Gun Control

[lonejedi]

If this seems a little for some people I apologize, but I thought due to the incident at Virgina Tech I thought I'd start a discussion on Gun Control.

Gun Control is one of the hottest topics in the U.S. And now with the Shootings at VT, the subect is only going to get hotter. Some argue that by banning guns, we will increase our safety, as it will limit bad people, getting dangerous weapons. While those in favor of the ownership of weapons say that they can be used as a system of defense to defend one self from someone who also has a gun.

Here's my take on Gun Control. I'm for the free ownership of Guns, and I do not think we should have a ban on guns. The U.S. hasn't had the greatest success with the banning of objects in it's history. They tried banning Alcohol, which only created more crime, and more alcohol being sold. Drugs are the same way. Drugs are becoming more of a problem, as more and more Teenagers and Adults become addicted every day. I believe if we ban Guns, the same thing will happen. The black market will still sell guns, and now, the innocent people who use guns as a last line of defense, will be no match for someone who acquired their weapon illegally.

 

[Mediocre]

I'm for gun control, but not for banning guns.

That is to say, I think that there should be limits on which people can get guns and how they can get them. However, I don't think that guns should be made entirely illegal to own. They're a legitimate tools for self-defense and hunting.

Still, I think that the gun control system could use some reworking. I'm no expert, so I'm not exactly sure what exactly could be done to improve on the current system, but I've heard enough about it to feel like some changes ought to be made.

 

[Crimson King]

Hell yes!! You just gave me my topic for my argumentative essay!

I am adamantly against gun control. A friend once said, the more you out law, the more outlaws you make. Prohibition outlawed alcohol for the good of the people. Alcohol caused people to become rowdy often causing fights and eventually killing people. It made perfect sense. Prohibition marked the time in American history when crime ruled all. They made the business man coming home from work, taking a shot of whiskey, a criminal.

Guns have heavy restrictions right now. Most places do background checks but sadly, unless a person is committed or commits a violent crime, it will go clear, like the VT shooter. Latent psychosis can't be proven right away and isn't a crime to go untested. He acquired firearms through legal means and committed illegal actions. If their intent when buying a firearm is to kill someone, why is it believed making it slightly harder for them to get a gun will stop all violent crimes. As I wrote, after Katrina, my small town became a haven for felons, illegal activity, and the like. Uzis and AK-47s were smuggled in sleeping bags along with several sleeping bags of cocaine. Most didn't leave, and if I wanted, I could get a hand gun tonight. That's where the problem lies. They can get these firearms, break into your house, kill you, and leave the cleaned weapon. If gun control is stricter, I can't protect myself and they win.

As for the claim that guns kill more people in the home, that is due to people who are irresponsible and don't emphasis the dangers of a weapon. Teaching children that a firearm is dangerous and not meant to be played with is the first step. Not having the magazine in the gun, is the second.

Irresponsibility and psychosis of some *******s doesn't mean all should be punished.

 

[lonejedi]

I'm for gun control,
Still, I think that the gun control system could use some reworking. I'm no expert, so I'm not exactly sure what exactly could be done to improve on the current system, but I've heard enough about it to feel like some changes ought to be made.

Of course you're going to hear all the bad things about people buying guns, and then using them to kill people. But that number, like CK said is a very small number. Of course the media doesn't report on all the people that bought guns and never killed anyone. The media likes to take the news that's usually the minority of incidents, and make it out like this is happening all the time.

 

[Eor]

Of course the media doesn't report on all the people that bought guns and never killed anyone.

Probably because that's not news

 

[Crimson King]

And Anna Nicole's bastard child is?

 

[Eor]

It's cultural news, so yeah, it's news. There was evidently an audience for it, and it grew into a mystery people wanted to know.

No one cares that "Zach Love, who is 17 years old, did not do anything illegal today. Josheph Andry, who is 24, did not do anything illegal today. Benjamin Walker, who is 59, did not do anything illegal today". It's not news. If it's not newsworthy, then they do not need to mention it. If you want non-newsworthy statistics, then read a book that has them, or just google it.

 

[cF=)]

Why did the american society decided, as a whole, that guns were the only way to protect themselves and their family ? I mean, go look at some houses in Chicago, then cross the border to Canada and you'll be able to found many places with doors unlocked and nobody carying guns. If someone could explain me where this mentality of protecting one's self with firearms has came from, I'd be a happier man.

On the topic of gun control, I'm all against it too because it doesn't restrain access to black market's firearms nor will it be able to take in consideration if someone's mentally stable or not. It's how people think, as a whole, that could make the difference, not gun banning or gun control. It took many years to establish one in Canada, it cost $$$, but gave almost no result in the end, only helped the police to have information about legally bought guns which were found on a crime scene.

 

[Crimson King]

Why did the american society decided, as a whole, that guns were the only way to protect themselves and their family ? I mean, go look at some houses in Chicago, then cross the border to Canada and you'll be able to found many places with doors unlocked and nobody carying guns. If someone could explain me where this mentality of protecting one's self with firearms has came from, I'd be a happier man.

It dates back to the frontier days when bandits would loot properties. The government was MUCH smaller back then and police was left to vigilantes. Naturally, if you did not protect your land, you'd probably die. Now that the government has gotten quite big, police are given so much responsibility and power that they over look petty crimes and just look into murder mysteries. I remember we parked our van in broad day light when I was in 1st grade while we were at church. Someone smashed the window and robbed our van and several others. I remembered not feeling well and begging to remain in the car since it was a cool day and the mass was always less than an hour. What would have happened to me? The police stopped searching within a week because it wasn't a "serious enough crime." Houses were burglarized after Katrina when an influx of refugees came from New Orleans. However, police here just let it go because unless there was a murder or witnesses, it wasn't worth pursuing.

 

[cF=)]

I understand this, but isn't it supposed to be one of the main priority of a government to ensure the protection of his country? I mean, going overseas and injecting billions and billions of dollars into war hasn't made the country ITSELF a better place. While the army was monopolized by the terrorists, chaos established after the wrath of Katrina and almost no action were took to prevent it.

Perharps the answer to global security resides into the hands of the government rather than the population in this case. The US just don't put their money in the good places.

 

[Mediocre]

I understand this, but isn't it supposed to be one of the main priority of a government to ensure the protection of his country? I mean, going overseas and injecting billions and billions of dollars into war hasn't made the country ITSELF a better place. While the army was monopolized by the terrorists, chaos established after the wrath of Katrina and almost no action were took to prevent it.

Perharps the answer to global security resides into the hands of the government rather than the population in this case. The US just don't put their money in the good places.

What does any of this have to do with gun control?

 

[cF=)]

My opinion about country-wide security. That's all.

If you want to be pointy and don't accept anything outside the frame of this debate, then just don't reply to what I have said. There's no reason for gun control if at the start, you don't even need guns.

Meh.

 

[James Sparrow]

This is indeed a very tough subject. It would be nice to be able to "ban" guns as a whole, but since that would never work I'm definitely not for that. As others have said the previous attempts by our government to ban things (alcohol, etc) have been unsuccessful and simply lead to an underground market. Same with current things like marijuana and other drugs. If there was a way to successfully ensure that a ban would actually work then I'd be for it. But as of now it seems like there is no possible way that the government would be able to ensure such a thing. Like cF=) said, it would maybe be easier if the government's budget wasn't being vastly poured into the military. With the amount of money being spent there, maybe some sort of higher control method would be possible. That being out of the question, I think a ban would simply lead to more violent crimes surrounding the obtaining, and selling of the banned weapons.

 

[Crimson King]

Also, since you are banning firearms, let's assume that means destroy all firearms then, completely. Then people will come at you with knives. Ban all knives and people will come at you with rocks and sticks. See my point? But completely banning something you are forcing criminals to go through other means that you might not be able to protect yourself from.

 

[Mediocre]

Also, since you are banning firearms, let's assume that means destroy all firearms then, completely. Then people will come at you with knives. Ban all knives and people will come at you with rocks and sticks. See my point? But completely banning something you are forcing criminals to go through other means that you might not be able to protect yourself from.

Not to mention that the black market for illegal firearms will become much larger than it is now, and criminals will be able to get guns anyway.

 

[cF=)]

Also, since you are banning firearms, let's assume that means destroy all firearms then, completely. Then people will come at you with knives. Ban all knives and people will come at you with rocks and sticks. See my point? But completely banning something you are forcing criminals to go through other means that you might not be able to protect yourself from.

Banning firearms might not be the solution, but gun control isn't requiered if the law is enforced correctly in key places. Which brang me to the point of wasted money in many other fields a government has control of.

There is surely some states where the crime rate is lower than anywhere else, and I'm pretty sure it's not because everybody carry a gun. When you look at it logically, why would you avoid crimes when everybody has a potentially dangerous and deadly object in their possession ? You gave the argument that banning guns would lead to knives but even knives is safer than long-range weapons.

And, since when is the black market supposed to exponentially rise his activity if you ban something? Drugs are banned and I don't see everybody going in back-alleys to buy some cocaine. Mr. and Ms. "nobody" who wanted to buy a gun will simply found an alternative.

 

[Crimson King]

New Hampshire is the freest state in the Union. It is one of the few states nearly completely privatized. Gun Control is zero and they have very little violent crimes.

And, since when is the black market supposed to exponentially rise his activity if you ban something? Drugs are banned and I don't see everybody going in back-alleys to buy some cocaine. Mr. and Ms. "nobody" who wanted to buy a gun will simply found an alternative.

Um, what? That's exactly how drug deals go down. Drugs are one of the biggest industries in the US if you consider how much money people spend on weed and coke. You need to do research really.

 

[cF=)]

I thought the sentence right under the one you underlined explained my point. Yes, drug dealing is a big industry, but people who buy drugs would've bought it even if it was legal. Now, my point is that banning guns will not make people stop buying them, but it will clearly make a part of the population reconsider their choice since they don't necessarily want to deal with the black market.

And before you underline anything, I mean CASUAL people, because I know the ones who were determined to buy a gun will find any way to reach that goal.

 

[Mediocre]

I thought the sentence right under the one you underlined explained my point. Yes, drug dealing is a big industry, but people who buy drugs would've bought it even if it was legal. Now, my point is that banning guns will not make people stop buying them, but it will clearly make a part of the population reconsider their choice since they don't necessarily want to deal with the black market.

And before you underline anything, I mean CASUAL people, because I know the ones who were determined to buy a gun will find any way to reach that goal.

So, then all the criminals will have guns while the people who "reconsider[ed] their choice" will have, what, knives for self defense?

And this is, in your opinion, something we should be aiming for? This is a good thing?

Explain this to me, please.

 

[Digital Watches]

I hear a lot of speculation and hypotheticals. Things like "taking guns from civilians leaves only criminals with guns" and "black markets for guns will flourish."

I contend that these assumptions are baseless. Gun policy and crime in other parts of the developed world show a pattern: Strict gun control, such as that in the UK, Germany, Sweden, Japan, etc. tends to correlate with lower violent crime rates, especially ones related to firearms. On the other hand, Switzerland is an example of the opposite solution in effect. For the most part, all males undergo military training and are considered reserve soldiers until age thirty. They are given assault weapons to keep in their homes, and have the option of keeping them after their service has ended. Ammunition is relatively easy to purchase, and most gun control laws pertain to the purchase of ADDITIONAL firearms or carrying of firearms in public. Gun crimes are also notably low.

I can only conclude from this that crime rates can be lowered significantly by either making guns illegal or extremely difficult to obtain, or putting them in the hands of essentially everyone. America does neither, and notably has a relatively high crime rate for a developed country.

Now, incidents such as the recent university shooting are certainly not happening all that often. No one is arguing that. But a firearm homicide rate of 3.6 per 100,000 people in the United States (Keep in mind that this statistic is an average) demonstrates that we are doing something wrong in this regard. Since we do not currently have a mandatory term of service in the military (and instating one would be quite difficult) in the US, it would seem that stricter gun control is by far the most feasible solution to this problem.

 

[Crimson King]

I contend that these assumptions are baseless. Gun policy and crime in other parts of the developed world show a pattern: Strict gun control, such as that in the UK, Germany, Sweden, Japan, etc. tends to correlate with lower violent crime rates, especially ones related to firearms. On the other hand, Switzerland is an example of the opposite solution in effect. For the most part, all males undergo military training and are considered reserve soldiers until age thirty. They are given assault weapons to keep in their homes, and have the option of keeping them after their service has ended. Ammunition is relatively easy to purchase, and most gun control laws pertain to the purchase of ADDITIONAL firearms or carrying of firearms in public. Gun crimes are also notably low.

You are forgetting a few major things with the countries listed. UK and Japan are islands making their access to countries were you can buy a firearm cheaply a lot harder. All of them are really small countries with about a third of the US's population, if that much. Finally, their boarders are a lot more secure than ours. If I wanted to, I could go to Mexico and come back without ever talking to boarder patrol. In that time gone I can acquire firearms, drugs, whatever I want. Strict gun control will not stop this. All you will be doing is creating criminals out of law abiding citizens, normally.

 

[Mediocre]

I hear a lot of speculation and hypotheticals. Things like "taking guns from civilians leaves only criminals with guns" and "black markets for guns will flourish."

I contend that these assumptions are baseless. Gun policy and crime in other parts of the developed world show a pattern: Strict gun control, such as that in the UK, Germany, Sweden, Japan, etc. tends to correlate with lower violent crime rates, especially ones related to firearms.

Like CK has said, the US has a history of gun use. I wish this wasn't the case, but it is. There's actually a kind culture built up around guns here. I doubt any of those countries you mentioned have, or have ever had, any kind of organization like the NRA.

You can't really compare the US to any European country in this regard. They're apples and oranges.

 

[Digital Watches]

Yes, the numerous reasons listed (History of gun use, less-than-secure borders) make for a more vast and accessible black market. However, claiming that stricter regulations on guns (to clarify, I don't argue that firearms should be outright banned) would either make gun crime easier or do nothing about it is making a few assumptions.

Firstly, it assumes that making guns more accessible by law would result in more non-criminals possessing guns, and thusly being capable of defending themselves. I'd be willing to bet that the majority of civilians who own a gun either collect them, or use or intend to use them, either for hunting or for some other, possibly criminal pursuit. The average person doesn't go out to buy a gun and familiarize themself with the use of one simply because they're legal, and thusly less gun control does not necessarily equal significantly more people who can defend themselves.

Second, it overestimates the prevalence of premeditated crimes and experienced criminals. Hanlon's Razor states that one should "Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity," and while this is often used as a joke, it can be applied quite well in this situation. Owning a weapon, regardless of how it was obtained, can be a cause of crime as well as a method. Having a gun can make a robbery seem more viable to the criminal, and certainly is the cause of numerous second-degree and at least a few first-degree murders in the case of people who already own guns panicking or flying into a rage (Granted, people doing so isn't necessarily harmless otherwise, but it's not that much of a stretch to assume that someone who is very angry going home and grabbing the family gun will nearly always exacerbate a situation which would otherwise not be nearly as likely to escalate into lethal force). People acting irrationally are much more dangerous with a firearm. No one goes out of their way to get something from the black market unless they already intend to use it, and crime committed by people in a temporary irrational state of mind is far more common than organized or premeditated crime these days.

Thirdly, you assume that all of the proposed regulations are on purchase of firearms. Things like metal detectors in building entrances and harsher punishment for illegal posession could concievably prevent plenty of violent, gun-related crimes.

Yes, gun control would be insanely difficult to enforce, but as Mediocre originally said, incidents such as the one at Virginia Tech and our high crime rate show that our current policies are simply not working. Besides, if the energy focused on, for example, drug control, an issue that I would argue to be trivial in comparison, were put to gun control, surely we'd see SOME results.

 

[Crimson King]

Before we even go down the path of the NRA, I want to make it crystal clear their promotion is SAFE usage of guns. I know several people in the NRA and they don't even let people joke about pointing an unloaded gun at a person. They take firearms as a privileged right (for lack of better terms) and as an organization, they are quite noble in their cause.

Just to clarify that they aren't some gun nuts, but know the law and the right a human has to protect themselves and enforce it by teaching gun SAFETY.

 

[Mic_128]

Finally, their boarders are a lot more secure than ours. If I wanted to, I could go to Mexico and come back without ever talking to boarder patrol. In that time gone I can acquire firearms, drugs, whatever I want. Strict gun control will not stop this.

Perhaps they should work on securing their borders first, then crack down on guns. The thing is, it seems to be the popular idea that all that'd be done is saying "right guns are illegal, turn them in, you want one you've got ot fill out more forms." If they were really cracking down on guns, they'd go down on the people that they know of who deal with firearms but didn't bother with before because they were "lesser crimes." Like CK said, if it's a lesser crime, it's not that important to deal with But if it BECAME a higher crime there would be more focus on stopping them.

 

[Crimson King]

Mic, you basically explained the biggest issue hitting the US right since the war. Bush, and soon his successor, has to deal with the immigration problem and he has to do it soon. Following the anthrax scare, a tunnel was found in I believe California were immigrants were able to sneak into a factory and basically go under the border. This causes LOADS of security issues. On top of that, the 300th million American may not have even BEEN an American because illegal immigration is so high that we will never know.

Sadly there are two sides to this issue and because of that a resolution for it will anger some and please others.

I will say this, once our borders are secure, I will probably start supporting at least a some gun control laws.

 

[KishPrime]

I wish I had the statistic for this but I have heard multiple times that Texas has some of the lowest gun crime rates in the country because they allow people to carry concealed weapons.

Anyway, I think it does come back to the culture in which we currently surround ourselves. No amount of money of effort from the government changes a person's mindset towards life and the value thereof, but rather people help to develop this in each other in their daily conversations.

Something that hasn't been mentioned yet but something that is vitally important in our culture right now is the internet. The internet has provided a safe haven for those who would discuss everything from mass murder to child ****, and worse yet has helped people to find other like-minded individuals who encourage those thoughts. Thirty years ago (and forgive my explicitness) how would you find another child molester with whom you could compare fantasies? With whom would you talk about the pleasure you'd gain from shooting someone through the skull? We even have NAMBLA (The North American Man-Boy Love Association), which I am quite sure would not have found members even 10 years ago. Being able to engage someone on this level only deepens the perversion.

While it hasn't appeared in the news stories yet, I would be very surprised if it doesn't turn up that Cho participated in certain Web activities as well.

 

[lonejedi]

Yes, gun control would be insanely difficult to enforce, but as Mediocre originally said, incidents such as the one at Virginia Tech and our high crime rate show that our current policies are simply not working. Besides, if the energy focused on, for example, drug control, an issue that I would argue to be trivial in comparison, were put to gun control, surely we'd see SOME results.

How are things not working. Our worst shooting in the history of America, is 33 deaths. 33 deaths is a very small number compared to whats going on in many other countries. One incident occurs, and now all of a sudden, our policies are failing. We have thousands of schools across this country, and when 1 school, every 10 years is attacked, I'd say we are pretty successful compared to what countries around are like.

 

[Mic_128]

there was an amish school that got attacked a few months back. It's only every few years that there's a new record.

 

[James Sparrow]

How are things not working. Our worst shooting in the history of America, is 33 deaths. 33 deaths is a very small number compared to whats going on in many other countries. One incident occurs, and now all of a sudden, our policies are failing. We have thousands of schools across this country, and when 1 school, every 10 years is attacked, I'd say we are pretty successful compared to what countries around are like.

I have come across one of the very few times that I actually agree with lonejedi on something. I think that he is kind of right. The United States' population is about 300 million, and the worst shooting being 33 deaths--that's about 1 person for every 9.1 million. The event is tragic, but because it's projected to the entire nation, people think that it is a lot more uncommon or spread than it really is.

 

[Digital Watches]

Uh, that's kind of funny, because I had thought that homicide rates were measured by murders per capita per year, not murders per capita in one incident. Statistically, the US has one of the higher firearm-related homicide rates of the countries we consider to be developed. But yes, if you're comparing us to underdeveloped nations wherein war and crime are rampant to a much greater degree, then I suppose the rate is very low.

Either way, it's not just this particular shooting or even shootings like this in general that indicate that we've got SOMEthing wrong here as far as gun control policy. It's simply an incident that reignited this long-running debate.

 

[KishPrime]

There are more murders in Philadelphia every year than troop deaths in Iraq. Let's pull out!

I still think that it is a matter of anger control far more than the ability to have guns. We have unprecedented freedom in this country. Couldn't that freedom actually allow us to go further with our anger at times than would be allowed in other countries?

I can't tell if that's ridiculously stupid or intriguing.

 

[Crimson King]

Interesting thing I read. Switzerland's government gives all their citizens rifles and stores them in their homes because of militia laws. Handguns are purchased if you have no criminal background and no mental disturbances. There are no annual gun crimes.

The more I research, the less I see reasons to actual have restrictions on guns.

 

[Eor]

Interesting thing I read. Switzerland's government gives all their citizens rifles and stores them in their homes because of militia laws. Handguns are purchased if you have no criminal background and no mental disturbances. There are no annual gun crimes.

They give out fully automatic, military assault rifles. These rifles, by law, must be locked up. Their ammunition must be locked up to, and is accounted for. All ammunition is registered with the buyer accept for gun ranges, where by law you must use all of that ammunition at the range.

And I really wonder where you got your last statistic. Switzerland has the second highest handgun murder rate in the industrialized world.

Ignore the ------, it's just so I could format the graph to work.

---------------Handgun----1992-------Handgun Murder
Country-------Murders-----Population---Rate (per 100,000)
-----------------------------------------------------------
United States----13,429---254,521,000----5.28
Switzerland------97----6,828,023 ---------1.42
Canada ---------128----27,351,509--------0.47
Sweden----------36-----8,602,157--------0.42
Australia---------13-----17,576,354-------0.07
United Kingdom---33----57,797,514--------0.06
Japan -----------60-----124,460,481------0.05


I'm not sold either way. I'm leaning towards gun regulations, though that lean is small and almost negligible.

After I found out about that the claims that UK and Australia have had higher crime rates after they implemented gun control laws was false, I started to rethink my position.

 

[Crimson King]

Your statistics are quite old. US has long since hit 300 million. Also, 97 handgun murders out of nearly 7 million is barely a scratch. Never mind that it includes self-defense as well.

 

[Eor]

I am aware of the date the statistics where made, as I placed the year (1992) above it.

If you can find more modern statistics, please post them.

 

[Crimson King]

Statistical information aside, it's still a low number. You are more likely to die in a car accident than by handgun. If that's the case, why not ban cars? It results in people's deaths and if drinking is involved, it might as well be intentional.

 

[Eor]

Because cars get us from point A to B. Cars were not invented in order to slam them into people. If you're going to go with that generalization, I'd say "Why not ban speed limits, if criminals and drunks are just going to break them anyways?"

 

[The Mad Hatter]

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. Amendment II of the Bill of Rights.

If a person wishes to take the life of another they will find a means. Guns do make this an easier task. Would gun control have stopped the VT massacre? No, Cho would of had to simply get one off the black market.

Simply put, I dont think gun control would solve the problem. What we need is idiot control.

 

[Crimson King]

Simply put, I dont think gun control would solve the problem. What we need is idiot control.

That'd be called genocide due to being so many morons.

Adding into the 2nd Amendment, the 5th and 14th amendment does not allow for people to become criminals without due process (innocent until proven guilty). However, adding gun control would void the 2nd amendment, make criminals of people who own guns voiding the 5th and 14th. Finally, Thomas Jefferson said that as a free state we have the right to overthrow the government if it becomes tyrannical, even by violence.