life" not "your money AND your life"

If someone robs you at gun point and you are unarmed - your chances of getting shot and killed are slim to none.
If someone robs you at gun point and you are armed with a gun - the chances of you getting shot suddenly significantly increase.

 

[RolandtheHeadless]

The logic is not flawed; you've just picked one example where it doesn't apply. In your scenario, I'd hand over my money regardless of whether I carried a gun.

Years ago I was mugged and beaten by four thugs on the street. A gun would have prevented it, and I probably never would have had to use the gun.

I know two women who prevented themselves from being raped and perhaps killed in their own homes, simply by pointing a handgun at the intruders and telling them to leave. And there are serial killers out there who kill people just for the thrill.

 

[Tamayo]

Any one who thinks that having the population armed - so that they may form militia - is in some way going to provide a "check" or "balance" against possible US tyrany against it's own people - needs to get their head examined.

Trust me, if there was even a slight possibility of there being an uprising that resulted in the public turning on the government, 1: We'd lose sorely and almost instantaneously, and 2: we wouldn't have to tools to do so to begin with. Not only does this government have a tight grip over what it's people does, but the people here are too focused on differences to team up for something like that. Allowing citizens to have guns wasn't the Government's way of saying "Keep us in check, guys!", it was simply a freedom and a privilege.

Also people claiming that it would be impossible to get the guns off the streets now - are also wrong

Tell me more about how no one can buy drugs, or import American weapons to terrorists and drug lords. Those are banned, what makes you think that banning guns would be any bit as effective as it's been for any other thing that's banned in this country? The crime culture here is simply far too out of hand for it to work (as things are now, at least).

The assumption that your are safer because you own a gun is also false. You are far more likely to be shot and killed if you have a gun - and thus present a potentially lethal threat - than if you are unarmed.

Absolutely untrue. There is only a small handful of scenarios where having a gun will make you a more important target. Most of the crime in this country is committed by low-life thugs who rely on lesser weapons (IE: gangs?), and wouldn't dare make any advances on an armed person. I have no idea what they tell you in Europe, but you've got to understand exactly what the crime is like here before you assume that a gun won't make you safer.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

Trust me, if there was even a slight possibility of there being an uprising that resulted in the public turning on the government, 1: We'd lose sorely and almost instantaneously, and 2: we wouldn't have to tools to do so to begin with.

The people would not jump in front of those attack helicopters and tanks. It would be a guerilla war, and it would not be the first time in the world a well equipped military lost to guerillas who had mostly small arms.

But it must be understood that the primary weapon of a guerilla is not a gun. Things like destruction of supply lines and gaining the non-compliance of the people are way ahead of guns.

Even the American Confederacy, with a serious lack of large arms, like cannon and warships, held off the North with mostly small arms.

And let us not forget about assassinations either. Killing the right person can turn a war around faster than a whole battalion of troops. You can assassinate one man with the smallest of pistols.

What I will say is that its a fool who thinks its this small arms threat keeping the government in check. So many freedoms have already been eroded and destroyed in America, despite all those guns.

 

[Tamayo]

The people would not jump in front of those attack helicopters and tanks. It would be a guerilla war, and it would not be the first time in the world a well equipped military lost to guerillas who had mostly small arms.

But it must be understood that the primary weapon of a guerilla is not a gun. Things like destruction of supply lines and gaining the non-compliance of the people are way ahead of guns.

Even the American Confederacy, with a serious lack of large arms, like cannon and warships, held off the North with mostly small arms.

And let us not forget about assassinations either. Killing the right person can turn a war around faster than a whole battalion of troops. You can assassinate one man with the smallest of pistols.

What I will say is that its a fool who thinks its this small arms threat keeping the government in check. So many freedoms have already been eroded and destroyed in America, despite all those guns.

I really think that the possibility of overthrowing the government (in any developed country) diminishes constantly with the advent of technology which is more efficient/effective. Guerrilla warfare is definitely nasty, but I can't see it doing much to a modern government, especially if you compare it to a similar situation where the same technology wasn't available.