Guns...

[Deck Knight]

This is kinda ridiculous. You try killing someone from 30 feet away with a chainsaw or martial arts, tell me how that works out for you.

The point of the hyperbole was that it gets people putting deadly weapons into degrees of deadliness. You're just as dead is someone kills you with anything on the list, but the only thing people consider banning is the weapon with the best chance to kill at a distance. A gang or mob with machetes will hack you to pieces, but nobody is going to call for all home/garden supply stores to stop carrying the blades.

Or, if she DOES shoot the man, how will she prove he was going to rape her? Maybe he was taking a shortcut home. Now she's in prison for homicide. Great idea.

Most gun owners have something called "personal accountability and responsibility." It dictates they don't go trigger happy at the slightest provocation. The mere threat of a gun would be enough to ward off most attackers, and if a guy is just walking home minding his own business, chances are he won't frighten any reasonable person into pulling out a firearm. Your "solution" basically condemns anyone who owns a gun for their own protection as a trigger-happy nutcase, and since you also believe trigger-happy nutcases shouldn't have guns, your next step is to ban them.

"Gun nuts" for all the bad press, really only want Concealed Carry Permits, and are more than willing to suffer some regulation and hamstrings if it means people will use thier gun responsibly.

So what you're basically saying is that all criminals don't deserve to live. Wonderful. And MA might have the strongest gun laws in the nation, but guess what... it's surrounded by other states that DON'T. It needs to be an across-the-board ban or none at all.

This view tends to shift dramatically when it changes from faceless, anonymous criminals with faceless, anonymous victims to "the asshole that killed my mother/father/sister/brother/wife/cousin."

An interesting note: New Hampshire consistently gets blamed for Massachusetts gun-related problems, despite the fact most weapons are smuggled in from across the border of the US. Meanwhile, Massachusetts politicians sit fat and happy knowing there is always a scapegoat so they never have to address the real problem: criminals.

Sorry if I came across a little strong in the initial post, but Orwellian moves to "protect us from ourselves" and put Big Brother in charge tend to frighten me. I'm pretty sure the Communists had the safest, most "gun-free" society. Except for that little thing called the KGB, the government's enforcers of "safety."

I trust individuals to know when to properly use the lethal force provided by a firearm. I don't trust governments to protect individuals from themselves, since that policy has a history of failure.

 

[mf]

Generalisation: Americans are too trusting. I have heard stories of entire neighbourhoods leaving their doors unlocked 24/7 simply because they 'trust' others when it is just unnecessary. I wouldn't leave my door open just the same as I wouldn't trust some random guy on the street with a lethal and effective killing device. In the immortal words of Slipknot, "people=shit". The less firepower in the world the better.

Also this is the most balanced poll I have ever seen.

 

[Revamparts]

Really? I remember watching one of Michael Moore's movies where he made the opposite point, that in America everyone locks their doors. Then he went to Canada and walked into the some chicks house and she was all homey.

I'm sure it could've been staged, and he isn't the most reliable source, but I usually get the idea that Americans don't trust each other at all if they don't have to (although that's more human nature than being "American").

 

[DM]

The point of the hyperbole was that it gets people putting deadly weapons into degrees of deadliness. You're just as dead is someone kills you with anything on the list, but the only thing people consider banning is the weapon with the best chance to kill at a distance. A gang or mob with machetes will hack you to pieces, but nobody is going to call for all home/garden supply stores to stop carrying the blades.

You can't cut branches off the tree in your backyard with a handgun. They serve one AND ONLY ONE purpose, and that is to kill. Your hyperbole is incredibly flawed. To top it off, machetes are illegal.

Most gun owners have something called "personal accountability and responsibility." It dictates they don't go trigger happy at the slightest provocation. The mere threat of a gun would be enough to ward off most attackers, and if a guy is just walking home minding his own business, chances are he won't frighten any reasonable person into pulling out a firearm. Your "solution" basically condemns anyone who owns a gun for their own protection as a trigger-happy nutcase, and since you also believe trigger-happy nutcases shouldn't have guns, your next step is to ban them.

For the sake of those who don't have die to from a handgun wound from here to eternity... yes, every gun owner is a crazy trigger-happy nut. If, say, 1 in 20 IS a crazy bastard, I'd much rather ban them all and have it be 0 in 20.

"Gun nuts" for all the bad press, really only want Concealed Carry Permits, and are more than willing to suffer some regulation and hamstrings if it means people will use thier gun responsibly.

I empathize for those who truly are responsible with their handguns... but the point I'm trying to make is no one can be TRULY responsible in the possession of a killing device. Even our professionally trained military kills each other in friendly fire, and they do much more than fire their weapons leisurely at a range once a month.

This view tends to shift dramatically when it changes from faceless, anonymous criminals with faceless, anonymous victims to "the asshole that killed my mother/father/sister/brother/wife/cousin."

I'm not sure what you mean. Are you saying if someone murdered someone in my family that I'd want to shoot them? If yes, that's utterly preposterous and kinda insulting.

An interesting note: New Hampshire consistently gets blamed for Massachusetts gun-related problems, despite the fact most weapons are smuggled in from across the border of the US. Meanwhile, Massachusetts politicians sit fat and happy knowing there is always a scapegoat so they never have to address the real problem: criminals.

To be honest, I have no idea what your point is here. You make it sound like Massachusetts doesn't care about their gun crime, which is completely untrue considering Project Ceasefire in Boston is one of the anti-gun programs I've been talking about all along that is making leaps and bounds.

Sorry if I came across a little strong in the initial post, but Orwellian moves to "protect us from ourselves" and put Big Brother in charge tend to frighten me. I'm pretty sure the Communists had the safest, most "gun-free" society. Except for that little thing called the KGB, the government's enforcers of "safety."

I trust individuals to know when to properly use the lethal force provided by a firearm. I don't trust governments to protect individuals from themselves, since that policy has a history of failure.

Sorry, but I personally don't buy this bullshit. I really don't understand this whole paranoia people seem to have about our government going dictatorship and taking away all our civilian rights and freedoms just because handguns are banned. In case you haven't noticed, the current regime has been slowly taking those rights away already right under our noses, and the majority of the people who voted in the regime and continue to let it happen without question ARE gun enthusiasts. One day, you'll miss Habeus Corpus, trust me.

 

[Deck Knight]

Ah yes, the old "current regime" (by which I assume you mean Bush) is taking away our rights.

Name one, even one instance where this is so. Thus far the Patriot Act has not been used to detain any American citizen even once, and if it was you would have heard about it because our media is decidedly in the hands of Bush's opposers. Cindy Sheehan and anti-war groups who oppose our supposedly "fascist" President have been speaking and protesting with absolute impunity. Congresscritters have actively aided and abetted the enemies of America with no consequences. America is still the free-est, greatest nation on earth.

All I really need to read is your beliefs on gun-owners. It is clear you don't know any, and it is much easier for you to condemn all of them in favor of extensive government intrusion into private lives. Big Brother is always pure. Big Brother never lets you down. Anyone with a gun is trigger happy, but Big Brother will protect us all!

This variety of absolute trust in government brought us Communism, so the idea that "our government going dictatorship" when out citizenry becomes disarmed is not nearly so farfetched. The Second Amendment exists because the founders realized that a government that does not serve the people does not deserve to govern. The Second Amendment calls for the armament of citizens so that the government cannot rend them powerless.

Already America's education system is in the toilet. Gun-control advocates are trying to disarm the citizenry. Morality in America is at a descipable low. A stupid, disarmed, ammoral public is a collection of slaves to political elites and powerbrokers. I, for one, draw my line here. Extensive Gun-control policies only serve the needs of government bureacracies, keeping lifetime bureaucrats gainfully employed.

Re purpose of handguns: The purpose of a handgun is personal protection. It does this with two mechanisms: The threat to kill and the actual ability to do so. The handgun is the great equalizer between the 5'1 100 lb woman and the 6'4 250 lb man, who otherwise would have his way with her in a dark alley. Normally you only need employ the first (the threat of death) to ward off any attacker. Yes, handguns kill, it is the threat to do so that makes them excellent personal protection. Casino Gambling doesn't serve any practical purpose either and generates plenty of societal problems, but try banning that.b

Gun control laws are also famously effective at stopping criminals. Criminals, as we all know, always seek legal channels for thier firearms and would never think of commiting a crime before carrying out another one. Massachusetts' crime problem only goes down when they address crime, not guns.

As far as Cho, there should be mental health and background checks before firearms are distributed to anyone.

Regarding my previous statement about opinions on the necessity of firearms shifting when your close family gets involved, a recap:

You argued that I implied criminals have no right to live.

My counterargument was that the opinion criminals have a right to live changes if one of them attacked and/or killed your family member.

It has nothing to do with you going out on a revenge killing, the point was that the idea of value for the lives of criminals changes when they attack your family members. Most people would have no problem if a criminal got thier face blown off in the process of attacking a member of your family. Compassion for human beings who happen to be criminals goes out the window when thier actions personally affect you or your family.

e.g.:

This: Criminals are human beings too!

Shifts to this: "The guy got his face blown off. Big deal, he was trying to rape my sister!"

Put a name and a face on a criminal and a victim, and I guarentee you if the criminal gets killed in the process, only their family sheds a tear.

 

[DM]

Ah yes, the old "current regime" (by which I assume you mean Bush) is taking away our rights.

Name one, even one instance where this is so.

Writ of Habeus Corpus is gone. I just said it.

All I really need to read is your beliefs on gun-owners. It is clear you don't know any, and it is much easier for you to condemn all of them in favor of extensive government intrusion into private lives. Big Brother is always pure. Big Brother never lets you down. Anyone with a gun is trigger happy, but Big Brother will protect us all!

And now you're slinging ad hominem bullshit at me.

I'm not going to bother responding anymore.

 

[Revamparts]

Ah yes, the old "current regime" (by which I assume you mean Bush) is taking away our rights.

Name one, even one instance where this is so. Thus far the Patriot Act has not been used to detain any American citizen even once, and if it was you would have heard about it because our media is decidedly in the hands of Bush's opposers.

I believe you have to look past citizenship and see that all kinds of people are being unlawfully affected here. It's great for me as an American citizen, ladeeda, sun shine day. But when the day comes where some American citizen is taken prisoner even by another country, they will be shown less mercy than they deserve. I'm all for protecting my well being, but I think it's a little short sighted to do that at the expense of everyone else.

This: Criminals are human beings too!

Shifts to this: "The guy got his face blown off. Big deal, he was trying to rape my sister!"

It's not o.k. to be guessing how other people will act in those kinds of situations. I'm not saying you're going to be wrong a lot of the time, but there are some people who take responsibility for the things they have done wrong.

 

[mf]

Agreeing with Revamparts, there is no way you know what will go on in someone else's head in a hypothetical situation and it just weakens your argument

 

[Maxwell]

I never thought I'd see something potentially less effective than the prohibition, but I stand corrected.

"no"

 

[SAN DIEGO SUPER CHARGERS!]

Oh damn, I broke the tie.

PS, Hi Mullet

 

[DM]

Sorry, I'm ignoring you since you voted no.

But also hello again. Post more.

 

[stonerchris]

i recently learned about how many hip-hop "artists" are now preaching the "STOP SNITCHIN'" bullshit which basically tells kids not to tell police if they witness a crime. fucking idiots. you know all the little poser (BAN ME PLEASE)s are going to lap this up like gin n' juice. so all these genius rappers are helping to make it even more imperative that tighter gun control laws be put into place.

 

[DM]

I think it's absolutely the most irritating and infuriating thing that so many inner city blacks cry and whine about their life predicaments, yet do absolutely nothing to better their lives and actually do everything to hinder any possible progress they could achieve. But don't ever tell them that, you might be labeled a racist.

I've never seen such a self-destructive body of people.

 

[McGrrr]

The logistics involved with outlawing firearms, destroying privately owned firearms, and enforcing the law would be outrageously expensive and difficult. So what is the solution? Taxation!

Keep firearms legal but introduce a tax of say 50%+ per unit sold. There should be a royalty paid to the government each year for ownership too; make this law. This will:

1) make the guns market more efficient
2) pass on at least part of the tax on to consumers
3) internalise the external cost of gun ownership

To elaborate on 3: you can cover the cost (lost work hours through injury, deaths and health costs etc. not just money) of firearms through the tax revenue. These costs were previously faced by employers, victims and taxpayers. Well now, the gun owner pays through the nose to compensate the health service, the government and perhaps even victims and employers (through a government payout for injuries to employees). In short, it shifts responsibility from the government and allows the market mechanism to work efficiently.

"Legalize it, tax it" is an excellent solution to anything with a negative externality (within reason).

 

[UnicronEX]

Yes let's make guns illegalised (?) like in Great Britain. After handguns were all but banned in 1996, gun crimes increased from 299 in 1995 to 1,024. Britain has become far more violent (http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/page66.asp). The number of arrests for illegal weapons is up too (http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/Page48.asp). Such laws only keep guns out of the hands of the people who would actually use them for defense. If you're going to use them to rob a bank, I really doubt you'd care if you're allowed to have the gun or not. Besides, I can't say I'm comfortable with the idea of the government rounding up guns, which presumably would occur.

The most obvious defense of course is the Second Amendment, the right to bear arms is constitutionally protected. My family does not own a gun, but it is our right to go buy one, a right guaranteed to all U.S. citizens. The argument that it applies only to state militias was considered unconstitutional in the District of Columbia, overruling their long-standing ban on handguns in the home, though it will remain in effect while the decision is appealed. Chicago also has such a ban in place.

Even if one thinks guns should be illegal, it is undeniably a constitutional right to own one.

 

[McGrrr]

In the UK, guns are illegal to own in urban areas. You need a license to own one in the countryside, and you can only use it outside a given radius away from other people.

The other issue with making gun ownership illegal is that it inherently creates a black market, where the people most likely to use them for harm, will still buy them (as the above poster touched upon).

 

[Gigusei]

The problem is regardless whether they are legal or not, the people who will cause harm with them intentionally will do it whether or not they are legal, that makes no difference to them. The people who utilize legal handguns are the ones who are protecting themselves from others who aim to harm them. Taking away handguns does nothing more than let the killers have an easier time doing what they are. In smaller areas we have no such problem as random killings with guns. You might as well take away everyone's ability to drive because that causes death too.

 

[DM]

You might as well take away everyone's ability to drive because that causes death too.

*sigh* I really wish people would stop making ridiculous statements like this. Unless the sole purpose of driving a car is to kill other people, IT'S NOT THE SAME FUCKING THING.

 

[marronator]

There is a reason the right to bear arms is the 2nd amendment. If guns were illeaglized, it wouldn't mean that everyone wouldn't have one. There would still be the black market which would get guns to people in the mafia and other crime organizations. Basically the people who are killing people today with guns would still be killing people with guns even if we illeaglized them.

Not only that, but things can go wrong the other way too. In history when guns has been outlawed, there usually are corrupt police who take advantage of the fact that they are the only ones with guns and abuse that power. As the saying goes, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

I lived in Switzerland for a year, and in Switzerland EVERYONE had a gun. There were millitary personel in train stations with large machine guns on their backs; it was normal. Now for us who have the vision that guns are bad (like me at the time), we would think that there would be more shootings than normal. However, the fact was that there was a very, very small crime rate because if somebody pulled out a gun in attempt to shoot somebody, they would probably be shot themselves because of the fact that so many people have guns.

If the Columbine high school shooting happend in Switzerland, it probably wouldn't have happened for more than a minute because the teachers would have guns locked away in their class rooms.


So for anyone who read that huge post, the bottom line is that although my opinion is a little biased because of my experiences, guns should NOT be banned.

 

[Shinryu]

I also voted no. For a long time, Guns have been an integral part in almost any society you look at, whether for good or bad.

 

[mf]

So what's the explanation for that? The Swiss can be trusted with guns but the Americans can't? In which case, I am still all for a ban on guns in the USA.

 

[McGrrr]

I lived in Switzerland for a year, and in Switzerland EVERYONE had a gun. There were millitary personel in train stations with large machine guns on their backs; it was normal. Now for us who have the vision that guns are bad (like me at the time), we would think that there would be more shootings than normal. However, the fact was that there was a very, very small crime rate because if somebody pulled out a gun in attempt to shoot somebody, they would probably be shot themselves because of the fact that so many people have guns.

This is not proof of deterrent. Few people actually carry guns around on their person. I think you will find that Switzerland has very low gun crime for a number of economic and social reasons:

* the Swiss enjoy the second highest nominal income per capita in the world, behind Monte Carlo
* poverty is low, in absolute terms and relative terms (it has a Gini coefficient of 0.34, compared to 0.41 in the US)
* there are no social tensions like the white/black and Korean/black divides that still exist in America
* as all Swiss citizens are eligible for military service, ownership of firearms is seen as privilege, rather than a right

Higher incomes and less inequality* mean people are less likely to go about shooting each other. However, statistics show that most shootings in the US are done by ex boyfriends and girlfriends, and upset spouses... so the lesson here is; if your country allows firearms, don't get in a relationship with anyone emotionally unstable.

I think guns are the great equalizer in society. Let's be honest here, equality does not exist, but every man is equal when he is in the line of fire. Perhaps people cling to the second amendment because of this. In short, it symbolizes power for the less influential/well off.

Edit: err... I meant less inequality not less equality x)

 

[Nerdling]

I kind of ride the more liberal view on this issue. I believe that guns should not be made illegal outright, but instead have strict laws and policies attached to thier use and ownership. This would make it difficult for a person with a criminal background to aquire a gun but would still allow most people who feel insecure to posess a gun for self defense. This would also lower the level of violent crime in the country while at the same time putting a damper on the black market trade that would immediatly spring up if guns were banned outright.

Look at prohibition, when alchohol was banned in the early 20th century, people just began to fasion their own, or purchase alchohol off of the black market.

The final reason supporting my opinion is the second amendment..."All men have the right to bear arms" the outright ban of guns would be a blatant violation of the constitution of the United States of America, while strict gun laws without a total ban would reduce crime rates while still stidestepping the issue of the second amendment

In general, it is a bad idea to not enforce gun laws, but it is an equally bad idea to ban the completly

 

[Brawley]

No Guns = No war, but ueah it would help alot if guns were banned.

 

[DM]

It seems like every time this is bumped it's with posts that are only restating arguments that were made previously in the thread. Like, as in more than a month ago.