Print

Add to Reputation:  

What do you think of this post?

I agree I disagree  
Comment:

[Mangley]

So it's been a little dead around these parts lately. I thought I'd throw this topic out there to see if I can spark up a discussion that I know many people will have fairly strong opinions on. For personal interest's sake.


The topic is Firearms and more specifically should people have the right to carry and own them?

Now I'm not going to be fair about this, I'm actually biased against rights to bear arms, and I think I have pretty good reasons, and I'm going to deliberately throw loaded questions out there. One thing I'm willing to be is swayed, but only by good, solid arguments. I know the majority of forum-goers here are in the US. So I'm looking forward to, and expecting some good counter-arugments. So let's begin:

I live in the UK, which has very strict gun laws and has an anti-firearms culture. (The only legal guns are single action sporting rifles and shotguns, and historic muzzle loaded guns and even those are very strictly licensed.) Almost my entire exposure to firearms is indirect, through video games, movies, footage, photographs etc. The closest I've come to an actual gun was walking past an airport security guard with an MP5 strapped to his chest. Our police don't carry guns, only specialized units and high level security forces are armed. The consequence of this is it's very difficult and expensive for criminals to get their hands on firearms. This also makes an easy job for police conducting sting operations by posing as gun dealers to bust terrorists and gangs.

By contrast, I see specifically the US is saturated by gun culture and Americans seem to feel very strongly about their right to bear arms. Invalidly so, in my opinion.

Argument 1:
Let me start by critically breaking down what a firearm is. A firearm is a portable machine that is designed to kill. That is what I would define a gun's function as, as that is it's objectively a gun's intended purpose. So why would you allow almost anybody to legally own or carry one of these killing machines?

The consequence of relaxed laws is that there is absolutely no limits of availability of them to criminals. The fact that there are background checks for criminal records is largely irrelevant. There are simply so many guns in circulation, not to mention that all criminals start out as citizens who can legally own guns before they even consider taking up a life of crime that it's trivial for someone with bad intentions to get a hold of one. Not to mention the stresses of life can simply turn a perfectly good and honest citizen who owns a gun into a rampaging maniac with a gun after a hard day at the office.

According to official statistics from the last 15 years the US has a firearm-related homicide rate that is over 59 times higher than that of the UK.
With a base homicide rate that's 3.9 times higher as of 2010.

So you have the right to carry a firearm, but you only need it in order to defend yourself against other people who carry a firearm. Kind of self-defeating isn't it?

Here's a nice list of school massacres. Notice that it only took one school massacre for the UK to completely reform it's firearms laws. Where as the US is up to a total of 16, 15 of which were perpetrated using firearms. And this is only counting massacres that took place in schools and universities.

So how many massacres would it take, and how frequently do they need to happen, in order for the US to tighten gun laws? And how willing would US citizens be to give up their 'rights' to make themselves safer in their own country? It particularly tickles me that many Americans are outraged by proposed restrictions to firearms.

Argument 2:
It's important to bear in mind that the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution, the right of the people to carry arms, was brought into action in 1791. At the time the most common firearms were single shot muzzle-loaded flint-lock weapons.

Contrast how easy it would have been to rob someone at gun point if you only had a single shot flint-lock pistol which was very prone to malfunctions, to today where you can murder dozens of people in a matter of a few seconds with perfectly legal weapons that you have the right to carry.

How then, is the 2nd Amendment still relevant over 200 years later in the modern age? At the time it was written it could not even be dreamed what future firearms would be capable of.


Don't get me wrong, I think guns are mechanically interesting, very well engineered and beautiful in many ways, and I'd sure love to fire one someday.

Anyway, I'd love to hear some peoples counter-arguments, thoughts, experiences. I'm sure proxie has some, as we regularly discuss this topic. What restrictions should be in place? I don't know the absolute regulations for the US as a whole as I understand it's largely dependent on a state-to-state basis.

[major]

Hmmm I like this topic. As a very active shooter myself, I see things in a different light.

I agree for most part that little stricter gun laws wouldn't hurt. I can walk into a store today and walkout within 30 minutes with a new gun(rifle or pistol). All it takes is a background check. So as long as someone hasn't done any criminal activities, there good to go and get a weapon. A criminal cannot legally buy a weapon. But I still wouldn't be against a stricter system to purchase a weapon, as I have no malicious intentions, so a day or a week till I get my weapon isn't a big difference to me.

But since this is the way US has been designed since the start(yeah, hence 2nd amend.) there is nothing we can do to stop criminals from being able to get weapons. We have so many weapons here that there is no way we can remove the stockpile. The government cannot limit the public to a set amount of weapons or anything. No one knows how many weapons a single american owns, as its not logged. The only person who knows how many weapons I have, is who I purchase them from. When you purchase a weapon you sigh a paper that just says "I ____ do not own this weapon and _____ now owns it"(more or less). And those are only required for FFL dealers, so when the cops run the serial number on a weapon and its pointed last to a FFL dealer they can look in there safe, get the paper and show I bought that gun, and now they are out of legal woes. Its not logged to the government. And I can sell a weapon to anyone IN MY STATE with no paper work. But if you sell any weapon, be sure to get some sort of paper work, as its still linked to you. get a signature and picture, or some kind of receipt.

So when a criminal gets his hands on a gun, its 90% likely its a stolen gun. So when its recovered and the serials and numbers haven't been grinned off, its will just odds are linked to a missing weapon report. This is why the owners should take more responsibility in how they secure there weapon. Only places a gun should be on your hip, or secured in your house. Never keep a weapon in your car, as that's the easiest target to get robbed. If your afraid of getting jar-jacked, then appendix carry your weapon.

This takes me to school shootings. This pretty much just falls to the parents. A parent that cannot see that their child is emotionally distressed is just asking for some sort of trouble. And a good string of those issues start at home. Have to teach your kids to deal with there issues, and not let them just take hate on and bottle it. Also a parent with weapons should keep a active eye on his weapons and make sure none are missing, or been tampered with. Ultimately if a parent has weapons and children they should have all but there defensive weapon/s in a safe, and those defensive weapon under close watchful eyes.   

So as far as I see America, we cannot fix the laws, our only chance is to fix the people. I'll still keep my weapon on my side, and no one will know its there till others or my life is in risk.

(wrote on the go, might fix for spelling and readability in future)

[killermonkey]

I too am an avid gun owner and active target shooter. I bought my first gun at 18 and will continue to buy them until I am dead or broke. My next purchase will be a shotgun.

There is no reason for anymore restrictions on guns. Each state already has there own convoluted set of gun laws and hoops to jump through. Thank God the federal government has some decency to not impose ridiculous regulations on guns (also thankful for the second amendment).

Shooting a gun is about power. I love to target shoot, one of my guns I bought specifically because I was on a high-power rifle team. Shooting a target from 600 yards and getting a bulls-eye is extremely gratifying (no scope). Also the feel of a gun makes you feel powerful and a lot of self confidence.

That is why the second amendment was put into place. It had nothing to do with the limitations of guns at the time. It was about making sure the common man felt powerful, that the government NEVER had ultimate control of ones life. To me a gun is a symbol of independence and freedom. I never intend to shoot anyone with my weapons, but if I had to, I want to know that I can defeat my enemies and protect my family.

I think it is hard for someone who does not have so much freedom to understand what it means. It is easy to point to homicide statistics (which are bull shit because America has many many more urban cities than the UK which are where the large majority of homicides occur).

It is also easy to point to school or office shootings. Honestly, they are blips on the radar and even rarer then terrorist incidents (around the world). Restricting guns does not prevent one from making explosives. Or from this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Tim_McLean

TL;DR
I love guns, I own guns, and I actively defend my rights. I wish the supreme court would "shoot down" all the ridiculous restrictions placed on handguns and concealed carry permits that some states impose.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_(by_state)

[Emilia]

Least in Australia, our police carry firearms. I think a police officer without a firearm is pointless. If a person is going to commit any kind of criminal offence, it is going to be with a firearm.

The gun culture in Australia is very different. To own a firearm here, you must either be a farmer, who can possess shotguns or rifles, or be a person who belongs to a gun club. Even then, buying pistols are very highly regulated because of fear of concealment.

I have gone shooting at gun clubs several times and I absolutely love it. It is as KM said; you feel more powerful. However, I am just one of the few who know what it is like to fire a gun or at least know about them.

Last week, I have some training at my pharmacy about robberies. A cop came in a showed us some weapons and passed them around. Everyone there held them so carefully and with a little bit of fear. I think I would have been the only one in that room who had held a firearm before.

All of this week, so many pharmacies have been robbed. I think about my future pharmacy career and how I will have to spend late nights at my pharmacy. I personally would like to be able to defend myself, but the laws in Australia won't let me do that. Because even though it is very difficult to buy weapons here, there are so many floating around being used to commit crime.

[kraid]

Just like most other things, gun laws are very restrictive here in germany.
e.g. any automatic rifles are banned and only military is allowed to use them.
So there are only handguns and single fire rifles allowed, but even then you have to be in a shooting club in order to get a weapon licence that allowes you to posses a weapon.
You literally cannot even buy softair guns if you're under 18 years.

And don't get me started on rules for storing your weapons.
e.g. they have to be put into a safe where only the gun owner has access to and ammunition is not allowed to be stored in the same place as the guns.
The gouverment is allowed to come to your house and check that you obey these rules.
These days you even need a so called small weapon licence for gas pistols or even some sorts of knifes.

[Proxie]

[killermonkey]

The gouverment is allowed to come to your house and check that you obey these rules.

This send chills down my spine.

[Proxie]

I didn't realize Germany was that strict with firearms.  I like Switzerland's regulations, the best in Europe I'd say.

[Excidium]

My dad was a self employed Gunsmith. He made good money!  Back When Bush was in office the NRA sent my dad a letter stating that if he wanted to keep his license he would have to sign off on a few documents and post a blueprint of the house stating where the gun work area was and where storage of these guns were located!  UMN NO WAY!!!  the Purpose of storing a gun for protection is Key valued at hiding it in a place where the "Kids" cant play with it and so NO one Else knows where it is.  He refused to give up that freedom in his eyes and resigned from the smith! I think that was unfortunate cause it was a job and created revenue.  I have this opinion  Guns dont kill ppl...ppl kill ppl there is no  blaming the tool of destruction  when Us "the Humans" make the choice to weild it.  just my 2 cents   I will own guns I will protect my Family from threats and I will Hunt for food.

[major]

Germany's gun rules sound very similar to Australia. Here is a good video to show the rules and regulations of Australia for gun ownership:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gzJD7eKBX4&feature=plcp

[Mangley]

So as far as I see America, we cannot fix the laws, our only chance is to fix the people. I'll still keep my weapon on my side, and no one will know its there till others or my life is in risk.

I think I agree with all you said major. I only specifically used school shootings as an example because it set a precedent in the UK for a reform in our firearms laws. In that case it was actually an adult who went onto school grounds with his guns.

I think it is hard for someone who does not have so much freedom to understand what it means.

Personally I don't want to have the right to own firearms. I don't consider that a freedom. If I have the right it means other people do too. People who are less well balanced individuals. The consequence is that I would pretty much have to carry in order to feel secure right? It's like a meta-social arms race. I have the right to free healthcare, I consider that a much more important freedom.

TL;DR
I love guns, I own guns, and I actively defend my rights. I wish the supreme court would "shoot down" all the ridiculous restrictions placed on handguns and concealed carry permits that some states impose.

But are your rights right? I mean, laws are entirely arbitrary. At some point somebody, or some group agreed on something and wrote it for all to follow. No law is objective. It's great to value your rights and the laws of your country, as long as people understand that they are arbitrary. The question is does the right to bear arms make a society safer or more dangerous?
People talk about their rights individualistically. You say 'my rights'. The thing is, it's not just you is it? Everyone has the right, and if you believe you have the right, then by those standards you have to defend the rights of everyone else to do the same, however perverse, uneducated or immoral they happen to be. This is why tighter restrictions and licensing are important, right? If someone has a propensity for violence, if they have trouble controlling their anger, and they are not a criminal, should they have equal right to own a firearm? How do you judge someone's character to determine if they are dangerous to society?

Of course, nobody wants to have their rights taken away from them, do they? Even if it's for their own good. Some people can be way too over-zealous and self-rightous about what they feel they are entitled to based off whatever system of law or practices they have always lived under previously. Especially if they are taught to value their rights and freedom in the way that Americans are.

Least in Australia, our police carry firearms. I think a police officer without a firearm is pointless. If a person is going to commit any kind of criminal offence, it is going to be with a firearm.

In the UK the majority of crime is carried out with knives or other imrpovised weapons. In most of the robberies committed with a gun, it's generally found that the gun is actually a replica. Our police are equipped with stab vests, batons, tasers and pepper spray whilst specialized armed units are dispatched when guns or serious threats are actually involved. Pretty much only drug gangs have access to guns and they seldom use them. Most commonly shootings are gang feuds.

Guns dont kill ppl...ppl kill ppl there is no  blaming the tool of destruction

If people kill people then why give them guns?

I think this rationalization is weaksauce. Yes people kill people. People always have killed people, and they've done it with whatever they had available. But more people kill more people if they have a more easy, efficient and readily available weapon at their disposal. Right? I mean, if like you say the tool of destruction isn't part of the problem then why not just give everyone the right to produce and own chemical weapons and nuclear weapons?

The contrast between needing to get up-close and physical to stab someone to death versus simply pointing a gun at them and pulling the trigger is a big one. Isn't it simply too easy? Don't you stand more of a fighting chance if your assailant has to be in physical contact with you? Even if you're armed, you could even be at a gun range practicing and the guy next to you can just stick a pistol to the back of your head and blow your brains out. It's that easy if someone is so inclined to do so.


Now yes, I am an idealist, and I'll admit society is far from ideal. But idealistically people shouldn't need to carry weapons in order to feel safe or be safe. That should be the direction people as a whole gravitate towards. Safer societies. Yes at the current time it is unfeasible for the US to ban firearms or make restrictions too tight too fast. However, regulations can't be allowed to stagnate as technology moves forward. If the streets can be made safer over time then regulations can grow tighter without people feeling so insecure about 'losing their rights'.

I think there's absolutely no problem with sporting arms, shooting, competitions, firing ranges and that sort of thing. I don't agree with hunting for sport. You should only be hunting if you're literally starving, or if the overpopulation of a species is adversely effecting the ecosystem and needs to be culled for environmental reasons.

[Excidium]

I just look at it as the Assailant has something wrong with their mind that goes array and for whatever reason they make the choice..to do the wrong..guns are just another tool that the person uses to destroy whatever is in their way.  If you reform guns in America ppl will use other means ..to get the job done so I dont see guns as the only problem......Weaksauce ...thats ok Im not offended at all I actually can see where you are coming from, But where I live  St Louis  Crime is abundant..poverty is in effect and ppl make life or death choices daily.. I as a citizen follow the laws and earn my way through life by working hard and paying my bills and Taxes..here ppl are crazy killing for whatever reason, stealing your copper lines from your house and air units outside for a quick buck and these ppl will stop at nothing to get it..murder, kidnap whatever..All im saying is Id love the violence to stop and means of guns and weaponry to be limited but this society forces it to be used (in my situation protection of what i work hard for cause this area is scary and I havent a choice but to keep an eye open and watch all shady characters in view). IMO the govt is at fault for the shit economy and making ppl act so desperate as to kill for the food on the table at night or just a damn drug or whatever the need....Life is screwed up and ppl need a damn grip we only live once and its very short.   Didnt mean to act so biased of guns not killing but just being a mere tool of the human. I needed to explain the area and maybe see how it is for me and why I am forced to think that way even tho I know its wrong.  P.S. I plan on moving soon lol get away from it all here ..maybe some open country..as long as there is net. and I can shoot my guns at the next clay shoot meet.

[Sam Colt]

The issue is a complicated one for the US. How much violence will it take to break the defense of the 2nd Amendment by US citizens? Far too much - total chaos across the nation. Unfortunately we here are largely used to school shootings, as desperately sad as that is to say. The Columbine Massacre, which was in my opinion the worst of its kind, is already largely out of our national mind. And while more recent shootings like Aurora, Gabby Giffords and Virginia Tech are still in the national conscience, and the debate centers on them, they have not been "bad enough" to really break sides. Shootings like these are so, regrettably, ingrained into our cultural fabric that I think it would take a truly magnificent act of wide spread gun violence to sway the American people, and our elected officials, on the restriction of the Right to Bear Arms.

An important factor to take into account is that the American people are afraid of their government. You can see it most obviously with Obama, and the Conservative reaction to him. Obama mentioned something about enacting stricter gun laws. In response we saw a bunch of paranoid ramblings from the Right about how he's going to take away all our guns, and a subsequent stockpiling of guns and ammo by these people. We also saw it, or at least the distrust, with the last Bush administration, where, at the end, some people were feeling that Bush was going to establish a dictatorship. Of course both these statements are ridiculous paranoid delusions, but they reflect a deep seated fear of the Federal Government which I'd be willing to bet stems all the way back to our founding. This is where the actual wording of the 2nd Amendment comes into play:

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.

We 'obviously' need our guns to protect ourselves against the tyranny of the Federal Government.

Anywho, I think Major is right in saying that there are so many guns out there right now, legal and illegal, that it would be the very next thing to impossible to take them off the streets should guns be banned or heavily restricted like in the UK. There's just too-godamn-many of them out there, and we don't have a flaming clue how many there might really be, so it's better to let the citizens have the right to own and protect themselves with them. Someday this might change, lets hope.

Personally, I do support the second amendment, but within reason. I don't think there's a need for anyone except the military and police to carry or own automatic weapons, nor do I think there is reason for citizens in dense urban areas to have guns (despite the need to protect themselves). If you coupled very strict gun control laws in dense urban areas with programs where you can turn in guns for cash/food/education vouchers/whatever I think it would probably have a positive impact on rates of gun violence. Then again, it might now. I grew up shooting. My dad has quite a few rifles, and that's not even all of them. I love shooting, and I intend to inherit these, government be damned. Yet, I do see the problems in gun ownership in the states.

There is no solution to this problem on the horizon.

[Emilia]

Germany's gun rules sound very similar to Australia. Here is a good video to show the rules and regulations of Australia for gun ownership:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gzJD7eKBX4&feature=plcp

I really liked this video. I am not sure how Victorian state laws compare to Western Australia, but a lot of what they said I knew to be right.
A few guys I know wanted to get a paintball rifle licence (yes, you need one for that). They had to do a written exam and then a practical exam. That is how crazy it is just to get a licence for a paintball rifle.

Also, looking at the the comments in the video, I was reminded of our law where we can only use equal force to defend ourselves. If a guy comes in with a knife to try and hurt me, I can only use something of equal force. Just like the saying, one hit is self defence, two is murder.

I think there's absolutely no problem with sporting arms, shooting, competitions, firing ranges and that sort of thing. I don't agree with hunting for sport. You should only be hunting if you're literally starving, or if the overpopulation of a species is adversely effecting the ecosystem and needs to be culled for environmental reasons.

Some people think that hunting for sport is a right too. I believe in the right to live. To kill should only mean to protect your own life, and that is what guns or any weapon should be used for, if not to have fun without harm. That is why I don't believe in culling either, because if you look at it, we are the species that is doing the most harm to this earth. We are pushing animals to the confines of our world, because we are taking up so much space and they no longer have the complete freedom to live as they are.

In the UK the majority of crime is carried out with knives or other imrpovised weapons. In most of the robberies committed with a gun, it's generally found that the gun is actually a replica. Our police are equipped with stab vests, batons, tasers and pepper spray whilst specialized armed units are dispatched when guns or serious threats are actually involved. Pretty much only drug gangs have access to guns and they seldom use them. Most commonly shootings are gang feuds.

From the training I had the other day, the police officer said that if they get a report that a person is committing an offence with something other than a pistol, that they need to get our specialised team out too. He actually used to be a police officer back in the UK. I should have really asked him if he felt safer carrying a gun or not.

Robberies here are still using guns quite a bit, but more are using syringes...eeek. And those that can get their hands on guns, they are usually from gangs. The fact that the police officer brought in guns that had recently been used in robberies just really confirms how much they are used.

[Enzo.Matrix]

There is nothing wrong with guns.

Safety training is key for any dangerous tool.